A Short Thought

A month or two back in a comment thread I had remarked on how then President Clinton had promised the Ukraine after their separation from the Soviet state that they didn’t need to keep the nuclear weapons stockpiled there. He, in short, promised that the US would insure their national boundary/security against Russian aggression. Well, we all know how that turned out. When I’d remarked on this, the reply was that nobody on either side of the aisle wanted to get involved in the Russian/Ukrainian dispute. And I don’t disagree with that.

But. (and ain’t their always that sort of thing cropping up). But that being said, the thing about keeping your word and those trusting you to hold to your word isn’t about when keeping your word is easy or in your best interest. It’s keeping it when it isn’t easy, fun, or affordable.

If you make a promise. Keep it. If you inherit a promise. Keep it. And remember that, so you don’t make promises you don’t plan to keep.

And you wonder why the current President whose main rhetorical method is the BS session comes off so so poorly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

35 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    Does anyone think for a moment if Obama stood over 1+ million dead people in Eastern Europe/Asia, Mark would be here praising him for keeping promises he ‘inherited’?

    This post is also interesting since it wasn’t long ago that Mark was batting his eye at non-loyal republicans who declared they would break any promises they might happen to inherit with Iran.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Obama is standing over a quarter of a million dead in Syria and Iraq and Libya soon to add their tally.

    My main beef in this is not with Obama, but Clinton. He made the damn promise.

  3. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Does anyone think for a moment if Obama stood over 1+ million dead people in Eastern Europe/Asia,

    First. That tally isn’t assured. Second, Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death.” This is something with which you disagree? You were booing Gandalf in LOTR when he said “Thou. Shall. Not. Pass” ?

    I realize that there is a popular notion that in the “Games of Thrones”, i.e., diplomacy”, speaking truth and honesty are supposed to be for those not in that game. I however, have always felt that is completely back assward. I see no difference. I think in diplomacy it is just as important as in personal life that you “no mean no and your yes, yes” (to quote scripture).

    I also think we should have moved to support Hungary in 1956. And not repaired the Kolya vessels. And … (the list goes on), this list includes actively (meaning troops) supporting the Ukraine now.

  4. Boonton says:

    What exactly was the promise made to the Ukraine then by Clinton? Did he promise to side with them in any territorial disputes, even internal ones (it isn’t just a simple case of Russia invading a country, Russians living in Ukraine also want out)? Did he get them into NATO?

    My main beef in this is not with Obama, but Clinton. He made the damn promise.

    And did he once fail the Ukraine during his presidency? If the Ukraine fell 100 years from now are you going to ‘blame Clinton’ even though he would be dead for decades by then? Presumably there’s an implicit time limit on such promises if you’re holding them against the individual.

    Obama is standing over a quarter of a million dead in Syria and Iraq and Libya soon to add their tally.

    And what exactly did Obama promise in those cases? I don’t recall Obama promising that there will never be bloody civil wars in countries that have tyrannical regimes sitting on top of sand as their foundation for stability.

  5. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    My understanding is that the Ukraine had lots of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet state which they wanted to keep because they felt that necessary to hedge against future Russian aggression. Clinton promised them the US would insure that wasn’t necessary. This understanding wasn’t a “Clinton” promise but a US made by Clinton as President. You can pretend that Obama isn’t bound by such, but you’d be wrong.

    What did Obama promise? Let’s see. Syria … “no poison gas” (red line, remember). They’ve been being used for the last 3-6 months now. Iraq (early withdrawal allowed ISIS to move in). Libya (you don’t remember we took sides in their civil war, dropped lots of bombs, and never did anything more). You can pretend we did nothing and have no responsibility. You’d be wrong.

  6. Boonton says:

    This understanding wasn’t a “Clinton” promise but a US made by Clinton as President. You can pretend that Obama isn’t bound by such, but you’d be wrong.

    So then why are you mad at Clinton? And again what exactly is this promise? Kind of necessary to know that before we start accusing people of breaking it, no? You depict it as essentially being NATO membership. Yet the Ukraine was not invited to join NATO.

    What did Obama promise? Let’s see. Syria … “no poison gas” (red line, remember). They’ve been being used for the last 3-6 months now.

    As I recall you refused to believe the Syrian regime even used ‘poison gas’. Regardless the promise to topple the Syrian regime if they used WMDs was followed up by an additional promise, if they turned over their WMD’s for destruction the ‘punishment’ could be suspended. I suppose you can depict one as breaking a promise but doesn’t the Bible itself have like incidents where God forgos promised punishment in exchange for changed behavior? In your quest to throw Obama under the bus, how high a line are you willing to draw?

    Libya (you don’t remember we took sides in their civil war, dropped lots of bombs, and never did anything more).

    We sided against a regime that was literally run by a mad man who had directly attacked the US and its allies. I suppose it would be nice if we ‘did more’ like try to nation build Libya from the ground up, but are we really morally obligated to do that? If so is it even possible? IMO many of these countries either have to have a Civil War or have to find a way to agree to move forward on their own. We cannot be morally obligated to something that is not possible. If you called the police on your neighbors because their fighting extends into all hours of the night and you hear loud smashing sounds, you are not then morally obligated to try to repair their marriage the next day after the police have left. I think your moral obligation is limited only to providing support to positive changes they themselves choose to undertake.

    Look at it another way, if you want to hold Obama morally responsible for all the bad things done in Libya after Kaddaffi was toppled, then is Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II at fault for all the bad things he did to maintain his grip on power during their times in office?

  7. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    And again what exactly is this promise?

    Sorry. I wasn’t there. He that they wouldn’t need nuclear weapons to hold their borders against Russia because the US “was there”. I’m not sure why you think that equals “being in NATO”.

    As I recall you refused to believe the Syrian regime even used ‘poison gas’.

    I (still) don’t know if the use of gas was restricted to one side. I suspect both sides are doing that. I also wouldn’t be surprised if significant quantities of those materiel cam from Iraq in the oughts. The point of gas now is that yes, statements were made (topple/red line) .. then “if they turned over” that would be stopped. That’s all well and good. The point is however, is that these attacks have resumed … even if the liberal press (and the White House) has apparently chosen not to notice …. cause that would be problematic. Now what? Apparently you equate God with Obama. That’s a somewhat surprising analogy for you, although perhaps not as uncommon as I thought on the left.

    f you called the police on your neighbors because their fighting extends into all hours of the night and you hear loud smashing sounds, you are not then morally obligated to try to repair their marriage the next day after the police have left.

    Fair enough. But instead of calling the police if you burn their house down and kneecap the husband. Dya think your moral obligation is nil? It is odd to see a liberal defend “bomb and forget” as policy. How the mighty have fallen. You do realize during Bush’s Iraq campaign the left did claim “you broke you fix it”. Apparently that only applies to GOP Presidents.

  8. Boonton says:

    Sorry. I wasn’t there. He that they wouldn’t need nuclear weapons to hold their borders against Russia because the US “was there”. I’m not sure why you think that equals “being in NATO”.

    So no written record exists of this promise? It was a verbal promise? Who was at the meeting? How do you know what was said if you can’t produce a record of it and you assert you weren’t there?

    The point is however, is that these attacks have resumed … even if the liberal press (and the White House) has apparently chosen not to notice …. cause that would be problematic.

    Yet a large portion of WMDs were surrendered and destroyed. What type of gas is being used? As we know from Breaking Bad, “poison gas” does not require a large WMD infrastructure.

    Fair enough. But instead of calling the police if you burn their house down and kneecap the husband. Dya think your moral obligation is nil?

    Yep. Consider you are outside doing your daily target shooting. You see the neighbor wife running from her husband, trip and fall and then you see her husband raise an axe over his head about to kill her. You carefully aim, shoot him in the knee and he falls down. Morally obligated are you to repair this marriage, nurse him through recovery and pay his mortgage as he misses work?

  9. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    So no written record exists of this promise? It was a verbal promise? Who was at the meeting?

    Sorry. The text I remember was that when the question of Ukraine keeping the nuclear devices on their soil after the breakup of the Soviet Union came up, Clinton was instrumental in getting them returned to Russia. The argument that they used for keeping them was that they’d need them to insure future security of their nation. Clinton persuaded them to give them up with his promises that the US would provide the security needed. Do you not trust my memory? Do you not believe this was said or done? This was (in the 90’s) a boast of Clinton’s accomplishments. (heh. Dya think the Ukrainians would like a redo/EoT on that question?)

    Yet a large portion of WMDs were surrendered and destroyed.

    Really? How do you know? Where you there? Do you have a written record? Was it a verbal promise? How do you know a “significant portion was destroyed?”

    Reports are that the gas is “weaponized” chlorine. And sorry, I get no cable, to the BB reference is not known to me.

    Yep. Consider you are outside doing your daily target shooting.

    Not the scenario. You said they were loud and fighting. You haven’t seen anything. You’ve burned their house and kneecapped the husband because they are very loud and you are annoyed you can’t sleep. Morally obligated? But …

    Consider you are outside doing your daily target shooting. You see the neighbor wife running from her husband, trip and fall and then you see her husband raise an axe over his head about to kill her. You carefully aim, shoot him in the knee and he falls down. Morally obligated are you to repair this marriage, nurse him through recovery and pay his mortgage as he misses work?

    You shouldn’t have shot him in the knee. You’d be morally obligated if you didn’t shoot him … and your target should be the body. The situation you describe leaves you little room for finessing a shot at the knee.

    If you kill a mother cat, are you obligated in any way for the disposition of her kittens?

  10. Boonton says:

    Clinton persuaded them to give them up with his promises that the US would provide the security needed. Do you not trust my memory?

    Nope, I don’t.

    Really? How do you know? Where you there? Do you have a written record? Was it a verbal promise?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons

    The WMDs were essentially shipped to the US MV Cape Ray where they were destroyed at sea by the US navy.

    You’ve burned their house and kneecapped the husband because they are very loud and you are annoyed you can’t sleep. Morally obligated?

    That would seem like overkill if all they were doing was ‘loud fighting’.

    Not the scenario. You said they were loud and fighting.

    Well analogies and hypotheticals are imperfect tools for an argument. One has to reserve the right to tweak them as needed to bring them closer to the real life issue at hand. Do you honestly believe Assad’s regime was just ‘loudly fighting’? Is that really an analogy that fits?

    You shouldn’t have shot him in the knee. You’d be morally obligated if you didn’t shoot him … and your target should be the body. The situation you describe leaves you little room for finessing a shot at the knee.

    Regardless if you shot him in the knee or main body I’m not seeing moral obligation being created here.

    If you kill a mother cat, are you obligated in any way for the disposition of her kittens?

    And who exactly in Libya or Syria is/was the ‘mother cat’?

  11. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Part of background on Ukraine.

  12. Boonton says:

    1. I’m not seeing a promise in there by the US to defend the Ukraine. What I’m seeing looks more like each country mutually promised not to attack the Ukraine and to support them in the UN should they become the victim of foreign aggression. You might be able to argue Russia broke their promise but the Ukraine and Russia are not directly at war with each other and the US did not promise to defend the Ukraine if it does end up in a war.

    2. The most obvious vehicle for such a promise, if it was made, would be NATO membership. Since that was never even contemplated I’m not seeing the basis of your alleged broken promise.

    3. It isn’t clear that Russia has committed an act of aggression. The agreement doesn’t seem to contemplate a civil war among Ukrainians and whether the 3 other countries in the agreement (UK, US, & Russia) could support one side or the other.

  13. Boonton says:

    I (still) don’t know if the use of gas was restricted to one side. I suspect both sides are doing that. I also wouldn’t be surprised if significant quantities of those materiel cam from Iraq in the oughts.

    So let’s map this out. We had a Republican President who launched a major diplomatic effort to build a coalition, spent trillions and spent thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of non-US lives to invade Iraq in order to remove the danger of either a Bathist dictator using chemical/bio weapons on innocent people or giving them to terrorists to use on innocent people. For all of that we recover zero weapons of importance and your assertion is that maybe those weapons ended up in Syria in the hands of another Bathist dictator who has used them on innocent people and possibly let them get in the hands of ISIS inspired terrorists as well.

    In contrast, President Obama with just a few words convinces the Bathist dictator to surrender his weapons to the US where they are destroyed under the control of our navy and his production facilities are dismantled without any invasion or for that matter even dropping a single bomb thereby accomplishing what the previous administration couldn’t do with thousands of tons of blood and thousands of billions of dollars. Wow.

    If this is your story you should be nominating Obama for another Nobel.

  14. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    #3. Ok. We’re done here. Your notions of what is going on between Russia and the Ukraine have no relation to reality. Let’s face it if China forcibly annexxed Hawaii and started given tanks, rockets, guns, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, and such to Chinese immigrants in large volumes to support a suddenly active “Civil War” in Washington State, … you’d be calling that nothing at all, a mere civil dispute in the Northwest. No. Wouldn’t. So call a spade a spade and let your comments reflect something of reality.

    #2. If Russia invaded Mexico … I’d think we’d get involved. Strangely Mexico is not part of NATO. So apparently NATO is not the exclusive club of nations for whom which we might defend against Russia.

    #1. Read it more carefully. Why do you think we have held up our end of the agreement in light of the two major insults (arming one side (basically enabling) the civil war going on now and the prior invasion of the Crimea).

  15. Boonton says:

    Look, you didn’t write a post bashing Russia for breaking its agreement, you bashed the US for doing so. I’m just pointing out the agreement you provided me says nothing about the US going to war for the Ukraine.

  16. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Security assurances. The United States, Russia and Britain would provide security assurances to Ukraine, such as to respect its independence and to refrain from economic coercion. Those assurances were formally conveyed in the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances signed in December 1994.

    From the Wiki on the Budapest agreement.

    Look. The remarks after the invasion of Crimea with respect to the Budapest agreement in the US that I could were that “gosh, this was a memorandum, not a treaty.” That’s akin to saying like kindergarteners that “gosh I didn’t triple swear and spit afterwards so it isn’t a binding promise”. To which, as noted before, I say a pox on all your houses. A lie is a lie. A promise that is cheap to keep not what makes you an honest man. It’s the ones that are hard.

    And no, I’m (as you might have noticed) not a Russian citizen. My critizism of foreign powers should rightly seen as different than my critizism of my own country.

  17. Boonton says:

    Security assurances. The United States, Russia and Britain would provide security assurances to Ukraine, such as to respect its independence and to refrain from economic coercion.

    Joe, Paul and I all promise to not misuse your credit card. Paul and I do not but Joe does. The promise is not an assurance that we all will police each other but that individually each of us would behave. Do you have something that directly says the US would pledge to defend the Ukraine with its military?

  18. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Joe, Paul and I all promise to not misuse your credit card. Paul and I do not but Joe does. The promise is not an assurance that we all will police each other but that individually each of us would behave. Do you have something that directly says the US would pledge to defend the Ukraine with its military?

    I disagree. I think it means you will do something if the others abuse the card.

  19. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Your kid gets on the family credit card. You and your wife assure the bank it will not be abused. If he does … you are not off the hook because your overspent.

  20. Boonton says:

    Presumably if we all 3 had cards linked to your account (say we are in business), my kid getting the card would be a violation of the promise since he gets the card I have authority over. If Joe misuses his card, though, that is on him and not contained in the promise.

  21. Boonton says:

    I’m also not clear who is who in your little analogy. Is the US the ‘parents’ and Russia the child? Somehow I don’t think anyone thought back then that was the understanding and I’m really not seeing how Putin/Russia would have signed onto it if it was.

  22. Mark says:

    Boonton
    Ukraine is the bank. We are make assurances. It doesn’t matter who is the “child”, frankly if your wife overspent the responsibility would be unchanged.

    If you co-sign on the card Joe it is not “on Joe” alone.

  23. Boonton says:

    So Russia is the US’s ‘wife’ and like a 1950’s husband our job is to keep her impulsive overspending in line?

    This analogy doesn’t really work. A more reasonable one might be co-workers who all get company credit cards. Each worker promises not to misuse the card but they aren’t promising to go and arrest one who does or chip in to cover his abuse.

  24. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Ok. I like your analogy. You and three buddies form a company. One of ya abuses his credit card and quits. The bank is getting money from whom? Answer … you three.

    Exactly. You are on the hook. Just as I said.

  25. Boonton says:

    Employees are not the same as founders of a company. The US, UK, Russia and Ukraine didn’t form some type of joint country. They all simply agreed to respect the Ukraine’s borders. Two of those countries have unquestionably honored those agreements.

    And actually you wouldn’t be on the hook in your analogy. If you and your friends form a corporation all a bad partner could do is bankrupt the company costing you what you contributed to start it. You, ultimately, are not responsible for the company’s bad debt.

  26. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    And actually you wouldn’t be on the hook in your analogy. If you and your friends form a corporation all a bad partner could do is bankrupt the company costing you what you contributed to start it. You, ultimately, are not responsible for the company’s bad debt.

    Uhm, no. There space between spending too much on a credit card and leaving and bankrupting the company. Say he spent $50k and jumped. You are going to have to pay the bank but that sum will not kill any reasonably healthy company. Your notion that this would bankrupt disrupts the analogy. Giving the Ukraine support isn’t going to start a armed conflict with Russia unless we badly misplay our hand, which I suppose given the beltway knuckleheads is not beyond the realm of (likely?) possibilities. Look the credit card thing is your analogy and I agree. The bank gets paid … that is the point.

    They all simply agreed to respect the Ukraine’s borders. Two of those countries have unquestionably honored those agreements.

    That’s a daft interpretation. Why would they give up their nuclear weapons if those assurances meant so little? You are just interpreting those assurances that way because you think living up to your promises is too hard.

  27. Boonton says:

    Working with the company analogy, you and your friends pool your money to make a company which you all own as shareholders. That is the limit of your liability. If the worker misuses the company credit card then it hurts the company. That hurts you only in the sense that it makes the company less profitable but you personally have no obligation to make the bank whole.

    In real life the company probably could not get a line of credit or credit card unless it already had a record of success and growth or if one of the owners personally co-signed for it.

    That’s a daft interpretation. Why would they give up their nuclear weapons if those assurances meant so little?

    Nuclear weapons are pretty serious business and I can see how they can be a problem in the Ukraine’s case. On the one hand they can deter an invasion from Russia. On the other hand, they might spark an invasion by Russia. Russia, no doubt, is not comfortable with a neighbor more aligned with the West than themselves….a nuclear armed neighbor like that would be even more difficult. Remember what the US thought of nuclear weapons in CUba?

    You could argue that the bargain they made was or wasn’t a good idea, I personally suspect it was a good deal even considering all that has gone down. But you haven’t supported your claim that the US and UK had a mutual defense pact with the Ukraine. They didn’t.

  28. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    That hurts you only in the sense that it makes the company less profitable but you personally have no obligation to make the bank whole.

    The bank will be paid. You and your remaining buddies will pay. I’m confused as to how you figure otherwise.

    On the other hand, they might spark an invasion by Russia.

    What country would invade another that has nuclear weapons. That’s why the non-nuclear countries want “in the club”.

    Remember what the US thought of nuclear weapons in CUba?

    You misremember history. Cuba wasn’t controlling those weapons. Those were Soviet missiles in Cuba. Apparently you thought Castro had a missile and nuclear R&D program. He didn’t.

    You could argue that the bargain they made was or wasn’t a good idea

    Not my argument. We made promises. We’re not keeping them. Whether or not it was wise is not relevant.

    If I promise to do something which in hindsight is unwise … that doesn’t relieve my moral obligation to hold to my promise. Or is that a conservative only notion?

  29. Boonton says:

    You misremember history. Cuba wasn’t controlling those weapons. Those were Soviet missiles in Cuba. Apparently you thought Castro had a missile and nuclear R&D program. He didn’t

    Castro wanted the USSR to use the weapons. If they were his weapons it would have been even less tolerable for the US, not more. Do you really think a nuclear armed Ukraine would make Putin act nicer towards it? Perhaps but perhaps he might view that as the ultimate existential threat.

    bank will be paid

    Again you have no legal obligation to pay. The corporation might but you are not the same thing as the corporation.

  30. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Castro wanted the USSR to use the weapons.

    Seriously? Cite? I never remember Castro saying he wanted to fire missiles at the US.

    The corporation might but you are not the same thing as the corporation.

    Maybe in planet “all companies have infinite employees”. But in a company with 5 (now 4) employees costs to the company are not as distinguishable as costs to you as you might pretend. Seems to me that this notion that “costs to the company” don’t touch employees is a fallacy that is held by many in large companies. As implicit in the former sentence, I think that’s a fallacy. I also think being attentive to costs and efficiencies by you and your co-workers matter more to your present and future profits than your stock market performance.

  31. Boonton says:

    From the wikipedia article on the crises
    Castro, on the other hand, was convinced that an invasion of Cuba was soon at hand, and on October 26, he sent a telegram to Khrushchev that appeared to call for a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. However, in a 2010 interview, Castro said of his recommendation for the Soviets to attack America before they made any move against Cuba: “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth it at all.”[

    From the POV of Putin, might you not think a nuclear Ukraine might be more eager to attack Russia than the more distant NATO powers? Unlike Cuba, the Ukraine had direct control of nuclear weapons and wouldn’t have to ask the US or EU to use them.

    Maybe in planet “all companies have infinite employees”. But in a company with 5 (now 4) employees costs to the company are not as distinguishable as costs to you as you might pretend.

    You are confusing actual costs with opportunity costs. If a company makes good profits then you, as a partial owner, can take some or all of those profits as dividend income to yourself. So yes if someone screws the company on a corporate credit card, that means less profits for the company and ultimately potentially less income for you. But this income is all hypothetical. The profits the company saves today by avoiding an abusive employee may get blown up tomorrow by a bad marketing decision before you ever get a chance to realize them.

    In terms of actual cost the only thing you as the owner of a corporation have to pay is your contribution needed to buy the shares of the company you own. The most you can absolutely loose is the money you invested in the corporation.

    That is the appeal of a corporation over, say, a business partnership where there is no distinction between the owners and the enterprise as legal persons. In that business form you are liable not only to loose your investment but if the business does really bad the people it owes money too can come after you as the owner and attempt to attach your private assets that never had any connection to the company.

    Anyway, you’ve yet to produce any statement by anyone that asserted the US obligated itself to a mutual defense pact with the Ukraine or even that the Ukraine itself thought the US was pledging its military to its defense.

  32. Boonton says:

    Interestingly another tidbit form the Wikipedia article. Unknown to the US, 100 nuclear weapons were already in Cuba and when the deal was made to defuse the crises, the USSR offered to let Castro keep the weapons as a consolidation. However:

    Anastas Mikoyan was tasked with the negotiations with Castro over the missile transfer deal designed to prevent a breakdown in the relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union. While in Havana, Mikoyan witnessed the mood swings and paranoia of Castro, who was convinced that Moscow had made the agreement with the U.S. at the expense of Cuba’s defense. Mikoyan, on his own initiative, decided that Castro and his military not be given control of weapons with an explosive force equal to 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs under any circumstances. He defused the seemingly intractable situation, which risked re-escalating the crisis, on November 22, 1962. During a tense, four-hour meeting, Mikoyan convinced Castro that despite Moscow’s desire to help, it would be in breach of an unpublished Soviet law (which didn’t actually exist) to transfer the missiles permanently into Cuban hands and provide them with an independent nuclear deterrent. Castro was forced to give way and – much to the relief of Khrushchev and the whole Soviet government – the tactical nuclear weapons were crated and returned by sea to the Soviet Union during December 1962.[107]

    This would seem to confirm what has been a pattern of no nuclear power ever giving nuclear weapons to any other country, even countries that appeared to be the closest of allies. However, that pattern did come close to being broken at least once….

  33. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Interesting. Albeit this is wrong I think.

    However, that pattern did come close to being broken at least once….

    Pakistan was thwarted in their attempt to sell the technology I believe.

  34. Boonton says:

    Pakistan had a nuclear scientist who they arrested for trying to slip some nuclear secrets but I don’t believe they ever actually attempted to give a device to anyone.

  35. Anonymous says:

    スイス梅表(Titoni)跨界とドイツ出身の中国芸術家张奇開協力発行アーティスト腕時計。今回のテーマは「アーティスト腕時計が大気圏に再突入するNo . 1」は、1、超現実し単身空間の中の可愛いパンダは、未来を地球へ伝達式、気候変化による生態の危機。梅表を表現する特別テーマ、環境及び地球の関心。ジェイコブ時計スーパーコピー梅表表示につき1本の腕時計は、透過時報文教基金会の植樹を育てる計画は、お客様の名の愛を育てる株苗にこたえて、緑生き、地球を愛する善尽企業の社会的責任。 http://www.newkakaku.net/guz1.htm