Wednesday, March 16, 2005


End of the Opening Game

Today, the new elected national assembly in Iraq met for the first time. I hope that I have made my position clear in this blog regarding the design and the implementation of 'democracy' in Iraq under the guidance of the present US administration. I have outlined the shortcomings of the process and warned of future damage. Indeed a lot of damage to both Iraq and America has already been done.

And now, regardless of what political arrangements are made and who is chosen to lead the country during the next crucial months, the rules of the game have permanently changed. This is the end of a phase.

The opening game was characterized by a number of features that I believe will be studied and analyzed by students of politics and history for a long time to come. I further believe that the conclusions reached will not be kind to America.

Yes, America... and not just the American administration. America is a democracy. Many Americans are fond of saying that in a democracy the people get the government that they deserve. On top of that, the American people have decidedly re-elected the same administration after the features of this phase were clearly distinguishable. Further, I still believe that four out of every five Americans either do not care what their government has been doing or are actively supportive of its actions for a variety of motives and reasons. This makes these people partly responsible for those policies and actions. America is in a great need for some serious soul-searching.

This opening game had the following main features:

The pre-invasion phase and the administration's drive to build up support for its plans to invade Iraq largely succeeded in America but failed abroad. The fact that the campaign was based on mainly faulty assumptions does not seem to have mattered much.

The invasion itself went relatively smoothly as wars and invasions go.

The post invasion management can only be placed somewhere between "gross incompetence" and "ill-intentions". those post-invasion plans certainly desreve a closer look and a more in-depth assessment.

The successes claimed: Saddam ousted and democracy initiated. These achievements have to be weighed against the damage, destruction, devastation of infrastructure, lack of basic services, lawlessness, loss of innocent life, the introduction of violent terrorism into Iraq, suffering by millions of people living under almost impossible conditions for two years now, etc. The list is long. Whether those successes could have been achieved at less cost is an important consideration. To me, the answer is clear.

I have only outlined some of the aspects to this phase relating to Iraq. The wider questions of the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world, the neocon pheomenon and its reign, the effect on the global effort against terrorism, the rift with other traditional allies and the long-term damage to the UN as an umbrella for international consensus... are naturally important, and should be critically assessed when America is ready to do that.

But in Iraq, that phase - the opening game - is over. The new phase will have its own charateristics and features. The visible players will have Iraqi faces. Sooner or later, the US army will leave. Excluding major new factors and unpreditable developments, there is no other option. The US administration will have to exert influence, pull strings and flex muscles mainly through by now familiar, and probably more professional, channels.

As a parting shot, let me leave you with the following thought:

Simple Test for Success

So many pro-administration advocates, rosy picture painters and American Saddamists never tire of assuring us all that the present course is leading to Freedom and Democracy, to an end to world terror, to stability in Iraq and security in the States.

So many of these people are well-informed; some of them hold positions of responsibility in the American administration. It would seem rather insolent to contradict them… never mind the facts on the ground.

Of course, there are many parameters that one can use to measure performance: a stable government, services, security, jobs, etc, etc. but, instead, I will propose a simple test to bring the matter closer home to those Americans.

I will be the first to concede the success of the present policy when a "normal" American can freely walk through the streets of Baghdad in broad day light and…

Not be afraid for his or her life and…
Not feel ashamed for all the things that the US administration has done to Iraq.

Brilliant success can be claimed if this American (with an average integrity) feels proud of what the administration has done.

Does this sound fair?

All we need now is some register for those willing to commit themselves to what they say to put their names down, together with a tentative date for their prospective visit.


In line with the substance of this post, I feel that for a multitude of reasons I can no longer address America as I have been doing over the past 10 months. I am contemplating the following:

Change the blog's name from "Iraqi Letter to America" to "Iraqi Letters" or something similar to better reflect the nature of the new approach (and to be fair to the significant number non-American readers of this blog and their contributions)... or start a new blog for that purpose.

Construct some 'site map' to this blog... and leave it on top to act as a guide to the main subjects discussed. I feel that many of the things we have been saying here may be visited in the future and visitors may need to offer some assistance in finding their way through.

Meanwhile I will be trying to formulate my own thoughts on the new subjects I hope to discuss.

I would welcome any input.

Abu Khaleel, I have a question for you: what, exactly, are you looking for in terms of results that you don't feel you're getting? I understand that you are frustrated, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint exactly what is bothering you, aside from the situation in your country. But what is it about America that isn't responding properly here? The hyperbolic and partisan nature of commentary on Iraq? Specific policies people should lobby the US government to change?

If I can be selfish, what I've found most worthy about this site is that it is a window into the thinking of some of the Iraqi people, even a place where it is possible to ask a specific question and find out about a specific issue.

I find that very valuable and I wish every country and every group of people had a blogger among them that was as accessible as this website.

Abu Khaleel:

Your American walking down the street test is not very logical one in the middle of an active guerrilla war. I know that that is your point, but please also consider that the make up of neighborhood would also make a big difference in your test. For example, in this country as in many countries, there are high-crime neighborhoods where most outsiders, whether American or foreigner, would feel less than perfectly safe.

Further, I don't think that any reasonably informed American, no matter how much of an ideologue, honestly believes that Iraq has returned to pre-war levels of personal safety for Iraqis, let alone Americans.

As to the shame issue, I think that you seriously underestimate the difficulty of establishing effective political and government institutions in a formerly totalitarian state. The score settling issue for victims of the past regime alone makes the process very difficult. The American administration has clearly made many serious mistakes, but this was to be expected given the difficulty of the task it had undertaken. What is not understandable is their failure to adequately plan and prepare in advance for many of those difficulties. For this, I am deeply disappointed in them, but I am not ashamed.

Concerning the American elections, John Kerry failed to detail his "secret plan" for solving the problems of the Iraq and bringing home American troops. Thus, as to Iraq policy, Kerry never provided voters with a clear alternative. Thus, your implied assertion that Americans rejected a more reasonable approach to the administration’s Iraq policy is not well founded.

By your logic of the blaming the American people for all the mistakes of its administration, the Iraqi people must also bear substantial responsibility for their own plight. Firstly, they submitted to Saddam's regime, when by any objective measure, they should have united to overthrow him long ago. Secondly, it is indisputable that Iraq's reconstruction and economy would be much further along but for insurgent violence. Many Iraqis have either sat on the sidelines or supported the politically violent, instead of seeking political means to effect change. Accordingly, those Iraqis that have actively or passively fallen victim to the romantic appeal of politics through the barrel of a gun bear responsibility for a fair portion of Iraq's current ills.


Well they’re not really letters, are they - more like meditations or essays? But the point is that they are as you say no longer addressed simply to the USA, they have a world readership.
"Letter to America" is perhaps too confrontational now? It seems clear that whatever happens in Iraq from here on, the US Government is going to play a decreasing role in deciding events.
And though the verdict of history is some way away yet, could "Letter to America" unavoidably imply an element of recrimination about what has happened?
What’s wrong with just "Letters from Iraq?"
Regarding your "test," I’ve sometimes thought that the measure of success in Iraq would be when off-duty GI’s could wander unarmed through Baghdad markets in their spare time. I gather Allied occupation troops could do this in Germany and Japan within a year or so of the end of WWII. But I also gather that even now the British can’t do this in Basra, would that be right?

Hello Abu Khaleel,
I get the impression that you feel your efforts to close the 'reality gap' have been in vain. Understandable! Everything emanating from our delusional leader has a mind altering quality about it. First he sent Karen Hughes, Bush's familiar groupie, off to sell 'America' to the rest of the world with a budget of $500000000. Then he nominated the master of Iraq's reconstruction disaster, Wolfowitz as the head of the World Bank. He then went on to state that the news conference had to end because the room was running out of oxygen!
No need to do anything for a while, as the Bush generated 'twilight zone' is with us for another 4.

I hope the day will come that an American can walk the streets in Baghdad without fear. That day is probably later rather than sooner. Our last quagmire offers some hope. I never felt safe as a soldier in Vietnam. Three decades later days Vietnam welcomes former GIs. That's a long some day. In the meantime, I wish for Baghdad streets that are safe for Iraqis.

Abu Khaleel,

I have been a reader of your blog for a long time. I have not often commented because the blog is not addressed to me, and also because I wasn't sure how to tell you the following: that ironically, if you want to reach those Americans who are educated, informed about world affairs, with influence on the US government, and not isolationists, those that I think you should be talking to are the neo-conservatives.

I am not out to convince you of anything other than that Charles and Paul Edwards are perhaps not their best or only representatives. The following link may be elucidating. It is a discussion among American conservatives in the leadup to the invasion. I hope it will clarify who the neo-cons are and how to address them. It even features your own favourite, Mr. Ledeen, in a minor role. :)

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Abu Khaleel,

Fair enough. I will bother you no more about our friends the neo-cons.


I wouldn't have responded to your question had it been asked by someone I didn't know to be thoughtful and genuinely interested!

You have been reading my posts long enough to know many of my grievances. My main point was that the US administration was following policies that were bad for both Iraq and America. My assumption was, and still is, that the bulk of Americans would not approve. My mission was, as it were, to get the word out to them. Over the past two months however, I began to realize increasingly that the bulk of Americans (4 out of 5) either had their mind already set regardless of what I had to say or simply did not care. Given, the significant impact 9/11 had on America, I found that relatively hard to digest. It was disappointing and discouraging to say the least. The fifth American was, and still is, aware of the main issues and did not really need my message.

I hope that this answers your question as I understood it!


I gues it's my turn to be disappointed. You usually produced rational and well-thought arguments... but not this time.

If you re-read my post, I did not specify WHEN you could take that test. I left that to those people concerned to tell us.

Also, I intentionally did not specify WHERE. Baghdad has more than 800 'neighborhoods'. You choose anyone (outside the Green Zone of course, which is still US territory ;)

As to blaming the Iraqi people, you may recall that I addressed this issue at some length a few months ago in a post entitled "why do you blame my people"... which I believe you read. I thought that going round in circles was Circular's department! (By the way Circular, you are right re the Brits)

I can blame the Iraqis for a long list of things... but not for the ones you mention. In this respect, I am rather proud of their performance so far... to the extent that I think they are a credit to the human race. I am confident that history will do them justice.


"Hello" Anon,

I am gratified that you understand.


Rez Dog,

I would hazard to guess that an American will be able to walk the streets in Baghdad without fear in much less than three decades after this is over without more attrocities... and if there is a genuine change of heart by the administration that is convincing to ordinary people. I hope we're both alive then to see it!


F. in Amsterdam,

Thank you but no thanks! I think I have had enough of my dear friends the neocons to last me a lifetime. I also believe I know enough about them, having spent many hours going through their literature.

This reminds me... Mr. Edwards was recommended by Mark. I tolerated him until he said : "Didn't your mother tell you that war is hell"!!!!! That does not sound much of a rational argument to me... particularly made to someone who has spent much of his adult life going through wars... by someone who hasn't seen one! It is not my idea of a civil behavior either. Thank you... but no more.


Strong argument you are making in that previous blog!! The truth is worse!

"You have been reading my posts long enough to know many of my grievances. My main point was that the US administration was following policies that were bad for both Iraq and America."

Wow, I really have been reading your sites for some time now, haven't I? Almost two years, I think.

"Over the past two months however, I began to realize increasingly that the bulk of Americans (4 out of 5) either had their mind already set regardless of what I had to say or simply did not care."

Sad, but perhaps true. We are the "Toms and Daises" of the world, if you get the reference to the Great Gatsby. We like to smash things up and walk away.

"Given, the significant impact 9/11 had on America, I found that relatively hard to digest. It was disappointing and discouraging to say the least."

I'm sorry. I am often frustrated myself, but then again, I don't have to live with the situation, and you and your fellow Iraqis do. Speaking for myself, I feel powerless to affect the situation, especially after losing the election in November.

Abu Khaleel,
I would like to propose a simple test for the "normal" Iraqi citizen.

Come to America - tomorrow, if you like - walk down any street, any day, any time, and see the reaction the American people have toward you.

You will find each person reacts in a different way. Depending on which region of the country you visit, you are likely to find suspicion, outrage, or racism. Yet, you will also find sympathy, understanding, and empathy.

What you will not find is fear of being kidnapped off the street, shoved into the back of a van, taken to a cell where you will be beaten, otherwise tortured, and forced to plead for your life on camera before they cut off your head with a rusty cleaver. All because of the color of your skin, or the flag you salute.

If someone tried, you would find Americans ready to come to your aid. You would have detectives searching for you, lawyers defending your rights, doctors ready to heal your wounds and journalists reporting the outrages commited against you, anxious to cover the trial of the men or women that commited these heinous acts.

The day Iraq can take the same sort of responsibility for the actions of Her citizens, and hold your own people accountable, is the day I will walk through Down Town Bagdhad in Burmuda shorts, an Aloha shirt, wearing slippers and Ray Bans, whistling the American National Anthem and wearing an American Flag as a cape.

Say, ten, twenty years from now? Or perhaps in another life.

It is people like you who's duty it is to make these changes. America cannot force them upon you. The sooner you start putting your mind to how to make Iraq a place where ALL people can be free to live as they choose within Her borders, be they man, woman, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, the sooner the world will respect your right to govern yourselves, and the peace loving people of the Middle-East will flock to Iraq as a haven where they can live without fear or strife.

America may have done Iraq great harm. We may have wounded your Nation greatly. It is up to you, and people like you, whether those wounds fester, creating an infection that will poison your country until it kills you, or heals cleanly, making you stronger than before.

Remember, God is only Allah by another name.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

American Patriot,

Less than 50 miles from where I write today, during September 2001 a Coptic shop clerk was murdered, apparently because someone thought he was Muslim.

During the hostage crisis in Iran in 1979 Coptic priests in America were regularly harassed because people thought they were Iranian Muslims.

Be Well,

Bob Griffin
2:54 AM


I copied and pasted your comment after cutting that long link line into two because it affected the way the post was displayed by Blogger. I hope you don't mind.

American Patriot,

Why do you feel an Iraqi should take that test? You were not invades by Iraq and nobody said Iraq knew how to rectify any ailments in your society.

Also, all those wonderful services you mention are provided mostly not by individuals but by institutions. Similar institutions that existed in Iraq were simply abolished by the US administration of Iraq after the invasion.


I keep thinking about that last statement of yours above:

"Accordingly, those Iraqis that have actively or passively fallen victim to the romantic appeal of politics through the barrel of a gun bear responsibility for a fair portion of Iraq's current ills."

If we change just one word, your statement will read:

Accordingly, those Americans that have actively or passively fallen victim to the romantic appeal of politics through the barrel of a gun bear responsibility for a fair portion of Iraq's current ills.

Would you say that it is still accurate?

See the photos of the march against occupation of Iraq in Fortaleza, Brazil

In Fortaleza, capital of Ceará, Brazil, an march against the imperialist occupation of Iraq happened this friday morning. About 300 persons marched, college students, workers of civil construction and militants of Unified Socialist Workers Party (PSTU) and Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR).

The marchers chant slogans claiming the withdraw of the USA troops of Iraq, the withdraw of Brazilian troops of Haity and supporting Iraq Resistance.

By the way, I am a militant of PSTU.

Abu Khaleel,

It occurs to me that you are right. Iraq itself did not invade America. No one has invaded America. We welcome anyone who comes to our country. Which is why it is possible for men to come to our country, attend a school run by our people that will teach them to pilot a jumbo jet passenger plane, and then fly it into a building holding ten thousand people.


Perhaps the fault is with us. Perhaps we should have ousted every Muslim from our country, and closed our borders to anyone with swarthy skin.

Instead our governing body brought the battlefield to the enemy. Unfortunately, the enemy in this case is a small percentage of the population. How small, you would know far better than I. I do not even understand the rationality of the attacks which prempted this war. A bi-product of growing up in a land where foreigners and new ideas are welcomed, and violence is not. A land where, if someone has a belief that you despise, you simply do not have to follow that belief, but that belief is free to exist.

I am aware that there are isolated instances of violence every day in every nation. There are also homosexuals who are beaten to death. Sixty years ago black people were still being hung in their front yards. During World War II Japanese citizens were placed in concentration camps. During the MacArther era people were placed under arrest and subjected to trials that were little different from the Spanish Inquisition because they joined a political party no different than the Democratic Party that went by the name Communist.

Despite the ignorant, angry few who band together in their hate and commit acts of racist violence, there are millions of muslims living in America today, many from the Middle-East, who go about there normal lives, and have friends outside of their own community.

And where is the "Hate Crime" line drawn? I realize that this is not a forum to discuss the problems in America, but perhaps it will help those in the Middle-East to understand some of the frustrations Americans have. Just after the "Hate Crime" law was passed there was a riot at the Marde Gra celebration in Seatle, WA. Bands of teenaged black males pushed through the crowds, picking out smaller groups of white men and women and beating them with fists, feet, pipes, bats, anything that lay to hand. Yet not one of those black males was charged with a "Hate Crime." A week later when a white bouncer at a bar beat a black man that refused to leave and was creating a commotion, he was charged with a "Hate Crime."

The problem was not in the concept of "Hate Crimes." It was in that such laws are created at all. By attempting to protect a group you segregate them and form them into a group, where before they were individuals. Infact, the only "group" in America that does not have a single law to protect them is the Caucasian Male, which is the group that is blamed by every other race for everything that is wrong in their lives.

I can't wait until I am the minority in America, just so I'll have something to complain about.

(Complain wasn't my first choice of word.)

However, if those who actively join, or support, groups that would attack American civilians without provocation are such a minority in the Middle-East, then why is it the majority is doing nothing to stop them?

Your "End of the Opening Game" article, Abu, demonstrates well the harm that the United State's actions have done to our reputation. Well, the actions of certain Islamic Fundamentalist groups have tarnished the reputation of the Middle-East, and Muslims in general, in the World's eyes for decades.

If you can live with the knowledge that members of your society can kill three thousand people simply to prove a point, and do nothing, then why should you expect Americans to rally to protect a country that we have seen as a root cause and supporter of anti-American bigotry?

But perhaps you did do something. Perhaps you got together with your friends to mourn the more than three-hundred fire and policemen who rushed into the World Trade Center Buildings, even as they burned. Perhaps you lead demonstrators through the streets of Bhagdad protesting the actions of these murderous villians.

Perhaps you were not terrified and awed at America's might when you saw those two towers still standing after a seven ton airplane smashed through their upperfloors. Perhaps you did not cheer when they fell.

I don't know. All I know is that I saw thousands of Iraqi citizens celebrating in the streets, and small children running around with cardboard photos of the World Trade Center Towers burning.

Yes. A great victory for the Middle-East against the "corruption" of America. And look at all it has earned you.

If you work now to stop those people, to convince them - as you would convince us - that their actions were wrong, even evil, than you have the chance to make Iraq the "America" of the Middle-East. You have a chance to unify the entire Middle-East under one cohesive governing body that will make it so that the world does not have to fear you. You can work together to create a land that is strong enough in its beliefs that it does not need to fear American women walking through the streets with their faces uncovered, encouraging women to "stand up for their rights."

What I do not understand is how a person's faith can be strong enough that they are willing to not only die, but kill for their cause, yet not have the strength of faith to allow others to believe what they will, and speak their beliefs, without fear of losing faith.

Where Bush went wrong in his "Opening Game" was not in choosing a nation in the Middle-East to place our army in order for the enemy to attack it, it was in waiting so long for World approval. Had our troops been in Iraq on 9/12 the World may not have liked it, but they would have understood. I doubt there would have been much protest at all. Infact, I would probably be in Iraq right now, in fatigues with an M-16 on my shoulder.

Then this war would not be called an "invasion" it would be "retaliation." The first thing I thought after waking up to see the second plane crash into the WTC (well, the second thing. The first was, "World War III!") was "I wonder what poor Muslim country is going to get wiped off the planet for this."

Now I believe that is the reason Bush waited so long to invade Iraq. Not because he could not prove that Iraq was responsible (because he still has not) but to give Americans some time to settle down. To keep our attack from being worse than that commited against us.

I have no fear of death. It is not fear which kept me from joining the Military. It was the thought of having someone else control every aspect of my daily life. If even I was ready to give up my freedom to get up at noon, chain-smoke cigarettes and have the right NOT to do push-ups, then you might see that even "normal" Americans were ready to burn the entire Middle-East, bulldoze the rubble, and turn it into a parking lot. The fact that we haven't, I think, says something of what America is about.

Alvaro-I wish I had continued beyond basic Portuguese. Why did you say Alvaro's bad translation?

Dear 'American Patriot',
You write: "Perhaps we should have closed our borders to anyone with swarthy skin".
I'm very sorry you did not (and did not expell all swarthy-skinned people you have): because, since most Americans have indeed got a swarthy skin, the people of the rest of the world would have been freed, in that case, of more than half of the real enemies of humankind (i.e., the 'American patriots' like yourself).
About 9/11, A.P., are you quite sure it was 'Muslim fundamentalists' who did it? And who stiffed your President J.F. Kennedy? Was it the same Islamic fundamentalists?
No? So, if after more than 41 years the ones who killed Kennedy are still keeping their secret, how can you imagine that they are telling the truth about what they did a mere 3 years ago? Because, poor 'A.P.', it is quite patent to most people in the world that it was some of the same 'American patriots' who smashed (possibly by remote control) those planes into the Two Towers.
And after doing your 'Reichstag' thing, now you 'American Patriots' are going around, laying waste to the world, most righteously!
So Abu Khaleel (and all the rest of humankind) should be grateful to the US because you didn't (yet) destroy all the world 'in retaliation'!
You write, "you might see that even 'normal' Americans were ready to burn the entire Middle-East, bulldoze the rubble, and turn it into a parking lot". Yes, we DO see it, unfortunately. And that's why we ('we' = most people outside the US) do not regard you ('American Patriots') as human beings, but as four-handed aggressive & criminal beasts, who will need, in due time, a mighty cull. Not 'in retaliation', though: but to defend the very survival of humankind.
(With my apologies to Bob Griffin and to all those Americans who are still human beings).

@ Italian,

"four-handed aggressive & criminal beasts, who will need, in due time, a mighty cull."

That is some of the most hate filled, dehumanizing, and cruel rhetoric I have ever heard.

So the people who stood up to sacrifice and overthrow two dictatorships that oppressed and killed millions and openly sponsored terrorism are in need of extermination? Hmmmm.

Who else is on your list for extermination? Do tell.

1st: Not be afraid
March 2015

2nd: Not feel ashamed
March 2025

My ex-father-in-law lost his father in WWII. He survived the Baatan Death March. For many years, his family believed he had died when our own troops bombed a Japanese ship transporting POWs They were in error. He died of starvation on that ship. I so admired H. because when his own sons were teenagers he opened his home to Japanese exchange students. His youngest son subsequently met and married a young Japanese student who had come to the US to study.

I will walk the streets of Bahgdad and not feel ashamed when men the likes of you, Abu Khaleel, begin to open your home to exchange students from the US, perhaps even Charles' daughter Katya. That may come with the passage of time, or it may not.

Dear Anon 2.24
Very touching story about H. It speaks of love and hate.
I think if you read past comments by Abu Khaleel you will find that hate is not what underlines how he feels. This is true of most Iraqis. We have the misfortune of being occuppied by a bunch of stupid people. It is as if the USA decided to send out their worst troops and generals to run this caper. How else can anyone explain what was on the young Latino's mind who just emptied 200 bullets in a car occupied by 3 adults, 3 children and a baby? Or the commanding officer who thought it a good idea to release Iraqi criminals on the streets (just as Saddam Hussain did!). This story is a must read for students of American behaiviour in Iraq:

A century ago Iraq was occupied by the British. They too used force to pacify the natives. When they changed their policy and withdrew the forces Iraqis formed a long lasting healthy relationship with Britain for the next 70 years. Many Iraqis are married to Brits (including yours truly!).
Hence hatred is not the question. It is fear. I believe Americans can walk the streets of Baghdad without fear when Iraqis themselves are able to do the same.
Shame is a different matter and can only be washed off with justice. Saddam Hussain and the US have managed between them to destroy what was once a beutiful country. In Saddam's case justice comes through a trial. In the case of the US, justice has to be through rebuilding what it has destroyed in 2 meaningless wars and 12 years of genocidal sanctions.

Hello Abu Khaleel,
We miss your blogs in this strange interlude after the election. Come back and post!

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

I've totally changed my mind.

We are monsters.

"Hello" Anon,

Yes Sir! I have just published my introductory post to the discussion of religion... But I'm afraid I will not be able to post as frequently as before.


No need to change your mind... though you do seem to have more than your fair share of monsters ;)

I have deleted the offending post. I honestly do not understand why those people resort to abuse instead of an intelligent argument. Does it mean that they lack the two necessary ingredients: argument and intelligence? Is this why they can only attack?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise