Operation Desert Storm

The first Gulf War commenced on this day in 1991. Cannot believe that it passed me by until I saw this.
Operation Desert Storm

Unfortunately too much emphasis was placed upon the coalition and the implications of upsetting other countries and the UN, if we continued the fight and gave Saddam his due. Bad advice taken by Bush the Elder led us to rely on UN sanctions to keep Saddam at bay. Of course, we all know how that worked out.

We had an array of US forces in theater that will never be equaled. 18th Airborne Corp, 7th Corp, MEF and probably more air power than we have in total now. Half a million troops - no problem with firepower to finish the job and cover contingencies. We needed nothing – certainly not the coalition forces, nor the imprimatur of the Arab world or the UN, to allow our forces and clear the whole country.

Anyone remember the public support then? We were united, motivated and ready. Publicly the Arab world decried our war making, but underneath wished we would roll Saddam up. Iraq had no contingency plans to continue the war after the combat phase and the full potential of unrestricted terrorism was still unrealized. Remember the uprisings within Iraq which we fomented; and the slaughter that followed after we declared victory and quit? Why were we not done with it then?

Difficult to comprehend that 15 years have passed and we are again in Iraq. Present circumstances are largely a legacy of that failed effort. When we stopped short of victory we showed the bad guys, terrorists, etc. that we had no sense of reality - no stomach, no will.

I have maintained that had we done a proper job in 1991, we would not be there now. Do you not think we would be living in a different world had we completed the mission? Would we not have short circuited much of the terrorist support and sense of American vulnerability that drives them now? I think so.

Posted by Seminole 6 at January 16, 2007 12:17 PM
Comments
Comment #203578
Of course, we all know how that worked out…Posted by Seminole 6 at January 16, 2007 12:17 PM
Yup, sure do. Saddaam was contained until Bush the Stupid decided to lie, go to war, and screw up everything at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American caualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and a massive increase in the ranks of terrorists. Pretty much as Bush the elder and Skocroft said (I could use the link in support here). What was your point again? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #203582

Seminole,

If I remember correctly, we didn’t invade Iraq because it was a condition of keeping the coalition together.

“We had an array of US forces in theater that will never be equaled – in fact it can’t be equaled again. 18th Airborne Corp, 7th Corp, MEF and probably more air power than we have in total now. Half a million troops - no problem with firepower to finish the job and cover contingencies. We needed nothing – certainly not the coalition forces, nor the imprimatur of the Arab world or the UN, to allow our forces and clear the whole country.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Storm

That half a million troops was 75% of the total coalition forces.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #203587

I would go a step further and say if the U.S. had not aided Saddam Hussein in the early 80’s the entire Gulf War could have been avoided.

Posted by: Zeek at January 16, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #203589

Seminole,
A condition of forming the large coalition under Bush #41 was that we not take Bagdhad, and that we leave Saddam Hussein in power. It was a brutal example of realpolitik; a secular Baathist regime was considered preferable to the alternative, a fundamentalist Shia regime allied with Iran. Why do you believe the situation is better today?

Two unintended consequences did fuel terrorism, but they had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, at least not directly.

First, after the Gulf War, the US established bases in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government, in order to protect the Saudis from Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden saw the basing of infidel troops in the Muslim Holy Land as a profound insult to Islam. This inspired Osama bin Laden to oppose the US, and found Al Qaida. Saddam Hussein never had any significant involvement with terrorism- just the opposite! He persecuted Islamic fundamentalists, and forced many into exile into Iran. Today, those fundamentalists are in charge of the Iraqi government. This was always considered a terrible outcome for US national intersts, and that is where we are today.

Second, the Shia uprising after the Gulf War filled Saddam Hussein with a deep fear of the Shias, added to the already existing fear of the Iranians after the Iran-Iraq War. As a result, Saddam Hussein established the Fedayeen. This paramilitary group was established throughout Iraq, and provided with large caches of ammunition, mostly small arms. Under the control of son Usay, the Fedayeen consisted of fighters fanatically devoted to Saddam Hussein, and dedicated to repressing the Shias. In one of those little historical ironies, Saddam Hussein always feared the Shias and the Persians more than he feared the US. The unintentional effect is that, once the US invaded, Iraq had the ready-made components for an insurgency already in place. No one- neither the US nor the Iraqis- saw that one coming.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #203591

The link:Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 6:58 PM
Comment #203626

Siminole,
Great question and a real good post by Ph8. The middle east to my limited knowledge at its greatist was united under Mohammad in the 7th century, Salidin in 1000ad and the Turks in 1500ad. The 19th century saw a decline in the Otterman Empire and fell to the British and French during WW1. Oil had just came into the scene and the French and British didnt want a particular Arab state to control all the oil so they divided the previous empire into nation states we have today.I think Nassar of Egypt 50s and 6os, Saddam,and now Iran all wanted or wants to put that empire togeather again. Siminole yes things would be different today had we went all the way in Desert Storm but as Ph8 pointed out there are too many factions vying for power to know the out come good or bad. And Zeek, even futhur back had the French and British not conquered the Ottoman Empire……..Or Mohammid not united Islam…….

Posted by: dolan at January 16, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #203633
Of course, we all know how that worked out.

Um, perfectly? We managed the risk posed by Iraq, and balanced the powers in the region. We removed Sadaam’s ability to harbor WMD’s. It turns out it was exactly the best of what we could accomplish.

In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States “bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.” Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have “incurred incalculable human and political costs… We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq”.[11][12]

In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, “Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we’re going to show our macho? We’re going into Baghdad. We’re going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.”

Posted by: Max at January 16, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #203638

I feel it’s important that Bush be able to speak some words here:

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam’s threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of “battleship Missouri” surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam’s defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different—and perhaps barren—outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan—just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border—and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam’s propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability—and willingness—to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat’s need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq’s invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

And also:

“He is no threat to invade another sovereign nation, and pillage its culture, and murder its citizens. He can brutalize his own people, and torment and torture them, but he can no longer pose a threat to his neighbors. And that’s just one of the benefits” of Desert Storm.

“As a result of that historic victory, we also saw American credibility go up. You all did this,” he said, gesturing to the assemblage.

Bush recalled Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev calling him the second day of the bombings requesting a bombing halt. “‘We have an arrangement with Saddam Hussein that he will leave the sands of Kuwait,’ he said.

“We didn’t need to consult,” Bush explained. “I watched with horror bombing pauses of Vietnam when everybody kind of reinforced their positions, and our soldiers were the losers,” Bush said.

“I said we don’t need a bombing pause. He knows how he got in there — all he’s got to do is put his weapons down and walk out. Of course he wasn’t prepared to do that at all,” Bush said.

“In only a few times in America,” Bush said, “does history present us the direct opportunity to shape the world we live in. And we can be proud that when our moment came eight years ago, we were ready.

“Looking forward, we can only hope that future generations will stand ready to take up the flag to preserve the legacy of leadership” left by the VII Corps and other units participating in the Gulf War. “We hope that generations to come will be ever mindful of President Eisenhower’s observation that a soldier’s path isn’t so heavy a burden as a prisoner’s chains,” he concluded.

Posted by: Max at January 16, 2007 11:08 PM
Comment #203639

Max,
Great use of Bush #41 quotes. The current Bush administration committed the biggest strategic mistake in American history by invading Iraq. Notice the sound of crickets when it comes to Iraq here in the Red Column?

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #203640

uuhhh phx8 Guess Im a cricket

Posted by: dolan at January 16, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #203641

Bush 41 was following the UN mandate. Kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Nothing more. Once again the UN showed it’s stupid by limiting the mission.
I have to agree with Gen. Schwartzcroft. The was nothing but 300 miles of sand between us and Baghdad. Bush 41 screwed the pouch on that one.

BTW, how many of y’all saw 60 minutes Sunday? Bush admitted he wrong about the WMDs. And he admitted he acted on faulty intelligence. How come that ain’t all over the liberal news? Or would that mess up their talking points?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #203645

Ron Brown

They are too busy wiping the egg off their faces. I threw in some bacon to go with it.

Posted by: tomh at January 17, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #203648

Dolan,
Jumping Jiminy! Pardon…

Ron,
Bush admitting being wrong about WMDs is not news. But was the intelligence really at fault? Or was the decision to go to war made first, followed by cherry-picking intelligence to support a decision that had already been made? Did Bush intentionally disregard intelligence that undercut the decision to go to war, and promotr intelligence that supported it?

Congress will finally conduct some oversight, and this will be investigated. I think we all know what happened.

Posted by: phx8 at January 17, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #203654

phx8,
Do you really think going after Bush is going to serve our country well while we fight a war? Is that what the main objective of the dems is to find something to get Bush on? If the dems do take down the president how will the present conflict and future ones be fought? By Polls? I would not want future presidents republican or democrat to make dicisions that way. It is time to quit playin the blame game, democrats, republicans get together and help plan a way to win a war against those that would do us harm. If we pull out of Iraq what is the plan to fight them here at home cause they will most assuredly follow us here.They have attacked us here before,
under Clinton and Bush they do not care whether our president is democrat or republican.

Posted by: dolan at January 17, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment #203656

During the first Gulf war I was against going in at all. I thought it would be a long and protracted war. I didn’t think a leader had the chutzpah to go in, do what had to be done, and leave. But Bush Sr. did that, and I was humbled. Thinking back on it, I can’t help but respect the guy. Clearly if he had stayed he could have won a second term, but he chose to do what was best for the country instead.

I realize you disagree with me, and I’m not going to try and prove you wrong. Just so you know though, I’m shocked that anyone at this point would talk about how Bush Sr. screwed up the first time around. The last 6 years have shown anything but. I don’t even get where you’re coming from - was Iraq a threat to us? No. Did they bomb us? No. Did they support these people? No. Did they have WMDs? No. Did they want democracy? No. Could we give them a better life? No. Did Bush, Powell, and Cheney think we should go in back then? No.

No. I don’t think we would have a better life now if we stayed then. I think we would have just hit this mess earlier.

Posted by: Max at January 17, 2007 1:09 AM
Comment #203657

Dolan,
It is hard to find anything positive about losing a war or impeaching a president, but I do see one benefit: never again will our country engage in a “pre-emptive” war, invading another country by choice. Hopefully we will learn the wisdom behind the Powell Doctrine, and understand once and for all that waging war should never be a choice. War is a last resort, only to be undertaken when national security is at risk. If people in the Bush administration lied about why we should invade Iraq, if they intentionally misled the country- and that needs to be proven to the satisfaction of all of us- then Bush and others should be impeached.

So while we agree that we should carefully consider the long term implications, I think it is more important for the good of the country- Dems & Reps alike- that we get this right. I am extremely reluctant to see actions which undermine the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. However, if the CINC takes actions which violate his responsibility to the country, and it can be proven, then the CINC absolutely must be called to account.

In the long run, an accountable CINC is more important than anything that could happen in Iraq. Win, lose, or draw, we will all still be here after Iraq. But if our country allows future CINCs to wage war without justification, or with false justification, we will utimately lose far more than we could ever lose in Iraq.

Posted by: phx8 at January 17, 2007 1:20 AM
Comment #203659

dolan,

What’s the blame game? You mean saying that this is Bush’s fault and the fault of the congress that rubberstamped all his decisions? Big deal. The reason we are not discussing alternatives is that the president has made clear we are upping the number of troops being sent to Iraq. The Democrats only option is to weakly oppose by refusing to grant funding, something that’s heartrending to do. Congress doesn’t lay out the game plan in a time of war. The president heard the alternatives, chose not to share them or debate them with congress or anyone, and chose to move ahead. The ball is in his court, and that’s why it’s perfectly appropriate to play the blame game.

Let’s not pretend either that the alternative is not perfectly obvious. The president could choose to gracefully withdraw. How much detail do you need wrapped around that? Do you seriously think Bush doesn’t know about this other option of leaving? He needs Democrats to spell that out to him? I’ve heard a lot of lame excuses for this president, but Bush being a lame president because the Democrats cannot lead him around by the nose is a new one.

Also, you ask what is the plan to fight them here? Good question. Rather than put all our resources in Iraq, let’s start, you know, actually securing our country and preparing for that. Another idea I really liked was Kerry’s of managing terrorism through an international police force. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense to put money into that than burn anymore in Iraq. And stop pointing fingers. A lot of Republicans agree. In fact, it was a Republican who told me about the Kerry proposal.

Posted by: Max at January 17, 2007 1:25 AM
Comment #203664

In retrospect, I think the entire first Gulf War was a mistake for several reasons. We have tolerated bloodstained dictators in the past and had previously aided Saddam in his war with Iran. Our concern with Iraq invading Kuwait had little to do with the Kuwaitis and more to do with fear that Saddam, who would control a huge share of the world’s oil wealth, might try and manipulate us, much as the Iranians are threatening to do. However, I think that in terms of realpolitik, it would’ve been better had we allowed Saddam to have Kuwait for several reasons.

1. Saddam would’ve been able to balance Saudi Arabia’s control of OPEC, most likely leading to low oil prices even until today.

2. Iraq under Saddam was an enemy of Iran. With all of the problems we have with them today, the threat of Saddam on their border might have constrained them. If that didn’t, imagine 150,000 US troops in Iraq not trying to pacify it, but lined up on the border with the Iraqi Army and ready to roll into Tehran.

3. The rapid defeat of the Iraqi Army, coupled with success of the air campaigns over Serbia, presented the American public with the unrealistic belief that wars are quick and bloodless, at least for our forces if not the enemy’s. Much like the Wehrmacht of Germany in WWII, quick victories gave not peace, but the call for greater and greater feats that eventually grew beyond the scope of what it could handle. Now, we see Americans appalled at 3,000 casualties in 3 years.

4. An additional problem raised by the Gulf War and our lopsided victory there was that a lot of nations took notice of the fact that thier conventional armies couldn’t compete with us. Rather than invest funding in expensive things like tanks, which were just mobile targets to us, they spent far less on financing terrorism, something that a heavy mobile force can deal with, but only by rolling over and destroying everything in its path.

Amongst his other legacies, Saddam is just one in a long list of dictators at one time supported by the U.S. While no one could possibly foresee what would happen back in 1991, we should either have left him alone with Kuwait and a firm warning not to do that again, or driven all the way to Baghdad and taken out both him and his regime. The far larger coalition we had, coupled with a far larger active Army, would most likely have been able to secure Iraq without much problems and set up the type of democracy Bush now seeks.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 17, 2007 3:07 AM
Comment #203714

Max - Great post, I certainly believe the President did that which he thought was right in the circumstance.
____________________________________________

1LT- Good points, althought I do not agree that we should have left it alone and conceded Kuwait to Saddam. Under any circumstance, the negatives of doing nothing far outweighed any positives.
_______________________________________________

Rocky - Yes, calling a halt and backing out of Iraq when we did was thought necessary to maintain the coalition. What I believe is that the coalition would have supported our removal of Saddam, albeit, with some public posturing to the contrary.
___________________________

dolan - yes, I wish that we could know with some certainty what the outcome would have been. As you said - too many variables to deal with - may have turned out worse than the present situation.
_______________________________________________

Posted by: Seminole 6 at January 17, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #203715

Zeek,

I would go a step further and say if the U.S. had not aided Saddam Hussein in the early 80’s the entire Gulf War could have been avoided.

Could I say if the U.S. had not screwed in Iran in the 70’s, aiding Saddam Hussein in the early 80’s could have been avoided.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 17, 2007 1:14 PM
Comment #203718

Ron Brown,

Bush admitted he wrong about the WMDs. And he admitted he acted on faulty intelligence. How come that ain’t all over the liberal news?

Because:
1) It’s not news, just him acknowledging what every non-followers already knows since years?

2) Nobody care that much about what he could say. He lost all credibility long ago?

3) It’s not either all over republicans news either?

4) “Liberal” news plan to use it *right* after Bush decision to attack Iran (or Syria).

Your call. Mine is 1. Maybe 2 too.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 17, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #203722

Dolan,

Do you really think going after Bush is going to serve our country well while we fight a war?

We? You mean volunteer US soldiers there, right?
Because from my point of view, americans in US soil are NOT figthing a war.

Instead, they’re trying their best to ignore who’s fault it is if their soldiers are actually losing a war, along their lives and 100 times more iraqis ones…

If the dems do take down the president how will the present conflict and future ones be fought?

By next president?
I fail to see how is that a big deal. Bush is over by January 2009 (at most). Another president will follow, and he will have to fix any mess still existing in Iraq war.
Currently, what Bush is doing is pass as much as possible the burden on next president.

So, why wait 2 years for that?

By Polls? I would not want future presidents republican or democrat to make dicisions that way.

By votes? Doesn’t “democracy” ring a bell?

It is time to quit playin the blame game,

No way! It’s just starting to be fun!
Wait… no, it’s not. It’s just sane for everyone - everyone - to put responsability where it should be.

… democrats, republicans get together and help plan a way to win a war against those that would do us harm.

Hum, let’s see… opening eyes and seeing:

1) Neither Saddam, Iraqis or Iraq were behind 9/11. Didn’t you got the memos???

2) Iraq war is actually *spawning* terrorism, not fighting it

3) Fear of terrorism is losing war on terrorism, not winning it.

4) Today, your nation alone does the most harmfull damage to it(her?)self.

If we pull out of Iraq what is the plan to fight them here at home cause they will most assuredly follow us here.They have attacked us here before,

Again: neither Saddam, iraqis or Iraq were behind 9/11. No joke. Promise.

under Clinton and Bush they do not care whether our president is democrat or republican.

Oh my God, at least one thing I could agree with.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 17, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #203739

Philippe Houdoin,

“Could I say if the U.S. had not screwed in Iran in the 70’s, aiding Saddam Hussein in the early 80’s could have been avoided.”

Yes, you could, but the relationship is less direct.

I feel that either way the point is that many of the problems the U.S. faces today are a result of its past foreign policy, which is unfortunately very similar to the current foreign policy.

Posted by: Zeek at January 17, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #203751

Philippe,

You must be french

Posted by: dolan at January 17, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #203756

dolan,

Why do you think he has that outrageous accent?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #203757

Rocky,
Yeah thats it, his accent.

Posted by: dolan at January 17, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #203767

Rocky,

Don’t worry, someone got the joke.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 17, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #203768

Lawnboy,

Boy, I’m glad somebody did.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #203791

Interesting! All I’ve heard the left do is say Bush needs to but will never admit to making a mistake invading Iraq. Then when he finally does they act like he’s been doing it all along. Way to twist things to suit ya.

Philippe
(4) Liberals hate to admit they were wrong about something.
(5) So they spin everything to make themselves look like they are right all the time.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 17, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #203806

Dolan,

You’re welcome.

Ron Brown,

(4) Liberals hate to admit they were wrong about something. (5) So they spin everything to make themselves look like they are right all the time.

I’m sure it’s a behavior well shared among all humans.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 18, 2007 5:02 AM
Post a comment