A (legitimate) question for Hal, Marauder or any other European member...

[Marauder]

Apologies to the Germans for the Hitler comparison.

No need to apologize to us... We weren't insulted. But Hitler comparisons are never a good point to make in any argument - it's from-the-hip name calling. It won't get the argument anywhere productive. And be honest now, George W. Bush doesn't really compare well to Hitler. Just listen to their speeches. Also, U.S. citizens who are opposing George publically aren't interned, tortured and killed, are they?

The British were the bad guys when they wouldn't let us live our lives as we wanted. Who are the bad guys when we don't let others live their lives as they want?

I doubt that the Iraqi populace was all too keen on living in a state of constant deprivation and fear. Freeing and helping them is a good thing. Most Iraqis agree that Saddam had to go, and fast.

Hopefully the U.S. and their coalition of the willing won't screw it all up now.

 

[BigJim]

Why destroy water treatment facilities (GW1) and shut a country off from medical supplies (GW1+) when you are actually after 55 people (that's the current list)?

Read the second post of my 9/11 thread to see a more complete list of papa and sonny's misdemeanours. I'll be able to post it soon, hopefuly.

 

[t s s]

basically the double standards,weapons of mass destruction were the the grounds for attacking iraq,a lot of people believe bush isn`t fit to have control over them either,morally would it be okay to flatten the u.s.a. and end his regime?the terrorist threat to the u.s.a-i think what the u.s.a. has done to the civilians in iraq,without u.n. backing,is terrorist type behavior.it`s okay when the states doesn`t like something in the world and attacks it,that`s "liberating",if another country dislikes the states interfering in it`s politics/domestic situation,and strikes out it`s terrorism.a lot of the world don`t swallow the spin/b.s. that americans are fed and just accept from their leaders.9/11 was a totally wrong,evil action,but does what bush has done have any higher moral ground if you look at both sides loses?

 

[shark]

I'll keep this short.

Since Iraq's only legitimate source of income is oil,it makes perfect sense to guard the related systems and properties.

Will oil companies at least try to take advantage of the opportunities presented? Absolutely,that's what they're in business for.

Any of these multiple theories are just that....theories.

Incidentally,Abu Vidal,a known international terrorist,had been hiding in Iraq prior to his "suicide" a few months ago.Now,Abu Abbas has also been found there and arrested.He masterminded the Achille Lauro hijacking.Before we hear the bull about him being a freedom fighter,explain how shooting a wheelchair bound man and dumping him,and his chair,in the ocean, is a courageous or patriotic act.

There is no terrorist connection with Hussein,huh?

 

[BigJim]

Before we hear the bull about him being a freedom fighter,explain how shooting a wheelchair bound man and dumping him,and his chair,in the ocean, is a courageous or patriotic act.

There is no terrorist connection with Hussein,huh?

Nope, he's a psycho shark, you're right. As for Hussein, well my grandmother found a bomb in her garden during the second world war. She didn't however, work for the Luftwaffe.

There are people within Iraq who sympathise with Osama Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein would kill him if he met him though. The most that OBL and SH can say for each other is that they both hate America. Saying they must be in league because they're both muslims and both despotic lunatics, is like saying the same about Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams. Both christian and both psychotic, but they hate each other's guts too.

 

[Haltickling]

shark

Shark, while I’m glad that this terrorist has finally been captured, I’d like to give you some additional info which you probably won’t find in warroom or other propaganda network:

According to today’s news on German ARD, Mohammed Abbas was one of those people who brought the PLO away from its violent terrorist path. He swore off terrorism after the Oslo treaty in 1995 (which was also signed by the US), and declared the attack on the Achille Lauro one of his biggest mistakes (in a Reuters interview in 1998). The Supreme High Court of Israel dropped their charges, and US authorities took him off the “Wanted” list several years ago. He condemned the 9/11 attack very strongly in quite a lot of Western and Arabic sources.

According to the Israeli daily Haaretz and other Israeli sources, he traveled to and from the Gaza Strip several times in the late 90s, with permission by Israel and with full knowledge to US authorities. So there actually were quite a lot of opportunities for the US to capture him much earlier.

Italy has sentenced Abbas to a five times life sentence and will request his extradition to Italy, as the US had dropped their charges earlier, and the crime was committed on Italian territory (the Achille Lauro sailed under Italian flag).

Here are the online articles referring to this info; ARD (sorry, only in German) is the oldest and the most reliable German TV station, and they also referred to Haaretz which can hardly be called Iraq-friendly or terrorist-friendly:
http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID1740618,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/284596.html

This is also an example how much many US media are influenced by official propaganda. But as usual, there’s always more than one side to a coin…

PS: The US forces headquarters is situated in a country which has sheltered a lot of much more recent and more dangerous Al-Qaeda terrorists: Qatar! The Qatari Minister of the Interior is a known supporter of Al-Qaeda (the CIA actually knows that!). More info here: http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27245

 

[shark]

Jim and Hal made this easy

First, Jim will have to explain the comparison he made about his grandmother,unless it was humor that I missed on.One would have to be awfully naive to believe that Hussein had no knowledge of a person of such "celebrity" in his country,especially with his level of security
and the coalition troops finding him so quickly.

I think you'll have to reread the post,Jim.I never mentioned bin Laden,nor any connection between him and Hussein.Terrorists was what I said,and I'm not specifying any one group.There is one thing the middle eastern terrorist groups DO have in common.....their hatred of the west,the US especially.In that particular regard,bin Laden and Hussein DO have something in common.
It only takes some observation to see that many Arab groups will switch from friend to foe in a moment's notice.It's not exactly a secret.

Thanks for the links,Hal.I'll get a translation program of some kind to check into the articles.
However,there is some problem with your post.The news of Abbas' capture was reported by several news sources,including msnbc.com, hardly a conservative or Bush-supporting site.Either way,it makes no difference.The unquestioned truth is that he was captured,no matter the source.All I said was that he was wanted for the Achille Lauro hijacking,which is something you just confirmed, as Italy still wants him extradicted.
As for his swearing off violence,that's up to the individual to assess his sincerity.It would be awfully nice to be able to pop off a few of one's enemies,who might have provoked a violent response,make some public "mea culpa" speech,and then walk away unencumbered with any legal consequence.Hell,I'll start tomorrow.
I am aware of several Arab/middle east relations like the one you just wrote about.The Saudis claim to be allies,yet have madrassahs teaching hatred for the west.Egyptian radio broadcasts anti-west messages despite being financed by the US for about$25,000,000.
Yemen has "outlaw" areas of their country,even as they assist the US against terrorists.Not only is the Qatari Interior Minister an Al-Queda supporter,the news agency Al Jazeera is based there.If you look at the thread you posted,you'll see that I had responded then,too.
My reply here is roughly the same as my reply in that thread.The middle east is a chaotic mess,always has been,might always be.Until the day you divorce yourself from the area,you have to deal with it.
Al-Queda supporters are all over the area,as are wahabbists,western supporters,and the ones who play any given role at any given time.
Lastly,this concerns US policy. You stated that Abbas traveled through Gaza several times, with the full knowledge of the US.What was not mentioned was that Clinton was president at the time,and middle east terrorists had little to fear from his administration.
This is one area where I'll concede that US foreign policy confuses the rest of the world.Our two party system is basically polarized,and policy will swing from one side to the other.In Abbas' case,the inaction of one administration does not condone or pardon his actions, it just ignores them.Fortunately,Italy is not seeing eye-to-eye with the Clinton administration on this topic.
And you are correct about there being more than one side to a coin.
Many news sources here call European sources biased,and can show their own examples.There's something else we'll have to deal with.

 

[BigJim]

Okay Shark, that's a fair point. I think I thought of Osama because he's so popular in the Who's Who of Terrorism these days, especially in America. Given that the whole of Project TWAT was based on the assumption that al-Qaeda did 9/11 and that Hussein supports Osama, I thought I'd just mention that Grandma bit.
(The implication being that as her garden contained a German bomb, she didn't necessarilly work for the Germans; so having terorists holed up in the mountains doesn't necessarilly make Hussein a supporter of them. I'd agree that he'd do precious little to move them them because of their hatred of the west though.)

 

[Haltickling]

Re: Jim and Hal made this easy

And you are correct about there being more than one side to a coin.
Many news sources here call European sources biased,and can show their own examples.There's something else we'll have to deal with.

Probably the same way you did by bombing Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV offices in Baghdad? Or a US tank killing a Reuters correspondent and his Spanish cameraman in the Palestine Hotel? I thought the US was in favor of free press?

We've seen a lot of examples for distorted US journalism here, too, so don't overestimate the 'unbiased' US sources. The trick is to watch both sides, and you'll probably find the truth somewhere in the middle. You can't do this by just watching one side.

BTW: The Haaretz article is in English.

 

[milagros317]

Re: Abbas

Shark, while I’m glad that this terrorist has finally been captured, I’d like to give you some additional info which you probably won’t find in warroom or other propaganda network:

According to today’s news on German ARD, Mohammed Abbas was one of those people who brought the PLO away from its violent terrorist path. He swore off terrorism after the Oslo treaty in 1995 (which was also signed by the US), and declared the attack on the Achille Lauro one of his biggest mistakes (in a Reuters interview in 1998). The Supreme High Court of Israel dropped their charges, and US authorities took him off the “Wanted” list several years ago. He condemned the 9/11 attack very strongly in quite a lot of Western and Arabic sources.

I am also glad that this terrorist has been captured again, having been set free after his first capture. Having read both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post online, I acknowledge that your facts about his later movements and statements are correct.

However, here is how I see the situation: A man commits cold-blooded murder in 1985. He is later sorry about it, and says so in an interview 13 years later. He swears he won't do anything similar again, and he condemns those who do.

I find him far less horrible than a murderer who glories in his deed, and encourages others to do the same. But he is still a murderer, and he should spend the rest of his life in prison in Italy. Period.

 

[Haltickling]

I agree wholeheartedly, milagros. I only objected to the way this capture was presented as a huge victory over international terrorism when, in fact, the US and Israeli arrest warrants had been nullified years ago.

There is an arrest warrant and a jail sentence to 5 times life in Italy for him. He should be extradited there and spend 150 years in jail!!!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Jim and Hal made this easy

We've seen a lot of examples for distorted US journalism here, too, so don't overestimate the 'unbiased' US sources. The trick is to watch both sides, and you'll probably find the truth somewhere in the middle. You can't do this by just watching one side.

Not only is the US media not "biased" but it's loaded in favour of generating support for the war. In the UK the case is largely the same, with press reports of anti-war demonstrations and guests on talk shows slamming and railing against them. It's almost a crime to be against the war here. If you are, then expect mass-circulation tabloids to write reams and reams against you, laying into your charatcer and patriotism as if you were Saddam Hussein himself! And there's no excuse for it either. If you should dare to voice an opinion that's against the official line, then there is no saving you ever! You'll be torn to shreds.

 

[avethibaltus]

The worst part about them making it practically treason to speak against the war is that Bush is going to win as a result because none of our lame brain politicians have the balls to stand up against this crap.

If you want to try and understand a little more about Curious George, check out the book titled "Bush's Brain" by James Moore and Wayne Cooper. They present this "resistance is treason" approach as part of a well choreographed plan to suppress any effective opposition in the US, and the arguments are compelling.

And for those of you in the states who watch the "news" and think you are getting real information you are being terribly misled. This doesn't mean that the "news" here is purer, simply that we get ours from a lot more sources. One might argue that we only see the German "news" but that is where you are misled again. In fact, I can watch or hear US news from CNN, MSNBC, and the Armed Forces Network (REAL propaganda), German national television or private network news, as well as British, French, Swiss, and Austrian reports. Turn on the television at home and try to come up with a non-US network view on any recent event and let us know how far you get. The land of the free and the home of the brave is being subjected to a serious, orchestrated misinformation campaign.

The shit is just starting to hit the fan and there's a whole lot more where that came from.

 

[BigJim]

Yup, there is. Including information that contend that the media and armed forces have been lying through their collective teeth about the amount of civillian casualties in Project TWAT.

The knobs even bombed the shit out of a civillian village in Afghanistan, even though the Taliban had left the week before! And this coming from a coalition who's intelligence is so shit-hot that the satellites can even read number plates on cars? Nah, no-way,no-how, never in a million smegging years!

Orchestrated is just the word I'd have used as well.

 

[shark]

A few questions:

Since we are obviously on the internet at this moment,what makes anyone think that people in the US have no access to news sources other than the "biased" ones that are referred to here?This sounds like a little more of the smugness and superior attitude I've seen from certain European parties.

What makes Al-Jazeera a free press news source,rather than the propaganda mill it has shown itself to be?They were still reporting heavy Baghdad resistance while people were cheering in the street.Did you catch any of this from your news sources? The Egyptian news agancy has already admitted broadcasting incorrect news after trusting Hussein's sources.Al-Jazeera has never been a reliable news source,and broadcasting known falsehoods and messages from Iraqi leaders could easily make them a target,"civilian" source or not.

If you consider that a stretch,maybe Hal should reconsider his insinuation about the US quashing free press by bumping off the Reuters journalist and his cameraman.These two are in a hotel from which snipers are firing at coalition forces.Instead of using half a brain and getting out,they stay in the new target area and get killed.Do you expect soldiers being fired on from a location to micromanage who is there in hiding? Or reporting? Wake up. Combat photographers have been killed before,as have reporters. Nobody is going to play "20 Questions" or "Name That Person" in this situation. This particular insinuation sounds like the old Soviet-style propaganda accusations,and it's just as much bull. If this train of thought is the result of what you call unbiased reports,I'll stick with what I have.

Now,to be unbiased,I have no doubt that civilian casualties may be underreported. If it's true,it's regrettable,but not unforeseen, considering the amount of press being given on the subject.When an enemy uses schools,hospitals,and residential areas for storage and weapon emplacements,there will be lagre civilian casualties.This is not even counting the use of human shields as cover from which to fire behind. It's highly undesired,but virtually inescapable,that there will be civilian casualties.

Sorry guys,but I wouldn't expect soldiers in the field to bend over backward in such circumstances to avoid civilian casualties.If that makes me an animal,so be it,I can live with it.

I wouldn't consider the intelligence systems the US has to be nearly infallible.The Australians just found 51 MiGs near an airport under camouflage cover.That's a fair amount of planes not to find.The CIA also caught alot of heat after the India/Pakistan nuclear tests,as they never knew what was going on.

I've contended before,and I'll do so here again,that we should have done Hussein in in 1991.It would have saved the whole world a ton of headaches.

I haven't seen this mentioned yet,but there has been a BIG slipup in Baghdad.In an interview on the O'Reilly Factor (one of our news sources you would definitely call biased),the US military was asked to protect the Iraqi National Museum,as per Hague Convention rules.
The reply was that the US is not party to the Hague Convention,but that the Museum would be watched nonetheless. Well,looters ransacked the place for an estimated 50,000 items,40 of which have been intercepted at the Jordanian border. Once Ms. Stone explained the situation, US officials were set upon for either apathetic or negligent conduct,rather than justified or made excuses for.

I did read the Haaretz article,and I'll keep the address around for future perusal.Thanks.

 

[Haltickling]

"the other side"

Yes shark, most people have internet connection, but how many would actually use it to see "the other side"? How many would even want to? TV is still mass medium #1, anywhere in the free world, and it certainly plays the most important role in opinion-making. And US TV was only very rarely showing a critical and professionally distanced viewpoint, which should be the media's role in controlling the High and Mighty in a free democracy.

I'm far from calling Al Jazeera unbiased, they were clearly reporting from the Arab point of view. Does that make them a military target? I don't think so. Even more important: Most people in Arab countries trust Al Jazeera as more authentic than any Western source, and it's THEIR opinion that America has to cope with in their process of establishing a new order in the Middle East.

Finally, let's get to the incident at the Palestine hotel: The official statement from US forces said that they knew about snipers shooting at them from the hotel lobby. Actually, the hotel lobby faces the opposite side of the bridge, and this doesn't explain why a well trained tank crew could mistake the 15th floor for the lobby area.

Additionally, the Americans knew well that the hotel was mainly housing international correspondents. The German reporter Ulrich Tilgner (ZDF) stayed four rooms away from the targeted Reuters room, on the same floor, and he didn't hear any rifle shooting on their floor.

Now, I would have accepted it if the forces had admitted a mistake, probably because the soldiers were very nervous, and they mistook the camera lens for a sniper telescope. Shit happens in wartimes. I don't accept shaking the blame off like they did, that was a clear example of misinformation. And the fact that Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV were bombed on the same day makes even an accidental mistake questionable.

Another fact is that there actually was fighting going on in some parts of Baghdad while people were celebrating their "liberation" in other parts. It's a big city of 5 million inhabitants. Again, US TV showed only the celebrations, while Al Jazeera and many international correspondents reported about the fighting, too.

And fact is that bystanding US troops didn't interfere with the looting of hospitals despite being asked for help, while their comrades were heavily guarding the Oil Ministry.

 

[shark]

Let's start with Al-Jazeera. I did not say their Arab point of view was a problem,I said their spread of propaganda,their false news broadcasts,and Iraqi communication were the problem. There were Iraqi troops trying to surrender in droves,yet Al-Jazeera has Iraqi commanders giving false information on the airwaves that easily caused them to continue.That is not biased news,that is propaganda. I'd take them out in a second,since they were willing dupes.
According to interviews with Arabs in the US,Al-Jazeera's status is now in question among many Arabs in the middle east,as they were still broadcasting that coalition forces were being stopped while Baghdad was falling. Sooner or later,the story was going to get out.

Now for the Palestine Hotel,a known haven for reporters.The following scenario makes more sense than the allegations of reporter whacking:
A unit takes fire from the hotel,whatever floor.They turn their attention to the hotel.Who is to say that there was only 1 sniper?Who is to say where others may be? Who is to say that another soldier might not have a missile instead of a rifle? Are these troops supposed to wave and ask who the person is? Or would a crystal ball be a better option? It might as well be,for all the other things expected of them.
There is no accounting for what Ulrich Tilgner did or didn't hear,
nor is it relevant.It's what the soldiers see and hear that matters.
Since there is some level of motive question here,I'll do some,too.
Peter Arnett willingly broadcast lies so obvious that he was fired for it. A Los Angeles journalist was fired for creating a picture depicting a UK soldier threatening Iraqi civilians,which was actually two innocent pictures he combined as one.Ulrich Tilgner? Whatever the story is there, these first two,combined with other anti-war efforts,
make for alot of questions.
I don't have a problem with the soldiers in question shaking off blame. With all the battle problems they have,the nitpicking shit from
how many sources, and asshole reporters sticking mikes in their faces,I wouldn't blame them if they just said "Shove it".

I don't know where you got you got your information about US television coverage,but I seem to recall something considerably different.While I didn't have a stopwatch and timer sittng next to me,
I can tell you Foxnews not only panned during the celebration coverage,but also repeatedly reminded the audience that fighting was still going on in Baghdad during extended coverage. Why wouldn't there be such coverage,as it was the big story of the minute? No matter how involved it may have got,at least the US coverage of the fighting in Baghdad wasn't some fairy tale like Al-Jazeera was trotting out.


You'd have to find out what the priorities were concerning the looting of hospitals,as military planners may have not put them very high on the list. When a soldier is under certain orders,he is not at liberty to ad lib whatever he sees fit,especially during battle or unrest.As for the Oil Ministry,I had addressed this earlier. There were plans to save the Iraqi social and economic structure and oil is their only resource of any major value. It makes sense to guard this
ministry,as it makes sense to protect the oil wells. Besides,there might be some information that is of special interest about certain parties..........

 

[BigJim]

Re: A few questions:

I was gonna do quite a long post here, (unusual for me, huh? 😀) but Hal beat me to it,so I'll just respond to.................

Since we are obviously on the internet at this moment,what makes anyone think that people in the US have no access to news sources other than the "biased" ones that are referred to here?This sounds like a little more of the smugness and superior attitude I've seen from certain European parties.

Smug and superior? Hee hee hee hee. Oh that's a good one.

*picking up telephone handset*

Mr. Pot? There's a Mr. Kettle on the phone for you. Says something about not liking your colour. I should tell him to go fuck himself? Okey-dokey sir, will do.............

Shark, what would be your reaction if you read an "independant and unbiased news report" that critiscised the US's and UK's actions? My guess is that you'd print them out and use them to clean your arse with next time you took a dump.
I think using the internet to seek out independant sources takes quite a lot of effort. And given that all most yanks and brits have to do is flop down, switch on cable and tune to Claptrap No News, how much exposure said sources actually get?

What makes Al-Jazeera a free press news source,rather than the propaganda mill it has shown itself to be?

Nothing at all. al-Jazeera has never proved itself to be anything less than a propoganda machine. NBC, CNN, Sky News etc are also guilty of the same thing. Believeing AJ to be truthful was never the point. Believeing that our media gets away with as little actual un-biased reporting as possible, was.

 

[Haltickling]

shark

shark, this discussion is useless. Al Jazeera probably believed in what the Iraqi commanders stated, so they broadcast it. That’s called freedom of press, and doesn’t justify a bombing just because you didn’t like to hear what they said. You’re actually saying that the US forces have the right to decide what gets on air, and which opinion must be bombed. You don’t even realize the danger to a free democracy which such actions represent.

The first victim in any war is the truth, and as Jim said, the US TV news were just as guilty of propaganda as Al Jazeera. I clearly remember the US headquarters’ Press Officer stating that a whole Iraqi division had surrendered, only to be corrected the very next day with the news of only one sector with about 800 soldiers had actually given up. I clearly remember 3 US and British press conferences on different days, stating that Umm Kasr was completely taken over when each time, just a few hours later, more resistance there was reported. I clearly remember several occasions when Fox TV reported that biological or chemical weapons facilities had finally been found, but a later, more thorough check proved that wrong. Just 3 examples of God knows how many actual US propaganda misinformation (=lies).

Your version of the Palestine hotel incident doesn’t copy with the released US version either, it’s just your version to see it. That’s called exculpating a lie. Just FYI: Ulrich Tilgner won the German equivalent of the Pulitzer prize for his reports from Baghdad. Peter Arnett (the CNN hero from Gulf War 1) was fired because he broadcast criticism of the current US politics after having interviewed an Iraqi official. I’d say maybe this man had a better insight in Iraqi matters than most other US reporters.

And finally: the most important resource of any country is the people. What makes oil more important to a country’s social structures than hospitals? All the other ministries were bombed, looted, and set to fire, although many of them (e.g. Ministry of Education) were dearly necessary to rebuild a well-functioning administration after the war. Of course the soldiers had other tasks to fulfill as well, and they followed orders. It seems that the commanding US officers issued some questionable orders. Maybe they were given the wrong priorities from the US government…

We could both argue till we’re blue in the face, shark, because our views of reality are too far apart. We'll never find a common denominator. For that reason, I suggest to let this thread rest. Maybe we’ll all know at least half of what really happened in Iraq in a few years. And maybe we’ll see the real effects of this war by then.

 

[BigJim]

Re: shark

I clearly remember the US headquarters’ Press Officer stating that a whole Iraqi division had surrendered, only to be corrected the very next day with the news of only one sector with about 800 soldiers had actually given up.

For those of you without any knowledge of how many people make up what unit in the military, this should shed some light.

Eight hundred men is roughly the size of an infantry battalion. Three to six battalions make up a brigade and about the same amount of brigades make up a division. This means an infantry division should number between seven and eleven thousand men. (There's a bit of variation, but that's about it.) So the Press Officer was multiplying the actual number in this case by roughly ten, for the media statement. That's not quite on a par with denying an American presence in Baghdad while an M1 Abrams rumbles past behind you, but it's close.

And the chemical weapons thing should be taken seriously too. The whole premise of the war was the fact that Hussein should have been stocking them. Right now all that's happening is that the insane old bastard is either telling the truth, or has an especially large arsehole to hide them in. Either way it won't make much difference, because there will always be a spin for Claptrap No News to sell to the people to get backing for the next invasion. I should get my second 9/11 post up today, and readnig that should make you wonder just how far you should trust people like George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

 

[BigJim]

Re: shark

We could both argue till we’re blue in the face, shark, because our views of reality are too far apart. We'll never find a common denominator. For that reason, I suggest to let this thread rest. Maybe we’ll all know at least half of what really happened in Iraq in a few years. And maybe we’ll see the real effects of this war by then.

10 years is about right. It's taken it that long to get filtered reports about the massive increase in Iraqi childhood leukemia due to the use of radioactive weapons the last time round.

 

[shark]

I'm wondering how far to actually respond here.

Despite having several points to bring up in response, I'll agree we're going nowhere and drop the discussion. Some other time,maybe.