News What Were the Real Motives Behind the Iraq Invasion?

[Adam]

In both England and Australia, various political factors are trying to instigate investigations into all that mumbo-jumbo crap the governments spewed to drum up war-fever prior to the USA's invasion of Iraq. The general public (most, at least) knew all along that it was all crap, but the government speakers continued pulling the Party line all along, regardless of the lack of evidence. Now the invasion is completed, and still no evidence, and the idiots in Parliament are finally saying what everyone else already knew: no justification for war.

Now, I know a lot of people were swayed by emotions, and assuemd all sorts of nasty things about Iraq after that 9/11 thing in America, but the fact is Iraq had nothing at all to do with it, and such emotional reactions by so many idiots was just ridiculous.

Brief list of events:

• USA accuses Iraq of supporting Al Qaeda and such. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
• President Bush made repeated mentions of "9/11" while discussing Iraq. Rather than expressing any actual link, he merely mentioned the two things in proximity, forming a connection in the easily-swayed minds of the masses.
• USA accuses Iraq of possessing illegal NBC weapons. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
• USA accuses Iraq of trying to build nuclear weapons. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
• Britain accuses Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Niger. The evidence supporting this accusation is proven to be a forgery.
• USA offers Australia a new trade deal, worth an extra four billion Australian dollars per year, and Australia in return supports the USA plans for war.
• Without UN support, the USA, Britain, and Australia invade Iraq.
• Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, is given the contract to look after Iraq's oil fields, without even having to bid for the contract.

So, after three or four thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, over 160 American soldiers have been killed, an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers have been killed, and the oldest artifacts of civilisation have been stolen in the disorder that comes with warfare, we still have no evidence that any of it had any justification whatsoever. IF those deaths and losses can be justified at all.

Perhaps they will find something soon, conventiently. Remember that barge full of weapons floating down a river in Vietnam, used as a reason for the USA invading there? They showed pictures of the barge, and said "See? The North are sending weapons downriver to supply the rebels! We need war!" And it turned out it was the CIA who had bought the barge, bought the weapons, loaded the weapons on the barge, set the barge floating downriver so they could find it later themselves... So yeah, they might find something in Iraq, which for some reason Iraq never used in battle, even when losing control of their own nation... Riiight...

 

[Zero]

In the Orwellian view of the far radical right-wing, they are 'right', therefore anything they do to further their goals is also 'right'. Lying is fine, and something to be proud of, so long as it is successful.

Isn't that the way sociopaths think?

 

[FZ+]

There is probably "some" truth in there, but whatever truth there was was exaggerated out of all proportion.

 

[drag]

This thread is ridiculous.
You people are completely out of touch with
the reality of the world. Until someone flies
a plane or blows up a bus with you or your family
in it or releases poisnous gas in the subway
you simply won't get it, will you ?
Today's world has come a long way and in some
countries (aspecialy the "west") it feels as safe
and secure as any place on Earth ever did in history.
But this stable world is not reflective of the
way the vast majority of the population on the
planet know and are familiar with it.
Now go read your dental cord instructions or something...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
This thread is ridiculous.
You people are completely out of touch with
the reality of the world. Until someone flies
a plane or blows up a bus with you or your family
in it or releases poisnous gas in the subway
you simply won't get it, will you ?
Today's world has come a long way and in some
countries (aspecialy the "west") it feels as safe
and secure as any place on Earth ever did in history.
But this stable world is not reflective of the
way the vast majority of the population on the
planet know and are familiar with it.
Now go read your dental cord instructions or something...

Live long and prosper.

This is the language of fear, not logic. Again, where is the evidence? And why is so much of the 'evidence' Bush and Co. presented false, misleading, forged, or later proven to be incorrect?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
This is the language of fear, not logic. Again, where is the evidence? And why is so much of the 'evidence' Bush and Co. presented false, misleading, forged, or later proven to be incorrect?

Even if that were the case (Are you the head of
a relevant investigation commity and have
the proper security clearence ? ), who cares ?
The basis of today's international laws is in
democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
when it comes to other types of societies.
In short, if you stick to the rules when they
weren't even designed for such cases and the
other side doesn't, you're just providing the
other side with an advantage. And since the great
majority of people have no doubt as to the side
that's preferable, what's the big problem ?
In fact, the major opposition to the war came from
(I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries
that had direct material interests involved.
It's no that there aren't material interests on the
other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
thing was done and the price is reasonable then
what's the problem ?

Peace and long life.

 

[FZ+]

Are you the head of a relevant investigation commity and have the proper security clearence ?

This pretty much captures the problem. What is the point of any evidence, if you cannot see it yourself? What if I said I have evidence that Bush is Bin Laden, but for purposes of national security I can't show it to you?

These arguments can often be reduced to "Trust me, I'm the president". A government based on faith instead of an open relationship is not a good thing. And it certainly isn't part of the democratic ideal.

In fact, the major opposition to the war came from (I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries that had direct material interests involved.

Again we try to bring this into it. Did you know who was the biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons. The major support from the war came from countries that benefited most in terms of material from it. Oh... let's go into conspiracy theory mode.

Let me just debunk one of those quotes that have been taken way out of context - the idea that Chirac said he would veto any second resolution. If you look at the full sentence, the second (very important) half of which is snipped in most quotings, what he actually said was:
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq."
Despite the confusing mention of regardless of circumstances, Chirac never meant that he would never allow the war. Rather that at the moment of the interview, there were no reason for the war to occur for Iraqi disarmament. This is perhaps one example of those "grain of truth exaggerated out of all proportion" cases.

All I know is that Saddam never offered me any cash or oil. And I believe that you are not getting paid in Iraqi oil as we speak. So please bin all those ad hominem arguments.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
Again we try to bring this into it.

I'm not the one trying to do that. On the contrary,
what I'm trying to say is that this should be
irrelevant when you personally decide whether
this was right or wrong for the PEOPLE involved.
And I certainly see that it was.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

Actually, your stats are wrong. The majority of people in polls taken of the coalition of the willing did not want to go to war, many even with an UN resolution.

The argument is still open on whether the right thing was done and the price was reasonable, but this discussion is mostly on what we knew at the time. You don't do something and THEN justify it.

 

[kat]

FZ- when you said "biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons" did you mean "biggest company selling" or that it sold the most? and are you sure about arms? or oil pumping equipment? if arms, do you have links, sources? I had not read anything about arms sales during the 2001 period, not contesting, just curious.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by drag
The basis of today's international laws is in
democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
when it comes to other types of societies.
In short, if you stick to the rules when they
weren't even designed for such cases and the
other side doesn't, you're just providing the
other side with an advantage. And since the great
majority of people have no doubt as to the side
that's preferable, what's the big problem ?

Are you saying that international laws weren't made to be applicable to the USA's actions?

It's no that there aren't material interests on the
other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
thing was done and the price is reasonable then
what's the problem ?

A problem lies in the fact that we were lied to. If we don't care that the governmetnal officials lie to us, then why even have a representative government at all? Also, I disagree with you in your conclusion that the price was reasonable. It was not worth the strained relations and bad rap that this country has gained.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Even if that were the case (Are you the head of
a relevant investigation commity and have
the proper security clearence ? ), who cares ?
The basis of today's international laws is in
democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
when it comes to other types of societies.
In short, if you stick to the rules when they
weren't even designed for such cases and the
other side doesn't, you're just providing the
other side with an advantage. And since the great
majority of people have no doubt as to the side
that's preferable, what's the big problem ?
In fact, the major opposition to the war came from
(I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries
that had direct material interests involved.
It's no that there aren't material interests on the
other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
thing was done and the price is reasonable then
what's the problem ?

Peace and long life.

First Russ, now you, admit that lying and deceit, and illegal activities, are ok, so long as it serves Republican causes...what a breath of 'fresh air'(comparatively).

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, your stats are wrong. The majority of people in polls taken of the coalition of the willing did not want to go to war, many even with an UN resolution.

?!
No, I think your stats are wrong.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
It was not worth the strained relations and bad rap
that this country has gained.

You people should listen to yourselves sometimes ?!
Even if that was correct, and I disagree with that
not to mention that the influence of the US has
certainly increased overall, tell the above to the
free people of Iraq.

Originally posted by Zero
First Russ, now you, admit that lying and deceit, and illegal activities, are ok, so long as it serves Republican causes...what a breath of 'fresh air'(comparatively).

I don't care about Republicans or Democrats or whatever,
I care about the right thing for the people (and again - I'm
NOT talking about the US population here).

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
First Russ...

Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:

This thread is ridiculous.

Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:
Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.

I was saying "First Russ said it, and not you(drag) have said it"...

And, of course, now you are saying that truth that contradicts your ideology has no substance.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:
...
Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.

LOL

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I was saying "First Russ said it, and not you(drag) have said it"...

Wonderful. I get words put in my mouth now in threads I don't even participate in.

edit: You know what - I'm going to try a different approach here. Zero, I'm just plain not going to try to correct you anymore when you post lies about me. I'll just have to trust the others in this board to interpret my posts correctly.

 

[FZ+]

FZ- when you said "biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons" did you mean "biggest company selling" or that it sold the most? and are you sure about arms? or oil pumping equipment? if arms, do you have links, sources? I had not read anything about arms sales during the 2001 period, not contesting, just curious.

Oops. 1 year out.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm

Hmm... Where did that arms thing come in? Some synapses must have shorted out. Of course the US was a prime exporter of arms prior to the period, and there was limited arms trade (and Britain too. I've see the declassified documents) In fact in the old CIA world fact book the US is listed as the primary export partner of Iraq.

No, I think your stats are wrong.

Really? From the Guardian: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,900725,00.html

(Feb 22 issue)
Britain:

Since last weekend's worldwide demonstrations, the opposition to war seems to have grown. A poll found that 52% were against the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein.

Italy:

Recent newspaper polls showed that more than 80% of Italians were against a war and 70% would object even to an attack authorised by the UN.

Australia:

n the most recent poll, on February 3, three-quarters of Australians declared themselves against a war in Iraq without UN backing. Forty per cent said they would oppose it even with UN approval.

Spain:

At the same time, however, he has also seen at least 2 million protesters take to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona while polls show more than two-thirds of Spaniards oppose war. His conservative People's party has lost its poll lead over the anti-war opposition Socialists.

In reality, war support only really began with the declaration of the war, when the old "support our boys" thing went on.

 

[Shadow]

These arguments can often be reduced to "Trust me, I'm the president". A government based on faith instead of an open relationship is not a good thing. And it certainly isn't part of the democratic ideal.

We must elect leaders whom we can trust, is that not One of the main points of holding elections? We should not trust a leader blindly but when he says he has evidence and gives ample proof that what he says is true, we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country and if we can not trust the elected leader of our country, how sad has this world become?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wonderful. I get words put in my mouth now in threads I don't even participate in.

edit: You know what - I'm going to try a different approach here. Zero, I'm just plain not going to try to correct you anymore when you post lies about me. I'll just have to trust the others in this board to interpret my posts correctly.

Go with the Republican strategy, that you supported numerous times, where lies and truth don't matter, so long as the agenda is served.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
We must elect leaders whom we can trust, is that not One of the main points of holding elections? We should not trust a leader blindly but when he says he has evidence and gives ample proof that what he says is true, we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country and if we can not trust the elected leader of our country, how sad has this world become?

The world is a pretty sad place. The attack on freedom began in 1990, when Clinton first gave hint of running for President, and hasn't stopped since. With media complicity, the right wing has subverted truth, liberty, and freedom for their own twisted goals.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Hi guys/girls.

DRAG:You people are completely out of touch with the reality of the world.

Dear friend, physical aspects fo reality are easily quantified in numbers, and the numbers reported by the govmnt (TONS of vx, biological agents, etc., as well as the completely fraudulent nuclear weapons report) have been demonstrated untrue. You say that that's irrelevant, and the ends justify the means. Now that Iraq is liberated, we're free of the great threat that it imposed. Yet young US soldiers die nearly EVERY DAY there.

The thread asks if there is ANY truth at all to the govmnt's (really Pentagon's) reasons for war. Well there's always a small kurnel of truth to any lie, correct? The problem is that the lying is so ubiquitous that it calls into question every angle and motive for the plan.
-The military KNEW that there was no nuclear weapons program there, else they would've secured the active nuclear sites that they left for looters.
-The administration KNEW that there was no intention to place a democratic government there, else they would've sent police into keep order and would've established a Bill of Rights.

Ciao

 

[drag]

Greetings !

FZ, I appologize, I was wrong.
Nevertheless, it's just that these people are mostly
stupid because they don't care about other people
and they are so used to their ussual lives that they
don't realize how the world really works.
Too bad they're suh morons.

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Now that Iraq is liberated, we're free of the great threat
that it imposed. Yet young US soldiers die nearly EVERY
DAY there.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's all that
matters to you, isn't it ?

You don't care about millions of people now able to
live in a free country because of the war. Why ?
Because they're not US citizens ? Where's all that
beautiful moral talk you people like so much ?

You do not even understand that the reason that you
can have such a reduclously advanced lifestyle is
because of extermely competative and violent international
politics including moves like this one without which it
would never exist.

In short, again - you people only care about yourselves
and you do not understand how the world works.
Sad but true.

Peace and long life.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

FZ, I appologize, I was wrong.
Nevertheless, it's just that these people are mostly
stupid because they don't care about other people
and they are so used to their ussual lives that they
don't realize how the world really works.
Too bad they're suh morons.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's all that
matters to you, isn't it ?

You don't care about millions of people now able to
live in a free country because of the war. Why ?
Because they're not US citizens ? Where's all that
beautiful moral talk you people like so much ?

You do not even understand that the reason that you
can have such a reduclously advanced lifestyle is
because of extermely competative and violent international
politics including moves like this one without which it
would never exist.

In short, again - you people only care about yourselves
and you do not understand how the world works.
Sad but true.

Peace and long life.

Again, you are using emotion to avoid the fact that the government lied to everyone...the end does not always justify the means...and when they lie this much, can you trust what they tell you about the outcome?

 

[Shadow]

I think you mixed things up. (a) most people didn't vote for Bush. (b) It's we elected him because we thought he was trustworthy, not he is trustworthy because we elected him. The price of democracy is vigilance. You don't vote to lose your responsibility in a fall guy president. (c) he hasn't given ample proof. In fact, there is ample evidence he is wrong.

It is true that the majority did not vote for him, but the states witht he greatest population did, for they have the greatest amount of electoral votes unless I am just very confused. He did still win the election and the people of the United States are fine with this way of voting and those who are not don't vote. So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with. Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy? As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush. In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.

 

[FZ+]

Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy?

Hitler was elected. Being elected does not make you trustworthy. That's not how the world works.

So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with.

Acceptance does mean apathy.

As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush.

Ample proof? Colin Powell has said about his lack of faith in the evidence. Rumsfeld has said that the WMDs were probably destroyed. MI6 leaks have suggested government pressure to change in the evidence. And governments on both sides of the Atlantic are working hard to avoid any independent and open inquiry. In fact, the only people who still have the same sort of confidence in the existence of the WMDs are Mr Bush and Mr Blair. And Mr Bush is trying to avoid this now, because he knows he doesn't win. Meanwhile, Blair is trapped because he made the WMD issue the primary legal cause for the war, and people are starting to accuse him of deception, which is an act of treason. The agreement of these two are because they are in close to the same situation, and their own facades of confidence is hardly any evidence.

In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.

In his speech, which was fairly hilarious, he said that there were "rogue elements" in the intelligence services which were working to undermine his leadership. He said that people were lying to make him look bad, because they can't stand his excellence leadership. (Ha!) He said that the discovery of the trucks containing fermenters were evidence of WMD production, despite the fact that all experts have rejected that since the trucks had canvas sides that made it impossible for biological weapons to be made in them. He said that documents about Iraq's alleged nuclear arms programme was true, though a month ago the UN weapons inspectorate had found that they were complete forgeries.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
It is true that the majority did not vote for him, but the states witht he greatest population did, for they have the greatest amount of electoral votes unless I am just very confused. He did still win the election and the people of the United States are fine with this way of voting and those who are not don't vote. So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with. Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy? As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush. In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.

1) Bush didn't win under any standard. He was selected because the Supreme Court knew that, even with all the ways the vote was illegally fixed, Gore STILL won Florida.

2)Ample proof that he is wrong is simply in that WMD in quantities that justify war have NOT BEEN FOUND!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
Gore did not win Florida the first 2 times that the votes were counted and he did not win in the long wrong when he demanded they be recounted yet AGAIN. After Bush was appointed and Florida straitened out the votes, it was shown the Bush really DID win and that he had the most votes. Where are you getting your information from?

That would be the associated press, actually. Even though the newspaper articles were headlined that Bush won, if you actually read the articles, it turns out that Gore actually got the most votes. When the recount was stopped, Gore had been gaining on Bush all week...of course they stopped it!

Where do YOU get your news? Fox?

 

[FZ+]

I am saying it is POSSIBLE (so please do not twist my words around) that he was elected because he IS trustworthy, not that being elected MAKES him trustworthy.

No. You said that we should trust him over Iraq without evidence and over real evidence to the contrary because florida was worth more points that it deserved on population. I am saying that this is non-sequitor. Trustworthiness wasn't a big election issue as far as I remember, and maybe he is trustworthy is irrelevant in the discussion. The fact that he is in office is not a reason to trust him blindly, and to say that we should do so is an insult to the principle of democratic representation. George Bush is not supposed to be a dictator. He does not "know best".

And by the way, Hitler was not officially elected, he self appointed himself into several offices along his path to dictatorship.

Source? Do you study history? Hitler was kept undemocratically out of power by article 48 of the weimar consititution through 1930, though he have by far the majority of the votes. After he entered the chancellorship, he carried out a further election that gave him even greater majority in the reichstag. Next, he proposed the enabling act, giving himself the right to make laws without parliamentary support, which only the social democrats opposed. The remaining parties supported the law, and was brought through with the necessary majority for a consitutional change. Another election put his majority at over 90%. With the death of Hindenberg, Hitler consolidated two chairs into one - the fuhrer, as the enabling act allowed. All through this, he was 100% legal under weimar law, and enjoyed the trust of his people. Hitler remained a popular leader until it was clear the war was going wrong, hence there were little public resistance from german people.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Again, you are using emotion to avoid the fact that the government lied to everyone...

Which is not proved so far so you're the one with
the emotional responses.

Originally posted by Zero
the end does not always justify the means...

Oh, NO ! The government could've LIED to us !
HOW HORRIBLE ! LET'S SHOOT'EM !
It MUST'VE been the FIRST time !

Originally posted by Zero
and when they lie this much, can you trust what they tell you about the outcome?

Do you trust your eyes ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hitler was elected. Being elected does not make you trustworthy. That's not how the world works.

This is not the first time you're using this
inadequate example. Hitler was elected but then
he became a dictator. Also, Hitler was chosen
at a time of great instability in Germany and
the democratic process there was not that evolved
to deal with extreme views at that time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

I love teh shrugging of shoulders towards the Bush administrations constant lies...

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by drag
This is not the first time you're using this
inadequate example. Hitler was elected but then
he became a dictator. Also, Hitler was chosen
at a time of great instability in Germany and
the democratic process there was not that evolved
to deal with extreme views at that time.

Live long and prosper.

Would you mind looking at the argument. Because you are saying there that being elected makes someone completely trustworthy. You want other trustworthy elected people? Clinton. Yep, let's all trust him when he says he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, right? Why did we have a full public inquiry over that pretty pointless issue if clearly he was so trustworthy because we voted for him. You want other examples? Nixon, elected overwhelmingly for several terms, until it turned out he lied over the Watergate scandal.

Throughout the history of democracy in any country there has been idiots and liars, people abusing the faith of the people. Please stop looking at irrelevant details and notice the key point. Politicians often betray the trust of the people, and being elected is not a reason for trust. Openness is the only reason for trust. Please stop making a case for the myth of the glorious infalliable leader, because that is a piece of pointless propaganda that is more comfortable in a dictatorship than a supposed democracy.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
1) Bush didn't win under any standard. He was selected because the Supreme Court knew that, even with all the ways the vote was illegally fixed, Gore STILL won Florida.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html wasn't as widely reported as it should have been because it didn't have the result the media wanted. But it shows that under a number of different criteria - most importantly, the criteria that Gore fought for in court - Bush *DID* win the election. There was ONE recount criteria under which Gore could have won, but it wasn't something Gore tried to have done.

In any case, the thing to take from that election is that punch card ballots aren't capable of the accuracy required in a close election. The systems need to be updated.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html wasn't as widely reported as it should have been because it didn't have the result the media wanted. But it shows that under a number of different criteria - most importantly, the criteria that Gore fought for in court - Bush *DID* win the election. There was ONE recount criteria under which Gore could have won, but it wasn't something Gore tried to have done.

In any case, the thing to take from that election is that punch card ballots aren't capable of the accuracy required in a close election. The systems need to be updated.

Too bad that the voting machines are being made by people with deep ties to thr Republican party...one would hope for a neutral 3rd party, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest...but that doesn't matter, so long as the right-wing wins, right?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by FZ+
Would you mind looking at the argument. Because you are saying there that being elected makes someone completely trustworthy. You want other trustworthy elected people? Clinton. Yep, let's all trust him when he says he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, right?

Who the ***k cares what he did with that woman ?!
Can't he have a life ?!

Originally posted by FZ+
Throughout the history of democracy in any country there has been idiots and liars, people abusing the faith of the people. Please stop looking at irrelevant details and notice the key point. Politicians often betray the trust of the people, and being elected is not a reason for trust. Openness is the only reason for trust.

Com'mon ! That is ridiculous and you know it.
People as a whole are a mindless mob that make
opinions according to poor bits of information
and publicity tricks. Politics is a proffession like
any other. To rule multi-million societies you must
be as good in what you do as proffessionals in any
other field. That also means that you must present things
to the people in a simplified and plausible matter.
The real test is when you look at the big picture.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

Drag: Would you please mind reading the topic, to put this in context?

Shadow said, and I quote, "we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country".

This is unadulterated BS. The fact that he was elected (we can debate whether the system was legal or not but that isn't really relavent) is not a reason to believe in him. The fact that we thought he was reliable then does not validate a government by faith. A democracy implies that people are part of the process, and that people have a say on what is done in their name. You cannot say that because someone is elected, we would allow them to take actions causing the death of thousands because we elected them. It is not a sad world that we question the trustworthiness of presidents. It is a mark on the actions of the president, and a reflection on how active democracy should be. If we did not question the trustworthiness of our leaders, then we have pretty much an equivalent of a dictatorship.

You see, that statement confuses cause and effect. We "elected" how because we believe they were trustworthy. But on that original belief we can not continue to presume trustworthiness. His being elected is not a cause for being actually trustworthy. Indeed, in this world of spin there may not even be a correlation. As in the case of Clinton, his majority in the elections is no excuse for him being held to account, even over such a trivial matter. In this case, the matter is far from trivial, and the president has done nothing to justify any trust. In fact, day to day, evidence seems to undermine this trust. If this president is in any way sane, then he should be making for openness and understanding with the people who voted him in, than delude himself with perceived superiority of the people.

If we say that the people can not comprehend reality, and need to be spoonfed and guided, then why do we have a democracy in the first place?

 

[Tog_Neve]

I am sorry it has been a while since I have been on...work has bogged me down tremendously...but a few points here

FZ

Where did that arms thing come in? ... Of course the US was a prime exporter of arms prior to the period

This is not true by a long shot. Iraq Airforce was French, Iraqi armor was Soviet, Iraq arms were also Soviet, Iraqi missiles were hodgepod of Soviet, Chinese, home grown.

Hitler was elected.

No he was not. Hitler was appointed. And from there he rested power and then was declared dictator.

Source? Do you study history? Hitler was kept undemocratically out of power by article 48 of the weimar consititution through 1930, though he have by far the majority of the votes. After he entered the chancellorship, he carried out a further election that gave him even greater majority in the reichstag. Next, he proposed the enabling act, giving himself the right to make laws without parliamentary support, which only the social democrats opposed. The remaining parties supported the law, and was brought through with the necessary majority for a consitutional change. Another election put his majority at over 90%. With the death of Hindenberg, Hitler consolidated two chairs into one - the fuhrer, as the enabling act allowed. All through this, he was 100% legal under weimar law, and enjoyed the trust of his people. Hitler remained a popular leader until it was clear the war was going wrong, hence there were little public resistance from german people.

ALthough this is getting into history and off the topic.
The Nazi party did not receive a majority in the elections. Only when the German Nationalists threw in their support did it give Hitler enough power to seize control...although he had already been appointed Chancellor..a title he kept throughout the War.

If this president is in any way sane, then he should be making for openness and understanding with the people who voted him in, than delude himself with perceived superiority of the people.

OK so let's deal with facts of the case.
Hussein - attacked 2 of his neighbors directly (Iran in the 80's and Kuwait). Also fired missiles at Israel in GW 1. So has shown aggressive tendancies.
Hussein - Used chemical weapons on military as well as civilian targets in the Iran-Iraq war.
Hussein - Used chemical agents on his own people during attempted revolt. Thus confirming that once again he has chemical agents and is willing to use them.
At the end of GW 1 Hussein was directed, and agreed to, destroy/turn over/dismantle WMD, also directed to inventory, also directed to allow inspections, as well as a host of other items. All of which he has obstructed the process of, flat out rejected.
Finally after urging from the US the UN had passed another resolution that dictated that Hussein would have to provide the proof that he has gotten rid of the WMD or that they were destroyed.
The facts are that Hussein not only admits but has been proven to have had WMD in the past. The inspectors of the past have warned of Husseins stockpiles as well as the person. Mutliple intelligence agencies have also supported the issue that he had/has them. But yet when he is to provide proof that he no longer has them, he cannot.
Here we have a man, Hussein, who has repeatedly used deception in his dealings with the world. Has been shown to have, as well as admitted to having, WMD...and he comes up and says "They were destroyed already" And when asked to prove it he cannot.
ANd then we have President Bush who brings forth the evidence that we have...the UN reports, the statements by Hussein, CIA and other world intelligence reports. He brings this forth to the people to state that this man has had them before and used them before. He was to get rid of them back in 91-92 and as far as 1998 he has not.
And then folks accuse the President of lying..all of which have no proof to back the statements. The onus there is on the those accusing him of deciept and not on him...it has already been established that Hussein had WMD and has not provided proof that he does not anymore.

And everyone is jumping on this bandwagon of lying...like they think there is now 100,000 troops over there running sand through a collander trying to find this stuff...there is not...Our troops are not even really going out and hunting for that stuff..they are maintain peace, bringing in supplies, etc. The items that have been found so far are mere chance encounters. You are talking about a country the size of California...it is real easy to hide/stash stuff if needed. Also easy to transport across the borders as well.

Yes Hussein had WMD. He could not provide evidence of destruction. President Bush did the job the UN should have done but it got bogged down in money...the biggest 3 contracts that were outstanding from Iraq were with France, Germany, and Russia...hmmmmmm.

There are many reasons for the war..and many were stated. Hussein could not be trusted-proven. He poses a threat to his neighbors-proven. He has WMD-proven. AL-q had some presence in Iraq-proven. Just a few.

Tog

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
You cannot say that because someone is elected, we would allow them to take actions causing the death of thousands because we elected them.

Yes we would, if that's the right thing to do
when you look at the big picture according to the same
primitive ideals that you appear to preach here. The world
only has perfect intentions and very few perfect deeds.
I don't care of being lied to regarding the smaller issues
(which I don't think was the case on this particular occasion)
as long as the final result is positive.

Live long and prosper.

 

[FZ+]

This is not true by a long shot. Iraq Airforce was French, Iraqi armor was Soviet, Iraq arms were also Soviet, Iraqi missiles were hodgepod of Soviet, Chinese, home grown.

Iraqi chemical weapons were american.

The Nazi party did not receive a majority in the elections. Only when the German Nationalists threw in their support did it give Hitler enough power to seize control...although he had already been appointed Chancellor..a title he kept throughout the War.

Nope. The Nazis were the largest party, and entering coalition governments were perfectly legal under the Weimar constitution. In fact, prior to the Nazi rule, the two previous chancellors were leaders of minority parties, propped up by article 48. In terms of democracy as envisaged in Germany, Hitler was democratically elected, as is Bush by the electoral college system. This was used to defend him in a variety of future issues.

Yes we would, if that's the right thing to do when you look at the big picture according to the same primitive ideals that you appear to preach here.

How can we possibly know that it is the right thing to do, if the politicians don't give us the facts in the first place? If you want to be lied to, that's certainly interesting criteria on which you are voting republican.

All of which he has obstructed the process of, flat out rejected.

Not according to Hans Blix. Maybe another case of the war on truth?

Hussein - Used chemical agents on his own people during attempted revolt. Thus confirming that once again he has chemical agents and is willing to use them.

Ten years ago, like all of the intel quoted. The lie we were told was that clear evidence exists that Hussien is a continuing and urgent threat, and that there is reason that the weapons inspections cannot continue. Might I add that the US government confirmed it's readiness to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, while the Iraqis, though having weapons on "45 minute" standby, hasn't shown so much as a sign of a chemical weapon?

Finally after urging from the US the UN had passed another resolution that dictated that Hussein would have to provide the proof that he has gotten rid of the WMD or that they were destroyed.

No it didn't. Read it again. It says that they should provide an account of the weapons they have and allow complete free access to weapons inspectors. Their failure to provide proof of non-existence is not equivalent to proof of existence, as Hans Blix has said.

ANd then we have President Bush who brings forth the evidence that we have...the UN reports, the statements by Hussein, CIA and other world intelligence reports.

And then we find now that most of evidence is uncorrobarated, contrary evidence was suppressed (including interrogations of Al-Queada members who said that they did not work with Saddam), some were complete forgeries. (as are the so called documents relating to alleged nuclear arms development) We have leaks and people coming forward saying that the leadership itself did not have full confidence in this evidence, and that the public facade was a lie. The only response is the idea of "rogue elements" out to get people, and the promise of "investigations" paid out of the leadership's pocket. How does that look to you? Why are they hiding, if they have nothing to hide?

You are talking about a country the size of California...it is real easy to hide/stash stuff if needed.

Not if you are going to use them in 45 min. Not if our generals were so sure based on the same accurate intelligence we saw previous that the WMDs were based in X and X sites around Tikrit. Not if our satellite survillence equipment, which prior to the war was so effective in labelling alleged bunkers full of nerve gas, is as good at tracing these things as they are making them out to be. Not if our analysts, with such skill in pointing at tyre tracks and saying Anthrax! continued to display their marvellous skills. It is rather blatantly obvious that the case presented by Powell to the UN was an exaggeration.

President Bush did the job the UN should have done but it got bogged down in money...the biggest 3 contracts that were outstanding from Iraq were with France, Germany, and Russia...hmmmmmm.

Contracts worth 100 Million in total. And the reconstruction contracts are worth over 10 Bn. Hmmmm... These peaceniks really don't know where the money is, right?

Hussein could not be trusted-proven.

Not if you believe Rumsfeld. Apparently Saddam has kept faith with the UN after all and disarmed prior to the war. Ah well?

He poses a threat to his neighbors-proven.

Past tense, not present tense. Apparently now it's his neighbours, Iran, Syria etc that pose a threat to stability. Guess where the Baathists ran? Yep, to those precise same countries they were "threatening". I bet soon when we are at war with Syria it would be a case of pity the poor Iraqis, threatened by the big bad neighbours.

He has WMD-proven.

Past tense again. Grammar, people!

AL-q had some presence in Iraq-proven.

Not. Revealed intelligence has disproven that. Intelligence that was hidden.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
If you want to be lied to, that's certainly interesting criteria on which you are voting republican.

US politics is "SO" complex - two whole parties !
With "HUGE" differences !
It's strange that anybody cares to vote for either.

 

[Raven]

In my opinion, the Bush administration has destroyed its credibility by failing to produce evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction before, during and after the 2003 War in Iraq (or is the war still-on -- battles and skirmishes afterall are still being fought).

Let's face it, Iraq is the second largest oil producing country in the world -- 2nd only to Saudi Arabia. A lot of countries have a huge interest in Iraq for that very reason. True -- France, Russia, China and other countries including the USA has made investments in Iraq both in refining its oil and defending it. This includes giving the country weapons, and yes the USA supported Iraq in that fashion as well. No one is innocent in that aspect. The USA supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war since Iran was a common enemy during the 1980's. No western countries afterall seemed to have a problem when Iraq decided to go to war with Iran. It was a little different when Iraq turned its guns towards Kuwait which had good relations with the west and also happens to be the third largest oil producing country in the world. Interests in that country needed to be protected by western supporters as well.

I'm sure this will knaw on some strong opinions/emotions -- I look forward to reading them.

True, Iraq had chemical weapons before the first 1991 Iraq war and sometime after the 1991 Iraq war ended. The reference that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people refers to his use of it during 1992 which was right after the war ended. Since then the UN came in destroyed their weapons and kept inspections through 1998. In the 5 years that had passed, few experts believe Hussein could even finance such a nuclear project let alone pursue one.

But enough with history, let's look at the future. Currently, Iraq is under the leadership of the USA. America has implanted a temporary leader until an appropriate leader can be appointed by the USA and Britain -- now that's democracy! (sarcastic for those of you who missed it). What will this do for the American's foreign policy? How will the lack of evidence on the WMD be seen by the rest of the world? What kind of paranoia will the right to have a "pre-emptive war" create in the international arena?

I know some might respond by saying, the US is doing it for the world's own good. The US knows what's right for the world. The US is just trying to save the world. C'mon who's fooling who. This is a capitalistic country and we look out for #1. I don't see why that motto should change in our foreign relations. If you don't agree, well that's your perogative. But really if you believe those arguments are valid, then I have to say that's a rather demeaning perspective of the world in general. Prosperity and Power does not necessarily give the US the right to run the world as it sees fit. What am I talking about? US running the world -- that's absurd. I mean really the US doesn't just do what it wants to and worry about the consequences later...does it?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Too bad that the voting machines are being made by people with deep ties to thr Republican party...one would hope for a neutral 3rd party, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest...but that doesn't matter, so long as the right-wing wins, right?

Wow.

Not according to Hans Blix. Maybe another case of the war on truth?

FZ, if Hans Blix thinks he was seeing all he needed to see, why does he need to go back now? He has made recent statements that suggest he believes he was being obstructed.

Currently, Iraq is under the leadership of the USA. America has implanted a temporary leader until an appropriate leader can be appointed by the USA and Britain -- now that's democracy! (sarcastic for those of you who missed it).

Raven, how did the Marshall Plan in Europe (Germany specifically) work and how did it work out? What happened in Japan after WWII? Was it instantaneous in either case? No country in the history of the world has ever been so benevolent toward defeated enemies as the US. No superpower in the world has ever taken steps to create an organization (the UN) that could defy it.

This is a capitalistic country and we look out for #1.

Certainly. Have we profited as a result of the amazing success of Germany and Japan since WWII? Absolutely. Is there anything wrong with that or does it diminish the success of those two countries? Absolutely not.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

America has implanted a temporary leader until an appropriate leader can be appointed by the USA and Britain -- now that's democracy!

Brilliant sarcasm. I think your picture is pretty much correct, but don't forget that the govmnt is appointing hand-picked corporations of the WorldCom and Bechtel variety, perpetrators of the greatest fraud and greatest cost over-runs in history, respectively.
As for freedom in Iraq, I don't think it has any. Certainly there are no cops and no bill of rights, just as intended.
The govmnt has decieved the public into thinking that we were on a crusade to free the slaves and enlighten them with democracy, while the Pentagon does not understand the First Principles of Democracy.

As for the 2000 election, the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory, so constitutionally it had to be the Supreme Court to decide luckily packed with conservatives. So it's right to say that Bush wasn't elected, but not right to question his presidency.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow.

Yeah...truth IS an incredible thing, isn't it? You should try it more often!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius


As for the 2000 election, the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory, so constitutionally it had to be the Supreme Court to decide luckily packed with conservatives. So it's right to say that Bush wasn't elected, but not right to question his presidency.

Well, that's a longer topic, involving cooking the books on the eligibility rolls, illegal overseas ballots, etc...and the opinion of the Supreme Court was that they wanted to make the Bush cabal seem legitimate, not that he had actually won fair and square.


Regime change, anyone?

 

[Tog_Neve]

FZ

Iraqi chemical weapons were american.

Actually yes there was some American hands in there...from years ago. Also more recently some German hands in there.

Nope. The Nazis were the largest party, and entering coalition governments were perfectly legal under the Weimar constitution. In fact, prior to the Nazi rule, the two previous chancellors were leaders of minority parties, propped up by article 48. In terms of democracy as envisaged in Germany, Hitler was democratically elected, as is Bush by the electoral college system. This was used to defend him in a variety of future issues.

Correct they were the largest party. But without the Nationalists they did not hold an absolute majority (51+%).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstag.htm
http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyE1.html
It was not until the Nationalist jumped on board and granting the absolute authority did the Nazi's basically become the dominant party and also "free" to do as they please. And immediately disolving the Reichstag.
And stating Hitler was democratically elected...can be somewhat of a stretch. Considering the political climate of the time and the instability as well as the strong arm tactics used but the Nazi's I don't know if I would call it democratic that the Nazi party (not Hitler) was able to get so many seats. Hitler was still appointed as the chancellor.

Ten years ago, like all of the intel quoted. The lie we were told was that clear evidence exists that Hussien is a continuing and urgent threat, and that there is reason that the weapons inspections cannot continue. Might I add that the US government confirmed it's readiness to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, while the Iraqis, though having weapons on "45 minute" standby, hasn't shown so much as a sign of a chemical weapon?

10 years? try more down to 5 years, 1998. And that is the entire point. That up to 1998 WMD have been acknowledged. And at not time has there been any verification provided by the Iraqi government that the weapons they themselves have used over the years as well as admitted to having have been destroyed or otherwise dismantled. And yes intel suggested that Hussein posed a threat to US indirectly by possibly providing Al Q the agents that he possessed. Also a threat to his neighbors as he has been in the past.

No it didn't. Read it again. It says that they should provide an account of the weapons they have and allow complete free access to weapons inspectors. Their failure to provide proof of non-existence is not equivalent to proof of existence, as Hans Blix has said.

Go on back to 687
Line 8 : Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: a) all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto;
Now go back up to 1441
First lines of it "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular...687..."
Now paragraph 2
"Decides, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced insepction regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completeion the disarmament process established by resolution 687"
And those disarmament obligations were to be directed by UNMOVIC and IAEA. Thus documentation of the destruction or dismantlement should be provided. Iraq was to provide evidence of disarmament from the beginning of things. 1441 did nothing but reinforce the resolutions that were already in place. SO yes Iraq was to provide any evidence concerning the destruction/dismantlement of weapons. They were to be done with the UN supervision and if not then they have to provide proof that it was done. Even the UN recognized this.

And then we find now that most of evidence is uncorrobarated, contrary evidence was suppressed (including interrogations of Al-Queada members who said that they did not work with Saddam), some were complete forgeries. (as are the so called documents relating to alleged nuclear arms development) We have leaks and people coming forward saying that the leadership itself did not have full confidence in this evidence, and that the public facade was a lie. The only response is the idea of "rogue elements" out to get people, and the promise of "investigations" paid out of the leadership's pocket. How does that look to you? Why are they hiding, if they have nothing to hide?

Have seen nor heard anything yet by a source deemed credible. "Unamed" officials are not credible. 3rd or 4th party hearsay is not credible. What we do have and know is this. Iraq has had chemical and biological agents. They have used them in the past. Iraq admitted to having chemical and biological agents in an official form after the end of the first GW. So we know they had them and have them. There has been nothing credible brought forth to date to show that Iraq no longer has these agents. Since Iraq has stated they have the weapons the onus of proof has been put on them to show they no longer have them...since the UN was not there to verify it as set out in 687 and 1441

Not if you are going to use them in 45 min. Not if our generals were so sure based on the same accurate intelligence we saw previous that the WMDs were based in X and X sites around Tikrit. Not if our satellite survillence equipment, which prior to the war was so effective in labelling alleged bunkers full of nerve gas, is as good at tracing these things as they are making them out to be. Not if our analysts, with such skill in pointing at tyre tracks and saying Anthrax! continued to display their marvellous skills. It is rather blatantly obvious that the case presented by Powell to the UN was an exaggeration.

And it was stated that they could have. Not that they do. Never heard anything other than the possibilities that if they intend on using them what the situations could be. And the intelligence that is used is the same basis that was used 10 years ago. The same reasoning for Clinton to launch all the cruise missiles as well. So what you are saying is that the UN and all the primary people involved (Russia, Germany, UK, US, and many others) have lied since the completion of the first GW. Clinton lied when he was targetting WMD facilities with over 400 cruise missiles. It has all been an elaborate cover up by these governments. Hussein never had WMD...once the first war ended they all just vanished. Get real please.

Contracts worth 100 Million in total. And the reconstruction contracts are worth over 10 Bn. Hmmmm... These peaceniks really don't know where the money is, right?

Ummmmmm guess again. You can't even strike an oil agreement for a pint of oil for 100mil...
Here is just one
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/index.html
3.4 billion. ANd that is just one. And this one was to supposedly snub France...so the french contract woudl be around the same pricing...

Not if you believe Rumsfeld. Apparently Saddam has kept faith with the UN after all and disarmed prior to the war. Ah well?

Have not heard that one...any references?

Past tense, not present tense. Apparently now it's his neighbours, Iran, Syria etc that pose a threat to stability. Guess where the Baathists ran? Yep, to those precise same countries they were "threatening". I bet soon when we are at war with Syria it would be a case of pity the poor Iraqis, threatened by the big bad neighbours.

Past tense only because he is not in power any more. In 2 decades Hussein attacked 2 different neighbors, as well as tossed some rocks on a 3rd. As long as the man was in power he was a threat to his neighbors...and his actions of the past reflect that.

WMD

Past tense again. Grammar, people!

Again the onus of proof was on him to prove he no longer had them. IT was already established not only by independant sources such as the UN but by Hussein himself, not only in declaration made to UN but also by actions against Iran and Iraqi populace. So until proven that he no longer has them then it can only be stated that he does.

Al-q

Not. Revealed intelligence has disproven that. Intelligence that was hidden.

Not by anything that I have seen. It was shown that there was Al-Q training in norther Iraq. That does not state that Al-Q had any involvement with Iraq gment or vice versa...only that Al-Q had a presence in the country of Iraq.

Tog

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tog_Neve


Again the onus of proof was on him to prove he no longer had them. IT was already established not only by independant sources such as the UN but by Hussein himself, not only in declaration made to UN but also by actions against Iran and Iraqi populace. So until proven that he no longer has them then it can only be stated that he does.

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum?

 

[Tog_Neve]

Zero

This is the same logical fallacy that you use to defend the existence of God. Got tired of getting beat up on it in the Religion forum

No actually just to darned busy at work nowdays...
And no it is not a logical fallacy...nor is it the same. In this instance Hussein has been proven to have them...as of 1998 there were still amounts of chem and bio agents that were inventoried but not yet destroyed. He was directed by resolution 687 to have them destroyed under the supervision of the UN. He claimed that they were destroyed. It is up to him to provide that proof...since he was to destroy them under supervision of the UN. There is no fallacy in that. Res 687 states clearly what Iraq is to do with its agents. Distroy, dismantle, render inert, all under the supervision of the UN. Res 1441 reinforced the statements that basically unless proven otherwise it would be assumed that he has not continued the process after 1998 and gave him 30 days to provide up to date and accurate accounting of what was left. He failed on that as well...his report was proven to not be credible...there were things on there that were not on original listings from early 90's, there were things on there that were already destroyed by UN. It had to many errors to be deemed credible. So he failed in providing the information set forth by UN (big surprise there).

 

[drag]

TN, you just wrote one of the most informative responses
I've ever seen in this forum. I do not see why you should
answer such pathetic and directly insulting responses (that are
the only thing the guy's left with after your informative
and precise statements). Just let it go, so he could go bark
at somebody else.

Live long and prosper.