Originally posted by Vilepagan
Brooks, you're the one who said Iran was "different"...repeatedly. What is it that's different?

The structure of our government makes things very slow moving, but very stable. As much as some 'round here are referring to the president as a fascist, what are the big, bad changes that have taken place? Even with a majority in Congress, he still can't get much done because of individual representatives' fear of re-election and polls. That coupled with a well informed public, and this government is verry, verry stable (kind of like the trees in "The Two Towers"). No single person is going to come along and make drastic, dangerous and irreversible changes.

The same can't be said about Iran. Suppose our "ally" the Shah had nukes in 1977?

Honestly, I'm amazed we can't agree that there is a difference between us with nukes and Iran with them.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Politics is top versus bottom not left versus right.
Maybe in The Communist Manifesto or in a country where there is true hardship, starvation and suffering with no chance of redemption.

In this country, the "bottom" doesn't want to topple the top, they want to BE the top.

I will say that Iran with nukes is worse than us with nukes. But not by much. We are the only nation whose ever actually used them on people you know. Not only that, but we want to start actually using them again, for bunker busters and such.

I say, though, let the whole world have nukes. The more nukes out there, the less likely they'll actually be used. The research might actually bring us some cool new tech, too.

It won't be long, before technological means to neutralize missiles will be in the US arsenal. As soon as that happens, the first world is safe. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. exported the tech all over the world, so as to avoid the possibility of nuclear winter coming from dictators in the third world.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
"the world has to be black and white otherwise its just too complicated. Please tell me I'm right."

this is the second time you put those words in my mouth, but that's not what I'm saying.

To say we may be less dangerous than Iran is not demanding black and white.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
1. We are the only nation whose ever actually used them on people you know.

2. It won't be long, before technological means to neutralize missiles will be in the US arsenal.

1. True, but do you think Iran would weigh other options and use it only to save hundreds of thousands of lives? Have we used them willy-nilly since then?

2. Nukes aren't just on missiles.


Are you playing devil's advocate from the Iranian standpoint or do you really believe everything you just posted?

Originally posted by Napsterbater

It won't be long, before technological means to neutralize missiles will be in the US arsenal.

Don't bet on that one. Russia has openly stated they now have missle capability that can penetrate any and all known defenses of any country in the world and that technology is exteniible if need be.

Is it true? Well, no one has faced them on the issue or called their bluff.

Originally posted by Brooks
The structure of our government makes things very slow moving, but very stable. As much as some 'round here are referring to the president as a fascist, what are the big, bad changes that have taken place?

Well...we are "at war", and we've had some erosion of the Constitution.


Even with a majority in Congress, he still can't get much done because of individual representatives' fear of re-election and polls. That coupled with a well informed public, and this government is verry, verry stable (kind of like the trees in "The Two Towers"). No single person is going to come along and make drastic, dangerous and irreversible changes.

The same can't be said about Iran. Suppose our "ally" the Shah had nukes in 1977?

I see your point, and it's a vaild one. We are probably more stable than Iran and that's a good thing.


Honestly, I'm amazed we can't agree that there is a difference between us with nukes and Iran with them.

I'd be amazed if we couldn't agree to that as well, but much earlier in the thread you said:

I trust Russia, The United States, Israel, India and whoever else may have nukes today more than I would trust Iran with them.

What makes Iran different than Pakistan or North Korea?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
What makes Iran different than Pakistan or North Korea? Well, this is subjective, but I feel they are "slightly less unacceptable" than Iran.

Is it true? Well, no one has faced them on the issue or called their bluff.

Why should they? Is there any reason for the United States to reveal their military secrets before they are ready? Let the Russians brag about their military technology. They simply haven't the economic muscle to keep up with US advances.

While nations rattle their swords, progress marches on. Ten years from now, it will be a vastly different situation, and there is precious little we can do to predict what the winds of change bring.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
They simply haven't the economic muscle to keep up with US advances.


Wrong - the U.S. spends $250 million for one of our own fighter planes. Russia sends $25 million at the most for one of hers which are BTW comparable planes. It boils down to 80% of our defense budget being no more than waste, over-runs and corruption.

The U.S. spends the majority of our military budget on offensive measures (killing in particular) where other countries spend nearly their entire budgets on defensive measures.

IOW - we can start a war but we can't finish one.

In this country, the "bottom" doesn't want to topple the top, they want to BE the top. It's called internalized oppression. Show people a bunch of shiney shit and they want it. Show them shiney shit next to a picture of someone starving and they will almost always make the right decision. Out of sight out of mind. Its the mantra of America.

Well...we are "at war", and we've had some erosion of the Constitution. some? I'd say its pretty mush useless right now. Habeaus Corpus no longer exists. With out haveing to charge people with crimes and present evidence and now not even have to get a warrent on heresay, Americans (and the rest of the world) no longer have any rights at all.

If the government can revoke a right at will, then it was never a right to begin with, but merely an indulgence granted to slaves by their master. - Anon

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Show people a bunch of shiney shit and they want it. Show them shiney shit next to a picture of someone starving and they will almost always make the right decision. Out of sight out of mind. Its the mantra of America.

I think I said the same thing (except without the cursing). Call it greed, jealousy or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses but it's what motivates people to better themselves.

I don't know what you mean by "the right decision". Does that mean not wanting to become starving people themselves? Is there a problem with that?

Originally posted by Brooks
I think I said the same thing (except without the cursing). Call it greed, jealousy or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses but it's what motivates people to better themselves.

I don't know what you mean by "the right decision". Does that mean not wanting to become starving people themselves? Is there a problem with that?

Surely you don't think 'greed, jealousy and keeping up with the Jones' makes people better!! What's life all about?

Originally posted by newdsagent3
Surely you don't think 'greed, jealousy and keeping up with the Jones' makes people better!!

I'm pretty sure that by the quote:
-- Call it greed, jealousy or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses but it's what motivates people to better themselves. --

That Brooks refers to working harder, bettering their financial situation or furthering their education. Making life better for themselves because they see what is around them, and desire that lifestyle that gives them more and allows them more economic and career freedom.

Originally posted by Evakian
I'm pretty sure that by the quote:
-- Call it greed, jealousy or keeping-up-with-the-Joneses but it's what motivates people to better themselves. --

That Brooks refers to working harder, bettering their financial situation or furthering their education. Making life better for themselves because they see what is around them, and desire that lifestyle that gives them more and allows them more economic and career freedom.

Well, Evakian, that's not what greed, jealousy and keeping up with the Jones'
is defined as - they are totally different and your explanation only justifies.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
Well, Evakian, that's not what greed, jealousy and keeping up with the Jones' is defined as - they are totally different and your explanation only justifies.

Oh, so coveting wealth and a more luxurious lifestyle that others have has nothing to do with "greed, jealousy, and keeping with the Jones'"?

Originally posted by Evakian
Oh, so coveting wealth and a more luxurious lifestyle that others have has nothing to do with "greed, jealousy, and keeping with the Jones'"?

yes! it has everything to do with it - what I'm referring to is Brooks statement about people bettering themselves. Greed & jealousy never made a better person of anyone and they certainly aren't characarcteristics that are required for bettering oneself. They may be required to travel in the same circle as some people one admires, but I wouldn't call them winning characteristics.

Well.. if we EVER DO go into Iran... we can thank Klinton for giving them blueprints for nuclear weapons....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/120534.shtml


Saturday, Jan. 7, 2006 12:03 p.m. EST

Clinton Scheme Gave Iran Nuke Blueprints

in a hairbrained scheme that was personally approved by then-President Clinton, the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program.

The allegation, detailed in the new book "State of War," by New York Times reporter James Risen, comes as the Iranian nuclear crisis appears to be coming to a head, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urging that Israel be "wiped off the map" and his government announcing last week that it will resume uranium enrichment on Monday.

Reports Risen: "It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan [to give Tehran nuclear blueprints] was first approved by Clinton."

Already a thread on this. Funny how you didn't see fit to comment on it until the name clinton popped up. You such a partisan asshat its ridiclous...

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15721

Now if this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black....
Heh, just raggin on ya 500.

If Iran gets nukes, thats good for iran, and good for the other muslim countries. However, it is bad for Israel and is potentially very bad for the United States. Not only is there the threat of attack on the US, which we don't want, now Iran would have some serious political sway, and the US definately doesn't want that.

So, if we decided to invade Iran, it would be under the pretext of self defense and assisting Israel. Now, while those ARE legitimate and true reasons for this, the bigger underlying cause would be that the US doesn't want to give up any political power, which is a natural response for any country.

Now if this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.... Heh, just raggin on ya 500. No...I hate Clinton and Bush.
:D

Originally posted by newdsagent3
what I'm referring to is Brooks statement about people bettering themselves. Greed & jealousy never made a better person of anyone and they certainly aren't characarcteristics that are required for bettering oneself.

Greed is just a word.
I think Evakian explained my point better than I did.

Here's Gordon Gekko's speech with "motivation" substituted for "greed".

"Motivation is right. Motivation works. Motivation clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Motivation, in all of its forms -- motivation for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind."

That's all I meant. I'm just less eloquent than Messers Gekko and Evakian.

Looks like Israel might be doing her own dirty work this time ...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/53948.html

Originally posted by Brooks
Greed is just a word.
I think Evakian explained my point better than I did.

Here's Gordon Gekko's speech with "motivation" substituted for "greed".

"Motivation is right. Motivation works. Motivation clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Motivation, in all of its forms -- motivation for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind."

That's all I meant. I'm just less eloquent than Messers Gekko and Evakian.

Well, greed and motivation are distinctly different words. Motivation is necessary to improve oneself. Greed isn't, though greed can motivate.

Very true, Agent3.....very true.

Iran is going ahead with its plans to enrich uranium. Some interesting comments here:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1545942.htm

I don't think a strike is necessary. The demographic time bomb in iran will soon go off on its own. Over 2/3 of the country is under the age of 35. Bulges in the population like that in alignment with an economy that is ....... shall we say struggling ensures change will occur. IT's important to be able to influence that change in a positive manner. A strike will not enable us to be positive influences.

Waldo - Unfortunatly, You underestimate the greed of those in power on both sides (US and Iran).

we need to use bunker busting tactical nukes on them at this point.

Your answer to everything, isn't it, Travh?

tell me einstein, how would you destroy hardened underground nuclear facilitys in a hostile country?

Originally posted by Travh20
we need to use bunker busting tactical nukes on them at this point.

Conventional wisdom says bunker busters won't do the job and anything they do manage to reach, will be quickly rebuilt.

Of course you won't hear this on main stream media.

FWIW

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Conventional wisdom says bunker busters won't do the job and anything they do manage to reach, will be quickly rebuilt.

Of course you won't hear this on main stream media.

FWIW

thats why you use nukes dop, I said tactical NUCLEAR bunker busters, and when they rebuild them you use them again. Or, we could slap a few thousand years of UN sanctions on them :rolleyes:

tell me einstein, how would you destroy hardened underground nuclear facilitys in a hostile country?

Landing troops down and securing the area. Then we can confiscate the materials and ensure that they won't be used, as opposed to bombs, even nuclear ones, where we really don't know if it'll destroy the bunker or not. Do you know how much environmental damage bombs of that power cause? Any idea at all?

With a 1.2-megaton warhead, detonated 20 feet below ground, The National Academy of Sciences estimates that the explosion will shoot some 300,000 tons of radioactive debris up to 15 miles into the air. The total number of casualties will vary, of course, but could exceed one million, depending on weather, wind velocity and the blast’s proximity to towns and cities.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Landing troops down and securing the area. Then we can confiscate the materials and ensure that they won't be used, as opposed to bombs, even nuclear ones, where we really don't know if it'll destroy the bunker or not. Do you know how much environmental damage bombs of that power cause? Any idea at all?

sure, we will just break out our instant army, just add water. Perhaps you forgot, but what little army we have is tied down right now. Unless the europeans get off their asses we have no army to land. even if we started a build up now it would be to late to invade by land by the time we got to the numbers we needed. Maybe one day we will learn to not reduce our army so much just because there is no war going on at the moment. History has taught us that there is always another one right around the corner.

and yes, i know how much damage a nuke does, why do you think we need to stop Iran so bad? because they will probably use the damn thing. perhaps when a nuke goes off in your town the though of using a low yield tactical nuke on targets in Iran wont sound to bad, but it will be to late.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
With a 1.2-megaton warhead, detonated 20 feet below ground, The National Academy of Sciences estimates that the explosion will shoot some 300,000 tons of radioactive debris up to 15 miles into the air. The total number of casualties will vary, of course, but could exceed one million, depending on weather, wind velocity and the blast’s proximity to towns and cities.

1.2 megaton? I am talking a couple of kilotons on the end of a smart bomb. A tactical nuke it is called, low yield.

Originally posted by Travh20
thats why you use nukes dop, I said tactical NUCLEAR bunker busters, and when they rebuild them you use them again. Or, we could slap a few thousand years of UN sanctions on them :rolleyes:

Understood but my guess is Iran knows her facilities need to be deep, well-protected and easily repaired and she has done just that.

Just a guess.

be that as it may, I believe we can develop a weapon to beat anything Iran can do to protect its facilities. That's the difference between you and I dop, you have no faith in American ingenuity

I'm not saying we need to let Iran have nukes. But if we are going to keep them out of their hands, we could do far better than bunker busters. The U.S. is certainly capable of pinpoint strike paratroop missions, even when the main force is off somewhere. All we have to do is land about fifty troops, secure the bunker, land a team to cart the shit away, then use much smaller demolition charges to bring down the bunker. Wash, rinse, repeat. Hell, I would think you would be the first to sign up for such a mission, were you still in the service. Hell, I'd do it.

We definitely do not need to occupy Iran like we did Iraq.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I'm not saying we need to let Iran have nukes. But if we are going to keep them out of their hands, we could do far better than bunker busters. The U.S. is certainly capable of pinpoint strike paratroop missions, even when the main force is off somewhere. All we have to do is land about fifty troops, secure the bunker, land a team to cart the shit away, then use much smaller demolition charges to bring down the bunker. Wash, rinse, repeat. Hell, I would think you would be the first to sign up for such a mission, were you still in the service. Hell, I'd do it.

We definitely do not need to occupy Iran like we did Iraq.

I think you have been watching a few to many Chuck Norris movies napster

Does anyone know the # of atomic bombs that were used just to test here in the usa? I watched a video on it - I think at least 3 were exploded and they spread radiation for miles and miles and the wind blew lots of it around. And people wonder why we here in the land of the free have so much cancer and alzheimers and etc. etc. Those bomb builders were so proud of what they'd done. What's wrong with this picture?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
All we have to do is land about fifty troops, secure the bunker, land a team to cart the shit away, then use much smaller demolition charges to bring down the bunker. Wash, rinse, repeat.

We tried the special forces in Iran once. It didn't work out.

Operation Eagle Claw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_One)

I think you have been watching a few to many Chuck Norris movies napster

Hah, maybe you're right. But hell, watch an Army commercial back in the days of their whole "Army of One" schtick, you would have thought you could do it by yourself after finishing boot camp.

Originally posted by Travh20
be that as it may, I believe we can develop a weapon to beat anything Iran can do to protect its facilities. That's the difference between you and I dop, you have no faith in American ingenuity

sure there trav, we'll just piss off even more muslims and others by being arrogant assholes we are because the world is suppose to do what amerika wants anyway, right? sure, we really need another war to get involved in started by us. funny how people who won't serve to take the chance of getting their heads blown off or irradiated are the ones who cry for war the loudest.

funny how people who won't serve to take the chance of getting their heads blown off or irradiated are the ones who cry for war the loudest.

Ummm, do you follow Travh's posts at all?

In Ivans twisted view of the world a nuclear Iran is no more threat then the great terrorist state, the USA, having nukes. Both are just as likely to start launching nukes. That being said, when Iran starts blackmailing and threatening Europe with nuclear destruction he will also be that clueless puppy dog eyed dove who wants to know why we didnt do something to stop Iran when we had the chance. His kind will always be around to get in the way and be the first to point fingers when their very actions lead to results they dont like.

The diplomatic dance continues:

Last Updated: Friday, 13 January 2006, 15:24 GMT

Iran defiant over nuclear warning

Iran's president has said he will not back down over Tehran's nuclear programme, despite the threat of referral to the UN Security Council.

In his first public reaction since European ministers called for the UN's involvement, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would not concede "one iota".........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4608566.stm

referreal to the UN security council? look out :rolleyes: Is it me or does that not strike fear in anybody? I doubt a grade school bully wouldnt be afraid of that, much less a leader like they have in Iran

The UN was irrelevant when it came to Iraq and now suddenly we need them to deal with Iran. Can anyone 'splain that to me?

2nd question - when are we going to take Israel to the UN for having nukes?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The UN was irrelevant when it came to Iraq and now suddenly we need them to deal with Iran. Can anyone 'splain that to me?


Yes, it's their chance for redemption. It's very possible the UN may come through, unless Iran also had a food-for-oil program.

Watching TV this AM and it looks like we're going in.

That brings up a question ...

Does Bush need the approval of congress to start bombing Iran or can he just do it on his own?

Before answering -- keep in mind that Bush has declared himself above congressional oversight and judicial review.

Who's good with Bush going in without consulting congress?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The UN was irrelevant when it came to Iraq and now suddenly we need them to deal with Iran. Can anyone 'splain that to me?

2nd question - when are we going to take Israel to the UN for having nukes?

the UN is irrelevant in Iraq and everywhere else in the world except NYC, and always will be.


And Israel having nukes has nothing to do with this nut case in Iran getting them. Try listening to some of the thing she has to say. things such as "we are going to wipe israel off the map" and other such gems. Not even Hitler was so brash. This guy is either insane or trying to talk a big game. The thing is though, when nukes are nvolved, we can take no chances. You just step aside if all you are going to do is bring up israel again.

Originally posted by Travh20
the UN is irrelevant in Iraq and everywhere else in the world except NYC, and always will be.


And Israel having nukes has nothing to do with this nut case in Iran getting them. Try listening to some of the thing she has to say. things such as "we are going to wipe israel off the map" and other such gems. Not even Hitler was so brash. This guy is either insane or trying to talk a big game. The thing is though, when nukes are nvolved, we can take no chances. You just step aside if all you are going to do is bring up israel again.

If I understand your post -- it's OK for the United States to invade Iran to protect Israel? Is that correct?

Who is to say that Israel won't someday have a maniac running that country? Where's the guarantee that Israel will never break friendship from america and go rogue? Is that written somewhere?

Its not just israel, its israel, europe, india, china, everyone withion a 2000 kilometer radius of the lunatic, and eventually even us once he develops ICMB's.

ook dop, we will cross that bridge when we get to it, right now we have a manaic in iran openly defying the world on his way to getting nukes. A maniac who has already made it clear his plans for those nukes. I cant help it if you have sort of fetish for israel. LOL, I cant believe you are more concerned with what MIGHT happen in israel then with this crazy mother fucker in iran who wants to wipe israel and everyone in it off the map. you need help dude.

Trav - we live for Israel ... we are the united states of Israel ...

Witness this crap from Rice ... she threatens Norway (yes, the country of Norway) over a supposed boycott of Israel goods.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1196096.ece

When the F do we quit worrying about Isreal so much and take care of our own country? Ya know - health care, education et al ... screw Israel -- they're nothing but warmongers.

seems the only one fixated on israel is you dop. Until you stop seeing everything through the lens of "How is Israel invovled in this?" we will never see eye to eye. Believe it or not, there are legit reasons for the US to not want Iran to possess nukes, besides that they want to kill all the jews

Originally posted by Travh20
besides that they want to kill all the jews

Uh-oh, you went and said the forbidden word.

ROTF

Originally posted by Brooks
Around the election did you ever try to talk politics with someone who didn't follow but didn't admit it? What do they always say: "I don't trust the Democrats or the Republicans. They're all the same". That always frustrated me because, in reality, the person just didn't know enough to have an opinion.

I think that the people you are refering to are among the miniscule nunber of people in this country who CAN recognize and HAVE recognized one pure, unadulterated truth in the situation;

that NEITHER the Republicans OR the Democrats are working in the interests of the People.

That BOTH of those Parties are controlled by extremely wealthy Big Business interests and are doing everything in their power to see to it that the rich become richer whiile the poor......just fucking suffer and get along as best they can, until they die.


Originally posted by Brooks
I can't believe that so many people here can't bring themselves to say that Iran with nukes is worse than us with nukes. You can't possibly believe we're the same.

I for one do NOT believe the two are the same.

I do not think Iran would senselessly slaughter millions of innocent men, women and children if the sole purpose was seeing the controlling class in their country being vastly enriched or empowered.

OTOH..........the fact that the controlling Corporate class in America WOULD-- without a second thought-- senselessly slaughter millions of innocent men, women and children around the globe for the sole purpose of their own enrichment is a foregone conclusion.

Not only WOULD they do it, they HAVE BEEN doing it for over fifty years.

Hence -- from the perspective of the REST OF the 4 billion human beings living on this planet-- I would say that it is far more dangerous for the world's leading exporter of terrorism, the U.S.A., to have nukes than it is for Iran to have them.

Originally posted by Brooks
Iran is different.

Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Iran, after all, is "evil".

Only the godly and sancitified US of A should be allowed to hold over the rest of the world's head the power to kill millions of other people with IT'S nuclear weapons.

OUR interests --you see-- are veeery important.

The rest of the world is just in the way of we Americans living our lavish, wasteful lifestyle.

Fuck all those "others" out there,.....right???!?

Like (the sickeningly nationalistic, egocentric, self-involved ) TravH20 suggests--- "Ehh....let's just nuke 'em!"

Originally posted by Freethinker
I would say that it is far more dangerous for the world's leading exporter of terrorism, the U.S.A., to have nukes than it is for Iran to have them.

You're a nut, but an honest nut. No one else who believes that will admit it.


Dop, the world's decision has nothing to do with Israel. All of those countries that would be endangered by Iranian nukes are doing nothing. Why is that? Because they know there is a country that doesn't put world opinion, money and sacrifice before what's best in the long run. These other countries know Iran's program has to be stopped, but know they don't have to do anything about it themselves.

France, Germany, and Russia were so deep into oil-for-food that they couldn't lift a finger against Saddam Hussein. Now these same nations are profiting from Iran's nuclear program, along with China and North Korea.

And when they don't side against Iran, some here will say it proves we are wrong, again.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Ummm, do you follow Travh's posts at all?

sometimes. i'm so used to him rattling the rick man's sword of war .

Ivan, I think that your chicken-hawk characterization of Trav may show that you have not read his posts or you're thinking of someone else.

Originally posted by Freethinker


That BOTH of those Parties are controlled by extremely wealthy Big Business interests and are doing everything in their power to see to it that the rich become richer whiile the poor......just fucking suffer and get along as best they can, until they die.






and nothing will be done by the poor because they are too apathetic, and too paranoid to really want to do anything.

"fight" the powers that be? won't work. they got all the guns, and war only feeds the rich and starves the poor anyway. put someone into office who is sympathetic? i've seen so many who go in with those intentions but change their tune after being in for a few months. politicians always sell out.

get the poor world wide at the same time to just STOP doing anything. turn off your electric, don't buy anything, don't go anywhere that requires you to use money to do so, even drive a car. sudden worldwide economic full fuckin stop. for 24 hours will let the rich know who is really in control. IF the poor finally realize just how much power they really have over the rich instead of the other way around. the rich need the poor to function. no fighting, no picketing, no petitions, no marching, no yelling. just STOP.