Guest Koggetsu Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 actually i think to a certain extent, the US gov't thinks that war is cool because it is very profitable. Not only the oil, but also the military equipment and also the rebuilding process afterwards. Al these are profitable to the companies that supported the Bush adminstration and now its time to pay them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest monksters Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 1) How does the US know so much about how much armament Iraq has? perhaps because they sold the weapons to them in the first place when Iraq and Iran were at war. Who then has more weapons of mass destruction 2) How many wars has Iraq been in during the last ten years since the persian gulf war? What evidence is there that they are planning to use thier weapons of mass destruction if they have them? 3) How many wars has the US initiated since the Persian Gulf? 4) How do they expect that this war will bring any less fatalities? The US claims that it is saving the people of Iraq, but in the persian gulf war it is estimated that there were 120 000 fatalities. The subsequent sanctions resulted in 1.5 million fatalities. No supplies in or out except medical. I don't know how many more innocent people the US admin is willing to kill for their interests. 5) Who has weapon's of mass destruction? US as the example -landmines in cambodia and vietnam still causing destruction today. -US was the one of first countries in history to use nuclear warheads. -they have sold numerous weapons to Isreal, Iraq and Afganistan. 6)Saddam Hussein remains after persian gulf, what makes them think this war will help to oust him? 7)If the US can undermine the UN, what check in power does the world have over them? 8) Who's to say that a US model of democracy is what the world should take on? Millions of people in the US disfavor the war, yet they still proceed... is this democracy? 9) What kind of economic and political instability will come from the US undermining UN? I personally think that this war is deeply disturbing and when we take a deep look at these questions... there can be no rational way this war can be justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 peachy, while I feel very sad about the fact that this situation is being resolved by war, and because many thousands of innocent people will die...I agree that I too side with the Americans. Saddam Hussein is a mad man...there is no doubt. I just find it sad that we have no other way to resolve this than war...it is a sad statement of where we actually are with respect to evolution! I believe to compare the United States with Iraq is way off base. Sure, the US has done some things that are untoward, but does it treat its people like the people of Iraq. Several individuals from Iraq were interviewed yesterday...they said, essentially, "Do you think we'd be here (i.e., Canada) if it was so pleasant to live in Iraq"? Anyway, Peachy, I commend you on your opinion...I am with you insofar as I want to see Mr. Hussein removed from power and the people of Iraq given a chance to rebuild a free nation. I just pray that the "coalition" is able to win as easily as it says...Iraq seems to have a fairly hefty army lined up. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Thanks Peter. I totally agree with you on all counts. A solution without "war" is certainly to be generally preferred. In this situation, it might just not be the feasible solution. I really, really hope that the US knows what they are doing and is indeed able to end the war quickly if it comes to that. The BBC website, I thought, had a good description of some of the possibilities in terms of how a war might play out. The most concerning part (I thought) was their feeling that the US will win easily unless Iraq decides to bring it into the cities and involve the people living there. Given their track record of not caring much about their citizens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IRNBRUD Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 I continue to be dismayed at the actions of "the Commander in Chief". Does anyone else see the glaring inconsistencies? He claims to promote democracy and then laughs in the face of the democratic process of the UN. I will seek the Security Council's approval but if they don't give it I am going to go to war anyway...:\ My favourite quote of the night "Do not destroy oil wells" I love it. Peace, IB P.S. The word is "Nuuuuu-cleee-aaar" Mr. Bush, NOT NUCULAR!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 How do I know that the US never considered diplomacy? Well, I don't expect Bush et al to come out and say it. But, it is suspicous when you amass a quarter of a million ground troops, 1000+ aircraft, multiple carrier battle groups, etc. at the cost of millions of dollars a day in the area with no intention of attacking. The closest thing the Bush Administration has to a diplomat is Powel...even he has been relegated to a Bush lackee. Also, they started sending troops over and making other war preparations before they even approached the UN. They have been saying all this time that they would go it alone if they had to. Their demands kept changing from WMD to regime change to liberation to removing a tyrant etc... They only ever vaguely stated what would avoid a war...'total disarmament' is not good enough, please layout out some concrete measures. What's wrong with the US making war decisions unilaterally? Yes, I agree that governments have and will continue to make decisions out of their own self interest...that only makes sense. The problem here is that it is the US is imposing their will on another part of the world with no regard to how the consequences will play out for anyone other than themselves. Not to mention, it is going against the UN in an ILLEGAL war. The UN is there specifically so that renegage countries like the US can't do what it is about to do. Is Jordan going to be happy with a flood of refugees, is Turkey going to be happy that their economy will nose dive even further....la de la de la de la. These consequences can have life or death situations for non-Americans as in the case of Iraqi civilians. For the record, I do think that war IS necessary. Saddam's regime was never going to let weapons inspectors back in without some show of force ==> UN sanctions were never going to be lifted ==> quality of life for normal Iraqi's would have never improved. War should be a last measure not your only one. There's just too much at stake. And, if war is necessary there should be unilateral consensus, otherwise your motives become questionable. In other words, I do think that war is necessary...but, I recent how the world has been pushed into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozymandiasking29 Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Hey UWOMED2005, "Nice name Ozymandias. Great poem." I too think it's a great one... maybe I should send it to Bush & co. It might teach them some lessons! But then again, they might not really understand it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habra Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 We live in a world that an American/Western life is worth more than 100 even a thousand times compared to the worth of a life in the middle east and else where in the world. I love it when George Bush says: "we will defend our freedom, our way of life" Translation: Your gas guzzling SUVs will not be replaced as long as I am president. If we kill 50000, 100000 heck a couple of million Iraqis so be it. This is "our way of life" and we are going to preserve it. Sometime I feel that the people in the Middle East might have been much better off if they did not have the oil. If US had the oil to begin with they might have left that region alone. Some of the funnier sides of US foreign policy: 1) George Bush says that he is going to export western version of democracy to the middle east yet he cannot stomach a democratic defeat at the UN security council. After all you are either with us or against us. That is the definition of democracy if I ever saw one. hehehehe 2) They have the receipts for the sales of the weapons of mass destruction to the Iraqi regime in the 80s, when Iraq was the good guy and Iran was the mother of all evils. I saw this comment being addressed to James Woosely (former CIA director) on nightline and he was silent. I was thinking what is the matter CIA man, can't think of another lie? There is even a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1984 I think as Reagan’s special envoy to the middle east. Can any government be any more hypocritical? 3) US has staged coups against genuine western style democracies in the region in the past. They absolutely have no credibility in the eyes of the inhabitants of the region. As an example they staged a coup against the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh in the 50's because he was not sympathetic to the US and British interests and nationalized the oil industry. So out he went and the puppet regime of shah was installed. The Shah became the gendarme of the Middle East Americans never learn. They are repeating the same mistakes that they made in the middle of the 20th century and then they ask "why do they hate us?" This war is unwarranted and immoral. Even if saddam is a monster (which by the way he is, my own uncle died becuase of his adventurism) he should be contained. US has no moral authority to kill innocent people for "our way of life". Food for thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habra Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Hi Peter, I have tremendous respect for you, but don’t you think that Saddam Hussein is the pest that he is because it was Americans that supported him and made him who he is in the first place (see my previous post). The US is acting as the judge jury and executioner of the world. They have acted so since the end of the second world war. The world is becoming dangerously polarized and the US is doing a fine job of voiding everything the international consensus had built over the past few centuries. They are basically saying that democracy is good only when it works for us. What would happen if a power decided that the way that we run our affairs in Canada is not the way to go and drop 3000 bombs on us in the first 48 hours of a war to “shock and awe” us. That is what they call it by the way. I guess it would be ok to go ahead with it and get it over with and hope that too many of our innocent people don’t get killed. I think it is very important to be able to really put ourselves in the shoes of the people in the receiving end. I am an immigrant and my country fought Iraq for 8 years and you would have thought that I would be sworn enemies with Iraq. But war is not pretty. It wrecks lives and destroys societies. This war is not justified no matter what. Iraq is not an imminent threat to the US or any other country in the region right now and by repeating their allegations the Americans do not prove anything. Second if the question of weapons of mass destruction is put forth, then why the hypocrisy? If WMD are bad they are bad to have by all nations. Israel has WMD, US has been the biggest proliferator of the conventional and non-conventional weapons in the world. I don’t see the administration objecting to Israel having 200 neutron bombs. When you say “I believe to compare the United States with Iraq is way off base´ I whole heartedly disagree with you. I suggest you read some of the articles by Noam Chomsky ( a world renowned linguist at MIT) who eloquently exposes how evil really the American Government is. According to his wisdom wherever there is a trouble spot in the world America has a hand. BTW I feel a great deal of anxiety for the people of Iraq right now. I have seen bombardments first hand and they are not fun! Let us all pray for innocent children that may not come through this unscarred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 I agree with you in essence, Peter. Saddam is a tyrant (though not the only one in the world today!!) and as I previously posted, I will shed no tears when he is deposed. And I'd say comparisons of Bush to Bin Laden and/or Hussein and/or Iraq and/or Hitler (at this point in time) is pushing things a little too far. That being said, the US's unilateral stance on this really, really, really scary. It is not akin to a Nazi Germany (yet!!) but the way they've dismissed the UN and ignored all other nations is bonkers. They're also talking about instilling a military governor for Iraq after the war. What is this, Rome? And their military establishment often doesn't act with ethics or with the best judgement, the best example being Donald Rumsfelf himself being the negotiator over the donation of weapons to Iraq in the 80s. And the US does own a ridiculous proportion of the world's wealth. (SUVs? Most of the world just wants to be able to eat) As Michael Moore puts it, "how long until the rest of the world ask for their fair share?" My fear is not for the present (though I do feel for the Iraqui people) but what's going to happen 10 to 15 years down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 habra, I am sad that you had to experience anything like this in your lifetime. Although I have an opinion, I have never experienced such horrific events in my life...I feel fortunate but also quite ignorant. In sincerely appreciate your point of view. In all this whole situation is really quite confusing to me. The only reason I tend to side with the United States is that the people of the US are not oppressed and abused by their government...I don't think anybody could say the same of Mr. Hussein's situation. He, and his regime, has imposed grief, poverty and fear on his people and neighbours for years. For these reasons, I would like to see his government removed, by whatever means. On the other side...as I have already indicated...the prospect of war as a solution is really untoward. I strongly disagree with war and am particularly saddened by the fact that, regardless of how accurate the US says it can be, many thousands of innocent men, women and children will die for no reason. I am an immigrant and my country fought Iraq for 8 years and you would have thought that I would be sworn enemies with Iraq. But war is not pretty. It wrecks lives and destroys societies. I cannot agree with you more on this point...and I cannot add anything more. This war is not justified no matter what. Iraq is not an imminent threat to the US or any other country in the region right now and by repeating their allegations the Americans do not prove anything. I'm not sure about this one...I just don't have enough info to say whether they are a threat or not. I don't believe the information coming out in the media is the whole story. I do believe, based on history, that there is a threat... When you say “I believe to compare the United States with Iraq is way off base´ I whole heartedly disagree with you. I suggest you read some of the articles by Noam Chomsky ( a world renowned linguist at MIT) who eloquently exposes how evil really the American Government is. According to his wisdom wherever there is a trouble spot in the world America has a hand. Again, perhaps I am naive...but I don't see the monster in Bush that I see in Hussein. I'm not saying the US is innocent...but as others have pointed out...he may be the lesser of two evils...the devil we know... BTW I feel a great deal of anxiety for the people of Iraq right now. I have seen bombardments first hand and they are not fun! Let us all pray for innocent children that may not come through this unscarred. While I remain confused by this horrible situation, one thing is clear to me...I feel very sorry for the innocent children and adults who will have to live through the terror of war. I can't imagine what it must be like...no person should have to experience this type of horror. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 UWOMED2005, That being said, the US's unilateral stance on this really, really, really scary. I totally agree with you on this point. I am so proud that Chretien listened to the Canadian people (the company I am currently working for has been conducting daily polls on war issues to keep the government in touch with the population)...and refused to go to war without UN agreement. I think the US has, itself, defeated the purpose of the UN. I believe more time should have been given to line up UN participants while keeping the pressure on Iraq...but that's only my perspective. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Well, looks like the first casualty of this coming war has occurred. CNN has reported an Iraqui was shot by Kuwaiti Patrol Boat this morning. Let's hope there's not more. Yeah, I think Chretien has been great on this one as well. I've actually liked him a lot better ever since he made the decision to retire. . . seems he's less worried with raising $$ for elections (that party finance reform bill could quietly be the most significant bill of the last 30 years and possibly restore some liberalism to the Liberal party!!) But I agree with Habra, Iraq is NOT an imminent threat. They're no more dangerous to the US, even their neighbours, than in the mid to late nineties. Here's an excellent article from the Financial Review arguing that a war is absolutely not necessary to contain Iraq, because the current measures (sanctions, DMZ, no-fly zones, political ostracization etc.) are very effective and would continue to be effective. In fact, I'm worried this war might just exacerbate the kind of problems the US is worried about - chemical and bological attacks on US soldiers and/or Israel! I think, in the event that happens, it would never have happened without this war. The only thing that has changed is that another Bush is in the house and as a result of 9/11 he has enough public backing to change foreign policy as he likes. In some ways I would like to see Saddam removed. I'd also love to see Kim Jong Il of South Korea removed as well (another one of the "axis of evil") for human rights reasons. But I would have loved to see Suharto in Indonesia, the current junta in Myanmar, a number of African despots (I would have LOVED to see some intervention in Rwanda, for example) all removed as well for human rights - that's one of the reasons I felt relieved when the Taliban was removed from power after 9/11. But the US's reasons for removing the Taliban and now Saddam are not really human rights based, or they'd be intervening in those other cases as well. They'd also not be massively violating human rights themselves by rounding up Iraquis in the US right now, or rounding up people of arab descent after 9/11, or executing Young Offenders (one of only ?3? countries to do so) who've committed crimes. I cringe every time I hear the US use the words "Human Rights" or "Freedom." (don't let me get started on the whole Freedom Fries fiasco. There seems to be a whole lot of Americans running around citing how they helped those ingrateful French during WWII, completely forgetting there'd be no such thing as the USA without French help during the American Revolution!) And it really, really sucks what the US is doing to the UN. But they've been undermining the UN for years, pretty much since the end of the Cold War. It sucks, because what we really need right now as a planet is a strong UN. All of this Nationalism is crappola, arbitrary divisions of power with some historical merit but not worthy the emphasis we give it. We're ONE human race - yes there are differences in opinion, culture, and language between a Canadian and an Indonesian but the differences are not even as great as some of the differences between individuals within one Nation. A strong UN would allow us to tackle real issues such as global health, the environment, proliferationof weapons of mass destruction, and global conflict. But there's a large force trying to undermine the UN. What country has the largest accounts payable (ie debt) with the UN? The US. They love to use the UN when it serves their purpose (ie trying to make their invasion of Iraq legitimate) but don't seem to understand that it's a UNITED NATIONS and that every country gets their say, and world opinion doesn't always favour them. And when that happens, they have no problem ignoring it. And while I vehemently disagree with comparisons between the and Iraq (where any dissidents are routinely executed) and the US (where Noam Chomsky is alive and well) there is one thing I'd like to point out - there's only one country in the world where the leadership was not elected by more than 50% of the vote, their arsenal includes just about every weapon of mass destruction known to man, they've used the most deadly of weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear weapons) against a civilian population not once but TWICE, they possess greater than 20,000 of these extremely dangerous weapons, and their less than 50% of the vote leader has been extremely aggressive in foreign policy attacking much smaller nations not once but twice in the last year and a half. Which country is that? And why has noone asked them to disarm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FrenchyMed Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 I noticed that someone in a previous post mentioned Michael Moore. Here's his site: www.michaelmoore.com/word.../index.php His letter to Bush is interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habra Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 Hi Peter, There is a line in W. B. Yeats poem "second coming" that sums up my sentiment: The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Translation: I think if Gorge Bush Donald Rumsfeld Paul Wolfowitz and company were the rulers of Iraq, they would not be much different from Saddam Hussien Uday Hussein Qusay Hussien and company... I agree with Yeats that people of reason always have doubts about the outcomes of conflict and ramifications of war, and whether war is the right path at all, while the right wing radicals who declare that "you are either with us or you are dead" are so entrenched in their positions that they don't see the middle ground. If I don't like your government then I will invade your country and change your regime. Right wing ideologists feed off each others opposing view. A monster like Osama bin Ladin (which by the way does not represent the ideology of 95% of the one Billion Moslems in the world but who is often portrayed as such) needs a George Bush and vice versa. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 On that note, did anyone hear Jurgen Haider's comments today? He's the Austrian right wing political leader who has praised Hitler in the past. Anyways, he came out with comments today praising Saddam. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sally2001 Posted March 19, 2003 Report Share Posted March 19, 2003 uwomed2005 - thanks for that insightful article from the financial review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MayFlower1 Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 OMG, I just heard a newscaster on CNN say that the cost of this war in Iraq will be between 75 and 80 BILLION dollars...can you only imagine what other things this amount of money could be used for? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted March 20, 2003 Report Share Posted March 20, 2003 No surprise. According to "Stupid White Men" (Michael Moore again): -The $250 billion spent in 2001 just on the Join Strike Fighter program could have paid the tuition of every college student in America -Bush approved $1.6 TRILLION in new money over JUST FOUR YEARS for the pentagon. It would only cost $112 Billion to renovate all of American's public schools. -The $45 billion used to build F-22s could have fully funded "Head Start preschool" for every kid in the US who needed it, for the NEXT 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirisa Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 I have a great clipping on my bulletin board from the UN Human development report about how wealth divides the world, and learned that basic education for ALL would only cost about 6 billion a year. Clean water and sanitation for ALL would require some 9 billion just to set it up, and then only several million a year to maintain it. Reproductive health services for all women would cost about 12 billion a year, and finally, ... basic health care and nutrition would cost 13 billion a year. Boy, 85 billion could certainly go a long way to raise quality of life and life expectancy for people around the world. I hope the US will have another 85 billion (or a fraction thereof) ready to distribute to the international development agencies for the rebuilding of Iraq, when this tragic war is finally over. Not likely. Cheers, Tirisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest habra Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 In light of the fact that poverty and hopelessness breeds terrorism, the shortsighted nature of US foreign policy is really illuminated isnt it? It is better to let multiple generations of people live in Shanty Towns (palestinians, kurds, almost all people in Africa) with hopelessness and despair and when time comes we will counter them with daizy cutter bombs and test our latest technology on them. Special interest rules US domestic and Foreign policy. Weapons have to be made they have to be used. It is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Koggetsu Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 Haha, it doesn't matter to the US what the actual amount of the cost will be, like all businessman (of which the US is famous for) they already calculated how much they would make back from the war. Besides, the money they are using is all public money from ALL taxpayers including ones that didn't vote for him, while the money which can be made back, a lot of it will go to the special interest groups and organizations that supported him to become president anyways. Now if you were him, wouldn't u do the same? smart eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 On the flip side, it was interesting to hear some of the Iraqis in on of the Shiite towns in the south cheer the US soldiers on as they passed by. Granted this was a CNN report, but I don't doubt it would be true in the Shiite populated south or in the Kurdish controlled North of the country. This is a bizarre war with bizarre reasonings and bizarre moral implications. Now that it has begun, I found myself (almost reluctantly) hoping for a US victory as swiftly as possibly. . . if only so that not too many lives are lost. And I think the aftermath for Iraq, while messy,* will still be better than having a Saddam led government - no gassings of the Kurds or Shiites, an end of UN sanctions, no more executions at the slightest hint of disagreement with the the regime, and hopefully free speech.** I was particularly thinking about this when there seemed to be hope that Saddam had been knocked off in the first strike and there might be a general surrender with few casualties. What would that have meant? That Bush and Blair were right? That the end justifies the means? And on another scary note, those of us who have complained that it's hypocritical for the US to go into Iraq because it is democratic when it supports other non-democratic regimes in the region might get their arguments responded to. Apparently one of the leaders of one of those "right wing think tanks," (isn't that an oxymoron? ) ?Richard Pearl?, (I didn't catch the spelling) is now calling for the US to use similar tactics to "liberate" other countries in the region. Ari Fleischer is adamantly denying the US has any intentions of doing so, but watch the subject to come up after the war. Oh, and I personally believe that at the end of the war, even if the end result is of benefit to the Iraqi people, Bush has to at least be charged with War crimes. My memory is a little cloudy, but I seem to remember that starting a war without aggression is a war crime. While Bush might not be found guilty, at the least that should be determined in a court of law - and we have one now in the Hague, though the US doesn't recognize it. Of course the chances of this happening are pretty much nil. * How are the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis all going to get along in forming a government? In particular, what is increased Kurdish power going to mean for Turkey and it's internal struggles with the PKK? Do we really think a substantial Iraqi democratic government can be created in the near future? ** As evil as you might think US foreign policy is, Saddam has been a ruthless and terrible leader. As one CNN correspondent pointed out in what was both a horribly pro-American moment but also a valid statement "Thank god we (Americans) live in a country where we can express our own opinions freely." There will be no trips to the hangman for those of us in North America criticizing the US position. I'm not sure if that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutterbug Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 ...for the first month :eek :eek :eek :eek :eek >: Military operations: $44,000,000,000 Call up of reserves: $10,000,000,000 Munitions: $6,500,000,000 Reconstruction: $1,700,000,000 Humanitarian aid: $500,000,000 FBI: $500,000,000 Coast Guard: $1,500,000,000 Afghanistan aid: $400,000,000 Aid to Israel: $10,000,000,000 Aid to Jordan, Egypt: $1,000,000,000 each source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2882681.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sil Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 While I think that Sadam is a complete despot I don't think that the US will improve the quality of life of Irakis at all. A very sad true story is that no country in which the US has intervened since WWII has actually achieved democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.