One small step against a man

[colormyworld]

And what right do we have to be in Iraq? WMD's 911??
The terrorists were not a problem until WE got there!!!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/19/2006 4:07:22 PM
Author: aljdewey
Date: 6/17/2006 3:48:16 PM

even nazis got trials.

That's likely because Nazis didn't videotape themselves gassing people. If they had, maybe they wouldn't have gotten trials.

You are wrong. The Nazis documented many aspects of the Holocaust in great detail, astounding historians who have seen some of the records they kept.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/19/2006 6:45:51 PM
Author: colormyworld

The terrorists were not a problem until WE got there!!!

Quite true. The chaos there has been of enormous benefit to al Qaeda, providing them with a place to operate without being seen. Lebanon, when it was a war zone, gave them the same sort of refuge.

 

[colormyworld]

shrub's motto is it is better to fight them over there instead of over here. I submit that this is OUR war on terror not the Iraqi peoples. It is obscene to put those people in the middle of OUR fight! We talk about the enemy using human shields what is shrub doing?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/19/2006 6:59:31 PM
Author: colormyworld
shrub''s motto is it is better to fight them over there instead of over here. I submit that this is OUR war on terror not the Iraqi peoples. It is a gross miscarriage of justice to put those people in the middle of OUR fight!

New information is emerging that shows that the plans to invade Iraq were in discussion as early as 1992, before Bush even became President! 9/11 just gave Bush the right climate in which to launch a war of US aggression (as the communists used to call our little forays into genocide back in the olden days).

 

[fire&ice]

Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn't in Iraq - it wouldn't be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.

What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

 

[colormyworld]

It is OUR WAR!! It sounds as if you are saying they are disposable. Maybe an Americans life is more valuable than a Iraqis. The Iraqi people are our human shields.
Hmmmmm does not sound quite so bad when we are using the human shields.

 

[colormyworld]

So many people think Iraq had some hand in 911, but they are incorrect! September 11 is just an excuse. Not a very good one at that!!!
Some where else? as in Afghanistan maybe.

 

[colormyworld]

and where is the leader of the group behind 911,the infamous just bin hidin

 

[colormyworld]

i just can not describe how much safer I feel knowing Iran & N. Korea are so close to joining the nuclear club while we are distracted in Iraq.

 

[colormyworld]

I understand that Iraq was not a haven or a recruiting poster for terroerism against the United States before we went in there.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 6/19/2006 7:50:56 PM
Author: fire&ice
Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn''t in Iraq - it wouldn''t be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.

What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

who is "they"? all iraqi people? we''ve actually turned them against us. personally, i would object to being used as a human shield by the invader and would fight against said invader. i may think georgie is a war criminal but i''d certainly fight...NOT FOR HIM BUT FOR OUR COUNTRY....if invaded.

you, me, most US citizens may be innocents but this country is not. i''m reading a very interesting book....OVERTHROW....and its not a pretty picture of innocence.

however, the issue still remains: do we believe in and live by laws or are we gangster terrorists? we lead by example and thus far our example is in the gutter. being a super power carries with it responsibilities, one of which is to set the standard for behavior.

movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Date: 6/19/2006 7:50:56 PM
Author: fire&ice
Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn''t in Iraq - it wouldn''t be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.

What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

Why would the Iraqis want us dead, especially after 9/11? They had nothing to do with that. Bush himself has said so.

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

One of the great feats of the Bush/Rove propaganda machine is to convince a substantial portion of us that we are hated by certain elements of the Muslim world "for our freedom." (F&I, I may be taking some liberties here, and if so, apologize in advance; what I gathered from your post was that Iraq represents some greater melee (crusade?), one hoped by many and preordained to bring certain nations in conflict with others, insha''Allah).

Why not just take Osama at face value? He never said "I will attack you because of your freedom." Instead he has stated repeatedly that he would attack and did attack us because we placed our troops in Islamic holy lands (Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq). He specifically warned the US on Aug. 23, 1996:

A MESSAGE FROM USAMA BIN MUHAMMAD BIN IN LADEN TO HIS MUSLIM BRETHREN ALL OVER THE WORLD GENERALLY AND IN THE ARAB PENINSULA
SPECIFICALLY

Guess what? On April 29, 2003, Bush "cut and ran," announcing the pullout of all US troops from Saudi Arabia. This was just two days before "Mission Accomplished."

US Pulls out of Saudi Arabia

So who had their mission accomplished? Certainly not BushCo''s. But Osama, wherever he is and if he even still exists must still be grinning.

This begs the obvious question: If all Osama wants is the US out of Muslim holy places, why do they continue to attack us? Could it be because, while we vacated the sands of the Kingdom of Saud, we occupied still more Islamic holy lands, namely Iraq?

And the greater answer is because when you put a mindless puppet in power, you get more than just sand thrown in your face.

And the greatest question is: Why do Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Perle, Feith, Libby, Baker, Wolfowitz, etc. want to engage in this torture?

Simple. Follow the money.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/19/2006 9:40:14 PM
Author: Richard Hughes

Date: 6/19/2006 7:50:56 PM
Author: fire&ice
Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn''t in Iraq - it wouldn''t be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.

What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

Why would the Iraqis want us dead, especially after 9/11? They had nothing to do with that. Bush himself has said so.

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

One of the great feats of the Bush/Rove propaganda machine is to convince a substantial portion of us that we are hated by certain elements of the Muslim world ''for our freedom.'' (F&I, I may be taking some liberties here, and if so, apologize in advance; what I gathered from your post was that Iraq represents some greater melee (crusade?), one hoped by many and preordained to bring certain nations in conflict with others, insha''Allah).

Why not just take Osama at face value? He never said ''I will attack you because of your freedom.'' Instead he has stated repeatedly that he would attack and did attack us because we placed our troops in Islamic holy lands (Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq). He specifically warned the US on Aug. 23, 1996:

A MESSAGE FROM USAMA BIN MUHAMMAD BIN IN LADEN TO HIS MUSLIM BRETHREN ALL OVER THE WORLD GENERALLY AND IN THE ARAB PENINSULA
SPECIFICALLY

Guess what? On April 29, 2003, Bush ''cut and ran,'' announcing the pullout of all US troops from Saudi Arabia. This was just two days before ''Mission Accomplished.''

US Pulls out of Saudi Arabia

So who had their mission accomplished? Certainly not BushCo''s. But Osama, wherever he is and if he even still exists must still be grinning.

This begs the obvious question: If all Osama wants is the US out of Muslim holy places, why do they continue to attack us? Could it be because, while we vacated the sands of the Kingdom of Saud, we occupied still more Islamic holy lands, namely Iraq?

And the greater answer is because when you put a mindless puppet in power, you get more than just sand thrown in your face.

And the greatest question is: Why do Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Perle, Feith, Libby, Baker, Wolfowitz, etc. want to engage in this torture?

Simple. Follow the money.

This discussion is not relavent to the War in Iraq as started. And, not a platform for more Bush be Bad retorect. I am simply saying that these "terrorist" (MOST not Iraqi - in fact his replacement is Egyption) - want us DEAD. There target and intent is QUITE clear. Being on Saudi Soil is BS excuse - if I put it in YOUR words - we went to war in Iraq over WMD''s - same as the reasons for attacking the US. We''ve been on Saudi Soil LONG before Bin Laden came about. And, not in some secret plan to take over Mecca.

I simply do not understand the element that this is not self defense. Al Q in Iraq stated purpose is to disrupt/kill the peace process & people (shites/shia?). They will not stop. Reasoning isn''t going to work. Al Q in Iraq stated that they want to kill on AMERICAN soil. This is all on TAPE. What more evidence that this is a direct threat (self defense) to Iraqi''s, our Troops & quite frankly ME do you need?

Obviously no one is going to change my mind that the world is better off (and, yes, we were justified) w/o Zarqawi. Even if it was just for the intel gained.

I''m sure many NY''ers will be assured that Ricin was not released into the Subway system. And, that the Al Q threat is gone.

I firmly believe - kill them before they can kill us. We are at WAR with Al Q - where ever they may be. This threat is not idle. It is reality - and there is a hole in the ground ZERO to prove it.

I have NO sympathy for a group of people who want us dead. I also can not fathom that you, Richard, would think this to be this admins propoganda? WT first bombing? Bin Ladens STATED/TAPED/WRITTEN objective is quite clear WAY PRIOR to this admin. Have you talked to someone who heard the retorect of the Mulahs?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/19/2006 9:09:45 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 6/19/2006 7:50:56 PM
Author: fire&ice
Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn''t in Iraq - it wouldn''t be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.

What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

however, the issue still remains: do we believe in and live by laws or are we gangster terrorists? we lead by example and thus far our example is in the gutter. being a super power carries with it responsibilities, one of which is to set the standard for behavior.

movie zombie

MZ - here''s in lies the disconnect. I don''t believe we acted in a "gangster terrorist" fashion hunting down and killing someone who STATED/WRITTEN/TAPED goal was to kill Americans & killing factions of Iraqi''s to start a civil war was gangster terrorist actions. It was self defense. You won''t convince me other wise.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/19/2006 6:54:29 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/19/2006 4:07:22 PM
Author: aljdewey
Date: 6/17/2006 3:48:16 PM

even nazis got trials.

That''s likely because Nazis didn''t videotape themselves gassing people. If they had, maybe they wouldn''t have gotten trials.

You are wrong. The Nazis documented many aspects of the Holocaust in great detail, astounding historians who have seen some of the records they kept.

Deb, I never said it wasn''t documented. I said it wasn''t VIDEOTAPED and broadcast on the internet. That''s the danger in trying to interpret what you think I said/meant instead of sticking to what I actually said/meant.

Which leads me to my next point......to me, there''s a great deal of difference between hearing someone else''s interpretation of what they saw/heard and seeing/hearing it for myself.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 6/20/2006 9:39:00 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 6/19/2006 9:09:45 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 6/19/2006 7:50:56 PM
Author: fire&ice
Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn''t in Iraq - it wouldn''t be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.

What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

however, the issue still remains: do we believe in and live by laws or are we gangster terrorists? we lead by example and thus far our example is in the gutter. being a super power carries with it responsibilities, one of which is to set the standard for behavior.

movie zombie

MZ - here''s in lies the disconnect. I don''t believe we acted in a ''gangster terrorist'' fashion hunting down and killing someone who STATED/WRITTEN/TAPED goal was to kill Americans & killing factions of Iraqi''s to start a civil war was gangster terrorist actions. It was self defense. You won''t convince me other wise.

yes, i will never convince you other wise and you will never convince me that invading iraq was a not ganster terrorist activity and our continued occupation is not a gangster terrorist activity.

i think rather than murder a trial with him being convicted would have been a more potent weapon against terrorism. again, being a supper power carries with it responsibilities one of which is to set the standard for behavior and therein lies the disconnect: murder v. law.

movie zombie

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/20/2006 4:31:21 PM
Author: movie zombie

yes, i will never convince you other wise and you will never convince me that invading iraq was a not ganster terrorist activity and our continued occupation is not a gangster terrorist activity.

i think rather than murder a trial with him being convicted would have been a more potent weapon against terrorism. again, being a supper power carries with it responsibilities one of which is to set the standard for behavior and therein lies the disconnect: murder v. law.

movie zombie

Sorry - in my book, the law of survival trumps manmade law.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 6/20/2006 5:24:08 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/20/2006 4:31:21 PM
Author: movie zombie

yes, i will never convince you other wise and you will never convince me that invading iraq was a not ganster terrorist activity and our continued occupation is not a gangster terrorist activity.

i think rather than murder a trial with him being convicted would have been a more potent weapon against terrorism. again, being a supper power carries with it responsibilities one of which is to set the standard for behavior and therein lies the disconnect: murder v. law.

movie zombie

Sorry - in my book, the law of survival trumps manmade law.

and i'm sure the 'other' gangster terrorsts agree with you.

eta: i'm not calling you personally a gangster terrorist but pointing out that the opposition feels the same way and uses the same language.

movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

I thought we weren''t debating the invasion of Iraq. I thought we were talking about the killing of Zaqarwi? I see nothing wrong with taking out someone who would - in a heartbeat - take me out first. Again, it''s self defense. And, it''s not like we went in, captured him & beheaded him - video taping it.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/20/2006 5:29:40 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 6/20/2006 5:24:08 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/20/2006 4:31:21 PM
Author: movie zombie

yes, i will never convince you other wise and you will never convince me that invading iraq was a not ganster terrorist activity and our continued occupation is not a gangster terrorist activity.

i think rather than murder a trial with him being convicted would have been a more potent weapon against terrorism. again, being a supper power carries with it responsibilities one of which is to set the standard for behavior and therein lies the disconnect: murder v. law.

movie zombie

Sorry - in my book, the law of survival trumps manmade law.

and i''m sure the ''other'' gangster terrorsts agree with you.

eta: i''m not calling you personally a gangster terrorist but pointing out that the opposition feels the same way and uses the same language.

movie zombie

Look, you can talk about what kind of example we set and what kind of "standard of behavior" we set all you wish.....but the bald truth is, if others are unwilling to follow that example, it won''t work.

So, we can delude ourselves that we are setting a lofty example that NO ONE will follow (because they just don''t value life/liberty the way we do), or we can be smart enough to recognize that our examples mean nothing to them and follow whatever survival law keeps our asses alive.

They capture our guys, and they behead them. We capture theirs, and we incarcerate them in Cuba. Both are abominable. Having said that, I don''t see the "gangster terrorists" following our moral highground lead and simply incarcerating our captured guys. Nope, they continue to behead them, torture them, and booby trap their bodies.

Three of their guys commit suicide in prison and we are sending the bodies back home - not a mark on them. Two of our guys bear signs of torture, and their bodies aren''t sent back to us. Nope.....instead, we have to go retrieve them, and they are booby-trapped to take MORE of our guys out in the recovery process.

Sorry - your argument to set the example is useless and ineffective as far as I''m concerned.

 

[movie zombie]

sorry but we''ll have to agree to disagree. your moral arguement that two wrongs make a right doesn''t wash with me nor does ''they don''t value life the way we do''. we could go on for hours and never agree that this country has a moral obligation to set the bar high rather than low.


movie zombie

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/20/2006 9:52:44 PM
Author: movie zombie
sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree. your moral arguement that two wrongs make a right doesn't wash with me nor does 'they don't value life the way we do'. we could go on for hours and never agree that this country has a moral obligation to set the bar high rather than low.


movie zombie

I didn't say that two wrongs make a right. Please reread.

What I said was: you cannot change their wrong, no matter how hard you try. So there will be one wrong no matter what.

So, your choice is to be right and dead, or wrong too, but alive. I didn't say that their wrong justifies our being wrong too......I said that I'd choose survival over death.

I'd choose to be alive over being dead. I believe in setting a moral example, but I don't believe in becoming a (dead) martyr to do it.

 

[movie zombie]

at that very moment in time he was incapable of harming anyone. he was taken prisoner. then ''we'' murdered him. he''s not a nice guy and did some very very horrible things. but at that very moment in time he was not doing anything that created a self-defense reaction.

yes, i own guns and will use them to defend myself.

pre-emptive strike against someone who i suspect of doing me harm is not justified....nor legal.

revenge for harm done to me or my loved ones at some time in the past is also not self-defense.....nor legal.

again, we''re not going to agree but can agree to disagree.

movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/21/2006 12:34:27 AM
Author: movie zombie
at that very moment in time he was incapable of harming anyone. he was taken prisoner. then ''we'' murdered him. he''s not a nice guy and did some very very horrible things. but at that very moment in time he was not doing anything that created a self-defense reaction.

yes, i own guns and will use them to defend myself.

pre-emptive strike against someone who i suspect of doing me harm is not justified....nor legal.

revenge for harm done to me or my loved ones at some time in the past is also not self-defense.....nor legal.

again, we''re not going to agree but can agree to disagree.

movie zombie

First, you are *assuming* that he didn''t die of natural causes from the blast. I believe he did.

Second, it is quite naive to say that "at that given moment" he didn''t pose a threat to warrent self defense. HUH??? He IS a threat at ANY GIVEN MOMENT. It was he CREED to kill Americans. Do you not shoot a rabid dog whose meandering away in disorientation - only to turn around and pursue you?

We aren''t going to agree to disagree. We are going have to accept what reality is. My truth be - this isn''t some chess match. It''s not all fun and games until someone pokes an eye out. This is war. These Zarqawi followers want us dead. They don''t play by the rules. It''s kinda like going the speed limit, staying on your side of the road, etc when you see a drunk coming at you. You do what you can to counteract their bad.

I''m in complete agreement with Al. And, I just can''t help but think if we put daisies on his grave - somehow the Bush be Bad spin would be that somewhere in the history of the daisy - the daisy was like spitting on someone''s grave.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/19/2006 9:09:45 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 6/19/2006 7:50:56 PM

Author: fire&ice

Honestly - do you really believe if this wasn''t in Iraq - it wouldn''t be elsewhere. I suppose the jordanians would have serious issue.


What part of they want us dead - innocents - do you not understand - especially after 9/11?

who is ''they''? all iraqi people? we''ve actually turned them against us.

movie zombie

Have you actually talked to someone who is there?
I do daily to more than one.
Don''t believe everything you read or see on the news.
They only show the bad stuff.
It is about .01% of the area and mostly foreign terrorists who are a danger in Iraq. The majority of what we are doing over there is training and building with the help of the locals.
Tons and tons of hospitals and schools have been built.
If you took a vote you would find that as long as the US doesn''t plan on staying for good that the vast majority want us there except for people that were part of the ruling party and foreigners.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/21/2006 12:34:27 AM
Author: movie zombie

at that very moment in time he was incapable of harming anyone. he was taken prisoner. then ''we'' murdered him.

We did? Says who? At the time we captured him, he was already mortally wounded. Still alive, but succumbing to his injuries sustained in the bombing from the reports. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.......?

he''s not a nice guy and did some very very horrible things. but at that very moment in time he was not doing anything that created a self-defense reaction.

No, he wasn''t, and at that very moment, no self-defense reaction was taken. That occurred the very moment BEFORE......yanno, when he WAS capable of harming anyone and had expressed intent and desire to do further harm to "someones".

pre-emptive strike against someone who i suspect of doing me harm is not justified....nor legal.

We don''t "suspect" he was doing us harm.....we KNOW he was doing us harm. Assuming that you''ve missed it in the plethora of posts above, HE VIDEOTAPED HIMSELF BEHEADING AT LEAST TWO OF OUR CITIZENS. People who, might I add, most assuredly hadn''t taken any individual action against Al Zarqawi that posed any immiment thread to him or warranted a self-defense reaction from him.

Not only did he do it, but he boasted about it and proudly took responsibility for it. That goes way beyond "suspecting" him of doing something.

And, he vowed to continue doing it......that is threat of impending harm. Response to that isn''t a "pre-emptive strike" for what he *could* or *might* do.......it''s what he has said he WILL do if unstopped.

Given that you cannot take a self-defense measure AFTER your head has been cut off, it''s a little impractical to wait until that happens.

Lastly, do not confused "justifiable" and "legally justifiable"; they are two different standards.

revenge for harm done to me or my loved ones at some time in the past is also not self-defense.....nor legal.

No, revenge is not self-defense. I don''t think bombing him was done for revenge. Stopping him from carrying out his threat to continue was the motivation....and to me, that''s self-defense. It may not meet the "legal" standard of self-defense due to imminency issues....but I''m not talking about "legal" defintion. I''m talking about making sure our countrymen continue to breathe.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Once war is declared - formal or not - the combatants know the rules are different than for civilians.

If you come at the US with a baseball bat and we take it from you and beat the crap out of you don''t go crying foul.

 

[movie zombie]

i am not disputing hunting him down and capturing him. i''m not disputing bombing him and if he died in that action, so be it. however, i am saying it was murder once he was in our custody.

you are entitled to your opinion, and i''m entitled to mine. and no, we don''t have to agree on this issue.....or any other. if i remember right this is one of the many things our troops are fighting in iraq for: our way of life which includes but is not limited to your right to freedom of speech and my right to freedom of speech. the one thing about democracy and freedom is that there is tolerance for differing opinions. i have repeatedly agreed to disagree with you and leave it at that. it is obvious you are not going to change my opinion nor am i going to change yours. however, it has been an instructive dialog which has helped me to understand why this country is so deeply divided.

agreeing to disagree and no more on this topic.

movie zombie

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/21/2006 10:38:17 PM
Author: movie zombie
i am not disputing hunting him down and capturing him. i'm not disputing bombing him and if he died in that action, so be it. however, i am saying it was murder once he was in our custody.

I don't see how that makes sense. If the injury occurs prior to having him in custody, and that injury results in his death, that doesn't constitute murder.

Assume a man is shot, and is walking along the side of the road seeking help/treatment. I, passing by in my car, stop to assist and proceed to drive him to hospital in my car. While in my car, he dies from the gunshot wounds. Have I then committed murder because he died while in my car? No.

Regarding Al-Zarqawi, he was mortally wounded prior to our taking custody. He was dying regardless of whether or not he was in anyone's custody. That's not even close to 'we murdered him while he was in our custody', in my opinion.

you are entitled to your opinion, and i'm entitled to mine. and no, we don't have to agree on this issue.....or any other. if i remember right this is one of the many things our troops are fighting in iraq for: our way of life which includes but is not limited to your right to freedom of speech and my right to freedom of speech. the one thing about democracy and freedom is that there is tolerance for differing opinions. i have repeatedly agreed to disagree with you and leave it at that. it is obvious you are not going to change my opinion nor am i going to change yours. however, it has been an instructive dialog which has helped me to understand why this country is so deeply divided.

MZ, what is your problem? I have no interest in changing your opinion, nor did I ever ask you to. Expressing *my* opinion isn't tantamount to an effort to change yours. I don't know where you hail from, but where I'm from, tolerance IS the ability to have differing opinions and still be able to have a discussion about them.

Not every discussion has to result in consensus, and discussions can be ongoing with people of differing opinions without an expectation of consensus. If you aren't comfortable engaging in an ongoing discussion with participants of different opinions, you are free to abstain. There are many others here who can discuss opposing opinions without the expectation of consensus.

Thanks.......I'm fully aware of what our troops are fighting for (since I have friends among those troops), and one of them is the right to express an opinion. That's what I'm doing.....expressing MINE.

You're now saying you've "repeatedly agreed to disagree and leave it at that?" Hooray for you....but so? Let me understand....you say "leave it at that" and I'm supposed to consider myself dismissed and not speak further or express my opinions? Yeah....THAT'LL be the day. If I feel I have something more to contribute to this PUBLIC discussion, I most assuredly will do so.

While I may expressing thoughts/opinions that relate to comments you've made, you are not the only person in this discussion. If you truly want to leave it at that, you are free to stop responding at any time you choose and "leave it at that", and those of us who wish to continue discussing the topic will carry on.

You are free to discontinue YOUR participation at any time you wish........and I will discontinue mine at my whim, not at yours.