StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Of course, when he says "we", he means people like him.

Howedar wrote: Of course, when he says "we", he means people like him.

No, he only means himself.

I bow before your wisdom, mister Idiot.

Now what about actually making some POINT instead of giving a bad image of americans?

PS: You couldn't, I really admire America. I'm just glad most Americans actually THINK

When I say "we", I mean REAL Americans, not those pansey ass losers that voted for gore, or belong to greenpeace, or hug trees.

Mr. B wrote:Keeping our forces in Iraq for however many years is going to be expensive. How will we pay for it, with the budget currently in defecit.

You need to balance that against the cost of maintaining the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and regular attacks on air defence sites. But in the wake of 9/11 the US defence budget has been increased from about 3% GPD to 5% GPD. This should be more than enough.

Mr. B wrote: How do you know that the current opposition will be up to it. How do you know that they won't just turn into a bunch of fueding warlords. Or that they will sharepower with another, or that the Kurds will get their ind. state.

I don't (know that the current opposition are up to it), but I do know that they'll be better than the current administration when viewed from Washington.

Mr. B wrote: Maybe not all of them, but there are a number of them. And why shouldn't we, they are the ones spewing the anti-america rhetoric. And their message of hate will grow in the more impoverished regions even if they are not in the gov't.

You can suppress the Muslim fundies all you want, I have no love for them. But in the long term it may well create more sympathy for them amongst the Arab electorate, and make them more dangerous, not less. So I'd advise a 'kinder and gentler' strategy, with the objective of making them a political joke rather than a political force.

Mr. B wrote: How do you deal with it later, this money will help the radical fundies get on their feet.

By glaring at the offending nations, pointing out how undemocratic they are, and suggesting that a change in the ruling administration might benefit both the US, Iraq and the populations of the affected nations. But even so, it's still a less serious problem than a terrorist campaign supported by Saddams' Iraq.

Mr. B wrote: How do you know he is supporting terrorists? There is no proof of Iraqi involvement in terrorism against the US.
But the US troops will be an occupying force. And the more radical elements will not like this, they will see it as more US imperialism.

I believe he was supporting the terrorists becuase;
a) meetings between Saddam and Al Qaeda were reported several times during the 90's.
b) reported contact between one of the terrorist pilots and an Iraqi embassy in europe (I forget where)
c) the Iraqi air force went to an unusually level of alert just hours before the atrocity of 9/11, which suggests (but does not prove) that they at least knew about the attack.
d) he has the motivation and the means.
e) supporting the terrorists is a logical move for him, as it's the only way for him to strike back against the US.
Of course I do recognise that there is no 'smoking gun' proof in the public domain that would stand up in court. But this is not just a legal matter, but a matter of national security for the US, and maybe the UK as well. Legalities should not be allowed to stand in the way if civilian lives can be saved, that would not be the 'moral' choice in this case.

Mr. B wrote: A United Secular Arab state. With HIM on top. Just becasue it is Arab doesn't make it a fundie state. Again how do you know he is a friend of people like Osama bin Laden. He is just as much a threat to Saddams power as he is to the US.

Secular maybe but still extreme-nationist/facist, ie not 'good' in any way. See previous answer for why I believe in a link between Saddam and the fundimentalists.

Mr. B wrote: The real way is to get rid of poverty in nations. That is why the fundies are going in Iran, it is becoming more prosperous. And if you let those people in power the only way to get them out is to shoot them or to let them die out.

Getting rid of poverty would be a real trick. It sounds like a plan to use the fundimentalist threat to blackmail the west into giving more charity. Frankly they can fuck themselves, if they want to vote the fundies into power in their respective countries, I say let them.

Oh. Then only you and Ashcroft.

Actually, I'm glad to be insulted by both
It would be far worse to be complimented

I'd probally have to kill myself

The shame, The shame

You need to balance that against the cost of maintaining the sanctions and the no-fly zones, and regular attacks on air defence sites. But in the wake of 9/11 the US defence budget has been increased from about 3% GPD to 5% GPD. This should be more than enough.

I am not talking about the military budget. I am talking about the national budget. It is in a deficit. The increased spending and tax cuts will only serve for a higher deficit.

I believe he was supporting the terrorists becuase;
a) meetings between Saddam and Al Qaeda were reported several times during the 90's.
b) reported contact between one of the terrorist pilots and an Iraqi embassy in europe (I forget where)
c) the Iraqi air force went to an unusually level of alert just hours before the atrocity of 9/11, which suggests (but does not prove) that they at least knew about the attack.
d) he has the motivation and the means.
e) supporting the terrorists is a logical move for him, as it's the only way for him to strike back against the US.
Of course I do recognise that there is no 'smoking gun' proof in the public domain that would stand up in court. But this is not just a legal matter, but a matter of national security for the US, and maybe the UK as well. Legalities should not be allowed to stand in the way if civilian lives can be saved, that would not be the 'moral' choice in this case.

Where is the evidence for these meetings, and how do you know that it means he is supporting them. I could go meet the KKK but that doesn't make me a racist.
Same thing about the meeting at the embassy.
The air force alert is circumstantial at best, it could mean anything from a US air raid to a drill.
A lot of countries had the motives and the means to help the terrorists, including Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others.
It would only worsen his situation to help the terrorists. His best move to strike back would be his continued defiance of US policies. This makes him look like the victim of US imperialism.

There is no smoking gun and the lack of proof for any terrorists makes the public skeptical. If the govt were to put forward any real proof other than "we say so" people would be all for it.
And what about the innocent Iraqi civilians who might die in a invasion. Their deaths would only hinder the war effort and our image from around the globe. Not to mention our own military personel. And the UKs.

Regardless of whether or not Iraq sponsors Al Qaeda (I am pretty sure that they do, based on my feelings and experience in the region, but I know that doesn't count for jack), I think that they should have already been dealt with in the Gulf War. I don't think that we should be walking around letting countries like that build WoMD (or, at least, try to).

The US invades, takes out Saddam, parades him all over Washington DC...then what?

Mr. B wrote: I am not talking about the military budget. I am talking about the national budget. It is in a deficit. The increased spending and tax cuts will only serve for a higher deficit.

I find it amusing that you regard the budget deficit as being as important as national security, at a time when the US is under threat from murderous fundementalist terrorists (whether supported by Iraq or not). I would suggest you take a long hard look at your priorities.

Mr. B wrote: Where is the evidence for these meetings, and how do you know that it means he is supporting them. I could go meet the KKK but that doesn't make me a racist.
Same thing about the meeting at the embassy.
The air force alert is circumstantial at best, it could mean anything from a US air raid to a drill.

As I readily admit it is circumstantial it's not worth debating, but whatever weight you put on it, it is still evidence.

Mr. B wrote: A lot of countries had the motives and the means to help the terrorists, including Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others.

Not to anything like the same extent as Iraq.

Mr. B wrote:
It would only worsen his situation to help the terrorists. His best move to strike back would be his continued defiance of US policies. This makes him look like the victim of US imperialism.

He's been doing that for years without any weakening on the US position, what makes you think he'd just continue a failing policy? Do you recall Saddam calling on 'all arabs to attack US and Israeli interests around the world' back in 2000?

Mr. B wrote: There is no smoking gun and the lack of proof for any terrorists makes the public skeptical. If the govt were to put forward any real proof other than "we say so" people would be all for it.

I agree, the politicians have a duty to make the case for war, if they are planning to take us into one.

Mr. B wrote:
And what about the innocent Iraqi civilians who might die in a invasion. Their deaths would only hinder the war effort and our image from around the globe. Not to mention our own military personel. And the UKs.

Any innocent Iraqi civilians who die have my sympathy, but as long as the US 'tries' to avoid killing them their lives should not be allowed to stand in the way of a military campaign.

I find it amusing that you regard the budget deficit as being as important as national security, at a time when the US is under threat from murderous fundementalist terrorists (whether supported by Iraq or not). I would suggest you take a long hard look at your priorities.

Oh you find it amusing that our national debt is going back up and that this could mean bankruptcy for the US if we defaulted on it. (it's possible)
If the US economy collapsed so would the worlds, this is of vital importance to national security.

He's been doing that for years without any weakening on the US position, what makes you think he'd just continue a failing policy? Do you recall Saddam calling on 'all arabs to attack US and Israeli interests around the world' back in 2000?

It has worked. There were talks for lifting the sanctions before now. And it was for the benefir of other nations, to show them that he could continue to defy the US with little response.
The all arabs attack calling, almost every middle eastern leader has made that threat. The only one we took seriously was Osama bin Ladens, mostly becasue he had the ability to run succesful operations.

I agree, the politicians have a duty to make the case for war, if they are planning to take us into one.

It's similar to Vietnam, the politicians got into the war by faking the attack and the soldiers had to fight it regardless of whether or not we won or lost.


But the other question I have is whether or not the US will have to do it alone without the support of the world. I don't think Bush is serious about starting another coalition, that he thinks we could actually go it alone with only Turkey and Kuwait, and Bahrain for bases.

Mr. B wrote: Oh you find it amusing that our national debt is going back up and that this could mean bankruptcy for the US if we defaulted on it. (it's possible)
If the US economy collapsed so would the worlds, this is of vital importance to national security.

Providing security for 10-15 years to Iraq is not going to cost nearly enough to bankrupt the US, deficit or no. You've had troops stationed in S.Korea and Europe for how long? Why not just pull the remaining troops out of the EU and station them in Iraq?

Mr. B wrote: It has worked. There were talks for lifting the sanctions before now. And it was for the benefir of other nations, to show them that he could continue to defy the US with little response.
The all arabs attack calling, almost every middle eastern leader has made that threat. The only one we took seriously was Osama bin Ladens, mostly becasue he had the ability to run succesful operations.

You call completely failing to move the US and UK position on lifting sanctions 'working'???

Mr. B wrote: But the other question I have is whether or not the US will have to do it alone without the support of the world. I don't think Bush is serious about starting another coalition, that he thinks we could actually go it alone with only Turkey and Kuwait, and Bahrain for bases.

Militarily the rest of the world has little to bring to the table, so the US is going to have to shoulder the military burden whether they have international political support or not. However I would ideally prefer them to spend time building support for the attack, for the public relations side of things if nothing else. But as that support is unlikly to be forthcoming, (unless a video diary showing Saddam and OBL planning the attack can be provided as evidence ) the US needs to be prepared to go in without much in the way of support.
I imagine Blair will deploy British troops in support, but he has done almost nothing to make a good case in public for the UKs self interest here, which means that UK public support is likly to be a rather low.

You see America is finding out how just cheap and easy it is to get rid of nations that we don;t like. They are afraid that we are going to get to like it, and then move onto Europe.

Noooo.. Europe invaded by the likes of you.. The horror.. The Torment.. please let us be. I prefer thousands of miles between me and stupidity

Oh yah, Europe is vaunted for its grant intelligence, it can't even articulate a sane case for not intervening in Iraq.

Americas see right through your BS. Look Saddam is going to die, Iraq will be free. And guess what, we will be right, becasue the Iraqui people will love us for it. Europe after sitting this campaign out will be completely irrelevent to the US in the future.It will be clear that its in our best interests to leave Nato, and let europe defend itself Pull our troops out, and let whatever happens to Europe happen.

Why? Because we were there for Europe, and how do you pay us back? This backstabbing rhetoric, and condescending tones from hasbeen nations.

Get over it, Europe is the "Afganistan" of western civilization.

weemadando wrote:Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?

It's a very difficult question. Let's look at Dubya's potential reasons for wanting war with Iraq:

Practical:
-Hussein's regime seems to be sponsoring terrorism. It also refuses to let weapons inspectors into Iraq. (Though they had a change of heart on this.)

-Plain old airstrikes serve to make Hussein look more and more like a giant-killer. (He's still in office . . . he's survived four U.S. Presidents.)

-The Hussein regime doesn't equitably distribute the humanitarian aid it gets. People are suffering under the current regime.

Somewhat Cynical:
-Iraq produces oil. If the United States made Iraq an American protectorate, we wouldn't have to worry about OPEC cutting off our oil supply.

-An American-backed Iraq with a pro-Western government would hopefully make for a useful deterrent against conflict in the Middle East. Certainly much more so than Israel, whom the majority of nations in that area would be happy to see wiped off the map.

Cynical:
-When people think of George Bush, frequently they think of Dubya's daddy, who still throws himself out of perfectly good airplanes even though he's older than dirt. Dubya will always be in his shadow unless he does something noteworthy, like finish what his daddy started 10 years ago.

-The economy is in the tank. Wars are good for the economy. A good war makes people forget their troubles at home and makes Dubya look smart . . . at least until the post-war recession hits . . . then it's Gore in '04.

Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.

-The U.S. isn't really ready for another major war. We expended all the military ordinace collected in the Reagan and George I years on airstrikes, all those peacekeeping missions, and military budget cuts Clinton subjected us all to.

-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.

I'd nominally support it . . . but not unconditionally. There's too many things involved to make a strong case for invading Iraq.

Providing security for 10-15 years to Iraq is not going to cost nearly enough to bankrupt the US, deficit or no. You've had troops stationed in S.Korea and Europe for how long? Why not just pull the remaining troops out of the EU and station them in Iraq?

But the inititial costs of any war are sure to blow the military budget. And they still have to recover the losses of all the munitions used in Afg. We spent 30 billion on Afg. How much will we spend on the invasion, bombardment, and occupation of Iraq.
And the military is already spread out far enough. If N. Korea were to attack while our major forces were engaged in Iraq they would likely succed with the bulk of our forces gone. Due to the budget cuts to the military in the 90s(Clinton) we lost the ability to fight two wars simultaneously(sp?)

You call completely failing to move the US and UK position on lifting sanctions 'working'???

I said it was working up till now. Before 9/11 there was talk about lifting or changing the embargo in Iraq becasue it was ineffective. Or to expand the oil for food program.

To be fair, Hussein has only survived two American Presidents who were trying to go after him. Prior to his invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had done a damn good job in playing both sides of the Cold War in its little fight against Iran. Only after Hussein blundered by not recognizing that his Cold War alliances were no longer valid did the United States end its period of relatively good relations with Iraq.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.

-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.

The first statement, that the world already thinks the US bullies Iraq, is not technically true (not as clear cut as it seems). Many countries, like France, are saying that the United States needs to back off of Iraq because they are receiving illegal oil shipments from the Iraqis. I think it is fairly telling how much support Iraq has in Western Europe compared to its support in the Middle East itself. And the real reasons that ANY of the Arab countries back Iraq are these:
1. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and some of the other countries to the South are more afraid of an Iranian-style Muslim fundamentalist revolution in Iraq than they are of Hussein.
2. Those countries are afraid that if there is another war with Iraq, the US will install a government that is pro-Israel, seriously altering the balance of power within the region.

If those two concerns are addressed, most of the Arab states will agree to prosecute a war with Iraq (except Jordan, which is just as bad as Iraq).

If I may be allowed to throw my two and three quarters cents in.

I have little problem with invading Iraq. Some argue that a premptive strike is necessary to defend our assets from a possible future nuclear power. Some say we should invade simply because Saddam is an asshole. I agree with all those. Moreover, I don't think we are in great need of international support to do the job. As long as we have Kuwaitt, we can go into Iraq and easily defeat any force that stands between us and Bagdad (barring NBC attacks of course).

However, the reason I can't support a war right now is two fold:
1) The U.S. is too divided on the issue. Unpopular wars never turn out to be a good thing. If we go to war without overwhelming support at home, we are very possibly imbarking down a road to defeat.
2) Most of the people who would support a war have unrealistic expectations of the outcome. People say that if we invade and take Bagdad, Saddam would be ousted and the Iraqi people would be happy and openly imbrace democracy. That could happen, but I find it unlikely. My take on the war is this: America will launch a ground and air assault. Saddam is not idiot, he will sent his aircraft and most of his armor to Iran. He knows that confronting the US on open ground will lead to a massacre. There will be no air to air combat or tank battles this time. The road to Bagdad will be an easy drive because instead of engaging us, Saddam will instead pull his forces into the city, and start guerilla attacks once US soldiers enter. Finding that man in a city of millions of his own followers will be terribly difficult. The Iraqi citizens would not welcome us at all. All Saddam has to do is tell them we're here to convert them from Islam to Christianity and they'll all go ape shit yelling Jihad. We would probably end up in the same situation that we were in while in Somalia, trying to apprehend a man in the middle of his own turf. But this time it would be worse. Don't get me wrong, we could capture Saddam, but at great loss of American lives, and astronomical loss of civilian lives. The American public, remembering how "sterile" the Gulf War was, will expect this to be another "push button" war. They will be in for a very rude awakening. Public support for the war would drop even more forcing politions to bring the boys back home. Saddam will declare triumph over the "great evil" and the US ends up with a smaller scale version of Vietnam.

That's my take.

USAF Ace wrote:However, the reason I can't support a war right now is two fold:
1) The U.S. is too divided on the issue. Unpopular wars never turn out to be a good thing. If we go to war without overwhelming support at home, we are very possibly imbarking down a road to defeat.

I agree that popular support is desireable.

USAF Ace wrote: 2) Most of the people who would support a war have unrealistic expectations of the outcome. People say that if we invade and take Bagdad, Saddam would be ousted and the Iraqi people would be happy and openly imbrace democracy. That could happen, but I find it unlikely. My take on the war is this: America will launch a ground and air assault. Saddam is not idiot, he will sent his aircraft and most of his armor to Iran. He knows that confronting the US on open ground will lead to a massacre. There will be no air to air combat or tank battles this time. The road to Bagdad will be an easy drive because instead of engaging us, Saddam will instead pull his forces into the city, and start guerilla attacks once US soldiers enter. Finding that man in a city of millions of his own followers will be terribly difficult. The Iraqi citizens would not welcome us at all. All Saddam has to do is tell them we're here to convert them from Islam to Christianity and they'll all go ape shit yelling Jihad. We would probably end up in the same situation that we were in while in Somalia, trying to apprehend a man in the middle of his own turf. But this time it would be worse. Don't get me wrong, we could capture Saddam, but at great loss of American lives, and astronomical loss of civilian lives. The American public, remembering how "sterile" the Gulf War was, will expect this to be another "push button" war. They will be in for a very rude awakening. Public support for the war would drop even more forcing politions to bring the boys back home. Saddam will declare triumph over the "great evil" and the US ends up with a smaller scale version of Vietnam.

I also find the assumption of an easy victory rather short-sighted (though there are possible ways of achieving this if local supporters can be found); you should NEVER go into a war in the belief that only the enemy will suffer.
But I think you're wrong about Saddam being able to forment a popular uprising with ease. The US is very likly to be hated by the Iraqis, but my impression (from reading the news and an Iraqi kid I knew at school) is that Saddam is hated more! I don't think that the Iraqi conscripts or the civil population are going to fight very hard to maintain Saddam in power.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

weemadando wrote:Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?

Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.

-The U.S. isn't really ready for another major war. We expended all the military ordinace collected in the Reagan and George I years on airstrikes, all those peacekeeping missions, and military budget cuts Clinton subjected us all to.

-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.

I'd nominally support it . . . but not unconditionally. There's too many things involved to make a strong case for invading Iraq.

I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops. Vietnam was a far more challenging war, but America fought that alone as well (yes, they lost, but that had nothing to do with the number of troops).

I hardly think that Bush would be threatening war if he couldn't follow through. The US has seen many resources squandered, but is still capable of taking out Iraq's armed forces- which are going to be no better comparatively to what they were in 1991.

As for the terrorist threat, ask yourself this:
(quoted from) http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3 ... 29&id=1999

"Here's what we know about al-Qaeda: the Number One and Two guys haven't been heard from since December; Number Three, Mohammed Atef, is dead; Number Four, Abu Zubaydah, is in US custody; so are hundreds of others, 80 per cent of them Saudis captured in Afghanistan. Not all Osama's lieutenants are dead or in detention, but intelligence reports have spotted surviving individual members of his elite personal bodyguard in various spots around the globe, which would appear to suggest that they've been reassigned to other duties: there's no point being a bodyguard when the body's no longer in a state worth guarding.

Al-Qaeda has always been a decentralised organisation, but under a snooty all-Arab officer class. Now the misfit conscripts have been promoted way beyond their natural ability: the network's dependent on incompetent street punks like Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb"; guy captured in Chicago, and Richard Reid, the damp squib of a shoebomber, purely because they travel on respectable passports. The alleged Suleiman Abu Ghaith had nothing to boast of in his audio statement except the attack on a synagogue in Tunisia that killed 14 German tourists."

What have AL-Quaeda been up to since? For July 4th all they could manage was one shooting at an El-Al desk. Not only are they using rejects like Richard Reid, just a few days ago a man attempted to hijack a plane form Sweden to London BY SMUGGLING A GUN PAST SECURITY. Needless to say, it didn't work.

America and Britain have crippled Al-Qaeda, frozen its money, got rid of the state that supported and housed it, chased out its leaders and made it clear that they intend to continue. I hardly think that invading Iraq will give them any more reason...

Si tacet

Akm72 wrote:But I think you're wrong about Saddam being able to forment a popular uprising with ease. The US is very likly to be hated by the Iraqis, but my impression (from reading the news and an Iraqi kid I knew at school) is that Saddam is hated more

I must disagree. In Somalia, the Americans were welcomed in by the local population. After all, they were starving and we were protecting the food they needed. Everywhere U.S. marines and soldiers went, the Somalias were literally jumping for joy. But as you all know, things changed rather quickly. Adide used his propoganda machine very effectively to turn pro US and UN sentiment into antisentiment. Even the Packistani soldiers, who were brought in specifficaly because they were Muslims, were killed. What happened to them was even worse than what happened to the U.S. soldiers. The rest of course, is history.

Saddam on the other hand, has some advantages Adide didn't have. One, his people already hate the U.S. Two, he has better armed, better trained, and better equiped soldiers. We lost 20 some odd U.S. personel in Somalia hunting Adide and his lieutenants, without ever finding Adide. In the process, we killed around a thousand Somalias. In Iraq, we could get lucky and get Saddam on the first raid, but that probably won't happen. In this invasion, we won't have the supprise we had in Panama. Saddam knows we're coming, his people know we're coming. Again, this could be quick, but it could also be very ugly. We had better be in for the long haul for this one. I doubt most U.S. citizens are.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:You people can't come up with real reasons why not to invade Iraq. You are just voting no because you don't like Bush. That would be like Congress not letting FDR enter World War II because they don't like him, therefore don't support the war.

I trhink Iraq should be left uninvaded, simply because I do not think that Bush et al ,have thought through the international concequences of this action. Some thought of the future would be helpful instead of this myopic Rambo fest.

Si tacet wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

weemadando wrote:Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?

Reasons not to prosecute a war in Iraq:
-The world already thinks that the U.S. bullies Iraq. We don't have anywhere near the support we had 10 years ago.

-The U.S. isn't really ready for another major war. We expended all the military ordinace collected in the Reagan and George I years on airstrikes, all those peacekeeping missions, and military budget cuts Clinton subjected us all to.

-Since the terrorists know how to best hit us back, a war with Iraq will bring them out of the woodwork in droves.

I'd nominally support it . . . but not unconditionally. There's too many things involved to make a strong case for invading Iraq.

I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops. Vietnam was a far more challenging war, but America fought that alone as well (yes, they lost, but that had nothing to do with the number of troops).

America fought Veitnam alone? I dont think so, unless the Koreans, Aussies, New Zealanders who were there are just figments of my imagination.