With Stephens and Ginsberg there, no way that was going to happen.

Breyer and Souter, not much better chance really.

Considering the way Kennedy has blown in the wind lately, and landed on the wrong side of a few decisions (no death penalty for child rapists ) we were lucky we got the decision we did.

On the other hand, it would be nice to think we'd see a different court make-up that was smarter about these decisions, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.  Stephens has made a deal with the devil to let him stay on the bench until he can be replaced with an even more wacko liberal.

I actually didn't leave that out. In my last post I stated that Iraqi sentiment in the immediate aftermath of the invasion was very pro-U.S. As I've said all along, while I disagree with the invasion even happening, I'll be the first to admit that immediately afterwards there were indeed lots of "smiling Iraqis". It's what happened next where our viewpoints diverge:

You state that shortly after the invasion things went wrong when AQ and Iranian Forces moved in and started terrorist operations. The fact is that AQ didn't establish a formidable presence in Iraq until almost a year after the U.S took over- the truth is that most of the insurgency was and still is comprised of local Iraqis, many of whom WERE in the Iraqi army but after Bremmer disbanded it they were angry and unemployed. It's easy to say that freedom-hating terr'ists came in and decided to ruin everyone's fun, but even if that's true, the U.S is still responsible for that as they were responsible for post-invasion security and ALLOWED AQ and Iranian infiltration.  Speaking of which... you have asked me for proof on my points and I provided you with a book: "Fiasco" By Thomas E. Ricks. Another good one is "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. There is also the "Empire" trilogy by Chalmers Johnson and several works by Noam Chomski- "Failed States" is one- which are full of interesting little publicized facts about the lead up to the war. You should be able to get most of these books from your local library and can be found in two seconds on Amazon.

So in return, please provide me with proof of this Iranian Regiment that has been captured. I'm not questioning you here, I'd just like to know what your sources are if that's alright with you!

The president said that the war on terror would last a long time. The war in Iraq and following occupation was supposed to be mostly wrapped up within 6 months. This was widely publicized. Also, the whole thing was supposed to cost approx 50 billion and be payed for mostly by oil revenue from Iraq. This too was well publicized in the lead up to the war. One Bush Administration Official had the temerity to suggest that the war and occupation might actually reach as high as 200 billion- for which he was promptly fired for spouting "alarmist nonsense".

Even going with your logic, the war in Iraq has been a dismal failure- the presence of AQ in Iraq was minimal to nonexistent before the war. The only reason they were able to take hold there was because of a massive vacuum in security and government (which the U.S was responsible for rebuilding as they destroyed it in the first place) that was caused directly by the U.S and co's actions.

No, the stated goal was to pre-emptively attack a "rogue" state that was threatening the western world with substantial stockpiles of advanced WMD's (and supposedly had some tie in to 9/11 which was used as a fear tactic to say we had to hit someone before we got hit again) Hence Bush's speech about Iraq obtaining uranium from Nigeria (which turned out to be completely false, hence, the valerie plame affair which was a standard case of trying to silence any dissent) Also Collin Powell's little dog and pony show with the satellite pictures of all the bunkers and advanced facilities for building all kinds of nasty stuff (which also turned out to be a complete lie). I actually believed that speech and was pro-war because I believed the constant propaganda that Iraq had re-armed and was a real threat. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Saying after the fact that we went in to spread freedom and democracy is all fine and well but that is a revisionist statement. Fact is there are plenty of dictators and governments around the world who are supported by the U.S and yet they are just as bad or worse to their people than Saddam and his Baath party. Present day examples would be most of the "stan" countries like Kyrgystan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan etc. Why haven't they been invaded so we can spread freedom and democracy to them? Because they're playing ball with us economically and allowing us to build pipelines in their countries!

You are correct. I was referring to the comments made by the likes of Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney that we would be greeted as liberators with flowers and the like littering the ground to pave the way. I never stated that Bush is solely to blame for this, and it has been well documented that much of his decisions on this issue were based on the counsel he received from his neocon handlers (many of whom I listed at the beginning of this paragraph) If anything Bush has a cowboy mentality and a desire to be a "war president" without ever having gone to war (a dangerous combination) This is nothing new, and has been seen in leaders down through the ages who enjoy playing "dress up soldier" without ever knowing the consequences of their actions. It is well documented that Bush greatly admired the British PM Margaret Thatcher, and the way she turned public sentiment to her favour with the Falklands war. Bush has been quoted in the past stating that what Thatcher did was the key to good leadership- that, being to engage in a short, victorious war.

Whereas the British had the Falkland Islands invaded by Argentina, Bush wanted to use 9/11 as his excuse for a short victorious war. If he really were truly concerned about "the war on terror" he would have thrown everything after getting Bin Laden and stuck with it as he was the one who actually perpetrated 9/11. Instead we see a very brief, limited campaign in Afghanistan followed up by "the main show" against Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with it in the first place. There was far more emphasis, manpower and materiel expended on getting Saddam than there ever was getting Bin Laden.

So, Bush wanted his short war, and Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and the like said "here you go... invade Iraq!" People like Wolfowitz believed strongly that invading Iraq would be a short campaign and that post-invasion security and reconstruction would be a breeze because of military actions carried out by John Abizaid in defending the Kurdish northern area of Iraq in the years after GW-1.

This was a little publicized campaign in which U.S airpower combined with Kurdish ground forces and very limited U.S ground forces effectively kept much of the Iraqi army out of the north and unable to do serious dammage to Kurdish fighters. The U.S forces involved were very small, depended on speed and C3 more than brute firepower and of course good air support. They believed that using this same formula across all of Iraq would have the same effect, but didn't think about the fact that the Kurdish north was the exception to the rule, very different from the rest of the country. 

So in short, Bush's handlers and closest confidants had a pipe dream that Iraq would be a short, victorious war that would coincide nicely with their geo-political goals (Iran would have been next, had things gone the way they wanted) Bush, while not an evil or sinister fellow, wanted a war that would make him look good and decisive ( he was poo-pooed from going after Afghanistan too heavily by Rumsfeld who complained that there were no good targets there) and rather than excercise the art that is statesmanship, he jumped at the first opportunity he was given to be the CIC of a "real war".

That's funny... I thought this article was about why Bush's approval rating was so low. Obama is extraneous to this debate, except perhaps for the fact that he was against the invasion in the first place. Stating that the argument is about whether or not to keep forces in Iraq skips over a vital point.... that being that the invasion should have never occurred in the first place. The where and how this conflict may end is another debate entirely. The points that I'm going after are

1) It never should have happened in the first place

2) After it did happen, even though it was wrong, the U.S had an opportunity to pull off a big win. Iraqi sentiment was very hopeful shortly after the invasion, but it quickly soured when they realized that the basic necessities were not being looked after (no real plan for rebuilding the country after effectively smashing it to bits) The U.S fumbled the ball and have been playing defense ever since.

In regards to the next step, a nice place to start perhaps would be an apology. "Sorry we needlessly invaded your country, we screwed up!" would probably be a good start for Mr. Bush. Instead he will never apologize to the Iraqi people that he authorized a needless war of choice.

As to stating that the Republicans are "for" keeping troops in Iraq and that democrats are "against" keeping troops in Iraq that is an oversimplification. If it really were true, the democratic congress would have pulled funding for the war more than a year ago. Instead they've authorized hundreds of billions (just another 165 billion the other day, actually) with no strings attached to keep the occupation going, despite the fact that your domestic economy aint doing so hot.

I've no love for the democrats or Obama, btw, nor am I one of their chearleaders.

As for the summer war of 2006 that Israel lost against Hezbollah, again it is an oversimplification. The IDF had long had a plan to get rid of Hezbollah and the cross border incident in which IDF soldiers were killed and captured (which goes back to existing hostage-exchange negotiations falling apart, which is yet another story) was used as the justification for levelling entire areas of Beirut and other heavily populated civillian areas in a failed attempt to smash Hezbollah's launch sites and areas of operation (launch sites that were largely mobile so the bombardment had almost no effect except for killing civillians AND turning public sentiment further in favour of Hezbollah). In no way am I justifying or defending Hezbollah's actions, but it does take two to tango! The whole point of the 2006 summer war was to get rid of Hezbollah so that Israel would have removed one of it's main threats on their border. Then they would be able to focus on going after Iran without having to worry about rocket attacks from the north.

Journalist Seymour Hirsh has a very concise piece written all about this in which senior IDF officials approached the Pentagon months in advance for U.S green light approval of their plan. Also, the use of massive airpower to go after hardened underground facilities was to serve as a showcase or dress rehearsal for what would ideally be reproduced on Iran after the Hezbollah threat was neutralized (a dress rehearsal that DID not go according to plan!)

Paladin, look up a book called "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks- it's a fairly non-biased and concise account of the whole affair. Basically what happened is that the Administration pursued their goal of invading Iraq entirely on ideological grounds. Their rationale, and all of their solutions were based on ideology. Whenever reality contradicted their ideology and dogma, they ignored it or fought vigorously to discredit or silence those who put forth the heretical viewpoint. Let's look at a few examples:

1) The Commander of the United States Army, General Eric Shinseki openly stated that the post-invasion operation would require several hundred thousand troops for several years to be done properly and would be the most dangerous part of the operation. This contradicted Rumsfeld's and Feith's ideological belief that the Iraqis would gladly sing "freedom" and start buying freedom fries and big macs as soon as Saddam and the Baath party were out of power. This was a naive belief, as any and every nation on earth (especially after a tumultous overthrow of it's entire previous system) requires a lot of TLC and intensive manpower to maintain security and rebuild it's infrastructure. Rumsfeld and Feith believed that within 6 months there would be less than 30,000 U.S personnel to provide military advisors and airbases in country.

In the end, Shinseki turned out to be right and Rumsfeld, Feith and Wolfowitz (the main propopents of the invasion) were wrong. This is illustrated by the fact that we are now in year 6 of the occupation, there are still + 130,000 U.S military (far, far more if you count the mercenary forces aka 'security contractors') in country and the U.S has had approximately 35,000 casualties (dead + wounded)

2) In the lead up to the invasion, the CIA and various military intelligence reports came back stating that there was indeed no grounds for believing that Iraq had any substantial WMD's or capacity to produce such or mount any kind of attack against the U.S, either directly or indirectly. What happened was Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz were established in a government organization called the "Office of Special Plans" or some such thing (may not be the exact title, I'll double-check) What this office was responsible for was being the focal point for all intel on Iraq. Whenever a report came in stating that there was no grounds for invasion, they sent it back saying "not good enough, re-write it" This is a clear indication of refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation in favor of pursuing an ideological goal. Rather than gather intel and THEN make a decision based on that, they had already made the decision and were "fixing" the intel (this means lying) to support their decision. This is further illustrated by the downing street memo Catguy mentioned earlier.

3) When things started going contrary to the "greeted as liberators" plan that had been cooked up, again there was a refusal to acknowledge reality. There are documented cases both during and shortly after the invasion in which high ranking military officers (division level commanders) sent requests up the chain saying "what do we do once we've won?" To which the reply, if any came, was "don't worry about it, we're working on it". The truth is there was no comprehensive plan for post invasion security or reconstruction. This is because, again, the proponents were basing everything on their ideology. According to that ideology, once Iraq was "free" from Saddam everything would be great. The free market would magically step in and within a few months everyone would be happy. They never planned or made any provisions to look after the water supply, power grid, phone system, police and security, food distribution, all of the things that make up the basic framework for a modern society to exist. By the time the CPA started to get to those things it was already too little too late, AND the CPA made the further error of operating on an ideological basis as well. Which leads to the next blunder

The CPA- was one of the biggest flops in modern history and a textbook example of how NOT to govern a country. Why? Again, it was all based on ideology of free markets and "natural" economic forces with no regard for the reality on the ground. 

The CPA was staffed by the wrong people. It should have been comprised of folks who had experience in working abroad and re-building war-torn countries. Instead, it was mostly staffed by people loyal to the Republican party who had little or no experience outside of the United States. A mid-twenty something former intern for the Republican party, for example, was tasked with the responsibility of creating the Iraqi stock market even though he had no experience in that area at all. These kinds of staffing choices permeated the whole department. Because the CPA was staffed almost entirely by people with no actual experience in the jobs they were given, all of their decisions were based on their conservative ideology. That ideology called for a minimum of government control or intervention, and that "the free market" would magically cure all ills. Part of this free market ideology meant that the country was opened up to foreign business. This meant big firms from the U.S, Dubai, Kuwait bidding on and winning major reconstruction contracts. This meant foreign companies coming into Iraq with foreign workers, overcharging vast sums of money for their work, while unemployed Iraqis could do nothing but sit around and watch while foreigners came in to do piecemeal work. Meanwhile the basic services that everyone depended on, like water, sewer and power were mostly neglected as the major contracts went after things like building new government offices and repairing pipelines etc.

So, going back to # 3, people started getting angry and rebelling. This went contrary to the "greeted as liberators" plan (or lack thereof). When this happened, instead of saying "oh man, we screwed up!" the administration did what it does best..... it stuck to ideology!

Their line of thinking therefore was this:

"We've given freedom, the greatest gift possible to the Iraqi people but now someone's attacking our soldiers and the interim government we're putting together. Since we're blameless and have done everything right, the only possible reason why people are shooting at us HAS to be that foreign terrorists who hate freedom have infilitrated the country and that's why we're being attacked."

Again, the Administration and CPA refused to acknowledge the reality that many Iraqis were unhappy with the state of affairs and were resisting. They refused to acknowledge that there was an uprising of mostly local origin, and that that uprising could have been avoided entirely if they would have had a more concrete plan for post invasion security and reconstruction beyond "the free market".

So, they did what they do best. Ignore the facts and stick to ideology. This led to an increase of force. This led to the "compassionate" act of levelling the entire city of Fallujah and arming various militia groups to go after each other, knowing full well that they would also go after innocents who belonged to rival groups as well. This led to raids on entire neighborhoods in which all military age males found were instantly suspect and rounded up for further questioning. This led to the use of illegal and immoral interrogation techniques that contradict the Geneva convention of treatment of prisoners, all in the quest to get "actionable" intelligence.

Paladin, Catguy has provided more than enough proof which is easily verified and can be found with a few minutes of searching online. For the record, Carter was one of the best presidents in the history of the great country that is the United States of America and his legacy will live on far, far longer and be seen as a helper of humanity around the world long after Bush has faded into obscurity.

As for the constitution, no one said it was "legal" it was still congress's job to declare war but they handed that to bush and he didnt'. Also now your saying he can't declare war because it's on Al Qaeda? Well that only streghens my case. The congress may have agreed but they still didn't offically delcare it, that's why its illegal simple as that. These wars are just "floating" in the air. It is corruption on a large scale that you can't seem to grasp.

Going by your own logic about the wars just supports my views. If they're so immoral then why continue them? especially for hunting down a small group which seems to hip-hop all over the place with many secret bases while thousands of innocents die on the hunt for them. It obviously requires different tactics.

As for Ron Paul, he didn't make the video personally. The Video creator chose the images. All ron paul did was the speach in the background. So if thta's your proof he is a racsist then your the one spreading illogical lies. Also if you truly believed in most of the conservative beliefs I have you would know Ron Paul supports them wholeheardly. Not any racists bs. And you back noting up with statements like "he would destory our nation". Sorry I bring up everything about what this war is costing, whether it be raw money, degrading dollar itself, lives etc and you still play the time card. So I don't think you would know what is really hurting our country.

Like I said, we're both basically repeating the same things. First you ask for evidence and now you say I don't think on my own... I still getting mad at what and how you are treating me in this debate, espeically for being so old. I haven't lied once about what I believe in. You're the one calling me so many party names while I am conservative, to which you even agreed were my beliefs. Maybe you're the one who has some growing up to do.. You are so stuck with this idealistic parties that's its stilly. Parties in essence are just groups of individuals who happen to share the same beliefs, that's what truly powers them, the indivuals and the beliefs. It's funny how you try to make my beliefs into "points" and that they are just a hollow part of what a party is...

I wish you luck in your future and hope we both end up on the right track for this country to get better even though I felt this was vey unproductive time spent and wished I would never have even started it. Let me repeat this, I have stated my ideas and haven't changed them and so have you. All of your negatives with me can mirrowed straight back at you too. It's that simple.

So If you're just gonna continue to ignore the whole picture again I try to talk about like in every reply I post, then lets just agree to disagree finally. We can go our seperate ways. But I'm not going to sit idly by while you call me a near racist and liberal.

 So your point is that your arguments can’t stand on their own but only as a whole. Just because I answer parts of your posts I have to first read the entirety to get the context. You expect me to make references without putting up the context. This is just silly. Feel free not to post that is your choice.

Stop joking. You know you cut down all of my reasons for why something is bad. It's that simple. You try to make it "simpler" while it's not. So you can "win".

Iraq War: Immoral because the majority, innocents have to die for a small group of people.

This causes some of them to actually fight against America, the media loves to call them terrorists.

The spending, the bubble has gotten bigger since the past.. That is common sense. And again foreign privateers are buying out America and it's gotten worse today. It's that simple - bubbles get bigger. If we dont' go bankrupt, then America will be totall be bought and paid for.

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/26/were-on-sale-time-to-buy-america/

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/03/americas_econom/

It's no wonder things haven't gotten better because of all those things, through and through these wars are insane. They were illogical to start with and it'll end that way, either for us or them.

Yep those are the things you ignored about my reasoning why this war is bad.

You keep trying simplify it and say it wasn't illegal well you're even wrong on that. It is not a fact.

The two wars are illegal - why? The congress didn't declare them CONSTITUTIONALLY. In fact the last war that was declared was WWII. The constitution is our rule of law. They handed the responsiblity over to Bush and he didn't do it either. Again I'm not looking at only bush but the whole governement which I've been talking about all along.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0402a/iraqwarunconstitutional.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Constitutionality_of_invasion

Constitutionality of invasion

Further information: United States Constitution

In February and March 2003, John Bonifaz served as lead counsel for a coalition of US soldiers, their parents, and members of Congress in John Doe I v. President Bush,^[23] a constitutional challenge to Bush’s authority to wage war against Iraq absent a congressional declaration of war or equivalent action. Bonifaz argued in court that Bush's planned first-strike invasion of Iraq violated the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution.^[24] As a corollary to his lawsuit, Bonifaz has argued publicly and in writing that Bush should be impeached for this. However, Bonifaz's lawsuit was dismissed in February 2003 and, in March 2003, the dismissal was upheld on appeal.

a fact is something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened as opposed to and opinion which is, the view somebody takes about an issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgment. I think you confuse the two.

No I don't.... That actually streghens my case also.. Everything I've said about the border can be proved to be true. The proof is right in front of us. If you think some environmentalists, and liberals... Can stop the current governemnt.. Which has started all of what we've seen and had years to build a new fence then you need to think for yourself. They also say fighting terroism abroad is for our "protection" Well closing up the borders would sure protect us.. It's more like the governement listening to lobbyists from corporations who love the cheap illegal labor. Yes I researched the environmentalists to make you happy and I still stand by my logic, if you can't see it then you're the one who doesn't know what logic is at all and cannot grasp a much larger picture of corruption.

About the fact itself, what I said about getting to one is true. It may not be the case for all but for many. Also here's another definition of fact.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

"I know that to you it makes no sense because it is not opinion based it is fact based."

see above. Also how do you think facts become facts? They are based on opinions. That is all there is to it. Unless people get a sign from god saying it's "fact" without them first having to make several opinions about something.

I pointed out the FACT that the wars are not illegal, this means nothing to you because you continue to refer to both wars as illegal. To refute this again I say that NATO, that means Europe. The UN, that means the majority of nations on this planet. The US Congress debated the subject and voted to approve the actions. All of these groups signed off on both wars. It is impossible to be illegal except in the minds of people that wish to take issue with the war and have no other valid points to oppose the war. If the war was illegal as you hopefully suggest, then the president can be impeached and arrested.

see above, yes it was legal internationally but for our own rule of law it wasn't.

You do understand that almost all the people he calls neo-conservatives are Jews, his video is anti-Jew, anti-logic, and it is from an idiot named Ron Paul!

Wow just wow.. I don't know what to say. You said it yourself, only most of the people in the video were jew, and again you can't seem to get the bigger picture... Like the ties and connections they had. The influence.. If it was anti-jew don't you think he would've stated that they were actual jews? I never even knew they were until you brought it up. Your logic is basically "They're jews!111" He also would've stated it something like this

"the jew's influences and the fact that are nasty jews has brought to bring down the conservative party, which has been tradionally white and christian"

And Ron Paul himself has debunked that hate mail that was spreading around. Also he has many supporters, more than this current adminstration. He has even written a book on his time as a presidental candidate which is a bestseller. He has attracted many republicans and democrats alike. And if you're calling me a racist for all of this, it again shows your simple-mindness.

Cousin Roy Wilkins, former head of the NAACP. Sorry had to name drop because you don’t seem to understand even basic things or logic.

This is where I get steamed... you're the one still defendin a side just because it's a side. You believe in nothing. You cannot seem to grasp that things are not as simple as they seem. calling Ron Paul a racist along with the video speaks that tenfold.

Here is what I believe in as a conservative -

Anti-war, no taxes at all, non-intervention foreign policy (bush actually ran on that), strict constitutionlistlism, no socialism, no nation building, small goverment, privacy and liberty, a free market capilistic society, etc have all been real conservative values. And this current adminstration and government has a whole, check by check have been the exact opposite.

You have no concept of what you speak. And being this close to an admitted racist masquerading as a conservative makes me unhappy.

Do you want me to link all of the modern day conservative bs that people are supporting in this place? (notice I didn't say neo-cons just so I won't offend you) Whether they're in blogs or artilces like these? I'm sorry but this place is filled with 90% mordern day conservatism. Everyone in this very thread was all about "us VS liberals".

Aslo see above for my conservatism.

"you love to race bait."

Huh what? what I'm trying to show here that things are bigger than they appear and this current goverment is not in our best interests. I'm not trying to "win" anything. I want this country to improve.

Also I love it how you want facts but do you even know what facts are? It takes logic to get to facts. Facts are just a word ontop of much critical logic. They're just a small part of the whole picture. And going by your logic, you haven't stated any "researched facts either". I provided a video why this current adminstration IS neo-conservative and you flat out ignored it. So I'm calling you a little shit, especialy for being 50. If the word "fact" wasn't in the english dictionary you wouldn't have anything to go on. They are not these godly things that denouce everything. They can be picked, taken apart, and debunked logically.

Here's a fact that is just as much of a fact as one can be.

"Your logic makes no sense regarding our borders. I'm sorry, if the current adminstration can get away with two illegal wars, nation biulding, outrageous military spending, etc they can easily fix our borders.. Liberals are also fighting the war and is that stopping it? You must be talking about liberals as in citizens like you and me well like I previous pointed out we so far have no real power. The demcratic congress is nearly identical to the other side with them making plans to spend even more money on Iraq. This is not the "will of the nation" gimme a break =/. Also you are ignoring the patriot act that can take away all of our rights. They're willing to do something as drastic as that. This again shows the current adminstration doesn't have our interests in mind."

I think for myself and I've debunked all of your "official facts" using pure logic. I should've copy and pasted my whole post to get the point across.

Also love it how you call me a liberal and try to victimize yourself. I can tell you right now I'm more conservative than you'll ever be. I'm not trying to sterotype you. But hey you do the same thing to me after that, nice. I actually know what beliefs powered the conservative party and it sure isn't alive today. I'm not going to say anything more about your age and how your acting because I think you get my point.

FYI, Anti-war, no taxes at all, non-intervention foreign policy (bush actually ran on that), strict constitutionlists, no socialism, no nation building, small goverment, privacy and liberty, a free market capilistic society, etc have all been real conservative values. And this current adminstratino, check by check have been the exact opposite. Ron Paul has shown me the light on that.

Everythin in this place is about us VS liberals. And it's fucking stupid. If you look at the whole picture, there is only one set of beliefs that is ruling and that is the neo-conservatism.

And you are awesome Dr. Guy. You are another who isloates a part of an arguement, cutting it off from the rest of it's logic while you safely stay by the sidlines not making any arguements your self. And then make snide remark on a mythical side that hasn't been in power for years.

Anyways ciao, I'm not going waste any more time or energy here and of course for the reasons above.