If War Commences and WMD's Are Found, What Then?

[Saen]

Well, I appreciate your admiration on the improvement of my prose. I only aim to please. I will also work on my quoting etiquette so as not to irritate regnad.

The basis of my assertion that you are undermining the government policy is concerning the red herring, which I have stated several times before, about Saudi Arabia and the like. I have already went into why I thought it as such several times. I just want you to understand where I am coming from. You are trying to weaken the argument with it, but if you think I was calling you subversive or traitorous in any way, I was not.

I said that Iraq and the US were, though, and that one did not have the right to either invade or otherwise harm the other.

Whoa now. Seems we have a few misconceptions of our own here now don’t we.

To start off, as sovereign nations, they have every right to do whatever they wish unless someone can stop them. You do understand what sovereign means don’t you? Having no power above itself and whatnot. Which means, their rights are not given to them by anyone, except maybe themselves. So therefore they make their own rights as they see fit. Again, unless someone can stop them. Iraq is every bit as sovereign as the US, as you acknowledged, (not as legitimate, in my eyes because it is not a democracy) the only problem here is that the US has the ability to make Iraq stop doing something if it wants. Now, it may not be in harmony with world peace and brotherly love and our cuddly feelings, but dems da rules. And this is the real world.

do you mean that, if the collectively-supported body (aka the UN) fails to adhere to the wishes of its membership, that an individual member has the right to act unilaterally?

That is exactly what I mean. And all this talk of world community’s interests and bowing to the will of the collective does not change what I stated above. For instance, if the UN, as a collective, decided to unanimously vote against the US action in Afghanistan, the US would have been behooved to ignore the will of the collective for it’s own sake. They did not have to ask for permission to do such, but they did to be polite. And if they said no, we would have done it anyway.

“Survival of the fittest on a global scale” is what we have had since the history of mankind. And, although the idea of the UN tempers that a little, it does not erase that fact.

What you didn’t take into account, was that the UN didn’t sign anything. It’s members did. The UN does not speak for itself, but it’s members speak through it. It is a world forum, if you will, where it’s members talk about international issues, make agreements or not in the name of it’s members, and helps pursue agendas of it’s members as a collective or individuals. It issues out edicts and resolutions based upon the desires of the members. Those resolutions are not a power themselves. As a matter of fact they are useless paper until the members decide to act on them. Nor are they required to. Example Iraq again; The US and UK were pretty much the only ones to enforce the resolution to use force against Iraq in the Gulf War. Others provided assistance if they could or wanted to. But, it was really the US and UK’s desire and will that made that resolution anything but just another piece of paper. It was not the resolution that legitimized the action of the two countries, but visa-versa.

1. the majority of the world thinks invading Iraq is a necessity and 2) that the UN (or specifically the UNSC, in this case), as a collective body, was not able to meet the needs or desires of the majority

1. has nothing to do with the validity of the UN resolution of Iraq in the eyes of the US and 2) is not the same as the needs or desires of the US, so it is irrelevant.

The needs of the majority does not automatically obligate anyone, not even it’s members, to do or not do anything. The majority has passed several resolutions against Israel that the US just ignores. If it is not a desire of the US then it has no consequence, per se, yet if it is a desire then that is all that matters. If the UN decides on a resolution to use force against Israel, and the US opposes it, it can and probably will, not only declare it invalid, but take active measures against it.

And just because we agreed upon the original resolution, in no way obligates us once we consider the resolution as not helping us or fulfilling our wishes. Just because we signed it does not mean that a change in the resolution would change what we desire. It only means will just not go through the UN to meet them.

Yes, it very well may invalidate the UN as an entity. But our goal is not to keep the UN valid. But to protect the citizens of the US. And if we feel the UN is in contradiction to that goal, then it is the governments duty to invalidate it and take steps necessary to correct it. Or get out.

This is all moot concerning what we plan on doing about the Iraq issue. Because we want to go through the UN. And are taking active measures to keep it that way. The other nations understand all that I have stated about the UN and US. That is why it will behoove them to agree with the US before it is all over. I remember at the start of all of this, France and Russia stated absolutely that they would not support a new resolution against Iraq. They did, and the US knew they would. Because of what I stated. Or they would not have went through the UN.

The UN will only be a credible entity as long as the US desires it. Mainly because we are the world’s only Superpower and the most active champion of it’s goals. Do you think the Russians or China will attack Iraq if they invade Kuwait again? And how many countries will line up to lead a force against a genocidal government like Bosnia and Somalia? We do desire it, just not at the risk of it’s citizens.

Your comment about the … seems to mean that whether an action should be undertaken or not is predicated by the wishes of a majority of the population (either of a sovereign nation or the world as a whole); if so, then your argument is even further eroded, because, right now, world opinion (“the will of the people”) is against a unilateral US invasion of Iraq.

I meant that as a sovereign democracy, such as the US, the will of the people gives it the inherent right. And in the case of the US, whatever the government decides to do is generally the will of the people. They voted the government in there and they are supposed to speak for and take action on behalf of them. Of course in a dictatorship, such as Iraq, the will of the people is whatever Saddam wants. The desires of the rest of the world does not change the “inherent right”.
I do admit that my writing skills are not up to par with many people in this community, and I appreciate your working through any difficulties I may accidentally throw in your path because of it. And, though I do not know you from Adam, I presume by what you say that you do know more about the area than me. That does not make me uninformed on the issue. If there are things I have not taken into consideration that you have noticed, or you are privy to anything an average joe like me would not be aware of, by all means let’s hear it.

[greco_loco]

Saen - I still need to respond to the rest of your previous post, but first wanted to take the wind out of your sails quickly for this last bit of “propaganda.”

You obviously put a lot of time and effort into crafting a response, so thanks; but, to make things easier for both of us, I want to distill all of that down to its essence, namely:

1. The UN is only a consultative body, in no way capable of doing anything on its own, and having no power on its own.
2. There are no rules regarding what sovereign nations may or may not do; any sovereign nation may do what it pleases to any other.
3. The US, as the world’s only superpower, and therefore the strongest of the sovereign nations, can do as it sees fit. If the UN or other nations don’t approve, it doesn’t matter; we can take it under advisement, but we still have every right to execute our plans.
4. The only reason the UN exists is because the US lets it exist; if pull support from the UN, it ceases to be a meaningful body.
5. Once the government of the US was voted into power, it received a “mandate” of it’s people’ as such, whatever the government does in that four year period is justified. Even if the majority of the population disagree with any action the government takes during that period, the government is still acting in accordance with the “will of the people.”

I haven’t made any extrapolations, just reduced your post down to the basic concepts; if you don’t agree with my synopsis of your post, please let me know where I am off.

OK - assuming I am correct, then I have to say: WTF? Where do you live, in a cave? Hey, it’s one thing to feel the US is the greatest, can do no wrong, inherently knows what is right for every other nation in the world, etc., but to ignore 2,000 plus years of history? Dear God, Saen, I know our views differ, but you are figuratively on the other side of the universe here. You do realize, I hope, that you have nullified the entire body of international law, as well as the existence of the study of international relations (I guess Ms. Rice’s PhD is just a worthless piece of paper to you now); and, you did it all in one circular post on a message board.

Look - I’m not even going to argue with you hear, because it’s obviously pointless: everything you stated is false. The UN signed the ceasefire with Iraq, not its members: look at the document (called UNSCR 687, because it was issued by the UNSC), and tell me who signed it. Regardless of what you may believe or actually desire, the facts are this: there exists in this world a body of international law, although there is currently no one body of enforcement for that law. Instead, most of the countries of this world created a council, the UN, that could address issues and concerns that do arise between individual entities; if the US was not a party to this organization, it would lessen it’s abilities (just as if Russia or China were not members, the same would occur). It is the UN, with the assistance of its members, that puts peacekeeping troops into various parts of the world; what uniforms do they wear when they go? UN uniforms, right? The member countries give to the UN resources, so it may be more capable of doing its job; obviously, the more members that give these resources, the more effectively the UN can do what it has been chartered to do. I mean, for Pete’s sake, the EU doesn’t have the US as a member, so what, it has no validity or credibility either?

Another glaring quote:

(not as legitimate, in my eyes because it is not a democracy)

.

So what about the PRC and Russia; they aren’t as legitimate, either? I know what you will say, and I’m sorry, but you weaken your credibility considerably by such statements. Hell, this whole post throws your credibility out the window, but I’m trying to salvage some of your argument…

No, in the “real world”, there is such a thing as international law, and all the countries of the world are beholden to it, by agreement; just because we are the most powerful country does not make us exempt. And, though the government as a whole has a primary responsibility to its people, it also has a responsibility in the world community. Otherwise, your argument would be analogized as such: a father has a responsibility to provide for his family, but no responsibility to anyone else nor to the society in which he lives. If you go for this, then I presume you really do live in a cave… The US is one member of a world community, or society, if you will. The UN is a type of global representative democracy: each country sends a member, and that member is capable of representing his entity’s needs to the rest of the community. You want to ignore this body, and ignore the dynamics of a global society, be my guest: however, you are alone in this ignorance, my friend.

I have been pretty lenient on you, but after this last diatribe of yours, I have to ask: we went way off topic with this thread, so if you want to retrieve credibility, why don’t you start posting some cites? You know, ones that support your contention that there is no such thing as international law, and any sovereign nation can do what it pleases? They can’t: if a nation invades another, for instance, Iraq invading Kuwait, then the world community condemns them for their actions. And look at the penalties Iraq has faced for it’s actions: this is because they went against the will of the community. Does the US impose sanctions against Iraq unilaterally? Hell no: the UN does, meaning it instructs its members not to trade with Iraq in certain items, etc.

So here’s the challenge: you want to make wild-eyed, unsupported claims, go for it. But you had better have proof of your assertions. As an example, I will post the following:

Proof that international law exists (I’m not making this up, in other words):

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/forintlaw.html

the evolution of International Law

a good article on the use of military forces in support of international law, with great links

As for the UN: it exists, and here is a list of many of its accomplishments:

http://www.un.org/Overview/milesto4.htm

The rest, well, if you think that a president, indeed a whole administration, has the right to go against the majority of the voters on a particular issue, what can I say; sure, they can, but they won’t stay in power long. And, depending on the actions taken, it can often lead to impeachment and criminal charges; that is the way our system is designed. Whether you like it or not, the will of the people, in a democracy, is the will of the majority of the people at any given time. Otherwise, what stops a president from saying one thing in an election campaign, and then making an about face? For instance, under your specious logic, I could become president, and suddenly declare war (under my “emergency powers”) against Canada. Sure, Congress would be up in arms, but, according to you, I have the support of the “will of the people.” They voted me into office, right? Unbelievable…

Another cite, supporting my contentions that 1) the UN signed the ceasefire, and it is valid and 2) that there are serious legal issues involved (which you don’t think exist):

A tussle over who can legally declare war

OK - now it’s time to stop the circular logic (I’m right because I said I was right earlier, and then I said I was right before that…), and move into the “real world” – bring some support to your claims, and you might be able to salvage something out of this hijack.
Greco

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by anonplz *
Would that be Bush’s biggest PR victory yet? Would that be reason enough to expect Sean Penn to shut up and go back to acting?

You really believe that Dubya is making this big mess to just in case Saddam has some chemical or biological weapons?

I have some prime estate on Mars, really cheap.

[anonplz]

This is merely my opinion, but I believe the administration may have highly sensitive intelligence information which provides circumstantial evidence at the least that Saddam continues to seek to make his arsenal more deadly, up to and including the development of nukes, but that revealing that information would compromise valuable sources. Furthermore, I don’t believe anyone has ever convincingly demonstrated that Bush’s integrity is in any way questionable - he’s a straight shooter. Also, his administration seems to be as honorable as he is, especially Colin Powell, and if even Colin Powell is fed up with the UN, and sees the need to go in, that’s enough for me.

[Saen]

–Type Title Here–
Well, I had a pretty long post in response to yours picking it apart with with what I said and what you thought I said. Then I realized your main hang-up is that you did not grasp the point I was trying to make. Although your list of 1-5 is right on the money, your diatribe that follows is ridiculous.

I will do it in simpler terms so that you can understand. We are talking about inherent rights of a nation to act unilaterally.

in·her·ent (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

in·trin·sic (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.
Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

You asked me what gives a country the inherent right to invade another. I told you, and then went into detail.

Nowhere did I say that the law doesn’t exist. Nor did I state anywhere that the UN doesn’t exist. Your misunderstanding is acceptable, but your poetic license on conjuring things I never said and attributing them to me is not.

Hey, it’s one thing to feel the US is the greatest, can do no wrong, inherently knows what is right for every other nation in the world, etc.,

I never even hinted at that.

there exists in this world a body of international law

Proof that international law exists

As for the UN: it exists

I will attribute this nonsense also, as you inability to grasp what I was trying to say. They do exist, they are just not relevant to the inherent rights of a sovereign nation.

You know, ones that support your contention that there is no such thing as international law, and any sovereign nation can do what it pleases? They can’t: if a nation invades another, for instance, Iraq invading Kuwait, then the world community condemns them for their actions. And look at the penalties Iraq has faced for it’s actions: this is because they went against the will of the community.

They can’t? It is impossible? How does what you say actually make my claim false that a country has an inherent right to do whatever it pleases if they can? I never said the world has to agree and condone with their actions because of their inherent right.

And who is ignoring 2,000 plus years of history here? The Persians ruled the civilized world because they could. Not because of some international law. Alexander whooped their ass because he could, not because the UN or Ms. Rice’s Ph.D… The same goes for the Romans, the French, the English, the US, and every international event throughout history you can think of. The UN has power because the nations that are it’s members says it can and enforces it. The UNSC representatives did not agree to sign the resolution against Iraq. Their parent countries gave them leave to sign it.

And you say that The US cannot unilaterally impose sanctions on another country? And you want cites to back up my wild-eyed, unsupported claims?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/

How about an unsupported claim that countries willingly ignore the UN sanctions. Not because the UN says they can, but because it is their inherent right.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/iraniraq.htm

http://www.islandnet.com/~bbcf/serv01.htm

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021015.htm

And your reasoning on why the President shouldn’t attack Iraq without the support of everyone else has no bearing upon whether he has the right. There is no law in this sovereign country that says he can’t.

And a countries obligation to the world community is not pertinent to the obligation to their citizens. No sovereign nation is ever established for the world community. Only for it’s citizens.

[quote]
Sure, Congress would be up in arms, but, according to you, I have the support of the “will of the people.” They voted me into office, right? Unbelievable…

[quote]

The will of the people is that he has that power to begin with. Do not try to spin it any other way that it actually is.

Now, if my credibility is being thrown out the window with my assertions, you can try and refute them. I will be happy to debate. But your insistence on trying to belittle me is getting quite tiring. If you persist I will, either, end the debate or take up your wishes and create a pit thread. Cool it. Arrogance does not help a debate, and makes you look plain foolish, especially when you are blatantly wrong, as I have cited. At first it was amusing, now it is deffinately not.

[Saen]

As a matter of fact, it is only polite to the OP and others in this thread, if we take the rest of this conversation about this issue elsewhere. If you want to reply here, go for it. I will start another on my next post if you don’t.

[sailor]

greco_loco, I just want to say how much I appreciate your posts which show you understand the issues well. I hope you will keep posting for a long time to come.

[greco_loco]

Sailor, thanks for the support; I haven’t been around these parts long, but I like most of what I see.

Saen, umm, don’t know how to say this, but I don’t know where you are going up there. I never said that the US was not able to impose sanctions; I am quite aware that we have unilaterally imposed sanctions on Cuba, as I am an avid cigar smoker. If you can find somewhere, anywhere, when I said that the US couldn’t impose sanctions unilaterally, please do me the favor of quoting it here. In fact, I don’t think I said half of what you were ranting on about, but that may just be me…

And you’re right: it’s hopeless; I have no clue what your point is any longer, if I ever did. So I tell you what: I propose you start your own OP, with the assertions that you have made here, and I will respond, as I hope will others. And we will go from there… Fair enough?

[Saen]

ones that support your contention that there is no such thing as international law, and any sovereign nation can do what it pleases?** They can’t:** if a nation invades another, for instance, Iraq invading Kuwait, then the world community condemns them for their actions. And look at the penalties Iraq has faced for it’s actions: this is because they went against the will of the community.** Does the US impose sanctions against Iraq unilaterally? Hell no: the UN does, meaning it instructs its members not to trade with Iraq in certain items, etc. **

Bolding mine of course. You state that a sovereign nation cannot do what it pleases. You give an example of why they can’t. Then you state that the US does not impose sanctions unilterally because it can, but because the UN instructs it to.

Now I do not see how I can be mistaken in your infer-ing that it does not impose them because it can’t. Or why would you bring it up? Certainly, not to insist that the US only does it because the UN tells them to. Look at my previous posts if you think that the US is required to follow a resolution it disagrees with.

[greco_loco]

Since you’re up and posting, like I said, start your own OP. Hey, I thought I was using the proper sbject/predicate, but I guess I needed to put in there (assumption mine) “They can’t, legally:…” Any clearer?

And I didn’t infer anything – I have been pretty good about spelling things out: what I said was that the US was not the party (we are talking factually here, not theoretically) that imposed sanctions and continues to do so, but the UN. Not who could or couldn’t, yadda yadda, but we are discussing what has already occurred. What in the world is there to argue about on this? Do I really need to cite to support my statement? BTW: the whole passage you quoted from me is to point out to you what happens if a country decides to act unilaterally in a way harmful to others in the world community. That’s the whole point, nothing nefarious or inferred. In case you haven’t noticed: yes, you were seriously mistaken. Whether you can see how you got that way or not, well, that’s not for me to say. I thought, and still think, it was pretty clear. Do you?

[kniz]

Very interesting that this thread died out after “The State of the Union”.

One thing that has been brought out numberous times is that the administration was wrong to point out the aluminum tubes because they were not in violation to article 1441. Fact is that they are in violation since they very easily can be modifited to be used with nuclear weapons and that is prohibited by article 1441.

Also those against taking action against Iraq have assumed that the administration would give no more proof and not seek to get approval from the Security Council. Feb. 5th is the date that Secretary Powell will address the Security Council. It seems obvious to me that this is why this thread has died out. They put up and you shut up.

[Squink]

Very interesting that this thread died out after “The State of the Union”.

In case you didn’t notice, the board was down for a couple days after the state of the union speech.
I’d like to see some evidence for your claim that the aluminum tubes could “very easily be modified” The UN inspectors don’t seem to think that that’s the case:

While the matter is still under investigation, and further verification is foreseen, the IAEA’s analysis to date indicates that the specifications of the aluminium tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets. While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/iaea/iaea-elbaradei-unscbriefing-010903.htm

[kniz]

While it would be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are not directly suitable for it.

In this CNN Report the following quote follows the above sentence.

It should be noted, however, that the attempted acquisition of such tubes is prohibited under paragraph 24(a) of resolution 687 (1991), which, inter alia, proscribes the supply to Iraq of components of arms and related material.

On TV, it was stated that items that could be easily modified were included in the banned materials (which really only makes sense). At best the situation is still under investigation and the claims that Bush was totally wrong were not founded. So were the statements about going to war without consulting the Security Council. So were the claims that we do not have the support of other countries (France will be joining soon, say right after Feb. 5).

[sup]There had been plenty of activity on the boards and GD, since everything was back up running and to find this thread I had to do a search.[/sup]

[Squink]

Ohh no, the claims were FOUNDED, you just don’t happen to believe them. That lack of belief on your part has nothing to do with whether the claims were based on a factual assessment, or pulled out of someones butt. If you choose to believe what some talking head on the boob-tube tells you, rather than the written testimony of the expert in charge of the investigation, that is your problem. It does not give you the right to claim that said experts opinion is unfounded.

[Latro]

Saen, I’m still having a bit of trouble understanding what your beef with Iraq is.

Following your argumentation, Iraq had every right to invade Kuwait, it being a sovereign nation with inherent rights to that territory.
They can have all the WMD they want, 'cause why should they, as a sovereign nation, be bound to any silly UN treaty?
Torture political prisoners, fine.
Gass some naughty Kurds, good for you Saddam!
There’s no such thing as ‘international law’

According to you any nation can do as it pleases, unless someone can stop them.
As, per your logic, they are doing nothing wrong, why would you want to stop them? I don’t get it.

[kniz]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**Ohh no, the claims were FOUNDED, you just don’t happen to believe them. That lack of belief on your part has nothing to do with whether the claims were based on a factual assessment, or pulled out of someones butt. If you choose to believe what some talking head on the boob-tube tells you, rather than the written testimony of the expert in charge of the investigation, that is your problem. It does not give you the right to claim that said experts opinion is unfounded. **

I gave you a written statement from an expert concerning the tubes. Do you doubt the fact that Secretary Powell is going to address the Security Council on February 5th?

Are Blix and his deputy experts on the subject? If so they have both been on the boob tube saying that Iraq is not cooperating and that they will not be returning there until something is done about the U-2 flights and questioning scientists. Blix says that Iraq lacks confidence and then added “and have ever since 1991.”

I just took a look at your link Iraq Watch and found this quote:

In 2001, the Project launched Iraq Watch, a comprehensive web site to monitor Iraq’s progress in building weapons of mass destruction. At the time of the launch, the Project revealed that Iraq had purchased weapon components from companies in Ukraine, Belarus and Romania in violation of UN sanctions.

You don’t reckon that some of those components were the tubes, do you? But it doesn’t matter, because the point isn’t about the tubes but about Iraq working on WMD.

[Squink]

because the point isn’t about the tubes but about Iraq working on WMD.

No, the point is precisely about the tubes being used to build a gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment. You seem to have confused the general evilitude of Iraq, and their vaunted lack of cooperation, with the truth of specific claims about precisely how the UN resolutions are being defied.
In the assessment of the UN weapons inspectors, the tubes are NOT being used to refine uranium. They are being used in rockets.
The president claimed that the tubes were being used to build gas centrifuges, in order to produce weapons grade uranium. The facts so far do not support that assertion.
In fact, there seems to be no evidence whatsoever of a renewed Iraqi bomb program, and isn’t that one of the big reasons Bush is giving to frighten us all into supporting his war ? How can you honestly claim that the use to which the tubes are put is irrelevent ?

[kniz]

Because as part of the general cover-up all Iraq had to do while we were getting the inspectors ready was to use the tubes for rockets and not for the purpose they had been bought. This is not a complicated tactic in covering up. Iraq was not supposed to have parts that could be modified to be used in nuclear weapons and it makes no difference to me what they did when the inspectors showed up. Look at my previous post, if Blix doesn’t trust Iraq or think they are cooperating, why should I?

When South Africa gave up nuclear weapons they invited the U.N. to inspect what they had done. They took the inspectors to sites where the weapons were placed, designed, and built. They told how these sites had been dismantled. They provided documents, pictures and anything asked for. When the Ukraine and another one of the Soviet republics gave up their weapons they did the same thing, except the other republic asked for assistance in getting rid of some items that were beyond their expertise. The fact that Iraq has done none of this tells me enough that I don’t want to wait until they develop suitcase size bombs.

However, I don’t care if it is nuclear, chemical or biological weapons . I don’t want a nut like Saddam having the power to distribute them at his pleasure.

[Squink]

Because as part of the general cover-up all Iraq had to do while we were getting the inspectors ready was to use the tubes for rockets and not for the purpose they had been bought.

I see that having decided what the tubes are for, you will make up wild theories to explain away all evidence to the contrary Have you forgotten your razor ? Seriously though, that prejudging on your part lends to your arguments all the intellectual honesty of a libertarian arguing for school vouchers because he feels they will speed the demise of publicly funded education.
Hans Blix has good reason not to trust Iraq. He also has good reason not to trust president Bush. Do you have a good reason why you only acknowledge half of what the man is saying ?

[kniz]

Of all the stuff you’ve accused me of doing that “school vouchers” example makes me blush. You do not and will not understand that the inspectors are there so that Saddam can prove he does not have WMD’s. You completely ignore the parts of my posts that you have no answer to and attack the same old things.

I never said that Mr. Blix is a friend of the U.S. If he were you would have already attacked him as being in our pocket. The reason that I quoted Mr. Blix is that what he said is like a choir member saying the preacher is a heretic. He has swung over in his opinion, just the same way France is about to do. It is getting more and more lonely on that side of the ball, but there are a few that never will change.