Iraq... What a mess! (1 Viewer)

[GarzaUK]

Watch it NP, you are showing your blatent hypocrisy by giving all the credit to Bush only because, and correct me if I'm wrong, you always love to point out how Kerry voted to support Bush in his attack on Iraq, so...

your statement should read, "Thanks to President Bush and John Kerry, he will never get the chance period"!

Do not let me have to remind you again NP because if by some miracle, Iraq turns out successful in the future, then I will be forced to remind you and correct you on how Iraq was a bi-partisan, successful venture!

And I'll have the proof.

Yeah he's got you there NP, apprantly the Iraq war couldn't have been launched without the Democrats vote, so you know --- share the credit sucess or failure. :2wave:

 

[KidRocks]

Yeah he's got you there NP, apprantly the Iraq war couldn't have been launched without the Democrats vote, so you know --- share the credit sucess or failure. :2wave:

Oh, no doubt, Bush & Co will soon fervently mount a campaign through their talking-heads in talk-radio as to how the Democrats made Bush invade Iraq.

How Iraq was a bi-partisan adventure. How Bush was mislead by the strong show of support from the Democrats, in fact I'm a bit surprised that the RNC has not floated that notion yet.

But they will, mark my words.

 

[tototu]

Aren't you capable of speaking for yourself?

Yeah, thanks for the cheap shot. you must be one of those guys who knows everything without reading anything. I'm one of those dummies that has to learn stuff before I open my yap. Go figger!:roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

Watch it NP, you are showing your blatent hypocrisy by giving all the credit to Bush only because, and correct me if I'm wrong, you always love to point out how Kerry voted to support Bush in his attack on Iraq, so...

your statement should read, "Thanks to President Bush and John Kerry, he will never get the chance period"!

Do not let me have to remind you again NP because if by some miracle, Iraq turns out successful in the future, then I will be forced to remind you and correct you on how Iraq was a bi-partisan, successful venture!

And I'll have the proof.

Your boy Kerry has flip flopped so many times on the issue that no one knows where he actually stands....

A lot of liberal democrats voted against giving the president the authority.......

 

[Caesar]

after iraq itll be iran

 

[KidRocks]

Your boy Kerry has flip flopped so many times on the issue that no one knows where he actually stands....

A lot of liberal democrats voted against giving the president the authority.......

You do!

You seem to know where Kerry stands on every issue and if Kerry flip-flops on any issue then you equally flip-flop because you systematically and methodicallly oppose any issue Kerry supports.

 

[Navy Pride]

You do!

You seem to know where Kerry stands on every issue and if Kerry flip-flops on any issue then you equally flip-flop because you systematically and methodicallly oppose any issue Kerry supports.

Your wrong, I have no clue where you hero stands on any issue........It depends what day of the week it is...........

 

[tototu]

My point was these reports indicated he had not had WMD's since the early 90's, and he didn't have the infrastructure in place to make any more.

You're right no WMDs here

1) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."
(source: http://www.usembassy-dhaka.org/state/StatePD/pre1jul08_04.html)

2) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
(source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html )

3) 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage." (source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/02/international1018EDT0516.DTL)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by tototu
Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons [WMD's] or factories were found.

That's from your source.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Actually, there is. And I know that you know it because you have accused the US of breaking it. I'm referring of course to Article 51 of the UN charter. Some prominent legal scholars disagree that the US has violated Article 51.

Anthony Clark Arend, Professor and Director of Institute for International Law and Politics, Georgetown Univ:
"The Bush doctrine of preemption may, in fact, be lawful— even if it is politically unwise."
[...]
"It is difficult to conclude that preemptive force in self-defense is prohibited."
[...]
"Both WMD and terrorism pose threats unanticipated by traditional international law."

Michael J. Glennon, Professor of law at the Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy, argued that the U.N. Charter’s prohibition
of the use of force was no longer binding on states:

"The administration's answer [as to why it is no longer binding] has never been articulated publicly. But its underlying theory probably was inherited from the Clinton administration's Balkan policy. Asked whether the US was still seeking explicit Security Council approval to attack Iraq, Secretary Powell said, "The president has authority, as do other like-minded nations, just as we did in Kosovo."

The Security Council never authorized use of force against Yugoslavia. Absent Security Council approval, the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except for self-defense. NATO, which led the Kosovo war, never seriously claimed a defensive rationale, and the United States has yet to advance such a justification concerning Iraq. Given the contradiction between the mandate of the Charter and the prevailing American view on Iraq and Kosovo, what has happened to the law?

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Charter provisions governing use of force are simply no longer regarded as binding international law."
[...]
since 1945, dozens of member states have engaged in well over 100 interstate conflicts that have killed millions of people.

This record of violation is legally significant. The international legal system is voluntary and states are bound only by rules to which they consent. A treaty can lose its binding effect if a sufficient number of parties engage in conduct that is at odds with the constraints of the treaty. The consent of United Nations member states to the general prohibition against the use of force, as expressed in the Charter, has in this way been supplanted by a changed intent as expressed in deeds.

The United States is therefore correct: it would not be unlawful to attack Iraq, even without Security Council approval. "

Nonetheless, on another level, there is a very basic problem with this seeming irrelevance of Article 51 in particular and the UN in general: it ultimately leads the world back to a world order of 'might is right' with attendant fewer constraints on the inclination of those more powerful than those with whom they might have a grievance to use military force. And that way lies chaos.

When one looks down the list of the 100-plus instances of disregard of Article 51 (see the article by Arend for a partial list) specifically and the ineffectiveness of the UN in general, one perhaps should not be surprised at the current attitudes toward both Article 51 and the UN. Nonetheless, it is frighteningly reminiscent of the fate of the world following the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations.

So, Billo, IMO, you are wrong in a "real world" sense, but quite right in a "would that the world and the UN worked better" sense. At bottom, the UN is in desperate need of reform to better reflect the realities of the world today.

Thats just my opinion - YMMV.

I would like to applaud you for showing the post before you how "it" is done. Two posts, one filled with nothing but emotion and dis-jointed logic and the other, logical, pragmatic, to the point, relevent, valid and a perfect rebut of the issue. Your opinion is a very good one in this case. And you make a valid point. That's the best arguement I have seen regarding Article 51. Although I don't see it quite that way, I am certainly no expert, but more importantly, I don't want to take away from a very good, well thought out arguement on your part. So I'll just let it go at that. Because I want to get to the post before yours and rip it to shreds. Argueing from emotion is never a good idea if you want to win a debate. It's to bad the poster behind you couldn't have followed you and picked up a few tips.

Rock on, dude. We'll tango later.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65
Hans Blix filed reports saying that he could not FIND evidence of any WMD. He stated that there were weapons that were un-accounted for and demanded Hussein prove the destruction of these weapons. We found several of those weapons he had declared had been destroyed when we went in to Iraq - he lied & the U.N. was wrong! Hussein impeded and broke U.N. protocol/mandate by refusing to allow U.N. Inspectors into certain facilities and hid weapons from them - we know that to be a fact now!

At the time we attacked, the inspectors complying with all the requirements of the sanctions. But they had to leave the country because Bush wouldn't guarantee their safety. Why we couldn't have waited and let them do their job is beyond me.

Originally posted by easyt65
We have Iraqi scientists...

I thought we let them all get away.

Originally posted by easyt65
...who say that the main ingredients for WMD were sent to Syria and that they could restart any program within weeks.

UN inspectors said they didn't have the infrastructure to make any. It's a little hard to hide buildings. And how could they move them to Syria without our satellites picking up the convoy.

Originally posted by easyt65
Hussein and the criminals at the U.N. say they are wrong. We now have tapes of Hussein himself in meetings pre-war discussing shipping WMD into Syria. We have Brit reports, verified by the U.N., of nuclear material being shipped to Iran days before the war.

I'm confused, are you using the UN as a source, or discounting them as a source?

Originally posted by easyt65
The serial numbers of that material, turned over to the U.N., has not been verified because Iran refuses to allow the U.N. to inspect - all FACT!

Kind of like the GITMO detainees. We wouldn't let the UN see them either.

Originally posted by easyt65
We have an Iraqi base commander's story of WMD coming onto his base pre-war then being ordered out, as he was told Hussein changed his mind last minute and decided to ship the WMD into Syria....exactly as per the discussion recorded on the tapes we now have in our custody. That fact has been reported recently in the news.

You still have nothing to show for it. Until you have WMD's in your [US] possession, it is all conjecture.

Originally posted by easyt65
As for breaking International Law? There are more than enough sanctions and resolutions passed by the U.N. that provide the technical/legalistic authority of the U.S. to do what it did. As far as the U.N., though, how can you declare that WE broke laws established by the U.N., the world body organization created to stand up to do the right thing?

That's easy. We were bombing the crap out of Iraq during the cease fire when we were telling the world we were just enforcing the no-fly zone. Running over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets to provoke Hussein into war is not no-fly enforcement. That is an act of war. An act of war 9 months before Bush ever received authorization from Congress. Which makes it an impeachable offense.

Originally posted by easyt65
We have now discovered that the U.N. had no intention of doing ANYTHING against Hussein because they were engaged in the ILLEGAL activity of privately breaking every sanction they had voted for publicly through a Black Market Scandal set-up which funded Hussein's enslaving, torturing, and murdering his own people!

You fail to mention we new all about OFF for years but never said anything. 51% of OFF money was US dollars. And a lot of it from that Houston business man. So we were complicit, to say the least.

Originally posted by easyt65
How can you recognize such an organization as legal any more? They still, to this day, refuse to fess up, to police their own criminals, and to do anything to conform! They are still being led by the criminals who master-minded and ran the Black Market scheme/scandal! They are invalid - illegitimate, no longer to be taken seriously...

By who?

Originally posted by easyt65
...because they were exposed to the world to be a criminal organization acting for the sole good of a few for personal monetary gain instead of for the good of the world!

Don't say you know what the good of the world is. Because the entire world is against our invasion. Our Olympic atheletes are booed everytime the compete outside the US.

Originally posted by easyt65
The U.N. is MOOT....

They have to be for your argument to work.

Originally posted by easyt65
until they decide to clean house, get rid of/punish the criminals, and make the U.N. what is was designed to be once more! Their criminal activity forced our hand, and they would NEVER have agreed to war because it would have cut into their Black marketing profits! If you, like Kerry, are advocating that the U.S. bow to the continued wishes of the criminals running the U.N., the world will go down the toilet, and this country's security will go become more and more endangered!

I would settle for us just keeping our word.

Originally posted by easyt65
Another exmple - Genocide was being conducted in the Congo/in Africa. The U.S. pleaded with the U.N. to do anything. The U.N. said 'no', and France kept blocking it. We finally said we were going in to provide relief supplies to refugees - France complained about that! When we got there, we found out WHY - France was selling arms to the people committing the genocide! The U.N. is FUNDING genocide, torture, rape, and murder through selling arms to genocidal regimes, supplying dictators through under-the-table Black Market Scandals, and are trying to block the countries who REALLY want to do something because these countries might hurt their illegal schemes and cut into their personal profits!

Care to post some proof.

Originally posted by easyt65
Hussein was a danger to his neighbors -

Oh please! He barely had running water and electricity.

Originally posted by easyt65
our allies, he was gassing and Cheming his own people,

With our gas, probably.

Originally posted by easyt65
he had met with Al Qaeda members - it is documented. He did not allow them to start up permanent training camps,

Because he hated them.

Originally posted by easyt65
but he met with them. We have already proven by what we HAVE found in Iraq that he lied to U.N. inspectors/the world because he had weapons he had reported as having had destroyed. (You want to take the word of a rapist, torturer, murderer, tyrant who used WMD on his own people, a liar, etc though when - although his discussions in his own voice on that tape we have say otherwise - he and the criminals at the U.N. NOW say he did not have WMD, was not a threat, and we had no right to go in?!)

That's right. There was no reason to rush into this. But DSM told us Bush was going anyway.

Originally posted by easyt65
He plotted to/attempted to have George Bush Sr - whether you like him or not he was still the U.S. President - assassinated.

Actually, I have a lot more respect for the dad than I do the schrub.

Originally posted by easyt65
Saying Hussein was not a threat to the U.S. is like saying the President of Iran today is no threat to the U.S.; therefore, we have no right to even THINK about attacking his nuclear program! Its riddiculous!

We have no right telling sovereign nations whats what in their own country. You act like we know whats best for a society. As far as societies go on this planet, we are a baby. Our society is still in its infancy. Compared to China's which is 6000 years old. Ours is only 200 years old. But we think we know whats best because we have technology? Get real. We don't let anyone dictate to us what we do in our country. And in my world, the door swings both ways. I'm not going to be a major hypocrit and expect others to live by a different set of rules than I do nor am I going to tell them how to live their lives. This American arrogance has got to stop. Our intolerance for others of a different ilk is going to destroy our planet.

 

[KidRocks]

Iraq government warns of risk of "endless civil war"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060225...PRX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's defense minister warned on Saturday of the risk of a "civil war" that "will never end" as sectarian violence flared again despite a second day of curfew in Baghdad.

Extending a traffic ban in the capital to Monday after battles around Sunni mosques and a car bomb in a holy Shi'ite city, leaders scrambled to break a round of reprisals sparked by a suspected al Qaeda bombing of a Shi'ite shrine on Wednesday.

Sunni and Shi'ite clerics met to seek a joint approach at Baghdad's holiest Sunni mosque, site of one clash overnight.

The gravest crisis since the U.S. invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.

"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shi'ite-led interim government, told a news conference.

"We are ready to fill the streets with armored vehicles."

Iraq's 232,000-strong, U.S.-trained security forces have few tanks but U.S. forces, which routinely patrol Baghdad with heavy armor, are also standing by, commanders said. The loyalties of the largely untried new police and Iraqi army could be tested in any clash with militias from which many were recruited.

The Pentagon said in a report on Friday no Iraqi units were able to fight on their own but about 40,000 troops were in battalions able to take the lead in combat with support from U.S. forces, an increase of 50 percent in the past three months...

 

[NYStateofMind]

Iraq government warns of risk of "endless civil war"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060225...PRX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's defense minister warned on Saturday of the risk of a "civil war" that "will never end" as sectarian violence flared again despite a second day of curfew in Baghdad.

Extending a traffic ban in the capital to Monday after battles around Sunni mosques and a car bomb in a holy Shi'ite city, leaders scrambled to break a round of reprisals sparked by a suspected al Qaeda bombing of a Shi'ite shrine on Wednesday.

Sunni and Shi'ite clerics met to seek a joint approach at Baghdad's holiest Sunni mosque, site of one clash overnight.

The gravest crisis since the U.S. invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.

"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shi'ite-led interim government, told a news conference.

"We are ready to fill the streets with armored vehicles."

Iraq's 232,000-strong, U.S.-trained security forces have few tanks but U.S. forces, which routinely patrol Baghdad with heavy armor, are also standing by, commanders said. The loyalties of the largely untried new police and Iraqi army could be tested in any clash with militias from which many were recruited.
The Pentagon said in a report on Friday no Iraqi units were able to fight on their own but about 40,000 troops were in battalions able to take the lead in combat with support from U.S. forces, an increase of 50 percent in the past three months...

I'm pretty concerned about that statement. I really don't think it would be a good idea for our tanks and armored vehicles to get involved in civil unrest. Worrisome!

 

[KidRocks]

I'm pretty concerned about that statement. I really don't think it would be a good idea for our tanks and armored vehicles to get involved in civil unrest. Worrisome!

I'm not sure what Iraq's defense minister meant by that statement too. Iraq has few tanks so I'll assume he meant US armored vehicles filling the streets which I sincerly doubt will happen unless it to cover our troops backs as we abruptly pull-out of Iraq as we did in the last days of Vietnam.

What the hell do you mean by "involved in civil unrest"? We are smack dab in the middle of that mess, haven't you noticed? We created that mess or should I say we unleashed that mess.

No, check that, President Bush unleashed that mess, period!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Look at the left cheer with glee at the death of innocent Iraqis, civil war civil war yaaay. To bad for you that Sadder ordered the Shiite militia to protect Sunni Mosques not to retaliate for something that the foriegn insurgency did in the first place.

 

[KidRocks]

Look at the left cheer with glee at the death of innocent Iraqis, civil war civil war yaaay. To bad for you that Sadder ordered the Shiite militia to protect Sunni Mosques not to retaliate for something that the foriegn insurgency did in the first place.

President Bush is responsible for Iraqi's killing each other now just as he is responsible for the death of over 2000 of our American troops.

How many more Americans must die for Bush in Iraq?

How many Iraqi's will die now and in the future long after we're gone because of President Bush's hazardous adventure in Iraq?

How many?

 

[Navy Pride]

Iraq government warns of risk of "endless civil war"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060225...PRX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's defense minister warned on Saturday of the risk of a "civil war" that "will never end" as sectarian violence flared again despite a second day of curfew in Baghdad.

Extending a traffic ban in the capital to Monday after battles around Sunni mosques and a car bomb in a holy Shi'ite city, leaders scrambled to break a round of reprisals sparked by a suspected al Qaeda bombing of a Shi'ite shrine on Wednesday.

Sunni and Shi'ite clerics met to seek a joint approach at Baghdad's holiest Sunni mosque, site of one clash overnight.

The gravest crisis since the U.S. invasion in 2003 threatens Washington's hopes of withdrawing its 136,000 troops from Iraq.

"If there is a civil war in this country it will never end," Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi, a minority Sunni Muslim in the Shi'ite-led interim government, told a news conference.

"We are ready to fill the streets with armored vehicles."

Iraq's 232,000-strong, U.S.-trained security forces have few tanks but U.S. forces, which routinely patrol Baghdad with heavy armor, are also standing by, commanders said. The loyalties of the largely untried new police and Iraqi army could be tested in any clash with militias from which many were recruited.

The Pentagon said in a report on Friday no Iraqi units were able to fight on their own but about 40,000 troops were in battalions able to take the lead in combat with support from U.S. forces, an increase of 50 percent in the past three months...

How do you know how many tanks Iraq has?A link to this report you are privy too.....

 

[NYStateofMind]

I'm not sure what Iraq's defense minister meant by that statement too. Iraq has few tanks so I'll assume he meant US armored vehicles filling the streets which I sincerly doubt will happen unless it to cover our troops backs as we abruptly pull-out of Iraq as we did in the last days of Vietnam.

What the hell do you mean by "involved in civil unrest"? We are smack dab in the middle of that mess, haven't you noticed? We created that mess or should I say we unleashed that mess.

No, check that, President Bush unleashed that mess, period!

What I mean by that is I don't think it would be a good idea for our troops (and tanks) to be in the position of attempting to restore order in a civil internal conflict. We could very easily and quickly become the target from both sides. It's the reason our troops have been told to stay off the streets.....a wise move.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

President Bush is responsible for Iraqi's killing each other now just as he is responsible for the death of over 2000 of our American troops.

How many more Americans must die for Bush in Iraq?

How many Iraqi's will die now and in the future long after we're gone because of President Bush's hazardous adventure in Iraq?

How many?

Ya umm here's the thing the Iraqis (both Sunni and Shi'ite) are responsible for their own actions not only that but how many more Iraqis had to die under Saddam for this all to be worth it. Far more Iraqis were killed under the tyrant Saddam and his two sick fuc/k kids than by either the U.S. or the insurgency.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Ya umm here's the thing the Iraqis (both Sunni and Shi'ite) are responsible for their own actions not only that but how many more Iraqis had to die under Saddam for this all to be worth it. Far more Iraqis were killed under the tyrant Saddam and his two sick fuc/k kids than by either the U.S. or the insurgency.

That's a pretty hypocritical statement coming from you since you do absolutely no introspection on what our country does wrong. It's always them, isn't it. It's not all us, but it's not all them either. Now let me here you say what you think our mistakes are. Or are you comfortable with hypocrisy?

 

[jfuh]

Ya umm here's the thing the Iraqis (both Sunni and Shi'ite) are responsible for their own actions not only that but how many more Iraqis had to die under Saddam for this all to be worth it. Far more Iraqis were killed under the tyrant Saddam and his two sick fuc/k kids than by either the U.S. or the insurgency.

In what time frame though?
When you have to rely on contrasting US efforts with a brutal dictator like Saddam, that in itself is very indicative that things are very bad.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

In what time frame though?
When you have to rely on contrasting US efforts with a brutal dictator like Saddam, that in itself is very indicative that things are very bad.

Do your know what the F.F.'s said to do with the supporters of tyrants, hint: it wasn't nice, crucifction comes to mine.


Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!

 

[jfuh]

Do your know what the F.F.'s said to do with the supporters of tyrants, hint: it wasn't nice, crucifction comes to mine.


Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!

Lol, unsurprisingly you didn't answer to the post.

 

[Conflict]

Lol, unsurprisingly you didn't answer to the post.

The Iraqui people had much better sleep and peace in the days before the miscreant Bush violated their right to hold their own form of government. Now all we see is conflict over there. That's all I see (and have seen first hand).

It's easy to sit here and say that we are doing anything worthwile there... but no... we are sacrificing good american people to proliferate the repulsive will of Bush and his apologetic minions.

There is no medium now. There never will be again. Bush has taken yet another opportunity to run something nto the ground to support his perverse political and financial will. He's doing the same damn thing to us. He's running our economy into the ground.

free trade to Bush = Give it all to the Saudis....

 

[jfuh]

The Iraqui people had much better sleep and peace in the days before the miscreant Bush violated their right to hold their own form of government. Now all we see is conflict over there. That's all I say. There is no medium now. There never will be again. Bush has taken yet another opportunity to run something nto the ground to support his perverse political and financial will. He's doing the same damn thing to us. He's running our economy into the ground.

To be fair, you really don't know that. No one knew just what Iraq really as like before the war. At least not the average person, Saddam didn't exactly allow the free flow of information out of the nation.