Gaza

[Gav]

I wish I knew more about less controversial issues- like medical ethics and contemporary interpretations of point in line....

Don't mention PiL again I'll have to close the thread.

[keith]

The problem is I retain an enormous interest in the region's politics and enjoy robust debate. I don't find that I have extreme beliefs - but how then to indulge my interests- they are all off-topic

You can only debate someone if you can agree on some common assumptions, or standards for assessing claims of accuracy. Those do not exist for debates on the "IP question".

Obviously this hasn't been an enjoyable experience for anyone.

Well I found it great fun.

Oh, and as to the question of Egypt closing their border with Gaza, you may want to read up on the relationship between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[pigeonmeister]

You can only debate someone if you can agree on some common assumptions, or standards for assessing claims of accuracy. Those do not exist for debates on the "IP question".

This is originally what I suggested- parameters for determining concepts of success and failure for the Israeli offensive.

Well I found it great fun.

If I'm honest, I enjoyed most of it...

Oh, and as to the question of Egypt closing their border with Gaza, you may want to read up on the relationship between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

I think your analysis is correct. Hamas started essentially as the "North Sinai Branch" of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt want to see Hamas weakened and want PA men on the border. They are not, of course, occupying Palestinian territory (and so less responsible for the situation in Gaza)- but are still contributing to the blockade.

I promise that is my last word.

[keith]

This is originally what I suggested- parameters for determining concepts of success and failure for the Israeli offensive.

Except of course that debating who won the 99th round, or otherwise, inevitably collapses back to the question of who started it.

There are only two opinions on that.

... and so it ends up as the standard, rather sterile, positing of arguments from fixed positions.

I promise that is my last word.

Till next time

[Purple Fencer]

Don't mention PiL again I'll have to close the thread.

PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL

[jeff]

I didn't think it would. It didn't make me feel uncomfortable, just didn't think it was a particularly good post.

They can't all be primo..

Your definition of ugly essentially amounts to any analysis of Israeli policy that is negative?

Wrong. My definition of ugly was the rancor and personal tone being expressed in the posts. Posts made, mind you, while I was uninvolved

Which, if true, makes me naive in my hopes that a sensible debate could emerge.

I do think you're naive. I don't think you're a bad person, but one who is so convinced of his righteousness that he can't frame a debate in neutral terms.

Don't start as a "neutral discussion" when you're already convinced that one party is a war criminal unless you can put that aside for sake of discussion. You don't seem to be able to do that, hence the "assumption of guilt" of how you framed the discussion, and unwillingness to pose the same questions to Hamas.

(snip)Well that implies that Hamas alone are responsible for the current misfortune in Gaza- that is something that has been rejected by the UN, Red Cross and serious commentators across the globe.

A) Don't exaggerate: hyperbole weakens your argument.
B) Don't cite the UN as an impartial authority. They haven't been for decades - witness the "Zionism is racism" decision

(snip) It is an analysis that I do not agree with- again why do you equate that with 'writing off" the actions of Hamas- which I explicitly and consistently said I don't justify their actions

You say you don't justify their actions - but you always precede and follow that statement with ones in which you do, in fact, justify their actions. eg: "Well, the Israeli's broke the truce first". This is why I knew this was doomed from the outset.

Characterising all Europeans as Nazi terrorist appeasers who delight in the deaths of Jews obviously gets a pass- and is perhaps not even, to you, an extreme statement?

Don't exaggerate: hyperbole weakens your argument. It also saves you from having to even consider the very real possibility that anti-Semitism is part of the pathology.

Where do you get this assumption that I write off Hamas statements calling for genocide. I wonder if you will respond to the selected quotes I listed- I doubt it.

You write it off repeatedly by saying its just rhetoric, and that they are "practical". What else is that but writing it off? I already commented to your quotes.

IMy sense is that historical and political aggrievement is of more consequence than irrational racism in the pathology of the situation

It can not be ignored, nor discounted as part of the political situation. Also, I didn't allude just to Islamic anti-Semitism, but to European anti-Semitism, which I believe contributes to its one-sided position.

This is a pointless analysis. (snip)

It is not pointless at all. But now you don't have to think about it

(snip) you've already made your mind up: we're wrong, you're right, and that's all there is to it.

Repeating my words back to me is an interesting, if childish, way of conducting a discussion. Are we to now go "Nyah! Nyah!" at each other?

You have a very strange notion of historical facts

It is a matter of historical fact that terrorist killings in Israel caused hundreds of deaths through suicide bombings, and at the time that this tactic was most successful, Europe and UK did not have mass protests against this, but instead used the rhetoric I previously described to say why it was justified.

How does this discount attacks on Israel? (snip for 10K limit)

I already answered all of this. You discounted attacks early in the thread by saying "nobody was killed". You had an argument with Inq over the validity of this argument. He won. For the latter part: see my response that described the strategic basis of the Israeli response, and consider that Hezbollah was very quiet during this war.

But then your habit of placing words in my mouth is a central tenet of your debating style.

If you say so.

No-placing the moral burden on Israel for the current suffering in Gaza and claiming rocket attacks on Israel don't count are not mutually exclusive. Especially when i have stated they are wrong(snip)

I'll explain how this works. If the rocket attacks are trifles, as you expressed "since nobody died during the cease-fire" then mounting an attack on Hamas is almost necessarily criminal. If they are not trifles, then Israel has a right to respond with force. Arguments about the collateral damage are then tragedies, but not crimes, and may be unavoidable. How many houses did HM Air Force destroy in WW II?

I think Israel by and large acted appropriately in this war. That's not hypocrisy, whether you like that opinion or not.

Israel appears reluctant to give up the ability to keep its foot on the throat of Gaza regardless of the actions of any Palestinian faction. (10K snip)

Your first sentence is flag waving cliches. Israel unilaterally left Gaza, remember? Gaza could be fed entirely through the crossing at Egypt. Inq has already demolished your "only a few rockets" argument.

Re- the Egyptian crossing. I would disagree with its blocking but the circumstances are entirely different. As the besieging force, Israel remains responsible for the well-being of Gaza’s civilians.

Nonsense. After leaving Gaza, they should not have been saddled with any responsibility for it.

Three quarters of a million of the Gaza population are dependent on UN food aid, which is not always allowed across the border. Again, explicit in your analysis is a justification for collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza

A) They can get it through Egypt crossings
B) Hamas could import more food, rather than bullets at .04 per bullet
C) Hamas could avoid bombing the crossings (as I mentioned before and you ignored) which causes Israel to shut them down
C) I could look up for you the number of tons of food and fuel delivered,. but why bother.

There is a symbolic element to their rhetoric- which is still reprehensible. I was actually quoting a very distinguished British diplomat. Will you respond to the rhetoric coming out of Israel- which I have posted? In terms of the threat they represent to Israel- it is minimal- that is clearly demonstrable.

The rhetoric from Hamas expresses their objectives and plans. Your diplomat is still a moron. You are so wrong about the "minimal" threat. Even absent the supernatural causes fanatics of all stripes (Jewish, Christian and Muslim), Hamas is hoping for one of several game changing scenarios to play out that would give them what they want. Use your imagination.

Now this truly is a ridiculous argument. Because 7 Americans agree that Israel is entirely blameless- this is evidence of a unified truth?! Er..perhaps it's because this is a US forum and as such it is not unsurprising that 7 Americans are going to agree that Israel can do what it likes in Gaza.
But, you've already made your mind up: we're wrong, you're right, and that's all there is to it.

I am humbled by your elevated discourse

Nicely side-stepped. Care to comment further on anti-Arabic/Muslim racism as part of the pathology of the situation?

It is pointless claiming you accept a two state solution if you know that that solution is totally unacceptable to the other side- i.e. total control of Jerusalem, no right of return etc.

Remember which side accepted the two-state solution, and which hasn't. Total control of Jerusalem might some day be dropped (hard cheese if not) "No right of return" is essential, because otherwise you get two Palestinian states, not one. But you know that.

Total mischaricterisation (what did I expect)

That's exactly how you presented it.

I think the majority of the guilt for this current conflict lies with Israel. I believe the overall guilt of the wider and historical crisis is about even. I find your views equally unpleasant- but that is no indicator of who has a better grasp of the issues.

If you responded to the questions I put to you at the bottom of my last post, or to the points I actually made a few back, you might have a leg to stand on.

That's it- I'm finished over and out. If there is one thing we can all agree is that this thread was a mistake and should not be repeated (which is quite a sad indictment). Sorry for raising these issues, I wasn't trying to cause trouble.

I am overwhelmingly happy for all Americans today- perhaps it's best we forget this thread happened.

Most sensible thing you said on this thread

[OROD]

Because 7 Americans agree that Israel is entirely blameless- this is evidence of a unified truth?! Er..perhaps it's because this is a US forum and as such it is not unsurprising that 7 Americans are going to agree that Israel can do what it likes in Gaza.

Ok, I confess, only supporters of Israel are allowed to join internet forums in the U.S. I wasnt supposed to tell anyone, but, you've obviously found out our clever and yet highly implausible plan.

Alright guys, pack it up. Jeff, Inq, Hautman... it's on to plan B.

.

[pigeonmeister]

Till next time

And another thing...

No, I will resist Jeff's provocation and this is definitely my lost word

(promise)

[I_luv_saber]

PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL PIL

DAMMIT! Purple, you stole my joke!!!

Rep!

[Purple Fencer]

DAMMIT! Purple, you stole my joke!!!

You snooze, you loose!!

[Inquartata]

I also posit that the analysis 'Hamas targets civilians and Israel targets terrorists' is unsustainable. It is clearly not demonstrable by dropping one ton bombs from 30,000 feet on one of the most densely populated cities in the world.

Yes, I'm afraid it is. The distinction is in the word "target".

Israel targets terrorists. If they are hiding amongst civilians, it is nevertheless the terrorist who is the target.

Hamas doesn't even make a pretense of attacking military targets. It deliberately targets civilians, and then crows about it. It is any and every Jew who is their target.

I cannot see why you are so set on ignoring this difference...

More generally, I don't disregard the concept of proportionality simply because Israel is the more 'righteous'.

And who, pray, decided that this "concept of proportionality" is somehow morally or militarily indicated? I don't recall anything about it in any manual of the conduct of war, or any international treaty. Who decided that a party which is attacked must be "proportionate" in its response? Let me guess: Those who have picked a side and want it protected from the consequences of its own actions, so that it may continue said actions?

Here's the way it goes in law enforcement, with the full backing of the courts:

If a guy comes at you with a club, you do NOT use your "proportionate" baton. You shoot him dead. ( And you will probably be disciplined if you try the baton. )

If a guy comes at you with a knife, you do NOT use your "proportionate" pepper spray. You shoot him dead.

If two guys come at you with nothing but their fists, you do NOT use your "proportionate" fists. You shoot them dead. ( And in fact if you are a woman officer all it takes is one unarmed guy attacking you. )

Or in the words of Sean Connery, "You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone."


As to your quotes from Israeli leaders, I reiterate: Watch what they do, not what they say. Israel is the party which actually gives up the element of surprise by calling ahead to warn civilians in their own language of an impending action in their area. This is quite the opposite of what Hamas an its ilk does...


Here, in this story, you can see what IMO needs to become much more widespread before there can be the prospect of a resolution to the conflict:

from http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3148562

Israeli officials have said that their military campaign decimated Hamas , but the militant Islamic group tried to appear resilient, deploying armed police officers on the streets and civilian officials to take stock of the wreckage.

Surveying the damage in their neighborhoods, residents expressed outrage at Israel's aggression, but some also voiced frustration at Hamas . For all the group's defiant rhetoric, several people asked, what did its resistance campaign achieve?

"Where is the victory Hamas was talking about? Show us the victory," wailed Maha al Sultan, clasping a tissue to her nose. "We are the only ones dead and destroyed. Where are the burned Israeli tanks and dead soldiers?"

The 36-year-old mother of four was standing outside her family's home in Tawam, where some 55 relatives lived in six apartments. An Israeli strike had collapsed the concrete roof like a chute and it hung nearly at a 90-degree angle, looking as if it would fall at any minute.

The family would spend this night, and probably many cold nights to come, at a U.N. shelter, she said. She bitterly wondered how Hamas' belligerent leader in exile, Khaled Mashaal , would explain that to her.

"Where is Khaled Mashaal ? He's living in Syria in a big castle," she said. "Let him see our destroyed homes."

Nearby, Khadija Saqer , 55, sat on the crumbling stoop of her family's decimated three-story house. The ground was strewn with bits of a ceramic teapot and a cracked plastic bed frame, signs of the middle-class life they'd built in the house over the past five years.

The final humiliation, she said, was evidence that Israeli soldiers had camped upstairs: opened cans of beef and a few missing packs of Marlboros.

"There was no resistance," Saqer said. "It's the job of the resistance to protect my land."

She soon directed her anger back at Israel , however, suggesting that the military campaign had only fueled Palestinians' resentment.

"My sons are not Hamas ," she said. "But I wish they were."

Only when the Palestinian people finally recognize Hamas for what it is and what it has brought them---as that first woman does---can they have any hope of peace...

The second woman, alas, is much more representative of the societal consensus, and until that changes suffering will be their lot. For does not the great Yoda tell us that "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate . Hate leads to suffering"?

[pigeonmeister]

I've retired from specifically responding to these points on Gaza (which i obvioulsy disagree with)

I will however say that your point about disregarding the intent within the racist and aggressive rhetoric of Israel is particularly hypocritical given our previous debates on Iran's rhetoric re-Israel. Bias is now totally exposed.

This is a must read article on the conflict as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1232...fox_australian

[Inquartata]

Heh, yes, "bias is now totally exposed". Sorry you didn't find a more fertile ground here for your terrorist apologia...

[pigeonmeister]

You are of course entitled to the belief that criticism of Israel's recent conduct, and some of its historic rhetoric, amounts to 'terrorist apologia'. To be honest, I think a man of your considerable intellect can do better though...

[Gav]

Heh, yes, "bias is now totally exposed". Sorry you didn't find a more fertile ground here for your terrorist apologia...

This attitude seems to be curiously American. Disagreement over one side's actions does not immediately mean the other side has your wholehearted support.

[Inquartata]

I wonder whether you have actually been reading his arguments.

He is trying to erect a moral equivalency, at the very least, between a party which stages deliberate attacks on civilians and a party which responds to such attacks and creates unavoidable civilian casualties...between one party closing border checkpoints into towns and another firing rockets and mortars at towns.

There is really no comparison. The culpability is more like 90%-10%, not 50-50 as PM seems to believe.

[Gav]

I wonder whether you have actually been reading his arguments.

Yes. I wonder if you have.

He is trying to erect a moral equivalency, at the very least, between a party which stages deliberate attacks on civilians and a party which responds to such attacks and creates unavoidable civilian casualties...between one party closing border checkpoints into towns and another firing rockets and mortars at towns.

You see the thing is that I see Israel's responnse, while understandable from a certain perspective, wholly disappointing. The lack of compassion on display from yourself and others is also disappointing. Israel, in effect, has strengthened the hand of people like Hamas, other who oppose Israel's existence, and not really added any impetus to the stabilisation effort. I am surprised you can't see it. It seems completely counter-productive. And Israel has achieved this through their own form of terrorism. The situation is not as rigidly black and white as you seem to believe.

There is really no comparison. The culpability is more like 90%-10%, not 50-50 as PM seems to believe.

I am not in favour of standing around pointing the finger. However Israel IS responsible for the deaths of civilians in the recent attacks. What I really want to see is a cessation of violence and moves toward a lasting peace. That way both Israel AND the Palestinians can get on with their lives. So long as BOTH sides sat it was your fault and point at each other whilst outsiders stand around the edges and egg them on then there can be no peace for those caught up in it all.

[pigeonmeister]

I wonder whether you have actually been reading his arguments.

He is trying to erect a moral equivalency, at the very least, between a party which stages deliberate attacks on civilians and a party which responds to such attacks and creates unavoidable civilian casualties...between one party closing border checkpoints into towns and another firing rockets and mortars at towns.

There is really no comparison. The culpability is more like 90%-10%, not 50-50 as PM seems to believe.

No- what I was actually trying to challenge various assumptions- which even now you drop in as if they are unassailable 'truths'- such as 'responds to such attacks' and 'unavoidable civilian casualties'.

I wonder how many of the 6000 destroyed houses, schools and mosques the IDF had intelligence attacks were being launched from? Unless you know you cannot possible make any claims of Israeli 'targetting'. The extent of the humanitarian value of warning people about attacks is a) unproven beyond IDF spokesman b) undermined by the central question: where are these people to go where, in the one of the most densely packed places on earth, they are guaranteed to be safe?

I suggest that this claim is more geared towards to the huge propaganda effort Israel has mounted prior and during this conflict.

I also draw attention to the moral questionability of applying collective and entirely disproportianate punishment for an entire people.

As such, I completely reject the entirely useless analogy you make with law enforcement. A more appropriate scenerio would be to have reports that a man has been throwing knives from a certain street and police drop phosphorus bombs on the entire block. If I regard this as unacceptable does this make be an apologist for knife crime?

The fact is that I have consistently criticised the ideology and actions of Hamas but the pro-Israeli posters have not one word on reports Israel used human shields, used illegal weapons (phosphorus can only be used in 'open spaces' on a battlefield), on racist rhetoric, on the political motivations, on Israel's role in establishing Hamas, on the indiscriminate suffering imposed by the siege, the bombing of UN schools. No- In fact they actually cheer it on and, unbelievably, marvel at Israel's restraint.

But do I retort with accusations that they justify the death of innocent children and wives having to watch their families literally melting to death from phosphorus burns? No. That would be to employ the same emotional indulgence and lazy rhetorical devices that they favour attacking me with.

The targeting of civilians, even whether deliberate or not, violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As such, Israeli action warrants severe criticism- as does Hamas'.

Now It was not my intention to continue this debate- and I'm not sure why Inq decided to revive it. I repeat my belief that this there is little point in continuing on these lines...

If we want to try once again to measure Israel's strategic gains and abandon all questions of morality- I will try and contribute on this basis alone and accept all criticism for any future deviations from this approach.

[I_luv_saber]

I wonder how many of the 6000 destroyed houses, schools and mosques the IDF had intelligence attacks were being launched from? Unless you know you cannot possible make any claims of Israeli 'targetting'

.
Nor can you make claims of them targetting civilians. They at least claim they are targetting militants. Hamas there is no question, they openly state their objective.

The extent of the humanitarian value of warning people about attacks is a) unproven beyond IDF spokesman b) undermined by the central question: where are these people to go where, in the one of the most densely packed places on earth, they are guaranteed to be safe?

We can also call into question a lot of other basic facts that are reported. How are we to really know anything until we are there ourselves to monitor it? Are we going to call every single one of those into question? If so, this entire argument is useless, because none of us can really put forth any substantiated unbiased facts, and we are all arguing from different unsubstantiated "facts" to begin with.

On your second point, I don't care if you live in the heart of New York... if I and all my neighbors are showered with little pamphlets from people who do not like us very much, saying "We're about to blow you away", guess what? I'm not sticking around.

I suggest that this claim is more geared towards to the huge propaganda effort Israel has mounted prior and during this conflict.

Facts to back this up, or should we be taking YOUR assumptions as truth and the other assumptions as silly? Call it into question if you will, but you must place as much confidence in your own opinion since neither has solid facts backing it up.

I also draw attention to the moral questionability of applying collective and entirely disproportianate punishment for an entire people.

You say this as if it was a single isolated incident. Hamas fires an itty bitty rocket and Israel goes haywire. They've been poking a tiger for YEARS. Exactly how long are they supposed to respond with "proportional force" (whatever that is anyways, as if it mattered during wartime) before they are justified for coming unglued a bit?

As such, I completely reject the entirely useless analogy you make with law enforcement. A more appropriate scenerio would be to have reports that a man has been throwing knives from a certain street and police drop phosphorus bombs on the entire block. If I regard this as unacceptable does this make be an apologist for knife crime?

Again, I think the issue here is the two parties are arguing from two different standpoints which assume different basic facts, neither of which can be substantiated unbiased. This is a pointless argument, both sides being unprovable.

The fact is that I have consistently criticised the ideology and actions of Hamas...

I think what issue most people are taking with your tone is that you glaze over it like it's nothing. You mention it... but light criticism and truly being disgusted are two different things. And if people are not disgusted with the ideals Hamas represents and their goals, that worries me. Israel aside, we need to realize that Hamas are not nice people that would like nothing more than the entire Jewish population decimated. That isn't something to simply "critcize" that is something to be disgusted of on a very basic level.

but the pro-Israeli posters have not one word on reports Israel used human shields, used illegal weapons (phosphorus can only be used in 'open spaces' on a battlefield), on racist rhetoric, on the political motivations, on Israel's role in establishing Hamas, on the indiscriminate suffering imposed by the siege, the bombing of UN schools. No- In fact they actually cheer it on and, unbelievably, marvel at Israel's restraint.

I don't think anyone is "cheering it on". At least I'm not, I can promise you that. But, why do you seem to assume these reports of Israel are true, but seem hard-pressed to believe the reprehensible actions of Hamas? WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY DO?! Don't get me wrong, Israel is not without guilt in the matter, but the statement that they do not carry as much as Hamas is a fair one to me. Again, exactly how long are they supposed to sit there and "take it" before they are justified in a strong response?

But do I retort with accusations that they justify the death of innocent children and wives having to watch their families literally melting to death from phosphorus burns? No. That would be to employ the same emotional indulgence and lazy rhetorical devices that they favour attacking me with.

*tiny violin/salt shaker snow*.

Cry me a river, you aren't the victim here. You are indeed employing the same lazy rhetoric. This seems to be a "curiously European" mindset, I've heard this exact same rhetoric more than once I promise you. Why are your assumptions and rhetoric more true than the other sides? Because you believe them?

The targeting of civilians, even whether deliberate or not, violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As such, Israeli action warrants severe criticism- as does Hamas'.

So are they supposed to sit there and politely ask Hamas to stop firing rockets and killing their civilians??? What action do YOU believe they should take I wonder? Sit there and hope it stops? Even those that hamas hides amongst are starting to get pissed because they realize as long as Hamas is firing amongst them, it isn't unexpected for Israel to fire back!

Now It was not my intention to continue this debate- and I'm not sure why Inq decided to revive it. I repeat my belief that this there is little point in continuing on these lines...

Agreed. Everyone is arguing from different planets with no or too little proof.

If we want to try once again to measure Israel's strategic gains and abandon all questions of morality- I will try and contribute on this basis alone and accept all criticism for any future deviations from this approach.

I think it's impossible to approach that question without approaching the moral/justification side of it.


My feeling of why Hamas brought this on themselves is this. People are holding Israel at a higher standard than Hamas. Sure, maybe Israel should be seeking more peaceful ways to try and stop these attacks from Hamas. OTOH, Hamas, during the ceasefire could have stopped their attacks, tried to peacefully build themselves, and found a more peaceful solution to Israel not complying with the ceasefire. But they decided to &*^$ themselves and attack a bigger, stronger enemy. Sorry for saying I don't feel a whole helluva lot of sympathy to that group (especially counting what they stand for).

Why don't they? It's a pissing match, plain and simple. They're whipping 'em out, putting 'em on the table and measuring them. Always been that way, and call me a pessimist, but I think it always will be that way there.

[OROD]

You see the thing is that I see Israel's responnse, while understandable from a certain perspective, wholly disappointing. The lack of compassion on display from yourself and others is also disappointing. Israel, in effect, has strengthened the hand of people like Hamas, other who oppose Israel's existence, and not really added any impetus to the stabilisation effort. I am surprised you can't see it. It seems completely counter-productive. And Israel has achieved this through their own form of terrorism. The situation is not as rigidly black and white as you seem to believe.

Your criticism of Israel is pretty harsh ("wholly disappointing", "completely counter-productive", "their own form of terrorism"), so this leads me to believe that you have figured out a much better solution to the problems in the Middle East, one which will lead to a lasting peace for all involved.

So, please tell us how YOU would act if you were Israel to solve once and for all the current unfortunate state of affairs.

We're all expecting great things here, dont let us down.

.