2nd British Civil War 2012

[ashep5000]

so you are a nationalist socialist then huh..........but anyway I know that many latin countries prefer leftist governments even compared to our democrats up here.

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

Well...most of the world prefers lefter governments than your democrats up there .

In seriousness, firstly to Navman, I have taken offence to non eof your comments, and I hope the reverse is also true. Though I fundamentally disagree with much of what your saying, I don't begrudge you or anyone else for your opinion, as it's well informed and not based on prejudice.

To ammend myself, I do realise that the USA does have a form of a minimum wage provisions, I admit to not knowing its intricacies, but it is not at all on line with a European laws. And no, it is porbably not the change Europeans would MOST like to make, but perhaps the one which it woul dbe most easy for America to change.

In response to comments on the Iraq war - firstly let me say that was greatly opposed to the war in the form it took, though would have backed it (albeit reluctantly) had there been United Nations support. I do not entirely subscribe to the view that the Iraq war was all about oil and money, its a common conspiracy theory. I agree its so common because in most situations, including Iraq, it has some basis in truth, and it is correct that Bush has far too many links to major companies that stand to benefit from the war to my liking, but I do not think that the war can be explained away in this manner. Far more convincing based on the existing is the idea that Bush initially wanted Iraq out for the oft quoted reason of continuing his father's work. This sounds initially ridiculous, but based on the publications of Bob Woodward and others I see no other explanation for why the Bush administration, right from its inception, was so committed to finding a way to invade Iraq. But I think by far the most important reason was simply for the US allied block to gain another ally in the middle east by deposing a hostil-US regime of Hussein and installing a pro-US one in its place. The Middle Eastern situation has been the thorn of the US for decades, and it is hardly suprising, though not, I feel, condonable, that they should attempt to increase their support in the region by removing a regime that is, at the same time, guilty of horrendous war crimes and is a possibel security threat. This is by far the most probable motive for the Iraq war, and whiel I still find it horrific that any western government shoudl consider it sufficient motive for war, it is better than it being entirely based on wealth or family vengeance.

Also, just to reply to any who quote humanitarian or terrorist reasons for Ieaq, this is absurd. Firstly, there are dozens of other nations worldwide who have committed equal or worse atrocities than Saddam Hussein which the USA does not make any attempt to remove. There have been dozens more over the course of this century who have committed again, equal crimes against humanity, but which the USA has installed (such as in Chile), or supported while turning a blind eye to their horrific crimes (e.g. China, Bolivia, Cuba). So no one can for one second suggest that the USA invaded Iraq for altruistic reasons, for the good of the Iraqi people or for other humanitarian reasons. Nor can terrorism be used as a reason. Despite the beliefs of many, Saddam Hussein had no proven links to the Al-Quaeda network, as affirmed by both the United Nations and British and US intelligence services. He possessed no weapons of mass destruction as has been affirmed by the same sources subsequent to the war. Indeed, papers published since the war by British Intelligence services have shown how, both before the war and since, Intelligence forces on BOTH sides of the Atlantic advised their respective governments that a war against Iraq would significantly increase the threat of terrorism against western nations. So it is equally impossible to claim that in any way Iraq qas a war on Terror...or if it was, then it was an incompetent decision to take, because it was predicted by all experts, and has suceeded, in increasing terrorist plots against the western world, rather than decreasing them.

And finally to Communisto, in case you havn't worked out, I am from London in the UK.

 

[Metacomet]

Actually he, as I, have been on the ground in the mideast and seen the real story with no need to listen to an uninformed M.Moore, or for that matter news(any) who do all have their own agendas, right or left.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq was in clear violation of several UN provisions, this was never even a question, it was unanimously passed by Security Council, the only question was to allow more time for them, or not. My country grew tired of giving second chances, right or wrong. FYI large companies like the ones you mention, every election, donate huge sums to BOTH candidates..perhaps you should stop listening to propaganda yourself.
Saddam had in fact used WMD already, on his own people, (yes, WMD= chem,bio, and nuclear, not only nuke as so many people wrongly assume)
Saddam also imprisoned and executed countless thousands of his own people, as well as thousands of Kuwaitis when he invaded that country.

I agree with you but what about North Corea, China, Pakistan and more countries. Why only Irak?

 

[navman74]

I agree with you but what about North Corea, China, Pakistan and more countries. Why only Irak?

I could envision a day in the near future when at least one of those may come to the front. As for Pakistan and China, not sure what UN resolution they violated..and really as for China, with their veto power, I am quite certain they did not violate any, as no resolution would have passed a vote without being vetoed.

 

[navman74]

In reply to dark phantom, the US minimum wage law is quite fair..I grew up the son of parents who both worked for minimum wage, and we never lacked any essentials, we also learned the value of a hard days work. Today I am an officer in the US Navy, and much of the reason why is because I did believe in the dream, and believed that hard work would be rewarded.
As for the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, I have spoken with members of the intelligence communities on both sides of the Atlantic. I have seen a trend as well, of the more "PC" minded people in the business, trying to cover tracks now. The true military career intelligence services however, including yours in UK, had no and still have no, doubts as to the justifications for this war. Your Prime Minister Blair has been a true patriot, willing to risk his political fortunes, for a good cause.There are many things relating to the decision on Iraq, that won't likely be known for years.
As I posted before half jokingly though, it is conceivable that a part of it, was as you said as well, to get a base in the region. I however do not believe that, but I do believe it is a nice bonus. As for the oil, etc...the US does not depend on oil from that region,even as much as our allies do. What amazes me, and if M. Moore is really into uncovering the truth, he should document better, is the vast coverup in the pre-war Iraq/UN oil for food program, which we have now seen evidence that this,rather than conscience, was possibly the reason for the war NOT getting approval from the UN.
As for myself, I never have believed a country, any country, requires UN approval to conduct affairs of state. Any world body where a small dictatorship of 5million people, has an equal vote as a large democracy of 250million, is not really a perfect system, it is best in my opinion as a sounding board. This opinion is also I believe widely shared.
Just to wrap on the UN however, there were several resolutions which justified the use of force, dating all the way back to the original ceasefire..Iraq had from the beginning, found ways to break the requirements of the ceasefire..the first time they did, in the ceasefire itself, it allowed for a resumption of hostilities. Instead we allowed him to toy with the west for 10 years, breaking agreements,kicking out inspectors,always seeing just how far he could push the world..finally my country, and others, grew tired of the game..but the UN at the last moment failed to pass another resolution,backed by veto threats from countries who now are known to have had a monetary stake in the continuation of the status quo. I do not blame them, it was in their best interests..this was in OUR best interest though. So finally we used the conditions of the original UN resolutions, to go to war..just because there was no new resolution passed, did not erase the previous several.

 

[ashep5000]

I have a very low opinion of the UN anyway.......I really don't think that they are worth the effort put into them. Everybody always talks about how bad the US is and how we are building an empire and blah blah blah.......if we were really building an empire trust me you would know. Do you think Iraq is some great prize to fight over.....it costs us more money to supply our troops than what it would be worth as far as taking over the country. Iraq invaded kuwait, which is very rich in oil.....we moved in and stopped iraq and liberated kuwait. If the US was oil-hungry then we would have kept kuwait, especially being already there with an army 13 years prior to invading iraq. We gave iraq a chance when we didn't move in and crush them, and saddam played with us. He lost. I think that if the US was trying to build an empire and take over resources then we would fight our way down to venezuela, taking mexico and every other country along the way. That way oil is right next door and not shipped over seas around the world. It amazes me how people will believe everything they hear or read. People look up to the soviet union and it's harsh government that enslaves it's own people and makes dozens of puppet governments then in turn critize the US while enjoying the protection we provide to NATO. Does anyone here honestly believe that england and france could withstand the Red Army on there own? the fact of the matter is that the US is a military giant that freedom loving countries need but at the same time despise because it's not their country holding the cards. there are countries in latin america that don't even have a military because they count on the US mil to come in if they are attacked, they don't even bother funding an army. And because we as americans have a respect for democracy we will protect them.

 

[ashep5000]

Another thing that people convinently forget is that bush can not just declare war on his own like your beloved dictators can. In our country he has to have approval of the senate, and then he can act. And all of the democrats who claim to never have supported this war have nominated a supporter of the war. Kerry was a senator and he voted to give the president the power to declare war. So he must have seen a reason for it then, yet now that democrats don't support the war he claims to be against it for the recognition of the dem. party (like many issues)

 

[navman74]

Another thing that people convinently forget is that bush can not just declare war on his own like your beloved dictators can. In our country he has to have approval of the senate, and then he can act. And all of the democrats who claim to never have supported this war have nominated a supporter of the war. Kerry was a senator and he voted to give the president the power to declare war. So he must have seen a reason for it then, yet now that democrats don't support the war he claims to be against it for the recognition of the dem. party (like many issues)

I do have a problem myself with someone being my commander in chief who voted to withhold money from our armed forces which at the very moment he was voting no to the funding request for improved armor,etc, were in battles.
I respect Mr. Kerrys record in his own service, but I feel that interjecting a political decision that could cost human lives on the field was unforgivable. I think it is a telling sign that our military , who are the ones with the most to lose in Iraq, are overwhelmingly in favor of the mission. It is easy for people sitting at home to decide how they feel, but to them the war is simply reports every night on TV..the people living it, have seen the reasons for it up close and personal.

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

As for the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, I have spoken with members of the intelligence communities on both sides of the Atlantic. I have seen a trend as well, of the more "PC" minded people in the business, trying to cover tracks now. The true military career intelligence services however, including yours in UK, had no and still have no, doubts as to the justifications for this war. Your Prime Minister Blair has been a true patriot, willing to risk his political fortunes, for a good cause.

Firstly, you cannot be a patriot by ignoring the wishes and protests of the vast majority of your electorate, going against the advice of think tanks, pressure groups and intelligence reports and taking your preferred course of action. That is not patriotic, that is dictatorial. Besides which, while I understand that patriotism is loved in the USA, European country's do not hold it in such an esteemed viewpoint, from experience of how damaging fanatical patriotism can be.

I don't understand your references to 'PC' minded people covering their tracks, but the comments about the intelligence services having no doubts about the war is simply not true. Both your senate commitees and our Parliamentary Select Committes and investigations have revealed that the CIA, NSA and MI6 all made significant cautions against the war, and more importantly, have since conceded that in both the USA and UK the intelligence which was used as a justification for war was false. This is not people 'covering tracks' these are official government hearings and you cannot simply brush away their conclusions. Even if people thought that war was justified at the time, it is clear now that it was not (at least on the grounds of WMD, Security Issues or Terrorism).

I do not deny that Saddam was a tyrranical despot who committed terrible crimes against humanity and ought to be brought to justice. But, in light of precedents set by the wests' actions in the past this is not sufficient to warrant a war which has seen some 9,000 innocent civilian lives lost. I don't deny that Saddam killed many mroe than this in his rule (before someone throws those figures back at me) but, as I say, the west's record has made it abundantly clear that wars are hardly ever declared for humanitarian reasons.

 

[General Kohl]

I have a very low opinion of the UN anyway.......I really don't think that they are worth the effort put into them. Everybody always talks about how bad the US is and how we are building an empire and blah blah blah.......if we were really building an empire trust me you would know.

We already noticed that us is building an empire, your country interferes in other countries political issues in order to protect your interests, just like the british did up to the 19th Century

Do you think Iraq is some great prize to fight over.....it costs us more money to supply our troops than what it would be worth as far as taking over the country. Iraq invaded kuwait, which is very rich in oil.....we moved in and stopped iraq and liberated kuwait. If the US was oil-hungry then we would have kept kuwait, especially being already there with an army 13 years prior to invading iraq. We gave iraq a chance when we didn't move in and crush them, and saddam played with us. He lost.

Check a little more about Kuwait situation, since the so called "Liberation" it sells oil exclusevely to USA under the OPEP prices, that may be because US troops camps there, and about Iraq not being profitable, you need to see it in a more dynamic way, the US Economy has boosted since the invasion, Large Companies has profited over getting cheap oil in Iraq and re-selling it in USA, your stock exchange has boosted, the olny ones who didnt profited in this was the average american, who keeps paying 45 dollars a barrel of oil when Halliburton brings it from Iraq for 4 Dollars the barrel.

I think that if the US was trying to build an empire and take over resources then we would fight our way down to venezuela, taking mexico and every other country along the way. That way oil is right next door and not shipped over seas around the world. It amazes me how people will believe everything they hear or read.

The olny reason USA dont do it is because they know they would not be able to win this war without heavy losses or even win it, they would endure decades of guerrilla warfare and probably Mercosul intervention, wich would put Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, Totalizing an Army of 2 Million men, and the fact that it would probably trigger world war 3 since China has a Mutual protection pact with Brazil(Largest food exporter to China).

People look up to the soviet union and it's harsh government that enslaves it's own people and makes dozens of puppet governments then in turn critize the US while enjoying the protection we provide to NATO. Does anyone here honestly believe that england and france could withstand the Red Army on there own?.

I dont believe USA could withstand the Red Army on their own either.

the fact of the matter is that the US is a military giant that freedom loving countries need but at the same time despise because it's not their country holding the cards. there are countries in latin america that don't even have a military because they count on the US mil to come in if they are attacked, they don't even bother funding an army. And because we as americans have a respect for democracy we will protect them.

Sorry to say it but most of south American countries are in a mutual portection pact called PPMAS wich includes all Mercosul members, olny very small countries like Puerto Rico, Bahamas or Trindad and Tobago depends on USA, and as for the protection of democracy, you are being very ironic, When Chile elected the Socialist candidate Salvador Allende with 84 per cent of the votesyour Army helped Pinochet to make a coup´d etat and install a bloody dictatorship, WOW, THAT IS DEMOCRACY!
And it is Not olny Chile, USA helped Taking down democracy in Brazil after we Ellect Joao Goulart, a Socialist, Thanks to your country, My country suffered 40 Years of Dictataroship, PLEASE, EXPLAIN ME BETTER THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT ELECTIONS ARE NOT DEMECRATIC AND BLOODY DICTATORS ARE GOOD FOR USA DEMOCRACY

 

[navman74]

Check a little more about Kuwait situation, since the so called "Liberation" it sells oil exclusevely to USA under the OPEP prices, that may be because US troops camps there, and about Iraq not being profitable, you need to see it in a more dynamic way, the US Economy has boosted since the invasion, Large Companies has profited over getting cheap oil in Iraq and re-selling it in USA, your stock exchange has boosted, the olny ones who didnt profited in this was the average american, who keeps paying 45 dollars a barrel of oil when Halliburton brings it from Iraq for 4 Dollars the barrel.


I dont believe USA could withstand the Red Army on their own either.

Ok, first off..the "Average American" does not buy oil by the barrel, only the oil companies do, and they are the ones paying 40-50$/barrel.Our oil companies, as I mentioned before, do not import a very large percentage of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Actually Venezuela is our largest overseas supplier. If we had been after the oil, we would have easily taken Kuwait's. Kuwait however does charge the same rate for oil as the rest of OPEC. Only very rarely, and for short time frames, do any OPEC members alter their agreement to"help out" the USA, and it is NEVER for a cheaper price exactly, they alter it by pumping a larger amount of oil, which does have the effect of dropping the price, but not anywhere even in the same area as the amount you suggest. And each time the price drops, the "average American"you mention, is the main benefactor, as the price for auto-fuel(theonly way oil concerns the average American)drops.

On the second part regarding the Red Army, from the mid-80s, the US had the ability to stop them cold. This was why they finally backed down in the cold war. Interviews which can easily be found online even with top Soviet era generals and admirals of that time frame will concur with this statement.

 

[navman74]

Firstly, you cannot be a patriot by ignoring the wishes and protests of the vast majority of your electorate, going against the advice of think tanks, pressure groups and intelligence reports and taking your preferred course of action. That is not patriotic, that is dictatorial. Besides which, while I understand that patriotism is loved in the USA, European country's do not hold it in such an esteemed viewpoint, from experience of how damaging fanatical patriotism can be.

I don't understand your references to 'PC' minded people covering their tracks, but the comments about the intelligence services having no doubts about the war is simply not true. Both your senate commitees and our Parliamentary Select Committes and investigations have revealed that the CIA, NSA and MI6 all made significant cautions against the war, and more importantly, have since conceded that in both the USA and UK the intelligence which was used as a justification for war was false. This is not people 'covering tracks' these are official government hearings and you cannot simply brush away their conclusions. Even if people thought that war was justified at the time, it is clear now that it was not (at least on the grounds of WMD, Security Issues or Terrorism).

I do not deny that Saddam was a tyrranical despot who committed terrible crimes against humanity and ought to be brought to justice. But, in light of precedents set by the wests' actions in the past this is not sufficient to warrant a war which has seen some 9,000 innocent civilian lives lost. I don't deny that Saddam killed many mroe than this in his rule (before someone throws those figures back at me) but, as I say, the west's record has made it abundantly clear that wars are hardly ever declared for humanitarian reasons.

Perhaps you do not realize how"official government hearing " work. They usually are people covering their tracks and trying to make it look like someone else's fault. Also the agencies you mention did support the war. Only in the questions afterwards, have some members of those agencies suddenly remembered that they warned against it..and in case you likely do n ot know how intelligence agencies operate either, as most people do not, in every report prepared, they prepare a best case, a middle case, and a worst case. This is a built in way to allow them to cover tracks, as they can always fall back on one ofthe three assesments. Currently however, there still are many in those agencies who agree with the cause of war. Also I should point out that none of them are "professional military intelligence services"They are all civilian and therefore influenced by whatever way the winds of opinion are blowing on any particular day.
As to wars being waged for humanitarian reasons, that is the most common precedent in the last 15 years..Somalia to feed the people being starved by warlords, Kuwait to liberate a country attacked in a surprise fashion by its neighbor(same as WW2 actually and Korea) The Balkan campaign(waged without even a pretense of asking the UN by the way) because of the outrage (in Europe mostly) of atrocities commited there. Iraq was never mentioned as humanitarian reason, but it is a great side effect,wouldn't you agree, that millions of people now are free. Iraq was engaged because they presented a clear and present danger, and the justification as I said was found in the UN resolutions dating back to the end of the Kuwait war.Right or wrong is an open argument I accept, but the end result, at least SHOULD be leaving it better than when we arrived.

 

[ashep5000]

Iraq had already used MWD on their own people, with saddams history of violence and disregard for human life does any one here think he would not develop or use them again if he could. If the US was to move out around 2000 and no longer conduct ONW and OSW then saddam would just all of a sudden start playing nice out of good will. The UN made some resolutions that Iraq did not follow.....hmmm does League of Nations ring a bell to anyone.


As far as USA not winning a war against mexico.....come on, does anyone here honestly think that mexico would win??? The US took mexico city over a century ago when we were smaller and they were bigger (military and land), now that they are smaller and we are bigger it would be a cake walk. Everyting is in perfect bombing range of our border bases anyway.......we don't even have to worry about the logistics problems of Iraq or Afghan. But anyone here can cry all they want about how horrible the US is, but if their country is in our shoes as the only super power then I am sure they would muscle the world around, like we haven't.


BTW-----Kuwait is self-ruled just like Iraq is now, so if any kuwaiti or iraqi company wants to sell oil to the US it is because they are.............FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

 

[Metacomet]

I could envision a day in the near future when at least one of those may come to the front. As for Pakistan and China, not sure what UN resolution they violated..and really as for China, with their veto power, I am quite certain they did not violate any, as no resolution would have passed a vote without being vetoed.

What about Human rights, in the UN comply with the fundational obligations is more important that a resolution.

 

[General Kohl]

As far as USA not winning a war against mexico.....come on, does anyone here honestly think that mexico would win??? The US took mexico city over a century ago when we were smaller and they were bigger (military and land), now that they are smaller and we are bigger it would be a cake walk. Everyting is in perfect bombing range of our border bases anyway.

You are right, USA could easily won over Mexico, but not over ALL LATIN AMERICA TOGUETHER, and i truly doubt that the other latin american countries wouldnt help out Mexico in order to protect themselves from further american invasions.

BTW-----Kuwait is self-ruled just like Iraq is now, so if any kuwaiti or iraqi company wants to sell oil to the US it is because they are.............FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Just like Iraq is now??? you are joking me right?! Iraq is not self ruled, the "provisory governament" is seem by 90% of the iraqui population as a "pack of american puppets who would do anything for money"(BEFORE FLAMING ME WITH THIS WACHT CNN, OR EVEN BETTER, WACHT SOME ARABIC MEDIA TO SEE THEIR OPNION A LITTLE... AND THIS QUOTE WAS SAID BY AN IRAQUI CITIZEN IN BHAGDAD FOR CNN).

 

[Communisto]

ugh, i hate cnn, it's complete blinding rightism is astounding. I watched a comercial about and upcomming doc called 1812: the first invasion. This plainly shows and says (in the commercial) the U.S has been invaded! I got offended by this, as a canadian whos countrymen died fighting the americans in our own lands after THEY invaded CANADA, gar! it makes me soo mad! i just want to smash something!

 

[General Kohl]

ugh, i hate cnn, it's complete blinding rightism is astounding. I watched a comercial about and upcomming doc called 1812: the first invasion. This plainly shows and says (in the commercial) the U.S has been invaded! I got offended by this, as a canadian whos countrymen died fighting the americans in our own lands after THEY invaded CANADA, gar! it makes me soo mad! i just want to smash something!

For you to see the situation, if a right wing media shows how much the iraqui people hates the "provisory governament" installed by the US goverment, they must hate them a lot.

 

[General Kohl]

On the second part regarding the Red Army, from the mid-80s, the US had the ability to stop them cold. This was why they finally backed down in the cold war. Interviews which can easily be found online even with top Soviet era generals and admirals of that time frame will concur with this statement.

Revisionists...
Dont try to change history, it was a know fact that in the Mid 80´s the Red Army was much superior to the US army alone, olny NATO could react to the Soviets, And the Soviet Union didn´t backed up because of military reasons, it backed up because of Gorbachev´s rise to the Kremlin and the political agitation inside the USSR whom ended up in Boris Yeltsin Capitalist Coup, The USSR was not defeated by USA it falled the same way the roman empire had, it collapsed due to the lack of its main sustentation wich in the roman case was the Army and the Slavery, and in the Soviet case was the people.

 

[ashep5000]

You people profound me with your ignorance.....CNN a rightist news?!?!?! You've got to be kidding me.....What news do you think is better? Al Jezeera? Watch it some time and see how they report the news. I watch FOXnews because it is actually the only news that I know of that is not leftist. CNN is the worst. And secondly you could take all of south america and put it together and it still would not make a dent in my country's military. We have an extremely modern air force and army. We have the money to research this stuff and buy it because we haven't killed our economy with socialist ideas. If it's so great down south then why is there constant civil war and corruption. Your people are stagnating behind everyone in the world except africa, and you know it. I have worked at SOUTHCOM for the past five years and all of your airforces put together would not take out 1/4 of what is at the boneyard. In case you don't know what that is, the boneyard is the place our aircraft go that no longer are good enough for our airforce. For your airforce it would probably be top of the line. And this is not an exageration, it is the truth.

 

[General Kohl]

You people profound me with your ignorance.....CNN a rightist news?!?!?! You've got to be kidding me.....What news do you think is better? Al Jezeera? Watch it some time and see how they report the news. I watch FOXnews because it is actually the only news that I know of that is not leftist. CNN is the worst. And secondly you could take all of south america and put it together and it still would not make a dent in my country's military. We have an extremely modern air force and army. We have the money to research this stuff and buy it because we haven't killed our economy with socialist ideas. If it's so great down south then why is there constant civil war and corruption. Your people are stagnating behind everyone in the world except africa, and you know it. I have worked at SOUTHCOM for the past five years and all of your airforces put together would not take out 1/4 of what is at the boneyard. In case you don't know what that is, the boneyard is the place our aircraft go that no longer are good enough for our airforce. For your airforce it would probably be top of the line. And this is not an exageration, it is the truth.

First of all, If anyone here is ignorant, it is you, since i did not in any time insulted you, in second place CNN is rightist and Fox News is not even rightist news, it is pure propaganda, in third place YOUR MODERN AIR FORCE AND ARMY IS A PACK OF INCOMPETENTS WHO COULDNT BEAT A PACK OF RICE FARMERS IN VIETNAM AND YOUR COUNTRY CANNOT SUPPORT ANY CASUALTIES WITHOUT STARTING TO PROTEST AGAINST THE WAR AND BELIEVE ME A FULL SCALE INVASION OVER LATIN AMERICA WOULD GIVE MUCH MORE CASUALTIES THAN YOUR YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE, BECAUSE EVEN WHEN WE KNOW WE ARE HAVING CASUALTIES, WE DO NOT GIVE UP, WE FIGHT FOR OUR SURVIVAL, FOR OUR INDEPENDECY AND OUR FREEDOM, AND YOU FIGHT FOR MONEY.