Say No To George War Bush!!!!

[SKD_Tech]

I personally think "The War Against Iraq" should even be taking place. I am sure most of you agree. The thing with Iraq is if O'Sama is a Saudi why didn't we question their government? Why aren't we taking action with them instead of Iraq. Just because Bin Laden was in Iraq doesn't actually mean he was linked with them...

And if Bush is so hell-bound to get UN approval why make a statement like We will go to war... With or without UN approval?

At this point in time him wanting to go to war with the Iraqis we are going to possibly be looseing valuable allies such as Chineese and Germans. Why make such a bad decision?

[admin]

There was a report, that right after 9-11 when all civilian planes were grounded, the Saudis submitted a request to the US government on transporting some of its nationals back to Saudi Arabia. The request was granted, allowing the evacuation to go ahead. The only problem was that the people being evacuated were members of the Bin Laden family who at the very least might have been able to provide information on Osama's whereabouts, or at the very worst, could have help him plan the attack. This was done against the wishes of the intelligence community, if I can remember correctly.

Then there is the link between the Bush family and Saudi royal family in business deals, some links even to the Bin Laden family.

I doubt anybody in the US can get access to this kind of news on mainstream TV, but those in other countries do have, and it's this difference that is causing the difference in opinion, I think.

And one also has to wonder why the preferential treatment for North Korea from the US, which not only admits it wants nuclear weapons, it also has the real capability at the present to develop them, unlike Iraq.

[setarip]

To alwaysblue

Despite the combative tenor of the post you've addressed to me, I'll respond once and only once:

"Thirdly, please speed up to the present if you can......"

I guess you still don't "get it". The PRESENT, as you and I have been privileged to live in, would be very, very different had not the U.S. involved itself in ALL theatres of combat in World War II. We'd probably be speaking German or, if not of "pure Aryan blood", perhaps relegated to menial physical labor as slaves - or, perhaps, simply exterminated.



"it is exactly this type of ignorance out of certain americans and especially the U.S. admin. which creates hatred upon yourselves.........."

A) How rude can you get? Feel free to disagree with me, vehemently if need be, but where the heck do you come off calling me "ignorant"?

B) Did I say that I'm an American?


"you want to shoot off your mouth?????........."

In the world of reasonably intelligent, rational, mature individuals, voicing one's opinion and stating irrefutable historical facts is not referred to as "shooting off one's mouth"


"tell me who's brilliant idea was it to stick Israel in a part of the world totally populated with Arabs???"

Several fairly well-read books - The Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran (Abraham is deified in the Koran)...

[onynx]

me neither im not french. I am a portuguese living in canada and yes, i am extremelly disapointed with my homeland supporting US action on iraq, but i know why they do this .. they must be getting ca$$ wich they much need to feed the corrupt government in place....
and lets stop insultin eachother... regardless of what position each country stands .. we should all believe in peace!!!

[alwaysblue]

It would also be appreciated to have the U.S. stop threatening the U.N. council...........with every new headline they distance themselves from the rest of the world and create more dislike towards americans which is not fair...................gov't represent the people's voices.............maybe the U.S. gov't should start listening to the people!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alwaysblue]

setarip - if you must point out the good you must also point out the bad.............the reason I say your american is because only a diehard believe all the crap your gov't feeds you is typical of an american mis-informed!!! This is not correct of all americans just to the blinded such as you, and for your curiousity I do have close family who live in the states and fortunately do not share your point of view. According to your point of view THEY THE U.S. SHOULD BE WAGING WAR AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA AND YES THE U.S. CAUSED MUCH OF OUR PRESENT PROBLEMS BY KICKING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOME AND PLACING ISRAEL IN A STRAGETIC PLACE SO THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA COULD FOREVER LIVE IN MISERY!!!!!!!!!!!

[cyanrain]

Can the whole world be wrong?

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking from Madrid on April 8, 2002, reiterated his demand that Israel immediately terminate its campaign against terrorism. Citing the opposition to Israel from China through Europe to the United States, Mr. Annan declared: "Can the whole world be wrong?"

Some 3800 years ago, the whole world worshipped pantheons of disparate forces embodied as various gods. A single individual, whose name was Abraham, claimed that all of existence emanated from one, indivisible, incorporeal God. Abraham was labeled an Ivri (Hebrew), meaning that he came from the other side. While this appellation may have had a geographical origin (he came from the other side of the Euphrates River), Jewish tradition has understood "other side" in the sense of an adversarial position: While the whole world adhered to polytheism, Abraham insisted on the truth of monotheism.

"Can the whole world be wrong?"

In the fourth century B.C.E., the Greek Empire stretched from Macedonia to India, the whole "civilized" world. With Greek political domination came the hegemony of Greek culture and philosophy. The whole world accepted the Greek worldview with man at the center and the physical world as ultimate reality. A small band of Jews, known as the Maccabees, refused to succumb. They insisted that God was the source and Torah was the goal of life.

"Can the whole world be wrong?"

In the ancient world, including the advanced civilizations of Greece and Rome, infanticide was universally practiced. Newborns who were unwanted, because they were weak or handicapped-or girls, were killed by their parents or left to die of exposure. The Jews insisted that all life was sacred, and condemned infanticide as murder.

"Can the whole world be wrong?"

Compassion for the poor and infirm, built into the commandments of the Torah, was scorned as weakness by societies from ancient Greece to modern Nazi Germany.

"Can the whole world be wrong?"

From 1939-1945, the whole world claimed that immigration quotas made it impossible to accept Jews trying to flee from the Nazis.
Even President Roosevelt, "a friend of the Jews," refused to order the bombing of the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, which would have saved the 400,000 Jews of Hungary.

"Can the whole world be wrong?"

April, 2002: After a rash of suicide bombings which leave 127 Israeli civilians (including babies and entire families) dead in a single month, the Government of Israel launches a defensive campaign against the terrorists and their infrastructure. Israeli forces uncover scores of bomb factories, with suicide belts already prepared, and large stashes of illegal munitions and rockets. The whole world insists that Israel has no right to defend itself.

[alwaysblue]

While Bush ibn Bush uses the fact that Saddam Hussein has not complied with UN resolutions as an excuse to launch his ``pre-emptive" war, here is a list of dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with. These should be included when you send emails and faxes to your congressional representatives to oppose Bush's war on Iraq. Now's the time to act. The vote is coming soon.

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

[alwaysblue]

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:
1. ....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
2. ....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
3. ...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
4. ....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
5. ....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
6. ....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
7. ....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
8. ....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
9. ....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
10. ....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
11. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
12. ....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
14. ....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
15. ....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
16. ....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
17. ....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
18. ....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
19. ....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
20. ....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
21. ....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
22. ....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
23. ....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
24. ....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
25. ....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
26. ....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
27. ....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
28. ....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
29. ....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
30. ...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."-


Source: Paul Findley, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the US/Israeli Relationship (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1993).

[alwaysblue]

Mr. Bush, What about Israel's defiance of UN Resolutions?
:: An Open Letter to George W. Bush ::


by Michael S. Ladah & Suleiman I. Ajlouni

Dear Mr. President:

As we watched your speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002, we were struck by the ironic proximity of the Israeli and Iraqi delegations. Ironic, because many of the accusations you leveled against Iraq could, with ample justification, be directed toward Israel.

We commend you for calling upon the United Nations to prove its relevance in keeping peace and harmony among nations in today’s world. In order to maintain United States credibility in the international arena, we expect that you and the United Nations would apply to Israel the same standards of compliance with provisions of the UN Charter. The Israeli leadership continues to defy countless UN resolutions pertaining to its policies and military tactics of the past 35 years.

Accountability and our nation’s credibility require that Israel be forced to comply with international law, especially if the United States continues to press its case against Iraq.

During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day.

On June, 14, 1967, through Resolution No. 237, the Security Council called upon Israel to "ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." In subsequent resolutions, the Security Council deplored Israel for the delay in its implementation of Resolution 237. Yet, Israel continued to defy the world community, including the United States. The Security Council, in the face of Israel's defiance, passed no less than five subsequent resolutions demanding that Israel comply but to this day, thirty five years after June 14, 1967, the defiance continues.

On March 22, 1979, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 446. Israel’s violation of Resolution 446 (sections quoted below) represents the most flagrant violation of Israel, not only of the UN but also the stated policy of our government under successive administrations:

(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

Mr. President, we have cited just a few Security Council resolutions that pertain to Israel. Space and your indulgence do not permit us to cite, in this short letter, the volumes of the other resolutions that have been ignored or brazenly violated by Israel. Therefore, we have compiled in the attached document a list of the UN Security Council resolutions which Israel has violated and/or continues to violate. If Israel’s actions in response to these resolutions do not "flaunt the will of the world community of nations," we do not know what would. And if Israel’s actions do not qualify it as a "rouge state" then reasonable, informed citizens of this great nation, and the entire community of nations, are left to reach the unavoidable conclusion that our government continues to apply very different standards for Israel and for all other nations. Just as no man is above our domestic laws, no state should be left to disregard well-established principles of international law. The acquisition of territory by force and the use of torture are just two clear examples of the shameful records shared by Iraq and Israel.

Mr. President, we take seriously the fact that Israel has defied, and made a mockery of, not only the United Nations but also this great country for we are one of the permanent members of the Security Council. All of these resolutions mentioned above passed with some measure of United States support, or they would not have passed.

Israel even stands in defiance of your own recent public demand that Israel withdraw its forces from the West Bank. In a televised statement on April 9, 2002 you demanded that "Israel withdraw its troops from the West Bank without delay." Israel not only ignored your call, but has actually intensified its illegal military occupation. If you are not willing to force Israel to comply with even your own demands, how do you expect to maintain the credibility necessary to convince the international community to support a war against Iraq? Your success or failure at the international level will depend heavily on the uniform enforcement of UN resolutions against all countries. Selective enforcement will most certainly lead to doubts about US intentions, and, ultimately, can only compromise American influence and effectiveness on the international stage.

We therefore urge you to restore the relevance of the United Nations in maintaining world peace, and restore the reputation and credibility of the United States, by enforcing compliance with UN Security Council resolutions equally amongst all nations. We further urge you to use peaceful means to resolve all such conflicts. We believe in peace, justice and reconciliation and are opposed to war as a means of conflict resolution. War is destructive and can not be justified in any case, especially when peaceful alternatives exist.

With respect,

Michael S. Ladah & Suleiman I. Ajlouni

[cyanrain]

U.N. Has Gone From 'Useless' to 'Harmful'

Kristol: U.N. Has Gone From 'Useless' to 'Harmful'

Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

WASHINGTON – The performance of the United Nations in the Iraqi crisis has led serious American foreign policy thinkers to conclude the world body has gone from being useless to being dangerous.
“I think we need to rethink the whole issue of the U.N.,” Fox News Channel analyst William Kristol told NewsMax.com.

Kristol is co-author with Lawrence F. Kaplan of “The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission.” Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey calls it a “brilliant and definitive” book.

“I’ve never been a fan of the U.N., but I’ve also never been excessively alarmed about it. I just thought it was kind of pointless,” Kristol told us. “But I now think we really should rethink the whole American relationship with the United Nations.”

Is withdrawing from the U.N. on the table?

“I’m open to that, absolutely,” Kristol replied. “I just think it’s a new moment, and that is an institution that has a certain rationale, I guess.

"It’s a different era. It didn’t even have that much rationale then[when the U.N. was formed]. But look, it’s one thing if it’s just useless and harmless. It’s another thing if it actually becomes harmful. And I think you can make a case that it’s actually become harmful."

Kristol’s comments are a significant indicator of widespread disenchantment with the United Nations. His family history is anything but “isolationist.” His father, the well-known analyst Irving Kristol, was a Hubert Humphrey Democrat before the Democrats made a sharp turn to the left in the Vietnam era and abandoned the anti-communist policies begun by Harry Truman two decades earlier.

The Kristols were not cheerleaders in the conservative post-World War II sloganeering, “Get the U.S. out of the U.N. Get the U.N. out of the U.S.” Bill Kristol’s comment is a fair barometer of increasing disgust with a body that puts terrorist nations in charge of “human rights” and enables “allies” who deal with terrorists to weaken America’s efforts to defend its own people. The sloganeers of a half century ago had a point after all.

“The War Over Iraq” argues that the war on terror leaves America no choice but to revert to a Cold War footing of extensive global involvement.

For decades, there are those who have said America “cannot be the world’s policeman.” Kristol and Kaplan disagree.

“A humane future,” they write, “will require an American foreign policy that is unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well-funded. America must not only be the world’s policeman or its sheriff, it must be its beacon and guide.”

That declaration is certainly controversial with partisan Democrats and others on the left. Even some conservatives who back President Bush’s Iraq policies believe there is a happy medium between Kristol’s outlook and that of Pat Buchanan, whose writings have argued that such globalism is a recipe for disaster.

Outlining their case in careful, methodical tones, Kristol and Kaplan argue that millions of lives could hang in the balance.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, Bush 41 tried to edge away from the policies pursued by President Ronald Reagan as the latter triumphed over the Soviet Union. The first President Bush’s leadership in the Gulf War reflected what the authors define as a policy “grounded in self-interest narrowly understood.”

Bill Clinton followed that up with a policy whose guiding principle was “a wishful liberalism” that could achieve foreign policy aims “through commerce, diplomacy, and negotiations” and “following the lead of the United Nations.”

Bush 43, at least post-9/11, took a “hardheaded approach” that was a “distinctly American internationalism.” The authors appear to believe that, as the current President Bush has warned, we are in for the long haul, and that globalism likely will be required throughout the lifetimes of most living Americans.

“It is short-sighted,” they write, “to imagine that a policy of ‘humility’ is either safer or less expensive that a policy that aims to preclude and deter the emergence of new threats, that has the United States arriving quickly at the scene of potential trouble before it has erupted, that addresses threats to the national interest before they develop into full-blown crises.”

[alwaysblue]

I have a brilliant idea, why doesn't the U.S. get out of everyone's home and business and just take care of their own, every country has a right to their own sovernty!!! In the past when the human rights violations in China were deplorable....did the U.S. send 300,000 troops to China??......NOOOOOO!!!!!!! Well........the world is telling Bush and the U.S. to get the hell out and stay home!!!!!!!

[admin]

I think this thread has gotten out of control a little, and everyone that wants to make a point has already done so.

Thread closed.