Om Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Gbear, the link I provided was from the U.S. Department of State. Maybe I'm biased toward State, having grown up in a foreign service officer's household, but at the end of the day, I tend to give credence to what they have to say. Call me gullible. Regardless ... you say you used to believe Saddam "had them" at some point, but that you now doubt that. Why? I was not under the impression that people were now doubting if the man EVER had or used WMD. That's going to be a hard sell for me, but I'm listening. I don't want to go too far afield here ... don't really have the time or the stomach for it. I'm seeing the same, circular arguments today that the board has featured for months now. And I'm certainly not going to try to get into speculation as to what "reasons" Saddam Hussein may have had in going underground with his programs. My entry into this thread, titled "Proof WMD Exist in Iraq," was to 1) make the point that Saddam, at some point, both had and used WMD, 2) that whether or not actual weaponized WMD are found any time soon, the fact that he did have and did use them before says to me he remained fully capable of making and using them again, and that 3) I think Bush erred in letting the search for those weaponized WMD become the focus of the campaign. As to "what we have accomplished" ... that's a topic I just can't do justice to here and now. If I did, though, I'd go at from a "totality of circumstances" angle, that would include, not exclusively, the proliferation of WMD in rogue states in general; the growing threat to the West represented by Islamic terrorism and the ties therein TO rogue states; the global and domestic economic interests involved (yes, oil); the extreme abuses of human rights; the U.N.'s own decade-long case against Saddam Hussein that dissolved in the face of the actual need to act upon it ... and so on. I'm neither qualified nor inclined to try to write such a thesis at this point. But I think I could make a pretty good case if I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Sarge, With all due respect, your response is nothing more than flag-waving rhetoric. Respond to the article I posted. It's about spending money wisely and effectively. The more enemies you create, the more energy and money you'll need to defend yourself. At what point will we have thrown so much good money after bad that we as a nation will not have the financial means to not only defend ourselves, but maintain our standard of living. Throughout time, mankind has had intervals of peace interupted by spasms of war,violence and upheaval. In our history alone, we have had the Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWI and the Cold War. We have reached another one of those times. Things cannot continue the way they were, and you know who's fault it is? Their's. Had they not brought this war home and, as Yamamoto said, "Woke the sleeping giant" we would still be plowing along all wrapped up in our own little world's just like prior to 9/11. But, since they brought this to us, we face a choice. Do nothing, which guarantee's yet another attack, or respond. The world is getting too small, and as long as people act like barbarians, we all have a problem. Bush, as far as I'm concerned, is on the right course. We beat the a$$ that needed an immediate beating, Afganistan and iraq. Now, we are engaging in the roadmap to peace, or the diplomacy that democrats were crying for just a few weks ago and said Bush did not participate in. And you know why all of a sudden everyone over there is actually giving peace a chance? Because they know that if they don't start acting right, we are standing by to beat their a$$es, if need be. Just that knowledge, that we actually will whip out the stick if they don't come to the table for real this time, is enough to get them to sign on, or at least talk. However, the stick, and use of it, and or diplomacy, cost money. But one way or another, whether through diplomacy or an a$$ kicking, people are going to start to see things our way. And if the end result is that we can settle that region and others down, it will have been well worth every dollar spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I love the fact that once again Americans are beginning to question the true purpose of why beat on a country like Iraq, and let a country like North Korea get away with flounting WMD in our face. It's clear that this administration has not represented the best interest of the American people. If they truly wanted to disarm terrorist they would not apply policies that are considered both oppressive and an afrontment to the Islamic religion. We should withdraw our troops in Saudi Arabia this would cripple most of the terrorist organizations. If we stop sending financial aid to Jerusalem that would be the biggest step to peace in the Middle East. Instead we are human targets for people like Osma, while the an administration is so gun ho about WMD, they secure oil fields instead of Nuclear Weapons fields. I knew when Bush became president we where in store for a bumpy ride, I just didnt think it would lead to the destruction of WTC, and american soliders. What the hell is going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 what a hilarious thread!!!!! the advocates of genocide are busy quoting Iraqi perpetrators in support of their reconstructionist histories. OM is exactly right..... - the Iraqi dictators have used chemical weapons - they have invaded other countries - they have launched weapons into neighboring states - they have supported terrorists - they have supported terrorism - they have built plutonium processing capabilities - they have provided posterity with mass graves - they have starved their own citizens - they have tortured their own citizens - they have tortured citizens from other countries - they have threatened other states - they have had close ties with other States known to have close ties to terrorism - they had chembio protective gear - they were staunchly anti-Israel (ahhh....the real positive for many on this board!!) - they murdered over a million muslims (perhaps another positve for many on this board) - the munitions the built were outfitted with chemical warheads - their scientists were trained overseas in the technologies for producing WMDs but nooooooooooo.....we'll focus on hydrogen for the multitude of balloons that densely populated the Baghdad sky. Let me see.......we haven't found WMDs so they never existed...but...we haven't found balloons and they weren't used........but ok......that's what they said they intended to use them for: good enough for me! Kurp....good point....once one collects intelligence the best idea is to immediately release it for the rest of the world.....that's always been SOP. and wow....I bet you aren't even kidding!!!! what a terrific cost/benefit analysis that was. Whoops...forgot about the Cole sailors, the Khobar victims, the WTC victims (twice), the civilian technicians gunned down...at least 30 years worth of American deaths that somehow don't find there way onto the ledger....and why? all because of "American arrogance"..........nothing to do with Wahhabi Islam and fundamentalism gone awry in Iran.....nothing to do with murdering dictators entrenched for decades in Iraq or Syria or Lebanon......... but I like the logic.......seems it also has a place when one considers welfare programs, medicare, medicaid....imagine the "Leftist arrogance" that precipiated the angst against these costly programs for which the taxpayer is not receiving value....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 OURYEAR- your post reads like you reached a conclusion about Bush and you're groping for support for it. Newsflash- we are withdrawing our troops from Saudi. We're consolidating CentCom's operations in the Gulf in Qatar, where the headquarters is. As for Israel, I'm sure that you have all kinds of rationales for us as to why we should withdraw support from the only true democracy in the region, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Om, I tend to agree that he had them at the very leat in the war with Iran (though specific who used what where is sketchy at best). I also agree he had them as late as the mid 1990's when we found some. Why I suspect he may not have currently had them: A) we only made a half hearted attempt to secure them. That seems to argue that we didn't think he had them anymore. when it comes to national security, I'd like to think we'd put finding/securing these at the top of our list. we haven't found anything yet. the whole it's a big country was working for a bit. We've caught 26 of the people on the cards. Not one has given us where we can find the WMD or traces of them. C) total speculation on my part: he had no hope of standing toe to toe with us. If he used the WMD, he might have incurred casualties on us, but we might have nuked him. It would seem better from his standpoint to ship them out at the first hint of inspections. His intel seemed pretty adept through the 90s at getting the jump on when we were going to inspect. I suspect he simply moved them to another country or sold them to a terrorist group. We know he has had sympathetic arrangements with some in Palestine (see $10,000 suicide fund). Since he couldn't stand toe to toe with us, his best bet was to drag as much of the region in as possible. What better way to do that than to entrust some of those organizations with his WMD? It allows him to curry favor, and it fits with the propaganda he was running before and during the war. Besides, teh WMD weren't going to do him much good and getting caught with the means of produciotn could only harm his cause. If he was hoping to run a gorilla type campaign ala vietnam till we give up and go home, the strategy to get rid of the WMD before the war also makes sense. It allows the play of the "unjust occupation" card from his deck in a play for sympathy of being invaded while "never having WMD." We just took him out faster than he could accumulate resistance. But we didn't accomplish squat in terms of preventing the spread of WMD or ability to make WMD. Anyway, that's my speculation. I hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge And you know why all of a sudden everyone over there is actually giving peace a chance? Because they know that if they don't start acting right, we are standing by to beat their a$$es, if need be. Just that knowledge, that we actually will whip out the stick if they don't come to the table for real this time, is enough to get them to sign on, or at least talk. However, the stick, and use of it, and or diplomacy, cost money. But one way or another, whether through diplomacy or an a$$ kicking, people are going to start to see things our way. And if the end result is that we can settle that region and others down, it will have been well worth every dollar spent. If this is going to be our political philosophy, I'd like to nominate Sadam Hussein as our next president. I can't think of anyone better to have the rest of the world shudder in fear at our military power and willingness to use it if other countries don't start "seeing things our way". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by KevinthePRF If this is going to be our political philosophy, I'd like to nominate Sadam Hussein as our next president. I can't think of anyone better to have the rest of the world shudder in fear at our military power and willingness to use it if other countries don't start "seeing things our way". Good thinking! Saddam certainly is a champion of peace in the region, rewarding suicide bombers' families with cash! What a brilliant thought! If you can't discern the difference between the moral principles which guide this country's foreign policy (largely regardless of who the president is BTW) and Saddam's foreign policy, I pity you. It must be an awfully bewildering world you live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Gee, so Clinton was wrong too. What a shocker. Don't you think that by invading a country, essentially because we do not like their politics, a bad precedent has been sent? I would rather keep the big stick in the background, than actually go out an use it for what has turned out to be the wrong reason. Let's just say for speculation purposes that Iran has WMD's, and the executive has proof that they are going to use them. Don't you think that the executive would have lost some of the credibility needed to have the legislative branch approve the invasion of Iran? Such congressional approval would be needed, you know. And now the administration has no credibility with congress, so we could be locked in a worthless debate while bio weapons are unleashed. Not a very happy prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by redman Good thinking! Saddam certainly is a champion of peace in the region, rewarding suicide bombers' families with cash! What a brilliant thought! If you can't discern the difference between the moral principles which guide this country's foreign policy (largely regardless of who the president is BTW) and Saddam's foreign policy, I pity you. It must be an awfully bewildering world you live in. Sarcasm is a tough sell on messageboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 I love the fact that once again Americans are beginning to question the true purpose of why beat on a country like Iraq, and let a country like North Korea get away with flounting WMD in our face. Well, if the last administration hadn't cut our military in half, we might be able to do two things at once. But, as it is, we have to reconstitute our forces and give them a little bit of a break. North Korea will be dealt with, probably just in time for ever popular Thanksgiving/Christmas rotation. We should withdraw our troops in Saudi Arabia this would cripple most of the terrorist organizations. Ummm....we are. You'll have to keep up with the news a little better to swim in this pool. I knew when Bush became president we where in store for a bumpy ride, I just didnt think it would lead to the destruction of WTC, and american soliders. What the hell is going on? This has got to be one of the most retarded statements I've heard yet:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Sarcasm is a tough sell on messageboards. I think he was serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge I think he was serious. I think he meant HE was being sarcastic when he said he would like Saddam for pres of the US... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 I think he meant HE was being sarcastic when he said he would like Saddam for pres of the US... So now he knows that I know that he knows that I know. Man, I'm confused:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I think he meant HE was being sarcastic when he said he would like Saddam for pres of the US... codeorama wins first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by KevinthePRF codeorama wins first place. WHOO HOOO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 In keeping with the title of this thread, my posts have neither questioned the brutality of Saddam's dictatorship nor the war's impact on improving the volatile situation in that part of the Mideast, at least for the short term. Redman stated it best when he said that he was "concerned about this country's credibility when it comes to the next step in our fight against international terrorism or rogue states." The Bush Administration stepped before the world and made claims about Iraq's current WMD stores, production, and capability to deliver. It was this assertion that gave justification for preemptive military action against Iraq. So far, all the Bush Administration can say is "oops". Credibility is lost. Many on this thread have simply pointed to other reasons the war was warranted but none of that addresses the issue of credibility. When I posted the article about the cost of fighting terrorism, my intention was to link costs with lost credibility. The U.S., by intentionally or unintentionally misleading the world about Iraq's current WMD capability, and hinging the war effort on that capability, has fed fodder to present and future terrorists. One can dismiss the potential billions added to the bill for this mistake, and that seems to be the modus operandi for some here, but which Peter will be robbed to pay Paul? Air Sarge seems to think that we can simply divert $200 billion from "limped-dick cricket and other worthless stuff". I'm calling on Sarge to do my taxes next year. Sarge also seems to think that we can eliminate the threat of terrorists by getting other countries to fall in line with our agenda. The fact is, we cannot stop terrorists in our own country no more than Israel can stop Palestinian terrorists in their country. The U.S. can never expect to be liked by every citizen of every country in the world. The question is, will there be more or less terrorists poised to wreak vengance on this country if it's found that Iraq did not have WMD capability to the extent that the U.S. claimed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 1) there's no way on god's earth to measure the linkage of credibility and terrorism. and the negation leaves something to be desired: as though if WMDs had been discovered the terrorists or their supporters would suddenly reconsider their cause.....a cause whose roots lie elsewhere than American credibility.....WMDs are a means to an end.....it is the ends these people are after that matters. Though OM and I likely don't agree on policy prescriptions, he is dead on right when he asserts that one has to step back and survey this in its entirety. 2) I ask again, as I have in many other posts.....beyond wild supposition, where is the proof that "dislike" or "hatred" of American "arrogance" has resulted in any definitive reduction in cooperation to resolve the terrorist problem? either in the realm of intelligence or law enforcement? 3) how is everyone so sure that the balance of leaders in the Middle East are not secretly very satisfied that Saddam has been removed? 4) I believe you trifle with the truth too easily: the Bush adminstration can say they eliminated terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and secured volumes of interesting information; they can say they have removed any uncertainty that Hussein will continue to pursue WMDs now or into the future; they can say they have shifted the geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East; they can say they have removed a destabliizing force to Israeli-Palestinian Peace; 5) feel free to cast this as a "mistake"...the implicit position on tyrany, genocide and torture is duly noted. what do you say we put it to a vote in Iraq? 6) "fact is we can no more stop terrorists in our country...."...this isn't a zero sum tradeoff. suppose we only manage to stop 70%. if one of those happen to be the germ who was about to take out my family.......well.......the ratio then looks good to me...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge End result of all of this.........there are a few less a$$holes in the world that are up to no good. Oh really? I actually think there are now more a$$holes free up. You may have removed Saddam but the in that power vacuum they are plenty of new a$$holes; lining up to take his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 1) there's no way on god's earth to measure the linkage of credibility and terrorism. and the negation leaves something to be desired: as though if WMDs had been discovered the terrorists or their supporters would suddenly reconsider their cause.....a cause whose roots lie elsewhere than American credibility.....WMDs are a means to an end.....it is the ends these people are after that matters. What people? You mean the ones that Osama Bin Laden galvanized when the U.S. established a military presence in Saudi Arabia? Or is it your assertion that al Qaeda would have come to exist with or without U.S. presence on Muslim holy ground? U.S. credibility, or lack thereof, is fuel for the fire or text for the terrorist's training manuals. Let's not forget that anti-U.S. terrorism by middle east extremists was virtually non-existent prior to our involvement in Lebanon (with the notable exception of the Iran hostage crisis). 1982 was the beginning of terrorist attacks launched against U.S. and Western interests. They included the April 18, 1983 suicide attack at the U.S. Embassy in West Beirut (63 dead), the bombing of the headquarters of U.S. and French forces on October 23, 1983 (298 dead), the assassination of American University of Beirut, President Malcolm Kerr on January 18, 1984, and the bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex in East Beirut on September 20, 1984 (9 dead). Though OM and I likely don't agree on policy prescriptions, he is dead on right when he asserts that one has to step back and survey this in its entirety. I contend that your view is somewhat myopic. If you want to step back and survey this in its entirety than one has to take into account that Muslim extremists base their actions on one objective; that is, to rid foreign occupation of Muslim lands. Now the U.S. is in Iraq, and by all accounts, will be there for quite some time. Arabs will view this as an occupation whose justification was based on U.S. fabrications. I don't think anyone could effectively argue that a U.S. presence in Iraq will not be viewed far more harshly by Arabs than our presence in Saudi Arabia. Our presence in Saudi Arabia was precipitated by an attack on Kuwait and we came to their defense. Our presence in Iraq will be viewed as nothing short of aggression by a bully nation that lied about WMDs as a pretext to occupy Arab soil. You don't think this will be the incentive for a whole new wave of terrorism against the U.S.? 2) I ask again, as I have in many other posts.....beyond wild supposition, where is the proof that "dislike" or "hatred" of American "arrogance" has resulted in any definitive reduction in cooperation to resolve the terrorist problem? either in the realm of intelligence or law enforcement? Frankly I could care less about whether there is more or less cooperation. You cannot stop terrorism except to remove the motivation for the acts. Timothy McVeigh could not have been stopped even with the cooperation of every law enforcement agency within 500 miles of Oklahoma. He took 166 lives. 3) how is everyone so sure that the balance of leaders in the Middle East are not secretly very satisfied that Saddam has been removed? Again, I don't see how this has much relevance. I'm not concerned about our credibility in the eyes of other governments. It isn't other governments who are declaring war on the U.S. It's extremist groups that are motivated by hatred of the U.S. One might argue that if you topple the governments that harbor terrorist organizations then you'll stop terrorism. Name one example where that's true. 4) I believe you trifle with the truth too easily: the Bush adminstration can say they eliminated terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and secured volumes of interesting information; they can say they have removed any uncertainty that Hussein will continue to pursue WMDs now or into the future; they can say they have shifted the geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East; they can say they have removed a destabliizing force to Israeli-Palestinian Peace; And all of that was able to stop the terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, correct? 5) feel free to cast this as a "mistake"...the implicit position on tyrany, genocide and torture is duly noted. what do you say we put it to a vote in Iraq? What do you say we put it to a vote in the Middle East? 6) "fact is we can no more stop terrorists in our country...."...this isn't a zero sum tradeoff. suppose we only manage to stop 70%. if one of those happen to be the germ who was about to take out my family.......well.......the ratio then looks good to me...... Read the article I posted again. Our "reactive" mode will cost us billions. I really think we need to be "proactive" in acknowledging the root cause for terrorism and respond by treading lightly on Arab and Muslim soils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama One thing that made me see terrorists in a different light was seeing the movie "Colateral Damage". While the movie sucked, the fact that it showed how the terrorist came to hate America and why he did what he did. I will be the first to admit that if my family member were killed by (insert group here) I would be pissed and contemplate retaliation in some way. Am I saying that i think the terrorists have a right to do what they do? NO WAY, but I think our country should realize that we have done some things that light a fire under these people's a$$es and makes them want revenge. I posted an article from a liberatarian site a while back and the jist was "IF Americans are so determined to end Terrorism, America should stop funding and training terrorists and giving them reasons for their actions". I'm sorry for joining this thread so late, but I want to comment on this theory. The problem with it is that groups like al Qaeda have vowed not only to destroy the U.S. and Israel, but also ALL of the West, including Europe. Even passive France is in their crosshairs. These terrorists hate the western way of life, and they hate our freedom of expression and freedom of religion. These are radical Islamic militants who feel that any government not based on Islam is evil. In other words, any nation that is not an Islamic state must be dealt with. The U.S. represents the most powerful of these freedom-loving nations, so we are first in line for their anger. If the U.S. were destroyed, the terrorists would extend their destruction to other parts of the world. If you don't believe me, look at some of bin Laden's writings. He believes the only way muslims can get what they deserve is through an apocolyptic war with the West -- not just with the U.S., but the West. It really bothers me when people try to identify with or sympathize with this way of thinking. It really is a Hitlerian view of the world to say that anyone who is not a muslim must be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 right on Larry.... But if it makes others feel better...I'll speak for all Americans: "I'm sorry mr and mrs terrorist, it's all our fault. while I disagree with your methods, I fully understand your emotional state and must bear much of the responsibility for your condition. that you hate life so much you will sacrifice your own and 1000s of innocents along the way is also entirely rational and understandable. perhaps we could meet for a beer or two one day and hash all of this out. deep down, I know you are reasonable and just want to live in peace like the rest of us. It is obvious that you don't have any pretensions to power and that your worldview is entirely consistent with the global environment it is located in. while it must be confessed that you have been a good agent for defense and intelligence growth everywhere, it is high time we met as equals and talked about bringing these hostilities to an end. you clearly enjoy the support of muslim faiths of whatever stripe and therefore are representative of the aspirations of all the citizens of the Middle East. Even as we speak, my carpenters are busy designing a table we can break bread at, quaf our brew, and negotiate. What shape should the table be?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by joe Gee, so Clinton was wrong too. What a shocker. Don't you think that by invading a country, essentially because we do not like their politics, a bad precedent has been sent? I would rather keep the big stick in the background, than actually go out an use it for what has turned out to be the wrong reason. Let's just say for speculation purposes that Iran has WMD's, and the executive has proof that they are going to use them. Don't you think that the executive would have lost some of the credibility needed to have the legislative branch approve the invasion of Iran? Such congressional approval would be needed, you know. And now the administration has no credibility with congress, so we could be locked in a worthless debate while bio weapons are unleashed. Not a very happy prospect. Joe hit it on the head. This isnt about whether Saddam was a prick or not. Everyone agrees on that. Its about credibility. We cant go around plummeting countries without justification. Its what makes us different. Next time we're not gonna have any support from anyone whether in congress or overseas since they assume whatever we claim is gonna be exaggerated out of proportion just to fit our agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Originally posted by Rdskns2000 Oh really? I actually think there are now more a$$holes free up. You may have removed Saddam but the in that power vacuum they are plenty of new a$$holes; lining up to take his place. With our actions we've bred a whole new generations of a$$holes who saw our invasion of Iraq as unjust and an attempt to sieze oil fields. So the sum total is probably more a$$holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 wow...does Joe already have a poll of Congressional thoughts on Administration credibility? *amn that was quick!!!!! how about a poll of Iraqis? just for entertainment value...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.