The issue is not that our people are dying over there. The issue is whether they are dying for a REASON.
If what we're doing in Iraq is for the long-term good, it frankly doesn't MATTER much that a few hundred soldiers and a couple dozen American civilians gave up their lives; it's still worth it.
If what we're doing in Iraq is NOT for the long-term good, even ONE dead -- even one dead IRAQI -- isn't worth it.
So harping about casualties is pointless regardless of which way you look at it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why we're blaming Bush for this one.
Presumably because they wouldn't have done this had we not invaded their country. When you invade a country and the people of that country strike back against you, you can't claim total innocence.
I'm not sure why the death of four Americans would be cause to reevaluate, though, when we've already overlooked the hundreds and thousands of dead Iraqis resulting from Bush's decision.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The link that you posted doesn't say that the american killed was part of the military. It could have been a reporter, some guy on vacation, etc. Meaning that he might have been there anyway.
posted
My *opinion* is that it was not worth the price we have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for years to come just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games.
It might have been worth that price to round up Al-Quaida (sp?) cells around the world and find a way to make Islam our ally against terrorism in general.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My *opinion* is that it was not worth the price we have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for years to come just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games.
So your problem isn't with the price but the perceived benefit?
posted
Well you failed, because my problem is with the price AND the 'perceived' benefit.
It seems like you're trying to play the Geoff Card (pun intended): trying to make me look suicidally squeamish.
If we could have toppled Saddam Hussein without a two-year plus massive committment of troops and without having to fight portions of the citizenry itself, I might have considered it worth the cost. Unfortunately the Bush administration convinced Congress that the threat Iraq posed was too imminent to explore the avenues that might have made that possible. That, of course, turned out not to be true.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Do you value the lives of Americans more than those of citizens of Iraq?
The fact that the populace is allowed to practice thier religion freely now, are allowed to voice thier disapproval with thing, that the economy is growing by leaps and bounds, shows that some things are working.
Was WWII worth the cost? We could have just let Hitler have Europe.
posted
*takes this opportunity to point out for the hundredth time that we have had a continuous and uninterrupted presence of troops, significant enough to cause "stop-loss" and the recall of seperated troops (i.e., people who had left the military being pressed back into service) in that region for over 13 years now*
[ March 31, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ah there has been extreme anti-americanism in that region long before we invaded. Its horrible yes, but what about all of the iraqis that were killed by their own government, don't we also mourn for them?
posted
"Unfortunately the Bush administration convinced Congress that the threat Iraq posed was too imminent to explore the avenues..."
Right..because diplomacy and sanctions did a whole lot of good over the past decade. The Hussien DICTATORSHIP contunually defied the UN and the world over the past ten yearsand and actively tortured it's citizenry. Do you really think that there was any point to continuing to negotiate with that regime? Please... And another thing. It can be argued that the real benefit in invading Iraq was to put other outlaw regimes on notice that America IS still capable to backing up all it's talk. That kind of currency can not be measured in the here and now. But if our actions influence other nations who harbor terrorist institutions to reevaluate (sp?) their stance, then it was soooo worth it. I mean wasn't there alot of talk/propoganda being spouted by the Al Queda and others about how "lazy and impotent" the Americans are? This was one way to answer that question definitivly. Sadaam had stuck out his neck too far so we cut it off. And there was much rejoiceing, by some. Those in positions of power in Iraq, and countries who had financial investments there cried foul. Of course they did, it was not in THIER best interests. Citizens of America, mostly those with someting political to gain, protested aswell. Again in THIER best interests to criticise the current administrtion. I, for one do think that the invasion was in AMERICAS best interests, and that is what matter to me.
And this most recent display of hostility and desicration does bother me greatly. I just can't imagine being motivated to such barbary. It is one thing to kill, but this is reminescent (sp?) of the middle-ages. But worth it? Yep. Soldiers are paid to risk thier lives. It is their job and they signed a contract that they honor. Not that I am unsympathetic. I have friends there like I am sure many of you do and I pray for them. Killing civilians like this is horrid but I have to beleive that and civilians in Iraq are there of their own accord and at their own risk aswell.
posted
I wonder how many of those Iraqs would really have done that if totally on their own -- and how many (especially the young ones) were just sucked in by the "gang mentality" at the moment.
quote:Well you failed, because my problem is with the price AND the 'perceived' benefit.
It seems like you're trying to play the Geoff Card (pun intended): trying to make me look suicidally squeamish.
Well, it seemed like you were trying to deliberately misstate what the perceived benefit was, and I wanted to clarify that that’s really what you were saying before I called you on it. But never mind.
Dagonee Edit: As in, I was going to point out why "just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games" is a gross simplification of what's at stake here. Which has nothing to do with squeamishness (as they are related to costs). Seems you're pretty bad at the mind-reading necessary to pre-dismiss others' positions.
posted
The town/area mentioned in the article is the site of an incident in which US soldiers fired into a threatening crowd. I'm sure they were justified in doing so, so please don't dogpile over this. But the point is that the place's name has become a rallying cry for insurgents who are actually using it to recruit new members to fight us.
Ultimately, the goal of having a western-friendly, pro-democracy government in Iraq is a worthy one. Whether we can achieve it depends on our determination and on our actions toward the Iraqi people. We have to be steady and unflappable even in the face of barbaric actions like the displaying of burned corpses of Americans.
Just as we have to remain undeterred in the face of new terrorist attacks here at home.
If we become brutal in return (i.e., if we allow our soldiers to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians and go unpunished, for example -- again, I'm not saying that happened, it's just how the Iraqi's perceive the incident), then we blow the chance we have to make something good here.
I trust our military to do the right thing here. I'm not sure I trust our leaders, though. That remains to be seen. Bush has been quick to do things that seem retaliatory in nature.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you value the lives of Americans more than those of citizens of Iraq?
Sort of. Not really an important question, if you ask me.
quote:The fact that the populace is allowed to practice thier religion freely now, are allowed to voice thier disapproval with thing, that the economy is growing by leaps and bounds, shows that some things are working.
All mostly true. But I didn't say that nothing was working there at all.
quote:Was WWII worth the cost? We could have just let Hitler have Europe.
*yawn*
Yes, I think it's important that we act immediately to stop despots from invading other countries in their pursuit to take over the world and shape it to their own designs. In what way is this analagous to 2002 post-Iraq 1.0?
quote:ah there has been extreme anti-americanism in that region long before we invaded. Its horrible yes, but what about all of the iraqis that were killed by their own government, don't we also mourn for them?
Yes, we do. This is one of those things that the administration uses to sell the importance of Iraq 2.0. But the urgency and ultimate legitimacy of Iraq 2.0 was sold to Congress and the rest of the world for self-defense reasons, not humanitarian ones. That's the reason not everyone participated in Iraq 2.0: because not everyone agreed that it was an urgent battle for self-defense. The whole world felt it was important to keep Iraq in check because of Saddam's previous sins and obvious propensity for evil-doing. Not everyone agreed that the way to do that was to roll right into baghdad with tanks. In fact MOST of the world's citizens did not agree with that. I personally gave the President the benefit of the doubt because he sounded so damn sure that Al-Quaeda could easily pick up a nuke at the Hussein palace and drive Saddam's SUV right up to the White House.
Turns out President Bush was either exaggerating, misinformed, or lying.
quote:Well, it seemed like you were trying to deliberately misstate what the perceived benefit was, and I wanted to clarify that that’s really what you were saying before I called you on it. But never mind.
Dagonee Edit: As in, I was going to point out why "just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games" is a gross simplification of what's at stake here. Which has nothing to do with squeamishness (as they are related to costs). Seems you're pretty bad at the mind-reading necessary to pre-dismiss others' positions.
*shrugs*
This is why I used the words *opinion* and *perceived* in my posts. I refer to what I perceive to be the real endgame of the Bush Administration. In my opinion. I don't buy the idea that Iraq was crucial to the War on Terror unless you are, as I said, making a place for yourself to hold your cards in the mideast that ISN'T Saudi Arabia, since that is where our most dangerous of enemies are bred and fed, even though they are technically an "ally".
posted
A bunch of psychos kill some innocent people and you Blame Bush? And your reasoning is 'because they were there'?
That's absurd. If I get shot at work tonite by some damned nutbag, I hope no one excuses the murderer on the grounds of "Well, Dave chose to live in this town. If he hadn't been here, it wouldn't have happened."
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you blow up someone's house, and then that person comes back and attacks you, I'd say you are somewhat to blame for being attacked.
It's not like these people just randomly attacked our people because they happened to be standing there. They attacked our people because we invaded their country.
quote:Not everyone agreed that the way to do that was to roll right into baghdad with tanks. In fact MOST of the world's citizens did not agree with that.
What MOST of the world thinks is pretty close to irrelevent. Its what Americans think about our actions.
Yes we need the rest of the world, and an effort was made to include them. To go through the "proper" channels and have the UN handle it. They chose not to support it, but america chose to invade. Since we invaded anyway this is just saying "I told you so."
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What MOST of the world thinks is pretty close to irrelevent. Its what Americans think about our actions.
Heh. That's cute, dude.
Not to raise Godwin from the dead, but should the Germans of the 1930's have thought that only German opinions mattered on invading Czechslovakia?
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have plenty of targets, dude. How about Poland? The Soviet Union?
Plus, it's not as though you answered my question. Even if the rest of the world had opposed Germany's invasion, should Germans have counted only German opinions as those worth paying attention to? Smacks of arrogant -- and damn idiotic -- masturbatory attempts at elitist pseudo-patriotism.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what if Britain had decided not to cave at Munich and had lived up to its alliance obligations to the Czechs, contrary to the opinion of the rest of the world? They had a bigger, more capable army at the time and could possibly have nipped things in the bud. World support does not equal correctness.
You're the one who made an invalid comparison - don't complain to me.
43 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. You tell me what the magic number is.
quote:And what if Britain had decided not to cave at Munich and had lived up to its alliance obligations to the Czechs, contrary to the opinion of the rest of the world? They had a bigger, more capable army at the time and could possibly have nipped things in the bud. World support does not equal correctness.
You're the one who made an invalid comparison - don't complain to me.
Yes, because making a comparison with another invasion the world largely opposed is invalid -- unlike, say, comparing an invasion with holding to a peace treaty.
Heh.
quote:43 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. You tell me what the magic number is.
Dagonee
I love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war while we were able to enlist the aid of, what, Australia? And that's one of the most impressive names on that list, to my knowledge.
Though I just love how we got some of the support for that war. Bribing Turkey's government to ignore the will of, what was it, 98% of its people so we could use their military bases was a really classy move. Shows our respect for democracy when it disagrees with us.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides murdering more Arabs than any other person in the history of the world, Saddam Hussein really did support terrorism in a big way. Abdul Rahman, the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing, was given sanctuary in Baghdad after being indicted by the US. Abu Abbas, who organized the Achille Lauro hijacking, was arrested in Iraq by US troops last April. The PLF, ANO, and other radical groups have been training in state run camps in Iraq for years. And of course, we cannot forget the cash incentives that Saddam offered to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Even if Saddam was not directly linked with Al Queda (a claim that the recent bombings in Spain have put into question) it seems clear that he was a major supporter of international terrorism and an important target in the War on Terror. After all, there were no Nazis in the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor, but nobody seemed upset when we included them in our retaliation.
The fact that these journalists were murdered just shows how important it is that this region move out of the dark ages and enter the modern world. And as for the claim that it was Bush, and not fanatic Islamists who are responsible for the deaths of these contractors, I can't help but laugh. By that logic, nobody should try to get rid of bears because they're more dangerous when wounded than when unharmed.
posted
" love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war..."
Dade, didn't I read somewhere that both Russia and France had large financial investments (Oil interests for France, and arms dealing for Russia as I recall) that were lost or put in jeopardy by our invasion of Iraq? Dosn't this make you question their motives for not supporting our actions b/c it clearly was not in their financial best interests? Not that I blame them. All countries do and should do what is best for their country. However I don't think that us going ahead without their support was wrong if you understand where their reasoning is coming from.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We are getting rid of bears now?? Wha' happen?
Maybe not the best example. But, hypothetically, if there were a big ole' grizzly bear terrorizing my village and eating the livestock and killing all the people, I would want to do what it took to get rid of him. Even though I would know that in the short term, he was more dangerous injured, in the long term my village would certainly be better off without this evil killer bear running around mauling people.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dade, didn't I read somewhere that both Russia and France had large financial investments (Oil interests for France, and arms dealing for Russia as I recall) that were lost or put in jeopardy by our invasion of Iraq? Dosn't this make you question their motives for not supporting our actions b/c it clearly was not in their financial best interests? Not that I blame them. All countries do and should do what is best for their country. However I don't think that us going ahead without their support was wrong if you understand where their reasoning is coming from.
If you're gonna start saying France and Russia only opposed the war out of financial concerns (despite all their claims to the contrary), then we should be fair and also just say the U.S. only invaded Iraq to get oil. Because both are pretty clearly not true.
posted
Yeah, it's completely irrelevant what the rest of the world thinks. Sounds like a good way to make Islamic fanatics hate you even more, if you ask me.
And I was one of those all-important Americans who supported Iraq 2.0 when I believed that Bush was being honest about the imminent danger that the nation threatened to our security...
I would still be supportive of Iraq 2.0 if we had stockpiles of WMD to show that we were justified in our urgency to invade.
All these other reasons are great, guys, but what you're doing is apologizing for Bush's failure to accomplish the stated objective of Iraq 2.0. Funny thing is, I *may* have even supported an Iraq 2.0 that was justified on humanitarian reasons IF BUSH HAD BEEN CANDID ABOUT HIS REASONS FOR THE INVASION. If you tell my family members who are in the service "we have an obligation to turn Iraq into a peaceful 'democratic' nation for this reason that reason and the other reason, and this is how we're going to do it and this is the sacrifices we'll need from you and in the end we'll meet the following objectives" and then turn around and make THAT case to the rest of the world... then and only then would your reasoning hold any water for me.
Instead America said "we get to do what we want, you're either with us or against us Iraq has got to go because they could have nuclear weapons next week, and we know where the WMD are, they're buried around Tikrit (North, East, South, & West, somewhat) here's the evidence and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with us because Saddam is a bad man anyway".
On top of that, we put it in the form of an ultimatum. You're either with us or against us. Ally or Enemy.
Later, the administration continued to make the same case: The United States will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
Please don't try and make excuses for Bush by muddying the waters with this humanitarian crap. Bush was selected to office after having campaigned on a more ISOLATIONIST foreign policy, not a nation-building one. Iraq 2.0 was supposed to be about WMD. The fact that it was really about spreading democracy and having a non-Saudi nation in the mideast to treat as our backyard is part of PROBLEM with Iraq 2.0, not part of the justification.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Did you even read the rest of my post? We decided to act alone, and at that point the only people the american government is directly responsible to are the citizens that it represents. Should we take into consideration what other countries think? Yes, without doubt we should. My point wasn't that their opinions aren't important but that the prior point raised does change what we did and didn't change it before we did it. So the prior point that I was responding to is just finger pointing.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, because making a comparison with another invasion the world largely opposed is invalid -- unlike, say, comparing an invasion with holding to a peace treaty.
Heh.
No - Britain VIOLATED a peace treaty and a mutual protection treaty by giving ANOTHER country's land to an aggressor. And the land they gave was crucial to Czech defense, which allowed Germany to invade unopposed.
I suppose it's easy to buy peace with other people's lives for you, isn't it?
quote:I love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war while we were able to enlist the aid of, what, Australia? And that's one of the most impressive names on that list, to my knowledge.
Though I just love how we got some of the support for that war. Bribing Turkey's government to ignore the will of, what was it, 98% of its people so we could use their military bases was a really classy move. Shows our respect for democracy when it disagrees with us.
Russia's a "usual" ally? I forgot about that cold war thingy and all the help they gave in Bosnia - you know, that war that France and Germany agreed with but most of the rest of the world opposed?
And you get to decide what countries' opinions are worthy? I noticed you failed to mention Britain on that list. Give it a rest. Two of the "allies" you mentioned were making a lot of money off Sadaam. Both of them pressed to continue sanctions after Sadaam was ousted because they make money off the sanctions.
43 nations is not ignoring the rest of the world, nor is it acting unilaterally.
I still wait to hear what number of nations would be enough for you. Or are we supposed to get unanimity?
quote:Please don't try and make excuses for Bush by muddying the waters with this humanitarian crap. Bush was selected to office after having campaigned on a more ISOLATIONIST foreign policy, not a nation-building one. Iraq 2.0 was supposed to be about WMD. The fact that it was really about spreading democracy and having a non-Saudi nation in the mideast to treat as our backyard is part of PROBLEM with Iraq 2.0, not part of the justification.
If you are going to judge the war, you have to judge ALL the effects of the war, those central to the core justification and those peripheral to it.
posted
I think Tom is right. The answer to the thread's title question depends on two things. One, what outcome do you think the war will have? Two, what are you willing to accept to achieve that outcome? Many people on both sides of the issue have pre-determined answers to both those questions, which tends to make the first question's answer obvious.
----------
Tresopax,
quote:Presumably because they wouldn't have done this had we not invaded their country. When you invade a country and the people of that country strike back against you, you can't claim total innocence.
I'm not sure why the death of four Americans would be cause to reevaluate, though, when we've already overlooked the hundreds and thousands of dead Iraqis resulting from Bush's decision.(Italicization mine)
I'm going to call you on the words I've italicized. The 'people' of Iraq struck back at Americans? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Given that most of the insurgents are either former Hussein military personnel or foreign newcomers, I think it is. Secondly, this happened in Fallujah (sp?). You know what that city is known for, among other things? It's known for one: most benefitting from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and two: for being most worried about the majority in Iraq coming to power.
It would be more accurate to say "when the people of the city that gained the most and have the most to lose from American victory" strike back at us.
quote:It's not like these people just randomly attacked our people because they happened to be standing there. They attacked our people because we invaded their country.
And if we weren't there, they'd be brutally oppressing the majority of Iraq, growing fat and wealthy from the blood of their own countrymen.
I'm just saying that one possible assumption this quote of yours makes, that those people would be peaceful, productive citizens, is utterly incorrect. -----
JohnKeats,
quote:It might have been worth that price to round up Al-Quaida (sp?) cells around the world and find a way to make Islam our ally against terrorism in general.
There is something to be said for gathering much of international terrorism into Iraq to face (largely) Allied military. I'm kind of on the fence on that one, though, and that was not what I wanted out of the war to begin with anyway.
And while your latter point is a laudable goal, I have to ask everyone who says this: how? The typical answer is either "I don't know" or "Well this certainly isn't how". I'm curious what you think would work.
I agree with you that the original justification of the war was mishandled. But I mean that differently than most people, I think. I don't think that the proper response to Hussein's mocking and obstruction of weapons inspections teams was to keep doing the same thing that was already being met with noncooperation and obstruction. I do think that WMD should not have been the thing America needed to get off its duff and do something.
------
Ed,
quote:Not to raise Godwin from the dead, but should the Germans of the 1930's have thought that only German opinions mattered on invading Czechslovakia?
You know what's cuter? This ridiculous comparison. Let's see...comparing Nazi aggression to Gulf War 2, that's one ridiculous comparison. Two, comparing people who dismiss world opinion to Nazis, that's another one. Now that's cute. The answer to your question is "no" since there was no real world government, then or now. Germans should not have based their decisions and approval or lack thereof on world opinion.
Put Godwin back until you're able to use him with some semblance of coherence:) "masturbatory attempts at elitist pseudo-patriotism"? Who are you strutting for?
quote:I love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war while we were able to enlist the aid of, what, Australia? And that's one of the most impressive names on that list, to my knowledge.
Who says France and Russia are our usual allies? You? Also, you can't on the one hand say, "We should consider world opinion," but when we have over two score allied nations, in the same breath say, "Well they don't count." It's on the one hand insulting to those nations, and on the other hand it's hypocritical.
Heh. (This is what people do when they want to say they're so much smarter than the idiot they're arguing with, and it's actually silly they're stooping to their level. Isn't it?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I agree with your frustration-to use a milder term-with Bush's flip-flopping on reasons for the war. While humanitarian reasons were mentioned prior to the war, by no means were they the heavy-hitting reasons. Now it seems to be reversed.
And 'selected'? Come on, he won that election. The frigging Chicago Herald (I forget the exact name) did its own recount and had Bush winning over Gore in Florida.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are going to judge the war, you have to judge ALL the effects of the war, those central to the core justification and those peripheral to it.
And I believe I've done just that. The humanitarian crap is all fine and dandy. I approve of it... sortof. As in, I suppose many Iraqis are better off today than they were two years ago.
I assure you thousands of them are not.
And I'm not convinced that was worth the price we've paid and they've paid and all of us seem to be bound to pay for an indefinite amount of time into the future.
Those "peripheral" objectives might have been accomplished in any number of several different ways if we had not started the war on the "main" objective. It's hard to say, seeing as how Iraq 2.0 was pitched as self-defense when in fact it really wasn't.
posted
Rakeesh, regardless of whether or not Bush actually received more Florida votes than Gore (and I doubt that any one source can really give you a definitive answer to that question because of the insane circumstances that surrounded FL '00) President Bush was selected by the Supreme Court to be the President of the United States, so my verbiage is correct.
Yes, strictly speaking you're correct. I should've been more specific. I was talking about the assumption that usually goes along with that choice of words, that Bush was incorrectly 'selected' to be POTUS. Usually it is assumed-incorrectly-that Bush did not win the Florida vote, and that therefore his selection was wrongfully made. That's what I meant, and say what you will about the circumstances in Florida (I agree, it was nuts, I live here), there have been scores of sources who said Bush won Florida's electoral votes, and none I've heard of who said Gore won more votes in Florida than Bush.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As in, I suppose many Iraqis are better off today than they were two years ago.
I assure you thousands of them are not.
My original reaosn for supporting the war was that we should have done it the first time. Taking out a dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors and killed thousands of his citizens is a good thing. When weighed against the costs, it becomes clear that Iraq is in a far different category than most dictatorships.
As for the thousands who are not better off now, I'm not going to dispute that. I would bet most people in the country ARE better off when you factor in the constant possibility of brutality from Sadaam's regime.
The issue of whether Bush lied is a different issue from whether the war was justified, and should not be minimized. But it does not change the basic equation that the world is better for Sadaam not being in power any more.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
