Today it was revealed that Elon has cut/refused access to Starlink for Ukraine in the Black Sea in order to intentionally hobble their major counter offensive in the Black Sea and cripple their communication ability and suddenly Elon is calling for an immediate truce (ostensibly with both sides (Russia) retaining any territory taken previously)…so his plan is handing Russia 1/3 of Ukraine and allowing them to keep Ukrainian Crimea…and quick before Ukraine retakes their country.
He has previously said he would not do any such thing ever after offering Ukraine open access to Starlink, but suddenly changed course in the middle of a major military offensive by Ukraine he said would be like Pearl Harbor (meaning the Ukrainians caught a huge number of Russian ships in port vulnerable to attack and could turn the tide of war in one action), but Elon wanted to stop the Ukrainians from achieving such a significant victory so he cut their communications to help Russia! He has admitted this publicly, it’s not supposition.

I hope sanctions are forthcoming…major multiple business ending sanctions.

If you still support Elon, you are the problem. He’s anti American and pro fascist.
Quit X, trade in your Tesla, and tell NASA to quit handing him billions in no bid, no competition, non performance based contracts using tax payer money for failures and global communication projects he capriciously withdraws from our allies when they’re needed most, and uses to prop up and control information for multiple fascist governments to the detriment of the populace but to the benefit of his pockets.

LMFAHS!!!! Bobby? That is you, isn't it? This is the kind of total non sequitur, irrational, fact free, second grade level "argument" I expect from you. Not sure why you quoted me, you didn't address a single point I made with your rambling rant.

The delusion and lack of self awareness is strong with this one.

Sorry, there's no cult of Biden. Democrats still have functioning brains, unlike Trumpists who believe eating fresh babies make people younger and gives them magic powers, that vaccines have invisible Microsoft microchips that will take over their brains so George Soros can force them to become transsexual communists, and that when you lose an election the patriotic thing to do is stage a deadly coup. The right lost it's mind in 2015 and has never seen a doctor.

If Biden shot someone in cold blood, Democrats would demand prosecution and ostracize him. When Trump said it, he meant it, and the crowd of magamorons cheered in unanimous agreement. Derp?

Not a bit sure what you mean by linking an article about Biden considering completing some of the useless fencing Trump replaced existing barriers with. No surprise, most of the "wall" Trump brags about replaced existing barriers, many more functional than his fence design that is just gawd awful, easy to push down and drive trucks through and that can't even stand up in wind, but also weren't completed and often ended up being maybe 100 yards of fence, then 20 yards of nothing, then another 100 yards of fence, then more gaps, etc. Those unfinished repair/replacement projects are worthless wastes of billions if not finished, and often made the border more porous, not more secure, because they replaced functional (if imperfect) barriers. You think you have some point to make because Biden is considering finishing those projects to at least fix the holes Trump left, and plans to fund them legally through congress not by illegal executive orders taking money earmarked by congress for military family housing and handing it to his donors brand new construction companies for no bid contracts like Trump did, against court orders no less? I just don't know what you think that means, how it's a bad thing Biden is doing by not just ignoring problems created by the ineptitude of the previous administration but instead being presidential, or how it defends Trump's disastrous record, which seems to be your objective.

Hmmmm.....more snowflake tears, yummy.

No Bob. 10 that AREN'T RINOs, or at least 10 that this time put country over party leaders, a long time Republican slogan before Trump. Remember complaining Obama was a cult of personality? You never hear right wingers bring that up lately....wonder why?

This impeachment just shows how fucked in the head Republicans are that they don't think calling for them and their colleges to be murdered and a violent but failed coup warrants repercussion if Trump does it. Turnabout is fair play, Biden gets 400000 dead Americans and two months of fomenting insurrection at the expense of democracy before you get to say "boo". He and his family also have carte Blanche to make as many millions as they can during his tenure, including but not limited to no bid, no show contracts, preferential government loans and bailouts, and gifts from foreign powers. Thanks Trump.

...and who is surprised that large numbers of Trumpsters were foolish enough to listen to him and drank bleach?

Drink the bleach, then flush your nose with ammonia. Don't let the liberal fake media tell you it's dangerous, they just want you to be sick so it makes Daddy Trump look bad. If you don't believe me, you can at least wash your skin with a mixture of the two....just ignore the clouds of chlorine gas, they're also a liberal hoax.

Only fools on team Trump.

Care to explain why Trump gave a no bid $55 MILLION contract for distributing n95 masks to Pantera, a subsidiary of a bankrupt defense contractor company with zero employees?...a contract that lets the company owner use the power of the federal government to buy the masks at as low as $.63, then sell them to the government for $5.50 each? Pantera provides no service for that near 1000% markup, the Fed finds/orders the masks (and probably pays for them and transfers ownership to Pantera for free), then buys them back for nearly 10 times what they cost. Care to explain how that's NOT just Trump handing millions of taxpayer dollars to a rich supporter?

Wall of text incoming. Again.

Sorry. Again.

tl;dr:

Debt relief right away was proposed, was neccessary, and was skipped to protect the European financial system.



You are 100% correct, we both are as convinced as one can be that a disorderly collapse would have been much worse for Greece. Might have turned it into a failed state, if things went really bad.

But the situation in Greece at the time the Troika got involved suggested a textbook approach would work just fine. Greece was insolvent, no two ways about it. A debt restructuring, including a haircut, was required to stabilise the system. Yet it was decided against it, thereby creating an enormous debt bubble that keeps growing to this day, destabilising everything.

Why?

People in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin knew in May of 2010 that Greece cannot service its current debt, nevermind pay it back. I remember rather vividly how it was presented to us, as it stirred up a lot of dust in Germany. They pretended as if the problem was a shortage of liquidity, even though they knew it was in fact an insolvency. And to provide an insolvent nation with the largest credit in history (€110-130b) is... well, we can all pick our favorite in accordance to our own bias: madness, idiocy, incompetence, a mistake, intent. They threw Greece into permanent indebtedness(?), and also played one people against another. People in Germany were pissed, still are. Not at the decision makers, but the Greek people.

Again, why?

Every European government, pre-crisis, drank the Cool Aid of deregulation, particularly with regards to the financial sector. When the crisis hit, they had to bail out the banks, a very unpopular decision in Germany, given the scandalous way it was done (different story). Like I pointed out before, when Greece was done for, German banks were on the hook for €17b+, and the French for €20b+. So no haircut for Greek debt.

It gets even better. The entity most experienced in these matters is, of course, the IMF. But IMF couldn't get involved. Its own regulations demand debt to be sustainable for it to become involved in any debt restructuring. Strauss-Kahn had the rules changed in a very hush-hush manner (hidden in a 146 page document) to allow the IMF to lend vast sums to Greece, even though they knew it would not be payed back. Former EC members are on record saying the Strauss-Kahn decided to protect French banks this way as a part of his race for President in France. So they changed IMF rules and ignored European law to bail out German and French banks, using the insolvent Greek government as a proxy.

Several members of the IMF's board were in open opposition. The representatives of India, Russia, Brazil and Switzerland are on record, saying this would merely replace private with public financing, that it would be a rescue package for the private creditors rather than the Greek state. They spoke out in favor of negotiations of a debt relief.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there's an IMF email, dated March 25th, 2010, that was published by Roumeliotis, formerly IMF. They put it very bluntly:

"Greece is a relatively closed economy, and the fiscal contraction implied by this adjustment path, will cause a sharp contraction in domestic demand and an attendant deep recession, severely stretching the social fabric."

Even the IMF, who chose parameters according to their own ideology, thought the European program to be too severe. That's saying something.

All that is just about the initial decision. The implementation is another story entirely, with unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats telling a democratically elected government what to do. There are former Greek ministers on record, telling how Troika officials basically wrote legislation for them. Blackmail was common, bailout money held as leverage. The Memorandum of Understanding was to be followed to the letter, and the Troika program was as detailed as a government program, so they really had their hand in just about everything.

The specifics of the program are a discussion of their own, with all the corruption going on. The Lagarde list (2000+ Greek tax dodgers) was held in secret by order of an IMF official – that alone should trigger major investigations. The nationalisation and sell-off of the four largest Greek banks, or the no-bid sale of the Hellenikon area to a Greek oligarch – all enforced by Troika officials.

The haircut of 2012, ~€110b wiped out, came two years late. As a result, it didn't hit any German or French institutions in a serious way. Most of the debt was in the hands of these four largest Greek banks -- NBG, Piraeus, Euro, Alpha – who subsequently had to be recapitalised by Greece to the tune of €50b. Cut by 110, up by 50 right away. Banks were nationalised and shares later sold again, at 2/3 the price. Lost another €15b, because the Troika demanded the sale to appease the markets.

The legal aspects of all this are nightmare-inducing as well. They violated numerous European laws, side-tracked parliaments, used governmental decrees, etc.

Let me just say this: when they forced Cyprus to give away two banks' branches in Greece for a fraction of their worth, Cyprus lost €3.5b, at a GDP of €17b, and those two banks went belly-up. It was pure blackmail, do it or you're out. Piraeus Bank received those €3.5b, and its head honcho had €150m of personal bad credit wiped clean right then and there, all at the command of the Troika. Those €3.5b had to be taken from ordinary folks by "suspending" the deposit insurance, perhaps the most stupid decision they had made so far.

Why did they do it? Because Greece was more important than Cyprus, and Cypriot banks were involved in shady deals with Russian oligarchs. Still illegal, and massively so.

Edit: I cut my post in half and it's still too long.

Ugh, the F-35 is such a waste of money, and is costing the Canadian gov't so much. We did a no bid contract, which is the stupidest thing in the world unless you're the one getting it, and it doesn't even meet the needs our country demands from its fighter/bombers.

Of course I do have my love of the A-10, I think it's just an amazing plane. I still remember that footage from the first gulf war when an A-10 landed, and it looked like swiss cheese.

Here it is:

http://youtu.be/1BecNTYPYbU

>> ^lantern53:

Makes you wonder why so many are interested in whether Obama was born in the US when there are so many more important things to be concerned about, such as the national debt, the economy, foreign relations, why Ronan Farrow makes $115,000 a year pushing 'global youth issues' when the youth here in the US are chronically unemployed, why Democrats are avoiding their convention, Obama's 'laser-like' focus on jobs (lol), his record-setting golf outings and fund-raisers, why he won't meet with CIA chiefs or even his cabinet...
so much to be concerned about...


I'll say it again...change his skin color and name, leave his policies and actions exactly as they have been. Drop Obama 15 years in the past, and the Republicans would hail him as their conquering hero, the new incarnation of Saint Reagan.

His every action is that of a big-business Republican. His healthcare reform...a Republican-created plan. His economic advisors, from Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street, every one. His handling of the wars...nothing changed, just keep pumping money to the mega-corps we hired on no-bid contracts.

He IS a Republican, in all ways that matter. But to the Republicans, apparently the only ways that matter are skin color, a funny sounding name, and that he claims to be a Democrat. Actions are meaningless and count for nothing to them.

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.

(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)

"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.

"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.

"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.

"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.


So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.
The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.
Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.
Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.
And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.



So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.

The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.

Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.

Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.

And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).

Well, we've now lived under this doctrine for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does (obviously) give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.

Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in the bank. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.

This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.

Capiche?



>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.

If you ask a conservative or liberal or left libertarian or right libertarian, they will all tell you they overwhelmingly support small business. The doctrines of these respective factions are also supportive of small business. If you could force our elected officials to all take lie detector tests, I'm certain that almost all of them support small business in their hearts too.

So, if everyone supports small business, then why does government seem to be a never ending stream of corporate wars, no bid contracts, bailouts, austerity, corporate tax giveaways and subsidies? If everyone supports the little guy, then why does he always get fucked over in favor of big money?

Because multinational corporations hold our government's balls (and ovaries) in a financial vice. Because multinational corporations fund our elections and control our media.

Step out of line and you find yourself with no election funds or bad press or a sex scandal or a real estate scandal, or perhaps a faulty engine on your campaign leer jet. Any dirt you may have on you in life is sitting in a filing cabinet, waiting for the day you fuck up, at which point you are booted from office and humiliated in front of friends, family, colleagues and constituents.

Time and again we see idealistic politicians full of hope and promises become corporate lackeys after they are sworn in. Does this have to happen to Ron Paul too before market libertarians figure out that our campaign finance system is fatally flawed? It's funny to see all of these anti-democracy, anti-two party system market libertarians all of a sudden hyping on a Republican candidate for the 2012 elections. It's funny because you seem to believe we live in a democracy - which you supposedly hate.

It's not the people. it's not the ideology. It's not even the politicians. It's the system. The system is fucked. There is no hope for the kind of serious change we need in this country until we unfuck it. And for it to be unfucked, we the people need to do it for ourselves. We can't sit around waiting for political surrogates to do this work for us. We need to demand it in large numbers, and to strike and protest for as long as it takes until it gets done.

And time is running out. The deficit grows. The temperature of the globe rises. Our jobs are being shipped off to the 3rd world. Our money is being shipped off to Caribbean tax shelters. We need to act soon. At some point it will be too late.

>> ^blankfist:

The American "right" doesn't like small government. It's a talking point, yes. But never is it put into practice.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Can someone explain to me how a libertarian society would not end in the rich getting richer and the poor poorer and deader? (This question is not derisive, I really want to know.)


I'll take a stab. Well, the current system has a government that intervenes in every single market. And what we've seen as a result is opportunistic politicians colluding with corporations to pass legislation that creates more corporate welfare and subsidies paid for by tax dollars; creates regulations and restrictions on markets that benefit the corporations or at the very least closes out competition from small businesses who cannot afford to pay the regulatory fees and permits; and there's a healthy dose of nepotism as those politicians give business contracts (sometimes no-bid contracts) to those select corporations.

This kind of market intervention isn't a free market. And what results from it is the rich getting richer from our tax dollars and other subsidies. This creates a huge gap between the rich and the middle class/poor. A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few. And because the poor and middle class out number the rich, more people from the bottom will generate wealth and respectively less from the top.

What tends to scare people about free markets is that there's no guarantee of protection. But that should be viewed from a perspective of reason and seen as a potential for good instead of seen from a perspective of fear and seen as dangerous and scary. A free market means there are no central planners, therefore no collusion on a top level. That's the biggest benefit of a free market, IMO, because in regulated markets the "guarantees" are the exact thing that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Very rarely does someone fit squarely into an ism.

*Wanting corporations to pay taxes is not conservative. Not liking having to pay taxes is human. I'd feel much better about paying taxes if they weren't being dumped into corporate coffers through bailouts, subsidies and no-bid contracts.

*Social welfare is an attempt to limit the damage caused by our economic system. Our particularly ugly American version of capitalism (whose destruction cuts across all ideological lines) creates unemployment, low wages, inflation, and dramatic economic disparity. No amount of self determination and bootstrapping will end these systemic problems. You can argue the merits and effectiveness of individual social welfare programs, but at the end of the day, the problems they were created to remedy will still exist. If we restructured the system to be more beneficial to labor, there would less need for these kinds of band-aids.

*Small government and efficient government are two different things. "Small" is a purposely vague and arbitrary term. Powerful interests like "small" inefficient, ineffective governments, because they are easy to control. I'd like our government to be as big as it needs to be in order to be efficient. No bigger, no smaller.

*There are other lefties that support nuclear power.

*Everyone loves the constructive, creative side of the free market. It's the economic class war that results from unregulated markets that causes all the problems. In order for Trump to have his billions, other people are going to have to live in poverty to support his lifestyle. The free market is a system of winners and losers, opulence and suffering. You can't have one without the other.

*Optimism and pessimism are present on all sides of the spectrum. I am pessimistic about the times we live in, but optimistic about the future, because things have steadily become better for us since the dawn of humanity. As MLK said, "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

*Conservatism doesn't have a lock on theism. Liberalism doesn't have a lock on atheism. While Protestants, Evangelists, Mormons and Muslims are usually socially conservative, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Unitarians are usually liberal. Conversely, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and the neo-conservative movement they inspired are atheist in nature (although their dogmatic, pie-in-the-sky economic views are a faith of sorts).

I find the Libyan uprising inspiring and would like to see them succeed in their revolution. I have no problem with the UN playing a supporting role in this conflict. I'd (obviously) be against occupation, ground forces, IMF/World Bank style imperialism, the building of bases and/or the encroachment upon the sovereignty of a liberated Libya.

I guess the question is whether or not we should take the situation at face value or not. Iraq was obviously bullshit from the start, from it's bogus 9/11 and WMD motivations, to the outrageous no-bid contracts and lavish military spending, to it's secret prisons and torture methods, to the gang of corporations that lined up around the block to make a buck. It lacked international support and clarity as to what it's intentions were.

I'm not seeing any of those telltale signs of bullshit here. This situation is not a unilateral US action. It has broad international support. It's purpose is defined and limited in scope, and I don't see the carpetbaggers lining up. If there is evidence to suggest this is another Iraq cluster fuck, I'd like to hear it, but for the moment, I suppose I am "pro war", or at least pro revolution.