North Korea starts up nuke plants

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 6, 2003, 1:49 am

Nuke Plants Open

This should be interesting to see what US will do.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 6, 2003, 2:29 am

there is going to be another huge war in that region in the next 10 years, unless there is either a successful coup d'etat or a successful democratic revolution (doubtful).

fucking with north korea is a very dangerous proposition.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 6, 2003, 2:42 am

Grats, more pre-emptive shit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2731305.stm

Millie · Post by **Millie** » February 6, 2003, 2:52 am

Now would be THE perfect time for Osama bin Laden to strike again. Think about it: with Bush spread thin between Asia and Iraq, what better chance to fuck things up by attacking American soil? Bush would flip his shit, and I'm guessing his head would explode in confusion.

I'm not condoning bin Laden's actions in the least, but I do think he's a pretty strategic guy. Or at least he has some strategically sound people working for him. I would be worried.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » February 6, 2003, 3:53 am

The whole reason North Korea is doing this is because they know we cannot successfully wage 2 wars. If Iraq wasn't going on, they would not pull this shit

Mak · Post by **Mak** » February 6, 2003, 4:09 am

Millie wrote:Now would be THE perfect time for Osama bin Laden to strike again. Think about it: with Bush spread thin between Asia and Iraq, what better chance to fuck things up by attacking American soil? Bush would flip his shit, and I'm guessing his head would explode in confusion.

I'm not condoning bin Laden's actions in the least, but I do think he's a pretty strategic guy. Or at least he has some strategically sound people working for him. I would be worried.

I disagree.

I think he's perfectly satisfied (for the time being at least) to watch the US's internal conflict rage, so far as the war with Iraq goes. Bin Laden is indeed a strategic guy, and guys like that play a long term game. Seeing US politicians so polarized against one another can only bring him satisfaction, and the hope that Bush loses in 2004 as a result of internal strife (ala Bush Sr.) This gives him time to rebuild his network, recoup from financial and personel losses, and set new plans in motion.

So long as we're fighting amongst ourselves, he feels safe. That's my opinion.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » February 6, 2003, 4:43 am

Mak wrote:So long as we're fighting amongst ourselves, he feels safe. That's my opinion.

That's a very good point. Basically, we're each evaluating what we think bin Laden's motives may be. I'm presuming his goal is strictly to maximize physical damage to the U.S. and its holdings -- in which case, a few months from now might be the best time to strike. If we've committed all our resources to the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia, he can attack without fear of military reprisal. On the other hand, you're presuming that he will settle for political turmoil -- in which case, he needn't rear his head until he wants to. Both are possible scenarios.

We'll see how it plays out. Either way, I'm not entirely convinced that we've seen the last of him. Not by a long shot. I think we'd both agree on that count.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » February 6, 2003, 4:57 am

war is the health of the state

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 6, 2003, 4:59 am

The US or the UN won't act very aggresively towards North Korea. I can pretty much guarantee that even Bush will go to the bargaining table before fucking with the Great Leader.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » February 6, 2003, 5:26 am

Millie wrote:Either way, I'm not entirely convinced that we've seen the last of him. Not by a long shot. I think we'd both agree on that count.

Regrettably, yes.

JloveFizzboom · Post by **JloveFizzboom** » February 6, 2003, 8:19 am

North Korea is doing this because it's a "gimme" for them. Either they are allowed to make nukes unmolested by us - or we buy em off with "financial aid". The guy running show show there might be a murdering dictator, but he read his Machiavelli (sp? sorry, been 13 years since I read it).

By the way, we can wage two wars on this magnitude -- but not without the full support of the populace. America does not fight successful wars without the public support -- and public support for a war in this country is hard to come by. That's a good thing, in general, but a it does hinder us if it takes a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 to get support to prevent such things. The public will not support going to war over Korea at this point, so it is an easy decision for psychoboy in N.Korea right now.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 6, 2003, 8:45 am

Plus the mentalist despot also realises his country is on the US's shit list and that having nukes and a 1,000,000 strong standing army is about the only thing that will prevent NK being given the "Iraq Treatment" once the dust settles in the mid-east.

If I was a lunatic dictator facing a US military build-up so soon after seeing my name on the "Axis of Evil" list it's what I'd do.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 6, 2003, 11:17 am

The fact that North Korea does *not* need to reactivate this facility puts me on the side of unwavering support for a war on N. Korea. North Korea has need a rhinoplasty for many years so their people could once again see how the world really is, and to be re-united with their brothren of South Korea.

I honestly suggest reading South Korean news reports about North Korea. South Korea does not want war in the least. They just want re-unification, and an end to communism. I think they would also know best about what power plants are needed to supply power/heat the country.

But what the fuck do I know...I'm some sort of gungho-cowboy-liberal-sometimes-asshat...or so I've been told.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 6, 2003, 11:25 am

The Fired up a plant to produce Electricity!!! So What!! Now we all know the byproduct could be Nuclear weapon grade waste, but does the whole world go into a frenzy when the US,Canada,GB or Russia fire up a reactor for electricity.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 11:37 am

I have to agree, it's a timing ploy. Either NK gets to build the reactors and weapons it has always wanted, or they get more aid from the U.S. to stand down.

Bastards.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2003, 11:40 am

Cartalas wrote:The Fired up a plant to produce Electricity!!! So What!! Now we all know the byproduct could be Nuclear weapon grade waste, but does the whole world go into a frenzy when the US,Canada,GB or Russia fire up a reactor for electricity.

If Canada pulled out of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty I'm sure the U.S. would seize the opportunity to lay waste to Quebec. I still can't believe the French have a foothold on this contintent. GTFO!

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 6, 2003, 11:46 am

The Fired up a plant to produce Electricity!!! So What!! Now we all know the byproduct could be Nuclear weapon grade waste, but does the whole world go into a frenzy when the US,Canada,GB or Russia fire up a reactor for electricity.

Gimme a break man, they are hardly producing any electricity w/ these plants. Here's an interesting article that I think I linked in our past N Korea thread.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200 ... 924287.htm

If you think that's too biased, go look anywhere. These weren't reopened to produce more than maybe a small amount of electricity.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 6, 2003, 12:38 pm

Brotha wrote:
The Fired up a plant to produce Electricity!!! So What!! Now we all know the byproduct could be Nuclear weapon grade waste, but does the whole world go into a frenzy when the US,Canada,GB or Russia fire up a reactor for electricity.
Gimme a break man, they are hardly producing any electricity w/ these plants. Here's an interesting article that I think I linked in our past N Korea thread.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200 ... 924287.htm

If you think that's too biased, go look anywhere. These weren't reopened to produce more than maybe a small amount of electricity.

But do we as a country have the right to attack or blame even before they do it?

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 6, 2003, 12:50 pm

You know...there is a reason the U.S. has troops stationed in Korea, and that they have been there for nearly half a century...Beefing up the front is our way of "puffing out our chests" like Kimmy is doing with his reactors. Scare tactics, then talks, then stand downs. Korea has seen this many times, will probably be the same thing again. I actually kind of wish N. Korea would provoke an attack. Would be nice to finally end the pathetic struggle we tax payers are made to finance year after year.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » February 6, 2003, 1:07 pm

North Korea is not an easily winnable military situation, if its winnable at all. Well over half of our troops in the region are in range of North Korean artillary (which they happen to have a shitload of) and the rest are within missile range. If we or they choose to launch an attack, most of our troops would immediately be under heavy artillary fire, along with a large portion of the South Korean population (Seoul is within range of North Korean artillary).

In the long term, the U.S. would probably win, but it would be a long road with many, many lives lost on both sides. This would not be a "mop-up" war like Iraq. In addition, the Chinese are right on the doorstep there, and they would most likely have to give tacit approval to major U.S. troops movements in the region which would complicate things immensely.

In short, the North Koreans are not necessarily negotiating from a position of weakness. Yes the U.S. could fight two wars at once, but do we really want to?

Animale

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 6, 2003, 1:20 pm

Unlike Iraq, North Korea hasn't invaded its neighbors in a very long time.
Unlike Iraq, North Korea hasn't posed a direct threat to global oil supplies.

With NK I think we can sit back, withdraw any aid and allow the regime there to colapse under its own weight.

I'd also prefer to take second stage behind South Korea. Those guys know how to handle NK better than us.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 6, 2003, 1:22 pm

kluden, any war with N Korea would cost us much more than any sort of maintenance deployment along the DMZ. we would lose many many soldiers, a lot of equipment, and a lot of market stability. NK has the 7th largest army in the world. What little GDP they do have pretty much gets funneled into the miltary. They are already in positions where they can shell our troops, and they are in defensive positions. it would be an extremely nasty conflict. We would win, but it would be nasty.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » February 6, 2003, 1:38 pm

Animale wrote:Yes the U.S. could fight two wars at once, but do we really want to?

The U.S. cannot fight two wars at once -- least of all when one of those wars is in Korea. A fullscale, conventional war in North Korea would require our undivided attention. Remember the Korean War? That was a stalemate at best, and it was the result of a giant commitment U.S. of arms and troops to the conflict. We have not advanced so much militarily in the last 50 years as to be capable of making a Korean fight any easier.

Kim Jong Il is doing what anyone in his position would be doing right now. He's playing his hand. He knows that we're not about to leap into battle in two distant parts of the globe simultaneously, and he's trying to blackmail aid from us.

On the other hand, I doubt he would really launch a preemptive strike on U.S. troops. That would be suicide for his regime, as it would kill any remaining vestiges of his international credibility. A preemptive attack on the U.S. would likely cause most of Europe to side with us in a counterstrike. On the other hand, the man is insane; who really knows what he might do?

The real wild card in all this is China. They turned the tide against us in the original Korean War, and we're not entirely sure what they'd do if a second war errupted. One thing's for damned sure -- we're not about to bring China into a war, which would most certainly result in World War III.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 6, 2003, 1:41 pm

North Korea won't be getting supplied from China this time though.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » February 6, 2003, 1:52 pm

Millie wrote:
Animale wrote:Yes the U.S. could fight two wars at once, but do we really want to?
The U.S. cannot fight two wars at once -- least of all when one of those wars is in Korea. A fullscale, conventional war in North Korea would require our undivided attention. Remember the Korean War? That was a stalemate at best, and it was the result of a giant commitment U.S. of arms and troops to the conflict. We have not advanced so much militarily in the last 50 years as to be capable of making a Korean fight any easier.

...So the whole German/Japan thing in world war 2 was just a couple of battle groups playing war games?

Kim Jong Il is doing what anyone in his position would be doing right now. He's playing his hand. He knows that we're not about to leap into battle in two distant parts of the globe simultaneously, and he's trying to blackmail aid from us.

On the other hand, I doubt he would really launch a preemptive strike on U.S. troops. That would be suicide for his regime, as it would kill any remaining vestiges of his international credibility. A preemptive attack on the U.S. would likely cause most of Europe to side with us in a counterstrike. On the other hand, the man is insane; who really knows what he might do?

So in other words, you're going to lay out all possible outcomes so that when something does happen, you can jump up and down and yell "told you so!"

The real wild card in all this is China. They turned the tide against us in the original Korean War, and we're not entirely sure what they'd do if a second war errupted. One thing's for damned sure -- we're not about to bring China into a war, which would most certainly result in World War III.

I doubt very much that china will want to get overly involved. They're getting too much out of the trade agreements with the US, and jumping onto N.Korea's side in this virtually guarantees that America will fully and completely "liberate" Taiwan from the PRC. They may raise a ruckus, but in the end, it's all about favored nation status.

Post by **Xouqoa** » February 6, 2003, 1:57 pm

Pahreyia wrote:...So the whole German/Japan thing in world war 2 was just a couple of battle groups playing war games?

We were pretty much done with Germany before we started focusing on Japan. (iirc)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2003, 2:00 pm

A conflict with North Korea is not in the same ballpark as a war with Iraq.

I have no doubt that all hell would break loose if North Korea decides they have no other option than military action. North Korea has been working on defensive and offensive warplans since the 50's. Scary stuff in that part of the world.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2003, 2:03 pm

Xouqoa wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:...So the whole German/Japan thing in world war 2 was just a couple of battle groups playing war games?
We were pretty much done with Germany before we started focusing on Japan. (iirc)

We shifted focus on Japan as in going on major offensives after germany crumbled but we were fighting two full blown wars at the same time. Strategically, we handled our forces better than say....Hitler in Russia.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 6, 2003, 2:03 pm

WW2 in the Pacific started in 1941. It didnt end in Europe until 1945. only a few months before it ended in the Pacific.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » February 6, 2003, 2:05 pm

Pahreyia wrote:...So the whole German/Japan thing in world war 2 was just a couple of battle groups playing war games?

Germany was all but finished by the time we got there. It was the Soviets, more than anyone else, who defeated Germany. Hell, it was Hitler who defeated Germany -- and by fighting a war on two fronts. By the time we arrived, we were just helping kick around a corpse.

So in other words, you're going to lay out all possible outcomes so that when something does happen, you can jump up and down and yell "told you so!"

Look, you idiot. If you're not going to read the entirety of my post, at least admit as much. I was simply stating possible scenarios for a conflict in Korea. When evaluating a strategic situation, it's common practice to consider all possible outcomes. I'm very sorry if I didn't take the sort of one-sided, tunnel-vision stance that you seem to advocate.

I doubt very much that china will want to get overly involved. They're getting too much out of the trade agreements with the US, and jumping onto N.Korea's side in this virtually guarantees that America will fully and completely "liberate" Taiwan from the PRC. They may raise a ruckus, but in the end, it's all about favored nation status.

No argument here, but you have to realize that China is not a predictable country. It's also under new leadership, and its ascending premiere is a man known best for his hawkish attitude. We didn't think China was in a position to attack us before the first Korean war, and boy did they prove us wrong. All I'm saying is that we don't want to underestimate or ignore China if we start a land war a stone's throw away from their border.

Post by **Xouqoa** » February 6, 2003, 2:06 pm

Yeah, I just re-checked dates. I am wrong.

Pacific Theatre went on from 1941 (after Pearl Harbor) to 1945, which is when we dropped the bombs on Japan.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 6, 2003, 2:14 pm

Voronwë wrote:North Korea won't be getting supplied from China this time though.

How do we know this? China is still a major ally of North Korea.

Millie wrote:On the other hand, I doubt he would really launch a preemptive strike on U.S. troops. That would be suicide for his regime, as it would kill any remaining vestiges of his international credibility. A preemptive attack on the U.S. would likely cause most of Europe to side with us in a counterstrike. On the other hand, the man is insane; who really knows what he might do?

I doubt many nations would get involved actually. A 1 million strong army possibly backed by a 3 million strong army will deter most countries IMO.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 2:19 pm

I don't see China getting involved.

The alliance there is merely political, and very superficial. Take a look at how the two cultures interact.

On the other hand, I don't see too many countries getting involved on our side, either. Korea is a fucking mess and far too fresh in most peoples memory.

Short form, I think Voronwe nailed it. A dirty, drawn out conflict that would hurt like hell. We would win, but not without cost.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2003, 2:24 pm

Millie wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:...So the whole German/Japan thing in world war 2 was just a couple of battle groups playing war games?
Germany was all but finished by the time we got there. It was the Soviets, more than anyone else, who defeated Germany. Hell, it was Hitler who defeated Germany -- and by fighting a war on two fronts. By the time we arrived, we were just helping kick around a corpse.

That is so trivializing the US involvment in Europe. Not worth responding to. The russians did a fine job of throwing bodys at the germans. The US was not just kicking around a corpse...what an ass.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » February 6, 2003, 2:25 pm

Playing devils advocate here, not reflecting personal views:

Exactly who are we (As in U.S.A.) to dictate if North Korea can have nuclear weapons capabilities or not? Because Bush labeled them part of the "axis of evil". I think that it would be only fair (Though completely unrealistic) that we follow suite, and disarm OUR nuclear arsenal. Of course, that would mean we really could not threaten anyone to do something, and be forced to take a hands on approach.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 6, 2003, 2:28 pm

yeah liberating France was like liberating Kuwait....laff

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 2:29 pm

We bribed them to fall in line with the Nuclear Proliferation act, something the international community supports.

They decided it is no longer in their interest to comply.

I think Adex might be on the right track. Cut off support until we are done dealing with Iraq, then see if they are ready to talk sense or not.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 6, 2003, 2:31 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
I think Adex might be on the right track. Cut off support until we are done dealing with Iraq, then see if they are ready to talk sense or not.

I don't think this is the best way. I think they'd choose war over a slow death if there's no hope for aid.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 2:35 pm

The other option seems to me to saeparate the aid they receive from their compliance with the treaty.

No offense, but that means zero leverage in the region.

Anyone have a better solution? To be honest neither of these is what I would call appealing.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 6, 2003, 2:37 pm

Conventional war would hurt. Not to mention the "one or two nuclear weapons" they supposedly have. Who knows what could happen.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 6, 2003, 2:41 pm

Opinion only of course, but I agree that there is no ability to just "cut off supply, sit back, and wait". They will find buyers for their nuclear weapons, they will find buyers for the plutonium, and they will get support economically from China...no more than what they get now, but it is something.

Although China and NK don't sit on an even platformed relationship, they have used each other for years, and probably won't stop unless the world gets involved. The U.S. would most likely never start a fight with NK. I believe that NK is much different than Iraq as in the UN would most definitely have to be involved this time.

The war itself, god forbid it comes to that, would probably not be as long as you think. After a few first round volley losses for both NK and the allies, I would ensure that all involved would be ready for a quick end. If a war with N.K. actually occured, I believe we will see another nuclear device involved, if not several, from both sides probably.

Mostly just opinion...but I fear it none the less.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 6, 2003, 2:51 pm

The other thing I forgot to mention is North Korea's propensity for "Military Zones" in their country. If they just made movements involving their military, without involving the public city areas, then some well placed bombing...that 1 million number would dwindle quickly. Without a citizen "human shield" from bombing, that war could go definitively quicker.

But of course, as soon as this would occur, you would see one of Kim's nuclear devices no doubt. Sad thought and I think I'm done with it for today.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 6, 2003, 3:04 pm

Fallanthas wrote:The other option seems to me to saeparate the aid they receive from their compliance with the treaty.

No offense, but that means zero leverage in the region.

Anyone have a better solution? To be honest neither of these is what I would call appealing.

your foreign policy is so stupidly simplistic and retarded I am shocked the Bush administrations hasn't called you up for a job. You're perfect.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 6, 2003, 3:11 pm

Negotiations with NKorea will occur and no war will occur until after our 35,000 US troops are out of the demilitarized zone. If NKorea took the first shot, we would lose all those troops in under 24 hours. That right there would mean that the US lost the war whether or not they are the victors at the end.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » February 6, 2003, 3:18 pm

Winnow wrote:
Millie wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:...So the whole German/Japan thing in world war 2 was just a couple of battle groups playing war games?
Germany was all but finished by the time we got there. It was the Soviets, more than anyone else, who defeated Germany. Hell, it was Hitler who defeated Germany -- and by fighting a war on two fronts. By the time we arrived, we were just helping kick around a corpse.

That is so trivializing the US involvment in Europe. Not worth responding to. The russians did a fine job of throwing bodys at the germans. The US was not just kicking around a corpse...what an ass.

Yeah lets give props to the Russians who didnt even have enough rifles to supply their troops and routinely instructed their troops behind the first groups moving in to pick up the gun of your fallen comrade. Russia did not defeat Germany. The US, with the assistance of the British, did. The only reason that the Russians got to Berlin first was because of a really stupid agreement Roosevelt made with Stalin. The US forces were told to hold back and not march into Berlin even though they were in position to do it weeks before Russia was close.

How can you actually beleive the revisionist history that is shoveled down the throats of university students in the US? By doing so, you are making a mockery of the sacrifice, the determination, and the bravery of the greatest generation this nation has seen.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 6, 2003, 3:28 pm

Adelrune Argenti wrote:Yeah lets give props to the Russians who didnt even have enough rifles to supply their troops and routinely instructed their troops behind the first groups moving in to pick up the gun of your fallen comrade. Russia did not defeat Germany. The US, with the assistance of the British, did. The only reason that the Russians got to Berlin first was because of a really stupid agreement Roosevelt made with Stalin.

Yeah that and about 20,000 Soviet tanks. Talk about revisionist history.

Enemy At The Gate != actual historical fact.

The Soviets took back the ukraine, Poland, Crimea, Finland, Brest-Litovsk (belarus), Balkans, Bucharest, Estonia, etc. They were in the best position to assault Berlin first. The Americans were still mostly in Nuremburg

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 6, 2003, 3:46 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Adelrune Argenti wrote:Yeah lets give props to the Russians who didnt even have enough rifles to supply their troops and routinely instructed their troops behind the first groups moving in to pick up the gun of your fallen comrade. Russia did not defeat Germany. The US, with the assistance of the British, did. The only reason that the Russians got to Berlin first was because of a really stupid agreement Roosevelt made with Stalin.
Yeah that and about 20,000 Soviet tanks. Talk about revisionist history. Enemy At The Gate != actual historical fact.

The Soviets took back the ukraine, Poland, Crimea, Finland, Brest-Litovsk (belarus), Balkans, Bucharest, Estonia, etc. They were in the best position to assault Berlin first. The Americans were still mostly in Nuremburg

Adelrune Argenti :

I hope you dont belive that, The Russians were a key factor in the outcome of WW2. Would the Germans lose if the Russians were not involved I think so but at the cost of OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more American.French(No big loss),Canadian,British lives.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » February 6, 2003, 3:49 pm

Cartalas wrote:
I hope you dont belive that, The Russians were a key factor in the outcome of WW2. Would the Germans lose if the Russians were not involved I think so but at the cost of OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more American.French(No big loss),Canadian,British lives.

I said nothing of the sort. I know the contributions of the Russians during the war. However, I am taking exception to the statement that the war in the European Theater was "won" by them without the contributions of the US.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 6, 2003, 3:55 pm

Well in retrospect most of the key areas outside of france, italy and africa was won by the soviets, and the US would have done a lot better if they went in with the Soviets from the north and took out the Germans from within instead of throwing corpses at them at Normandy and the skies over Holland.

the US and allied invasion of France was ultimately successful, but the cost was unbelievable. American troops were killed in their 100's of thousands.

The Soviets definitely paid the highest cost out of any other country in WW2, but a lot of their bodycount was Stalin going crazy on everybody.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » February 6, 2003, 4:28 pm

Well, once again I asked for options and Kyou prefers personal attacks.

Did you have an opinion to put forth, or are you still shitting and throwing feces around?