News

Being against the war is fine with me

Being against the war is fine with me.I wish we would just leave it at that.

When it comes it comes to blaming people for it,I am never afraid to give my opinion even tho controversial,that the war is not just all George W. Bush's fault.

No is the answer to your question "Was the War justified?'

Just for your interest.
The Stated Reason's for going to war from George Bush.Whom I know,has a hard time speaking as it is..
Tuesday 18 March 2003 02.22 GMT
George W Bush in March,2003

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the UN was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals - including journalists and inspectors - should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people - yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations - and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

agree to disagree

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree.  I doubt there is anything you can say that will change my mind.  Bush and Cheney started a war that Americans would not have supported so hearthardedly is they were give all the facts and if Bush and Cheney told the truth.  This is my opinion.  I think there are plenty enough statistics and polls to show this to be true.  let's just hope it doesn't happen again.  Thanks.

Che? Che... Che!!!!!! & Farhad

Che You're factually wrong.

It's no lie!! It was Saddam's obligation in the Peace Treaty to prove if he destroyed the Weapons.

from 1441
"by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council"

//en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Thank's to leftist journalist's and politician's most people don't have a clue to the reason's we went to war.They like to blame it on 'Neo-Conservatism' of course because that is their foe.

Here I likened Anti-Neo Con's, or Neo-Comms,to Saddam Loyalist's to show how simple minded it is to liken people who support the removal of Saddam Hussein to 'neo-con's. How do you like to be bunched in approving the atrocities of Saddam just because you disagree on the invasion? Nice isn't it? Extremist labelling isn't it?

Farhad,I like Neo-Comm's it's another good label!!! I prefer Saddam Loyalist's in this case tho because,it's about Saddam and it's very extremist,as they are with their 'neo-con'.Paints the same blood sucking picture of them as they do 'neo-con's.And really,there is alot of truth to it!! Who in their right mind defends Saddam Hussein? But who in the right mind bomb's innocent people? So,I think it's pretty even.It's just they never seem to understand but only their side of seeing things.Yes many of these 'neo-comm's minds are pushing communism but I don't think they really even know what communism is. :)

Kaveh, che khabar and

Kaveh, che khabar and Timothy,

You guys are all correct.

The Left invented this term “Neo Con” as a tool to assassinate the character of the movement. Nothing about their definition of that term makes sense. Most of the people who they call “Neo Cons” are anything but conservatives, not that there is anything wrong with being a conservative. American and European conservatives have very few things in common with Islamic conservative maniacs in Iran and Afghanistan and S Arabia. For example, Western conservatives want minimized government intervention in their lives, Islamic conservatives want a “Vali Faghigh” caliph at head of the government who controls all aspects of your life.

That’s why I think we should label them as “Neo Comms” (Neo Communists) as a way to set the record straight and stop their attempts to misinform the public and twist definitions and realities. Now they call Obama a “Neo Con” too! Sites like antiwar.com and daily kos are leaders in Left’s character assassination plots.

I have been using this term extensively and I encourage you guys to do the same.

Best regards to you all.

come on!

By virture of it NOT being proved until after he invaded Iraq is proof that it WAS a lie.  This is elementary my dear.  Bush didn't outsmart anyone.  He outmanuvered possibly but definitely didn't outsmart.  And no, I was really intending to compare Saddam to anyone.  Sorry if that was confusing.  As to the rest, I just don't think that the US' job is to "change" anyone.  Wouldn't you agree that the US has enough on it's plate to keep it busy?  :-)

Che,it was not proven

Che,it was not proven there were no WMD until after the invasion.So just how could that have been a lie BEFORE the invasion? Did 'Stupid Bush' outsmart you? Because he was smart enough to know the U.S. sold Iraq those weapons.

Thanks for discussion but I won't compare Saddam Hussein to anyone else.There is no need to make his excuses.Tho it was questionable I never linked him to other terrorist's except the one that he was himself.
And we did 'change' the middle east,indefinately and you know who we are.
When I said 'Americans' signed up for it,believe me I knew I was not talking about you Che.

Timothy

Sorry... I really mean "official" reasons.  Those are much more clearly stated.  You really can't dispute officiality...:-)

Ok.  "The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world"." 

First of all, this was a lie.  It was proven there were NO WMD.  Secondly, Iraq isn't the only nation harboring terrorists.  Could I gently remind you that even the US harbors terrorists (think Timothy McVeigh) so THAT excuse is a little bogus to me.  Human rights abuses?  Iraq is hardly the only one.  And that is NOT a good enough reason for the US to launch a war. Now, I know you could easily point out that McVeigh was only one person, etc. but so what.  Saddam is only one person.  He just had a much larger following and more military might.  Just think what McVeigh could (and WOULD have done) if he had a larger following.  How are you going to respond if someone were to invade the US based on those excuses.  We DO have WPD.  We DO have terrorists of our own.  We DO violate human rights right here in the good ole USA. 

No, the bottom line was that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield wanted a war and they got one.  They lied to the American people to do it.  It doesn't matter that Saddam was a typrant of the worse degree.  The people were lied to and there is NOTHING that will ever remove that stain.

Now, secondly there was the "Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it." 

The first few words of THIS statement are repulsive to me.  To change the Middle East???? Say WHAT? 

Who the fluck is the US to change anyone?

I've always firmly believed that the US needs to clean up it's own mess before it goes forcing beliefs down someone else's throat.

I also question your statement "Americans signed up to do it".  Weeeeeell, not so fast.  Americans didn't sign up for what they got.  No Sir!  I can't remember how long Bush indicated the war was going to take but it sure as hell wasn't 6 years.  So, NO, Americans did not sign up for it.

I would have supported a surgical strike against Saddam just as I would against the IRI.  But that isn't what we did.

Now, please do go accusin' me of being anti-western...:-).  I just believe the war in Iraq was a total cluster fuck from the word "go".  I believe it was perpetrated by the most evil man in the world, Cheney, and seconded by the most stupid man in the world, Bush.

But that's just my opinion.  :-)

Talk to me... tell me with what and how you disagree.

Che I need to know what you

Che I need to know what you mean by 'stated' reason's.There are MANY delusions on the subject.But even without knowing I can tell you I believe any possible reason's were created by Saddam's provocation not Bush and Cheney.What do I believe the invasion was about? I believe the invasion was about Removing Saddam Hussein and ending his hide and seek game,if he had weapons or not.Today where you like it that we found them or not,we are assured they are not there.The Threat he was placing on America during a time when America felt most threatened.I believe the invasion was about Breaking a Peace Treaty and many resolution's for years after to resolve that.
There are many other reason's and you may be suprised that I may agree with you on some but I do not discount Saddam because of the price to remove him.
I realize that price was high on both sides,But I also realize American's signed up to do it and Iraqi's were warned and warned again.Myself I would have left at the first indication America was going to invade.I value my life more than a piece of ground.

Timothy

I sure as hell don't want to start WW3 here but I have to wonder... and to ask you... do you believe in the "stated" reasons US went to war in Iraq.  I mean... do you believe the stuff (and how badly I wanted to say "crap") Bush and Cheney fed the people as to WHY we should attack.  I hardly think ANYONE here is going to argue that Saddam got what he deserved.  BUT the public WAS misled and the war was NOT an honest one.  It was under false pretenses from the very beginning.  And because of that, too many young men and women died... on both sides.  So tell me... what do YOU think the invasion was about?  Do you think it was successful?  Do you think it was justified?

Let's discuss, not argue.  Yes?

Saddam Hussein was justified

Despite all his dumb shameless supporters here who still support him after all the Iranian's he killed and their stupid twisted thinking that try's to blame 'neo-conservatism,liberalism,democracy,cheney,oil,greed and other Non reasons for the invasion of Iraq.I am So tired of the crying and the worn out debate anymore and do not even care to defend Bush but If your too dumb to know what the invasion was about that just show's the politics and the information you recieved for years has made you a blithering senseless itiot who 6 years later are still sitting there discussing the same sentence's of misassociated blame.What a wasted mindset..I compare Saddam Hussein loyalist's to someone who feed's off a sewer hose and think's it tastes good.

There is a difference between against the war and taking a side,which mean's you actually only join it.And it just happen's that you've joined the losing side.

Despite all the tradjedy of war,Iraq is free today. There's not much discussion of that is there? Perhaps that's too positive of a discussion for a negative person to handle.

yes, absolutely

It's not the party, it's the individual.  We agree on that.  We totally disagree on Cheney though...lol.  I mean it... I really do.  I think this man is the epitome of evil.  I rank him right up there with some of the reaaaaal bad asses like Hitler.  I'm not making specific comparisons so don't get your panties twisted.  :-)  I'm just saying that in modern time, Cheney scares the crapola out of me.  And let me make a distinction between someone like Cheney and someone like Hannity.  I think Hannity is an ass but he's not evil.  Make sense?

You ARE right about missed opportunties though.  No matter what party you're with, both have made some critical mistakes.  I will even go so far as to admit that Democrats aren't perfect.  Damn, that hurt.  :-)

In and of itself, conservatism is not a bad thing.  It's a good thing. It's just the degree to which you go to express it. 

che khabar e

To be clear, it is not the parties that are evil in my opinion. People who align themselves with the party (any party)...that's a different matter altogether. So, I agree with your general assessment.

I don't think Cheney is evil, though. He definitely has a perception or image problem. He is colder than the Siberian Tundra in January and almost robotic in his manner. And I can't say that I agree with everything he and/or W said or did, either.

After reading some of the posts on this site, it's clear to me that there are those who think Republicans are the only ones who support war.

As to "what if a Democrat was in the Oval Ofice on 9/11", I don't know. There were several opportunities to take out Osama that were squandered prior to 2001, for example. And there were those "no-fly zone" violations that Saddam repeatedly violated in Iraq that were answered with the proverbial slap on the wrist, so I'm not as sure about that as you are. But it's definitely thought-provoking.

delete

delete

misuse of MANY terms is pervasive...lol

Unlike some, even youself Kaveh, I don't think in terms of the different parties as being evil.  I believe some individuals are, for sure.  I place Cheney in that catagory... Bush is too stupid to call evil.  I might believe the republicans are misguided but no intelligent person would deny that a 2-party system is necessary.  Check and balance.  I wonder if some people actually think that republicans are the only ones who support war!!!  I'm not sure I think it's a particular party who does, but individuals who are supposed to "represent" a particular agenda.  Not all republicans agreed with Bush and not all democrats agree with Obama.  Farhad is right about one thing.  I believe that even if a democrat was sitting in the White House after 9/11, something would have happened in Iraq.  NOT... and I repeat NOT the cluster fuck that ensued, but something.  Maybe that surgical strike that most Iranians I know (and let me be VERY clear that I'm stating that I know many who did... maybe you don't but many did) would have supported AND encouraged.  :-)

Actually Farhad is right about alot of things in his comments.  Thank you.

Misuse of the term "neoconservative"

is pervasive around here. The word is used in a perjorative manner, rather than in its proper context. 

Jahanshah, Neo Cons

Jahanshah,

Neo Cons didn’t come to power saying we will invade other countries and kill their people. Most observers believe now that if anything, Bush wanted to take an isolationist foreign policy approach.

It was the events of 9/11 that changed it all, and I don’t care who would’ve been in power, what was done after 9/11 in taking the war over where the threat is, was the right thing to do. The world supported U.S intervention in Afghanistan, and the world still does. That remains us with Iraq. I didn’t approve of Iraq war because of the fact that U.S should not go to war without U.N consent, but,  it is unfair to say that U.S went into there to kill or torture or anything like that.

Even as we speak, U.S lives are been sacrificed in Iraq for that country to have a better future, to have democracy, to have prosperity. So I like us to be fair.

Please distinguish between the two.

The neo-con ideas will not die...

These ideas have always existed among the American people. What Kristol did was to publicize, or "sell" them through his magazine.

Before him Leo Strauss provided the intellectual framework of neo-con political views.

JJ, watch this video about neo-cons. It's really informative.

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3960766865...

Ideas

Farhad, any ideology that imposes anything by military force is wrong and illegitimate. I don't care if the ideology is neo-conservativism, neo-communism, zionism, or jihadism. Just because neo-conservatives claim to believe in freedom and democracy does not justify the use of force, invading nations, killing civilians, torturing suspects, and imprisoning individuals without charge for years. When a democracy uses the same inhuman methods as terrorists, it loses its moral authority.

Tie 2 Kristols to US military-idustrial complex

IRANdokht the reason that Bill Kristol and his Neocon papa love to get American taxpayer hard earned cash and channel it to wars and military expenditure, beside the fact that Israel has always been enjoying an arms dealership, is direct American money going to protect Israel and its interest. I find the shortest and best description of this in PressTv's link on that news. This also explains the immense hate that many Zionist groups have for Obama, who is trying to shift the public funds from expensive missile defence waste to public health care! Your link was great and revealing, thanks!

//www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=106583&sectionid=3510203

"Irving Kristol, a founding theoretician of America's radical political philosophy, neo-conservatism, has died at the age of 89.

The Brooklyn-born New Yorker of Jewish descent died on September 18, after decades of theoretical contributions to the political thinking known as neo-conservatism which dominated the United States' political landscape for different periods of time.

According to the neo-conservative principles, originally coined by the US scholar Michael Harrington in 1973, the US social order had suffered because it "no longer knew what it was talking about" under liberalism or ethics of individual freedom.

Traditional Republicans and Liberals, Kristol claimed, had become disillusioned by the 'complex' reality which was defined by the status quo and which altered for different people in varying situations.

The late writer and publisher endorsed the use of force by means of economic and military sanctions in order to establish capitalism and the American Way in 'non-conforming' countries - a doctrine upheld by the previous US administration under the former President George W. Bush.

A long-time advocate of socialism, Kristol renounced the Marxist agenda after World War II and gradually switched hard-line conservative sets of ideas.

He became a member of the influential think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute in the 1970s.

He also made controversial moves against a number of Democratic figures including former South Dakota Senator and presidential contender George S. McGovern who had campaigned for a massive cost cut in US military expenditures and criticized the continuation of the Vietnam War.

"Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30 percent. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel... Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now in interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the State of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel," Kristol had once opined.

Kristol maintained that neo-conservatism has formed an "intellectual current" which has assumed power through "gradual evolution" rather than a swift movement.

George Bush awarded Kristol the highest US civilian honor in 2002, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Jahanshah jaan, What

Jahanshah jaan,

What ideas? That democracy should triumph around the world? That Iranian people deserve a better government than this? That government shouldn’t interfere in people’s lives? That Communism and Islamic fundamentalism have been the greatest threat to world peace? That U.S is a great country and has liberated and sacrificed in the name of human rights? That Capitalism has worked for such a long time and its regulated version is the best system that we came up with?

Those ideas are bad aziz jaan? I’m not talking about how you supposed to execute those ideas, just ideas themselves.

What you and I should worry about are not “Neo Cons”, but “Neo Comms”, who have been bashing America, undermining democracy, undermining people’s wills, perpetuating for Socialism, perpetuating for islamists, justifying and apologizing for the IRI regime, undermining and demeaning human rights values….those whom you should be worried about aziz jaan.

Aziz jaan, ma mokhlese toeem, but are you saying that an Islamist inspired by IRI and Khomeini, blowing himself up in a market in Baghdad killing tens and tens of innocent women and children is America's fault? Thats how you fight America?

JJ nazanin, I thought "hate" was bad )8<)

 lol, Cheers!!!

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan

//iranianidentity.blogspot.com

//www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia

Amen to your super title!

It was just hilarious to see his son's position on health care and the American public be revealed by Jon Stewart. Their motto is: only the rich and the ones who would die for the rich man's causes deserve a good health care plan. The rest of the poor are useless to the neocons.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa69puS7J0Q

IRANdokht

Yes

I hear neo-conservative and I'm repulsed, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of innocents that needlessly died in Iraq alone by its proponents.

DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT HIS

DO YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT HIS IDEAS WERE? OR YOU JUST HAVE KNEE JURK REACTION TO WORD NEO-CONSERVATIVE.