Gutless Wonder.. ah.. Man

[BenNatuf]

Congress voted to invade, democrats and republicans. Blame them. Don't bother to defend the vote by "Bush lied to congress". I'm way ahead of it. I know what you're gonna say next even before you do.

Based on cherry- picked intel and Powell was chosen by Cheney/Bush to be the fall-guy in the U.N. by proferring said intel. He was then frozen-out of the Bush regime.....errr.....admin.

how many times did they change their reasons for invading? They should've just stuck w/ the sec council resolution violations but that didn't work and they knew the war/nation-building exercise was going to cost trillions, which it has and still is.

based on the best available intelligence that everyone in the free world agreed was much more likely than not.

 

[Jack Fate]

Congress voted to invade, democrats and republicans. Blame them. Don't bother to defend the vote by "Bush lied to congress". I'm way ahead of it. I know what you're gonna say next even before you do.

Based on cherry- picked intel and Powell was chosen by Cheney/Bush to be the fall-guy in the U.N. by proferring said intel. He was then frozen-out of the Bush regime.....errr.....admin.

how many times did they change their reasons for invading? They should've just stuck w/ the sec council resolution violations but that didn't work and they knew the war/nation-building exercise was going to cost trillions, which it has and still is.

Damn, you went and did it anyway. Oh well. Notice that these quotes are during the Clinton administration.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

[Toro]

BTW, as far as I can tell he's also not "CIA" (though I haven't read a lot yet)l, he's a fucking dumbassed acedemic who fancies himself an expert and created a "shadow CIA" made up of ex opperative malcontents, who were likely the same leftist idiots who leak information when they want to illegally effect policy.

He hasn't spent any carreer in intelligence as far as I can tell, he's was a fucki

My mistake. He has been an adviser to the government on intelligence.

What I do know is that I have followed this guy for a decade, and he has been right far more often than he has been wrong, particularly when it has come to war and conflict. As far as I'm concerned, he's proven his stripes.

Understand that I am not saying that we should not bomb Libya. What I am saying is that it may not be in our interests. Friedman is saying the same thing.

But if you wish to toss around mindless epithets such as "leftist idiot" with those who disagree with you no matter what their political affiliation or ideology, then, in the same spirit, you are a neocon. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[BenNatuf]

BTW, as far as I can tell he's also not "CIA" (though I haven't read a lot yet)l, he's a fucking dumbassed acedemic who fancies himself an expert and created a "shadow CIA" made up of ex opperative malcontents, who were likely the same leftist idiots who leak information when they want to illegally effect policy.

He hasn't spent any carreer in intelligence as far as I can tell, he's was a fucki

My mistake. He has been an adviser to the government on intelligence.

What I do know is that I have followed this guy for a decade, and he has been right far more often than he has been wrong, particularly when it has come to war and conflict. As far as I'm concerned, he's proven his stripes.

Understand that I am not saying that we should not bomb Libya. What I am saying is that it may not be in our interests. Friedman is saying the same thing.

But if you wish to toss around mindless epithets such as "leftist idiot" with those who disagree with you no matter what their political affiliation or ideology, then, in the same spirit, you are a neocon. Seems reasonable to me.

he also said the Muslim states would maintain enough stability to stamp out extremism. Hows that working out for him?

It might be that they will stamp it out, but it won't be because they remained "stable" in the context he was talking about, it will be because liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences known to man and the central action implimenting the Bush doctrine (which he calls a mistake) was right.

 

[Toro]

BTW, as far as I can tell he's also not "CIA" (though I haven't read a lot yet)l, he's a fucking dumbassed acedemic who fancies himself an expert and created a "shadow CIA" made up of ex opperative malcontents, who were likely the same leftist idiots who leak information when they want to illegally effect policy.

He hasn't spent any carreer in intelligence as far as I can tell, he's was a fucki

My mistake. He has been an adviser to the government on intelligence.

What I do know is that I have followed this guy for a decade, and he has been right far more often than he has been wrong, particularly when it has come to war and conflict. As far as I'm concerned, he's proven his stripes.

Understand that I am not saying that we should not bomb Libya. What I am saying is that it may not be in our interests. Friedman is saying the same thing.

But if you wish to toss around mindless epithets such as "leftist idiot" with those who disagree with you no matter what their political affiliation or ideology, then, in the same spirit, you are a neocon. Seems reasonable to me.

he also said the Muslim states would maintain enough stability to stamp out extremism. Hows that working out for him?

It might be that they will stamp it out, but it won't be because they remained "stable" in the context he was talking about, it will be because liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences known to man and the central action implimenting the Bush doctrine (which he calls a mistake) was right.

He's not perfect. No one is. After all, didn't we go to war in Iraq on false intelligence? If one of the richest and most sophisticated intelligence services in the world fucks up, surely we can't expect to hold a handful of individuals running a private service to a higher standard.

However, he was dead right on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the decade. Stratfor did a much better job describing the course of the wars than the media did. If you were getting your news from the regular media, you were often missing what was going on on the ground.

 

[Dot Com]

Congress voted to invade, democrats and republicans. Blame them. Don't bother to defend the vote by "Bush lied to congress". I'm way ahead of it. I know what you're gonna say next even before you do.

Based on cherry- picked intel and Powell was chosen by Cheney/Bush to be the fall-guy in the U.N. by proferring said intel. He was then frozen-out of the Bush regime.....errr.....admin.

how many times did they change their reasons for invading? They should've just stuck w/ the sec council resolution violations but that didn't work and they knew the war/nation-building exercise was going to cost trillions, which it has and still is.

Damn, you went and did it anyway. Oh well. Notice that these quotes are during the Clinton administration.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND yet Clinton STILL didn't invade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_O'Neill_(Secretary_of_the_Treasury)#Book:_The_Price_of_Loyalty

Bush Administration

O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some American-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration — led to him being fired[1] in 2002 and replaced with John W. Snow.

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (ISBN 0-7432-5545-3), a 2004 book, described the Bush administration during O'Neill's tenure. Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign.[6][7]

 

[BenNatuf]

My mistake. He has been an adviser to the government on intelligence.

What I do know is that I have followed this guy for a decade, and he has been right far more often than he has been wrong, particularly when it has come to war and conflict. As far as I'm concerned, he's proven his stripes.

Understand that I am not saying that we should not bomb Libya. What I am saying is that it may not be in our interests. Friedman is saying the same thing.

But if you wish to toss around mindless epithets such as "leftist idiot" with those who disagree with you no matter what their political affiliation or ideology, then, in the same spirit, you are a neocon. Seems reasonable to me.

he also said the Muslim states would maintain enough stability to stamp out extremism. Hows that working out for him?

It might be that they will stamp it out, but it won't be because they remained "stable" in the context he was talking about, it will be because liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences known to man and the central action implimenting the Bush doctrine (which he calls a mistake) was right.

He's not perfect. No one is. After all, didn't we go to war in Iraq on false intelligence?

No, we went to war with Iraq for many reasons ONE of which was the best available intelligence indicating they posessed WMD's. And the question about those WMD's that we KNOW they had isn't whether or not they had them... but where did they go. They did find some, but not the ones they were looking for and not in the amounts they were looking for.

If one of the richest and most sophisticated intelligence services in the world fucks up, surely we can't expect to hold a handful of individuals running a private service to a higher standard.

I hold him to no standard because I give him no credence. If you fear a future war between the US and a powerful Japanese-Turkish alliance then fear what you wish. And the idea that Poland and Mexico will become the world's great powers is ludicrous.

However, he was dead right on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the decade. Stratfor did a much better job describing the course of the wars than the media did. If you were getting your news from the regular media, you were often missing what was going on on the ground.

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

 

[Toro]

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

You mean Friedman is wrong that we should have invaded Iraq?

And everyone is wrong about Iraq except you?

 

[Cuyo]

he also said the Muslim states would maintain enough stability to stamp out extremism. Hows that working out for him?

It might be that they will stamp it out, but it won't be because they remained "stable" in the context he was talking about, it will be because liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences known to man and the central action implimenting the Bush doctrine (which he calls a mistake) was right.

He's not perfect. No one is. After all, didn't we go to war in Iraq on false intelligence?

No, we went to war with Iraq for many reasons ONE of which was the best available intelligence indicating they posessed WMD's. And the question about those WMD's that we KNOW they had isn't whether or not they had them... but where did they go. They did find some, but not the ones they were looking for and not in the amounts they were looking for.

If one of the richest and most sophisticated intelligence services in the world fucks up, surely we can't expect to hold a handful of individuals running a private service to a higher standard.

I hold him to no standard because I give him no credence. If you fear a future war between the US and a powerful Japanese-Turkish alliance then fear what you wish. And the idea that Poland and Mexico will become the world's great powers is ludicrous.

However, he was dead right on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the decade. Stratfor did a much better job describing the course of the wars than the media did. If you were getting your news from the regular media, you were often missing what was going on on the ground.

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

zomg! A Bush apologist!

You guys are awful hard to come by these days!

 

[Momanohedhunter]

He's not perfect. No one is. After all, didn't we go to war in Iraq on false intelligence?

No, we went to war with Iraq for many reasons ONE of which was the best available intelligence indicating they posessed WMD's. And the question about those WMD's that we KNOW they had isn't whether or not they had them... but where did they go. They did find some, but not the ones they were looking for and not in the amounts they were looking for.I hold him to no standard because I give him no credence. If you fear a future war between the US and a powerful Japanese-Turkish alliance then fear what you wish. And the idea that Poland and Mexico will become the world's great powers is ludicrous.

However, he was dead right on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the decade. Stratfor did a much better job describing the course of the wars than the media did. If you were getting your news from the regular media, you were often missing what was going on on the ground.

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

zomg! A Bush apologist!

You guys are awful hard to come by these days!

Yeah, they are all obama apologist thees days.

 

[BenNatuf]

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

You mean Friedman is wrong that we should have invaded Iraq?

And everyone is wrong about Iraq except you?

I said quite clearly that Iraq was the right war at the right time fought in the only way it could have been and won and the victory held.

From what I read, Friedman said it was a mistake, he's wrong. Of course it kinda goes along with the string of other wrongs.

BTW earlier in the thread I said we shhould funnel our covert assistance through the OAS, but I just heard the Arab League approved a no fly zone... nearly floored me I'd have never have guessed that one. So switch that from the OAS to the Arab League and the OAS.

 

[BenNatuf]

He's not perfect. No one is. After all, didn't we go to war in Iraq on false intelligence?

No, we went to war with Iraq for many reasons ONE of which was the best available intelligence indicating they posessed WMD's. And the question about those WMD's that we KNOW they had isn't whether or not they had them... but where did they go. They did find some, but not the ones they were looking for and not in the amounts they were looking for.I hold him to no standard because I give him no credence. If you fear a future war between the US and a powerful Japanese-Turkish alliance then fear what you wish. And the idea that Poland and Mexico will become the world's great powers is ludicrous.

However, he was dead right on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the decade. Stratfor did a much better job describing the course of the wars than the media did. If you were getting your news from the regular media, you were often missing what was going on on the ground.

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

zomg! A Bush apologist!

You guys are awful hard to come by these days!

No, just consistant with my opinions. Bush made mistakes, Iraq was not one of them.

 

[Toro]

From what I read, Friedman said it was a mistake, he's wrong. Of course it kinda goes along with the string of other wrongs.

Are you sure you have the right Friedman? I've read George Friedman for a long time, and he has been supportive of the war whenever I read him.

 

[BenNatuf]

No, we went to war with Iraq for many reasons ONE of which was the best available intelligence indicating they posessed WMD's. And the question about those WMD's that we KNOW they had isn't whether or not they had them... but where did they go. They did find some, but not the ones they were looking for and not in the amounts they were looking for.I hold him to no standard because I give him no credence. If you fear a future war between the US and a powerful Japanese-Turkish alliance then fear what you wish. And the idea that Poland and Mexico will become the world's great powers is ludicrous.

I got news for you, everyone is still wrong about Iraq. Especially him. It was the right war, at the right time and fought in the only way possible it could have been won and the victory held.

zomg! A Bush apologist!

You guys are awful hard to come by these days!

Yeah, they are all obama apologist thees days.

I will give Obama credit where its due. The one thing he's done right since taking office is follow Bush's plan in Iraq. he has made a couple mistakes and the last one could be huge... but following Bush's plan has served him well.

Beyond that, I can't think of anything he's done well and even less he's done right.

 

[BenNatuf]

From what I read, Friedman said it was a mistake, he's wrong. Of course it kinda goes along with the string of other wrongs.

Are you sure you have the right Friedman? I've read George Friedman for a long time, and he has been supportive of the war whenever I read him.

Well in that case I'll stand corrected on that issue, but I could have sworn the story I linked quoted him as saying it was a mistake.

 

[Jack Fate]

Based on cherry- picked intel and Powell was chosen by Cheney/Bush to be the fall-guy in the U.N. by proferring said intel. He was then frozen-out of the Bush regime.....errr.....admin.

how many times did they change their reasons for invading? They should've just stuck w/ the sec council resolution violations but that didn't work and they knew the war/nation-building exercise was going to cost trillions, which it has and still is.

Damn, you went and did it anyway. Oh well. Notice that these quotes are during the Clinton administration.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND yet Clinton STILL didn't invade.
Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush Administration

O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some American-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration — led to him being fired[1] in 2002 and replaced with John W. Snow.

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (ISBN 0-7432-5545-3), a 2004 book, described the Bush administration during O'Neill's tenure. Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign.[6][7]

The fact Clinton didn't invade is not the point. YOU are the one who claimed WMDs were not there in Iraq. These people during the Clinton administration said there were WMDs in Iraq. That is the point. Address the point.

 

[FreedomAli]

Recent experience tells us that any claim to "know" the "rebels" might not turn out so well.

Or at least, those of us who remember recent experience.

EXACTLY. Like when some repub pres armed the Mujahadeen. Brilliant. Who was that again?

And the Russians got their proverbial asses kicked as a result, didn't they?

True, and we are not doing any better.

 

[FreedomAli]

Damn, you went and did it anyway. Oh well. Notice that these quotes are during the Clinton administration.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

AND yet Clinton STILL didn't invade.
Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush Administration

O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some American-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration — led to him being fired[1] in 2002 and replaced with John W. Snow.

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (ISBN 0-7432-5545-3), a 2004 book, described the Bush administration during O'Neill's tenure. Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign.[6][7]

The fact Clinton didn't invade is not the point. YOU are the one who claimed WMDs were not there in Iraq. These people during the Clinton administration said there were WMDs in Iraq. That is the point. Address the point.

The reason Clinton thought there were WMDs in Iraq is that the neocons exercise control over both parties and will collude with the opposition because both parties are controlled by Zionists and imperialists.

And, while both of you try to blame the opposition, the neocons end up with the debate being exactly where they want it without any opposition to their goal of permanent war for permanent peace.

 

[BenNatuf]

AND yet Clinton STILL didn't invade.
Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact Clinton didn't invade is not the point. YOU are the one who claimed WMDs were not there in Iraq. These people during the Clinton administration said there were WMDs in Iraq. That is the point. Address the point.

The reason Clinton thought there were WMDs in Iraq is that the neocons exercise control over both parties and will collude with the opposition because both parties are controlled by Zionists and imperialists.

And, while both of you try to blame the opposition, the neocons end up with the debate being exactly where they want it without any opposition to their goal of permanent war for permanent peace.

Did they tell you that at the meeting with your pointy hat? Did you have a secret speaker and decoder rings and everything? It must have been exciting for you.

The JOOOOZ, the Joooz... what a fucking moron.