It's now a few years after the US-led invasion of Iraq. One would have expected the country to have calmed down, but daily news shows that it's actually to the contrary. Iraq is perhaps already engaged in a civil war, or at least on the verge of it. Is there any way the violence can be stopped? Should the Western troops remain or leave? In other words: do you think that their presence exacerbates the violence?

Well, the head of the British Army certainly thinks our troops' presence is exacerbating the violence, although there is also a lot that has to be said for the role of Iran and Syria in stoking the flames of the respective Shia and Sunni insurgencies - one has to hope that the peace talks involving those two nations that seem to be on the cards will deliver a more stable Iraq.

The policy of the Liberal Democrats (we opposed the 2003 invasion) is for a phased withdrawal from the country, gradually handing over power to the Iraqi Army as we go, in the hope that this will help limit the violence. With Iran and Syria's cooperation, with a bit of luck this might bring Iraq back from the brink of civil war, but there's probably still a lot that could go wrong!

The British Government's view is more conservative - with Blair still in charge, if only for the time being, the language is still of staying the couse, but there are definite hints towards withdrawal at some point in the not too distant future. I heavily suspect that the United States will do the same, especially after those Democratic gains in the mid-terms. No Republican even vaguely associated with the Bush administration is going to want to have a large troop presence in Iraq going into the 2008 Presidential Election cycle!

Essentially the British and Americans want out - we're just trying work out a way to do it that isn't going to leave an Iraq in a state of full-on civil war, destabilising the whole bloody region!

OPERATION IRAQI DISASTER...

 CONFIDENTIAL... GWB... FYEO!

Iraq was a training ground - a proving ground if you like - just like Afghanistan was.

An arena wherein the latest and greatest military hardware made by the "good old boys" gets to be tested and proved.

Because of 9/11 and the Osama connection - the Taliban had no support when GWB & Co installed Hamid Karzhai as the new Mayor of Kabul - so the Afghanis got flattened and the machinery got refined.

Unfortunately GWB&Co have been unable to swopsies the heroin farms for genetically modified maize, to be dumped at $1 a megaton on the US "grain fed" beef farming market (to be used as cattle feed to make fat cows to make hamburgers).

so afghanistan wasnt about the principles of talibani islam, or about the morphine mania, or about the regional war-lordism - bcos thats all still there - its just that we know which weapons work and which munitions delivery strategy is most effective.

then when iraq won - the "who wants to get your regime changed game" it became clear - it was all about the mukkhabarat and the baath party and the sunni minority "apartheid-like" control and the human rights of the kurdish people and, and, and...

and the fact that IRAN is next door...

strangely enough it seems that Iranians are getting a visit from George's boys soon - but at least when that happens (and will the canadians please stop interfering with the GOP's grand neo-con plan) we will have all the experience of Iraq.

How Long?

How long before Iraq gets cut up into three regions/states/provinces? 1 of which feels entitled to join up with their cousins in Turkey - another of which wants to go next door to Kohmeni Country - while the third and this is the whopper - feels entitled to overthrow everything and go back to minority rule like it was under Saddam.

without having to explain the nuances of the 77 types of muslims, suffice it to say that a violent Sunni minority that feels threatened and feels confident of their abilities would no doubt find favour among the anti-shi-ite sections of the rest of the world, given that the Shi-ites are all about the Clergy (Priests and such) while the Sunni and Soofies are all about the Prophet Mohommed (PBUH). In fact the Soofies are the direct descendents of the Prophet (PBUH)... arent there Soofie people in Turkey?

So it goes - one war to the next - Uncle Sam will be bleeding for twenty years as this program proceeds. the funny thing is that according to the logic thus far -the UK as a three term Labour government would qualify for this Regime Change Pacakage as well... given that Saddam only ever won 1 real election...

avishkar:

Unfortunately GWB&Co have been unable to swopsies the heroin farms for genetically modified maize, to be dumped at $1 a megaton on the US "grain fed" beef farming market (to be used as cattle feed to make fat cows to make hamburgers).

so afghanistan wasnt about the principles of talibani islam, or about the morphine mania, or about the regional war-lordism - bcos thats all still there - its just that we know which weapons work and which munitions delivery strategy is most effective.

To be honest, Afghanistan was about trying to put an end to the al-qaeda training camps that have been used by people who have attacked targets across the world - including the World Trade Center in New York. Afghanistan was always the justified war - actually being a war of defence against a regime which actively harboured and supported anti-Western militants - but we took our eye off the ball by invading Iraq, which was totally unnecessary.

So it goes - one war to the next - Uncle Sam will be bleeding for twenty years as this program proceeds. the funny thing is that according to the logic thus far -the UK as a three term Labour government would qualify for this Regime Change Pacakage as well... given that Saddam only ever won 1 real election...

Which election was that? The one with guns and tanks or the "referendum" with a "99%" vote in favour of Saddam?

Dear Mr Nielson

 Obviously u arent an Afghani, nor do u possess any Afghani relations. if u were or did - then i doubt very much that you would defend the war in Afghanistan at any level.

Afghanistan did not destroy the WTC - Afghanistan did not perpetrate 9/11 - Afghanistan has in fact always striven to purvey the world's finest quality poppy pulp for the production of high demand opiate consumption.

Put very blunty - if there wern't so many deadbeat dole-malingerers in Britain in the first place - the global demand for Heroin would never have spilled over into the USA, Continental Europe and the Antipodes.

Therefore it is clear that the Afghani farmers who toil under the most adverse conditions, do so to feed the empire's itch... the smack craving that threatens to destabilise the entire Pound Sterling Empire...

But doesnt that mean that the Brits who use their Nan's OAP or their Dole Giro or their Single Mother's Grant Money to buy smack, doesnt this mean that they're using taxpayers money to support a narco-agriculture industry in Afghanistan?

and these are British taxpayers.

 and given that everyone has cited the Opium as the funding for the Taliban and the Taliban as the funding for Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda as the funding for Osama Bin Laden... doesnt that kinda mean that the Westminster-Whitehall Consensus has been secretly funding Osama all these years?

by giving smack addicts public money to support their habits? Oh and by the way the Methadone and Pethadene that's being used by the NHS to wean punters off the skag - that's got opium in it too - yes that's also from Afghanistan and yes that's also paid for with public money...

So perhaps if the British youth had more gumption, more ambition, more drive - maybe they wouldn't be happy just to while their days away... sitting on a couch watching mind numbing spirit crushing gameshows pissing your last in a miserable home with nothing more than your selfish f**ked up brats to replace you...

dunno - restricting supply always leads to new producers - removing demand always leads excess product... and falling production.

what i is being saying mr rudeboy - hear me now - is dis... when the British tried to take Afghanistan - they got nailed - when the Russians tried to take Afghanistan they got nailed - now the Americans are trying to take Afghanistan - theyre going to get nailed too.

***

As regards the Iraq war - the fact is that General Colin Powell (Rtd) inventor of the Powell Principle aka "Shock and Awe" presented patently false information to the UN and used the stupidest reason for going to war - that Saddam has violated some UN sanction or the other.

If they had gone to war for the Kurds or the very decency of low cost pomegranate juice - we wouldnt have stopped them, but for the reasons i have already provided - their campaign was devoid of any principle.

***

Saddam was a student politician who joined the Ba-ath party as a student - and if i remember correctly had dealings with a Ba-Ath party ina neighbouring country (perhaps Iran) where in the country next door the Ba-athists were rising against the monarchy.

his entry into formal politics was at the barrel of a gun - yes the election with the tanks and the guns - and yes it marked the point where he nailed all of his collaborators and proceeded to rule absolutely. But incidently in his doing this - he was supported by Uncle Sam. Because then like now uncle sam wanted a "Sunni Strongman"

***
Tony Bliar has also not won a real election since the Labour conference prior to his becoming PM... and ever since he has governed only because Gordy hasnt had the balls for the job...

Hey everyone,

What do you think about this so-called 'Baker' report that was issues yesterday? I guess one of the major discussions is whether or not the West should engage in talks with Syria and Iran in order to mitigate at least some of the violence. Do you think the West should, and/or do you think it will help?

Furthermore, what about the relationship between the violence in Iraq and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? How interconnected are they?

Bart

Dear Bart

 As i understand it, the 79 recommendations are such that the Americans and Co will withdraw and hand over to the Iraqi army, that were trained by the americans recently. Given that the americans have cited Syria and Iran as the supporters of the destablisation of post-Saddam Iraq, it is disingenious to ask them to be part of regional peace deal.

all that will happen is that the Sunni Minority will be forced to seek greater indirect (3rd party) assistance from the USA in order to balance the Iranian and Syrian effect on a post war Iraq.

this is in turn will give the Americans a legitimate resaon to build up a large "peace-keeping" foce in the region, given that the Iraqi situation could degenerate into a "3 state solution" just like Israel/Palestine.

Further if the USA built up a strong position and then conceded Iraq to the Iranians - it would destablise the ability of the Palestinians to rely on Ethnic sentiment to fuel their civil war with Israel.

In fact if the USA conceded Iraq, they would be able to legitimately consolidate Israel and wipe out Palestine, and not have anyone in the region complain, because the Sunni control of Iraq would have been ended in favour of Shi-ite control of Iraq.

the fact is that the situation in Iraq has reached a point where if USA stays - it does so at its own peril - not because of the risks and the casualties and the public animosity towards the USA's presence - but rather because its an unwinnable war and the American public hates being on the side that doesnt win.

the real issue is when and where is the next war - the Americans cant go cold now - they have to pick another regime to be changed otherwsie the momentum of the war against terror will slip and the WAT may become a peripheral issue again - which would put the GOP's work back about 5 years.

I reckon Uncle Sam is coming to Africa next - i have this feeling that a couple of diamond&oil warlords are gonna get nailed soon, cos its bad form to run 3 consecutive wars against 1 ethnic group and the North Koreans seem to have capitulated about taking on Uncle Sam directly, cos the Olympics are being held throughout Korea (N&S) in 2014... so the Axis of Evil is growing smaller everyday...

personally i think the out for everybosy is to convert the war against terror to a war against drugs - same principles of nailing anyone who disagrees - but without the ethnic accusations - and the blindside that all the cartellian drug money is being used to subvert democracy and fund terrorism anyway - so u kill two birds with 1 stone.

if the war on terror and the war in Iraq has the same purpose, as Gen Colin Powell (Rtd) {NB. Rtd = Retired not Retarded} said it was to facilitate the presentation of the values that are American, ie. Democracy, Free Enterprise and the Rights of Individuals; surely then as this encapsulates the broadest definition of Liberalism, surely we should support the American position absolutely?

While this is clear, the only way any liberal could disagree with the American approach is of it violated the principles of the Rule of Law and of Human Rights, because then Powell's definition would be that of Liberal-Conservatism rather than of Liberalism.

While the Hussein Regime is guilty of a large number of Human Rights violations, the invasion of Iraq can only be countenanced, even if the sole purpose was to remove a corrupt regime, if and only if it was carried out in a liberal democratic manner. was it?

Is lying to the UN, liberal?

Is building a case for war upon spurious logic, liberal?

Is replacing a minority despot with a minority puppet, liberal?

Is accepting that vast numbers of the majority boycotts the elections to elect said minority puppet, liberal?

Is abrogating responsibility for the mess u created, by handing over public security to undertrained, underesourced locals, liberal?

Somehow I think not. Therefore just as Saddam has faced war-crime charges, so too must GWB&Co for the Invasion of Iraq...

after all liberalism is about fair-play, init?

as above

Avishkar... Avishkar... Avishkar.

 Ugh.

This is what drives me nuts about the "liberal" movement. It so easily becomes a forum for people to air their far-out opinions and theories without any peer review or constraints of reason or facts.

Mr. Avishkar. I notice you come from South Africa. Yet, you criticized Mr. Nielson for not being Afghani when he discussed the Afghan situation. Are you Afghani? Do you have any RELIABLE Afghani contacts? Maybe you do, but I suspect you don't. Oh, and don't believe every "crack-pot" theory you read on the internet; 90% of them simply have no basis in reason or fact.

Second, instead of speculating what the Iraq report of the Baker Committee says, read it and find out. It is available online, for free. (oh, and yes, I have read the full 160 page report in full).

Third, I have to ask, "Are you American, or do you have any reliable American contacts?" As an American I find it quite rediculous that you feel you know everything about the current government's foreign policy and venture to offer these wacked out theories as fact. For example, you insinuated earlier that the U.S. invaded Iraq because she is close to Iran. I'm sorry, but Iraq was about Iraq. If we wanted to kick Iran's ass, we would just have gone and done it. Iran played absolutely no part in my government's decision to go into Iraq (in fact, it was in our interest to keep a strong Iraq under Sadaam in place with regards JUST to Iran, since Sadaam's government offered a regional counter-ballance to the likes of Ayatollah Khameini and Pres. Ahmadinejad - with Sadaam out of the picture, Iran suddenly is more free to be a regional power, much to our dismay).

 Oh, and I hate to spoil your fun, but the U.S. is not going to be getting involved in Africa anytime soon. To the United States, Africa is of minimal geo-political importance, and does not have the crucial resources that the Middle East holds. We also don't have the strong historic ties to Africa that we do the Europe and select countries in the Middle East. And while it is true that Al-Queda and other similar groups are present in Somalia and parts of Africa, they are involved more in regional conflicts (as best as I can remember though, maybe I am wrong on that), and are not focusing on a global jihad movement.

I welcome your response,

Conservatively yours,

Nathan Orth.

I seriously hope that this is not a solicited response on your part...

For the record...

1. I do not read the internet or newspapers, listen to the radio or watch tv to gather my information - feel free to assume what you will from this.

2. In the discussion on Scottish Independence, I declared that I do not "constrain my cogency" with facts or research.

3. The IFLRY Forum is designed to present both a Liberal and Opposing perspective so that our young liberal activists on th ground in 3rd world and semi-literate countries like South Africa and the USA, respectively are able to see what they can reasonably expect to face on the ground when they are campaigning for Liberal Democracy... its called training for democratic civic participation.

4. I have never criticised Mr Nelson, he remains one of my most respected colleagues, whose commitment to Liberalism is unwavering and whose clarity in policy analysis is unmatched in IFLRY. Its just that its easy for him and I to play this good cop, bad cop routine. Or more specifically Liberal (Nelson) vs. Conservative-Socio-Nationalist (Govender).

5. Dear sir, if you believe that Iraq under Saddam was a counter balance to Iran under Kohmeini&Co then you seriously do not understand Arab, Asian or for that matter African politics. Let me guess, you've formed this opinion based on what... the Iran-Iraq War, the Shi-ite-Sunni Palaver? Just because they're killing each other, where some of them are using your weapons does not mean anything for your position in the region

6. In case you hadnt noticed the American government has this new approach to try to find legitimate, legal means to invade countries... like Iraq having WMD and Iran having Nuclear Weapons Capability... Iran hasn't been proved wrong yet, how could you have invaded them by now?

7. As an American who is of the opinion that the USA has no intention of bringing the War Against Terrorism to Africa, please tell your government to get all of its soldiers off our soil by this week Sunday... when you find out how much American military hardware and personnel are fiddling around in Africa, please may i have a written apology.

8. As regards the "crucial" resources.... Dude have you never heard of Botswana? They have a morotorium on drilling their oil until after their diamonds run out (and yes they produce more diamonds by karatage than any other country in the world)

9. Are you a member of the Young Democrats of America? if so - why do you sign off "conservatively yours"? and if you're not, u should join them... cos we work with them.

Mr. Avishkar, in response to your 9 points~

1.) Good job on not relying on the internet for your information. Where do you get your information though on foreign policy matters? Just curious.

2.) Do I understand your second point correctly ("do not constrain cogency with facts of research") if I think it to mean that you form your opinions and stances even if you do not know the facts, or attempt to discover the facts, in certain cases?

3.) I fully endorese the ideals of this forum - for open and honest debate for the sake of education. As you have surely realized by now, I am part of the "opposition" which you spoke of.

4.) Allow me to clarify what I meant when I used the word "criticize." I was not saying that you were speaking poorly of him or insulting him in any way. I was instead saying that you were dismissing his opinion because he was not Afghani and because he did not have Afghani contacts. My question still stands though: Are you Afghani? Do you have reliable Afghani contacts?

5.) My "opinion" that the U.S. viewed Iran and Iraq as a counterbalance to each other is based on the following: Iran, following the 1979 revolution under Khomeini (not the current Ayatollah Khameini) sought to export its version of political Islam to Arabia and Palestine. For them to do this however, they would have to go through Iraq. While this obviously was not the cause of the Iran-Iraq War (which was started by Sadaam's greed and prolonged by Khomeini's fervent desire to overthrow Iraq), the conflict between Iran and Iraq, and the tensions that remained after its end in 1987/88, prevented Iran from meeting Khomeini's grand ambitions. Also note that while Iranians do not like the presence of U.S. forces in their neighborhood, they still were glad that Sadaam and his regime were removed from power in 2003. Note too that now with Sadaam gone, the international community (including the U.S.) is looking to Iran to play a larger, hopefully more constructive, role in the region. If Iran is not to be trusted however, this "greater role" could be damaging to long-term peace prospects.

6.) I was not saying that the U.S. should have invaded Iran instead. I was simply countering your argument that the proximity of Iran to Iraq factored into Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Iraq was about Iraq, not Iran. THat is all I am saying.

7.) I was not saying that U.S. soldiers were not present in Africa (I know we have troops stations in Eritrea and possibly The Ivory Coast at the moment). I was instead saying that the U.S. was not taking the "War on Terror" to Africa. In the immediate future we are not going to be repeating Iraq or Afghanistan on the African continent.

8.) I stand corrected. But while Africa may have valuable resources like diamonds, it must be noted that diamands aren't absolutely crucial to the U.S. and European economies. Oil, unfortunately, at the moment is, and until we have the brains to change that, we (the U.S. and Europe) will have a lot greater interest in the Middle East than Africa.

9:) Sorry, I am not a part of that organization, though I have friends who are.

Dear Nathan

Your politeness has taken all the fun out of my vitriolic fervour... ;(

in response, to your response, to my response, to your response, to my previous responses to our previous discussion...

1. would u believe that i have the same source of finding out what i know about life, the universe and everything as your President? No? well thats good, bcos its not true... no, i fear that i rely on wisdom as printed on chewing-gum wrappers... ;)

2. in my discourse, i present the typical Conservative/Socialist/Nationalist - hence the rhetorical style (c/o a dude named Socrates).

3. If u are the opposition, then by all means participate - present opposing views, so that people like me - who are libertarian in the extreme - can get on with what we believe - ie. liberalism, rather than parading around as neo-marxists for training purposes.

4. i addressed my rebuke re: afghanistan to a Mr NEILSON - who is not the same person as Chris Nelson... Neilson may very well be the origin of the name Nelson, but my use of it was to open another discussion on the ancestry of Bristish people... and as regards me being an Afghanistani... dude I work in the Grey Street/Warwick Triangle Market area in Durban... its like Karachi-Meets-Chennai in a Bollywood Tableau thats being fuelled by a growing Chinese Community... simply put - we dont see a difference between Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu & Christian... we are one people, and always have been.

5. Again ur subsumed in the details of the last 30 years... to understand the middle east, you must go back to 5000 BC when the Iranians (as the Persian Aryans) colonised present day Sudan and Pakistan.

6. Iraq/Iran Proximity - that would only be true if and only if the US recalled all of its soldiers and hardware from Afghanistan back to teh USA before deciding to go to Iraq... but what actually happened is that they moved their military apparatus from Afghanistan to Iraq... and then started talking about Iran's Nuclear Weapons...

7. War Against Terror in Africa... why then is the "Situation" (civil genocide) in Sudan so important to the USA?

8. West Africa from Cape Verde to Angola and North African from Western Sahara to Egypt has enough oil and gas to satisfy the USA and the EU without the Middle East; and thats just what we know about and what is being drilled at the moment.

this is 2nd time i have found internet articles to justify my position... its so much fun... ;)

http://www.markswatson.com/afrioil.html

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012505_ftw_maps.shtml

http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/China_Denies_It_Ignores_Human_Rights_Abuses_In_Pursuit_Of_Oil.html

Altho all of these may be a bit dodgy, im sure that the authors mean well.

9. Please join the YDA as a matter of some urgency, American voters have the power to change the texture of global politics, they've retaken control of Congress... now its time to put a democrat in the oval office and some honesty in the rose garden... ;) good luck!

Oh dear, congratulations to Nathan for returning a bit of civility to this thread!

For the record I opposed the war in Iraq, because I didnt think that the threat that it posed was sufficient to justify an invasion and that it was correspondingly a blatant breach of the UN Charter - something which has later been proven to be correct by the lack of proof of weapons of mass destruction.

 Afghanistan on the other hand, was a different kettle of fish. Unlike Iraq, the Taliban regime openly harboured Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and there is clear proof that training camps did exist which were attended by the 9/11 hijackers and, indeed, by others who have later have been found to have undertaken or attempted attacks against the United Kingdom and the United States.

 As a result the United States, the United Kingdom and a number of others including France and Germany first offered the Taliban regime the option of refusing to support Al Qaeda, so as to eliminate the threat to our citizens living and working in our countries. As they refused to do so, it was legitimate for those forces to act to remove the threat which that Government was posing - through allowing Al Qaeda to use its country to plot and organise attacks against the West. There are questions of proportion - and my party does criticise some of the actions of the UK Government in that war (e.g. we opposed the use of cluster bombs) - but it was in my honest opinion a legitimate act of self-defence. You may disagree on the facts, but in that we will have to agree to disagree.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an imperialist - I believe in the need to respect international law and only use force where it is absolutely necessary for self-defence or for the prevention of genocide (e.g. Kosovo) - but it is entirely reasonable to expect a country to be able to use force against another in self-defence if it is proved that the actions of that other State pose a real and immediate threat to the attacking state's security. Iraq did not have that justification - there was at the time no conclusive evidence that Iraq was posing a real and immediate threat to its neighbours and the US and the UK proved exceedingly reluctant to let diplomacy and weapons inspectors take its course - which is why I and my party view it as being unjustified and contrary to international law.

aaahh! if only i wasnt black, perhaps i'd have been shamed into blushing.... ;)

but seriously, imperial jibes aside... bcos i kno it makes the settlers very uneasy, even in South Africa...

*** i agree with this statement by Chris ***

u see Nathan... there was a liberal proposition, a conservative socio-nationalist counter-response and a liberal rebuttal... now all our activists have the liberal argument to advance in their communities (c/o Admiral Nelson) and are prepared for whatsoever they will hear in response (c/o General Govender) and because there are no tyrants who persecute liberals with kid gloves and soft spoken diplomacy... my counter-response is violent, rude, ungracious and offensive in the extreme.

this is what makes liberalism valuable, the fact that education and more specifically political civic education, is seen as the absolute pre-requisite for an informed, educated citizenry which makes rational, responsible choices.

yes we take it a bit too far, but we have too many friends sitting in jail for speaking their minds, so that theres really no time for the polite niceties of UN style diplomacy.

Have u joined the YDA yet? i see that the Young Republicans have applied to join IFLRY as well... so theres a choice for u to make...

of course nathan, this would mean that u'd have to move to Eastern Europe... ;)

Many apologies for my long absense - I have been so busy at work I have not had the time to make any new posts.

 There are so many things to write about, I don't know where to start. :) I guess I'll just stick to Iraq.

Despite the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction screw-up in Iraq, I have to admit I supported to the war for the following reasons: First, we knew that Saddam had these weapons in the past (because we - mainly the U.S. and France - sold him these ourselves in the 1980's, before he went crazy on us) We literally have the receipts to them. Second, we knew that he had used these weapons before (against both the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war and also against the Kurds after the 1991 Iraq War). Third, we knew from Iraqi scientists that defected in the mid 1990's that Saddam was still pursuing nuclear weapon research after the Gulf War [as a side note, one of these former nuclear scientists tought for a time at the university I now attend, and he did not hide any of his annimosity for Saddam}. Fourth, Bill Clinton, in the yearly State of the Union Address to Congress, told the whole world in January of 1999  (or was in 1998?) that Saddam must cease him weapons research at once or face serious consequences. Fifth, Saddam had a long history of NOT cooperating with UN inspectors. If you will remember, the 1998 U.S.-U.K. bombing of Iraq was caused by Saddam's sudden expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors from the country (they didn't return till 2002-2003). If Saddam had nothing to hide, why would he resist U.N. inspections? Sixth, IT WAS SADDAM HUSSEIN we were dealing with (AKA "The Butcher of Baghdad") - not exactly a trustworthy fellow!!!

 Oh well, I guess we must just agree to disagree.

Happy new year to all.