Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[Guest American Woman]

No, you didn't. What you've provided is evidence that you're confused by the difference between "a factor" and "a major factor". Either that, or you have a malfunctioning sense of perspective.

Wrong. You are the confused one with a malfunctioning sense of perspective, among other things. Seriously. I'm done with this with you.

Edited April 30, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Where are those pesky WMDs anyways?

Try paying attention. I've said from the beginning - repeatedly - that I didn't think Iraq had WMD. I've said from the beginning - repeatedly - that I didn't support going into Iraq. I've also said - repeatedly - that I think Saddam being removed from power is a good thing, and I hope for the best for the Iraqis in that regard - though I'm neither naive nor ignorant enough to believe it should have happened within 10 years.

So take your question and ... well, you know .....

[g_bambino]

Seriously. I'm done with this with you.

Obviously.

[WWWTT]

Here's a good pick that adds to some reverse stereo-type!

WWWTT

[Rue]

Squid I am going to respond to come of your comments in the spirit of the debate. For the life of me I do not understand where this thread went with American Woman.and Bambino my two fave posters. I fail to understand the dispute in what they are saying. I again pretty much support everything American Women says and we have both stated simply that yes there were a lot of short comings and serious issues with the Iraqi war.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can sit on the sofa after the fact and say wooda cooda shooda.

The point is the US's invasion was not just done for protection of oil for Americans but the entire Western world. This is absolute b.s. so suggest the US

is alone in this invasion and the only country to blame for the mess in Iraq.

First and foremost Iraqis have failed themselves.

Secondly political Islamist groups have destroyed Iraq, Iran and so many other nations of the Middle East. They rot them from within preventing

healthy social development. That is my subjective opinion. I find these political Islamic groups to be cancers preventing proper evolution and growth of the societies of the nations they terrorize.

Now you said Squid;

":... Saddam is gone... woohoo... hundreds of thousands of dead and sectarian violence bordering on civil war... oooops...."

Not sure what that means. Are you suggesting leaving this mad man in power was preferable? I guess so given more comments such as:

"Yes, it probably would have been better. Less Iraqis dead... less American/British soldiers dead.... less money wasted waging war...."

Again using your logic we should remain silent in the face of genocide because people die and get hurt fighting it. What a nonsensical argument.

Democracy comes at a price. The price has been hundreds of thousands of soldiers and millions of innocent civilians.

Are you suggesting the British should have turtled against Hitler when he started bombing London because of the innocent civilian liveslost?

Has history not taught us digging a hole and burying our head in it is no solution to tyranny?

You think isolationism and" who me I am not getting involved" thought processes cultivate democracy?

Canadian soldiers went to Afghanistan on their own free will. They were willing to put their lives on the line. You want to criticize them?

Why? Seems to me you blame soldiers and people trying to do the right thing with corrupt politicians. Why? Are you suggesting they are the same?

That is precisely the problem I see with your argument and others on this thread. To me the scapegoat for Iraq is not the US or the US armed forces.

Seems to me you should point the finger directly at where the moral failures came from-Hussein, political Islamic extremist groups, corrupt Iraqi leaders,

oil corporations seeking to protect their financial interests, Haliburton using its connections through Chaney and Rumsfeld to procure trillions of dollars in contracts in Iraq paid by US taxpayers money and flooding that country with private security forces operating above the law.

Point the finger where it belongs.

You stated:

"Perhaps there would have been an uprising... perhaps not... Americans waging war is not a bringer of democracy."

You missed the point. Put aside all the rhetoric of the Bush regime. We all know that was for domestic consumption. All of us.

The real point though was this-what about the Kurds? What about the Kurds being exterminated en masse by gas? Are you saying

to just ignore them because the price to protect them is not worth it?

Really?

Civil war by the way in Iraq has carried on since the British created this artificial nation as pay back to the same family it created Jordan

and Saudi Arabia for. It was part of a deal to create puppet monarchies. That is what the British and French did at the to procure their

interest in oil in this area of the world. They did what they always did, create artificial nations forcing feuding tribes in one country to create necessarily unstable regimes to them justify a permanent French and British presence as the great white bwana needed to keep the savages from killing each other.

They created a deliberate feud between Zionists and Arabs, Arabs on Arabs, and on and on. Divide and conquer.

Iraq has had continuous civil war since its creation. It was always divided int0 3 zones that hated each other, Kurd, Sunni and Shiite.

You can't possibly think it was a stable regime let alone its problems only transpired once the Americans stepped in.

In fact since its inception it had corrupt monarchs, then crude, Nazi styled fascist regimes. Do find out about the Bath Party, who its pclolicies

were modelled on and why.

Now I am not sure if I have understood you or not Squid and I am just debating with you but here is my point-you won't get an argument over me about the false story used to invade Iraq. I personally believe Bush Sr. and his Haliburton cronies called the shots and wanted pay back against Hussein for

the Gulf War. Bush Sr. was embarrassed he let him go the first time. Do not underestimate macho fragility in political egos.

I also think Hussein like Nasser, Ghaddafi, Noriega,was a rorgue CIA stooge. When you get into power because of the help of the CIA and then turn on them, pay back happens. It has to happen otherwise the CIA loses face on its ability to control its puppets. Its a warning to all other puppets.

Hussein was a Halburton stooge. He took money from them, procured business from them and let's get serious, China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, to name just a few client nations sold chemicals and weapons to Iraq during its 10 year war with Iran and ironically Israel took weapons from the US and China and resold them to Iran. Turkey, Iran and Iraq all hate the Kurds. Only Israel stood up for them and when Israel did it turned Turkey and Iran against them. Iraq has always had a declared state of war against Israel. Still continues by the way. Technically its never been lifted.

The world is full of ever changing alliances. The US is only one player in Iraq and the region.

Let's stop suggesting it acted in a vacuum and is the only source of opportunistic meddling to protect its financial interests. A hell of a lot of other nations have involvement as well and then there is the joke of the UN that to this day failed the Kurds as it has so many other targets of genocide and is ironically the same UN that sat silent when the Arab League tried to exterminate holocaust survivors who fled Europe to the Middle East and now acts as if these survivors magically appeared as colonial oppressors.

Where was this UN when over 500,000 Jews were expelled from Arab nations and Felashies were being slaughtered and had to flee to Israel?

Where were they? The same place they were as a genocide transpired in South Sudan, in Rwanda, Burundi, Biafra, East Timor, on and on and on.

You want to point a finger at moral failure. Start in Iraq with Iraqis then move to corrupt politicians and financial players and the UN.

Bottom line-your democracy-the country you now live in can not exist as it does without failed nations like Iraq to prop it.

You really want to point the finger at Americans? It actually then starts with you and me and the lifestyle choices make to become and remain addicted to

cars. We chose that just like we become addicted to cell phones, internet, junk food.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The point is the US's invasion was not just done for protection of oil for Americans but the entire Western world. This is absolute b.s. so suggest the US

is alone in this invasion and the only country to blame for the mess in Iraq.

Excellent point that is often ignored. Iraq was/is not a major oil supplier for the U.S., but it was part of the global supply. Nobody understood this better than petroleum godfather Dick Cheney, who belatedly recognized the mistake of letting Saddam's Iraq fester for a dozen years after the Gulf War. "Oil for Food" programs from the UN could/would not bring enough Iraq oil back on line for world markets to consume. Iraq's damaged and obsolete oil production infrastructure would not be addressed as long as the sanctions and containment strategy was in place. Saddam had to go...for this and other reasons.

Iraq's oil production has now surpassed that of Iran, which is now being squeezed by sanctions, and Iraq is set to double current production of about 3 million bpd over the next seven years.

Welcome back to the club, Iraq !

[GostHacked]

Rue, on 02 May 2013 - 11:45, said:

Squid I am going to respond to come of your comments in the spirit of the debate. For the life of me I do not understand where this thread went with American Woman.and Bambino my two fave posters. I fail to understand the dispute in what they are saying. I again pretty much support everything American Women says and we have both stated simply that yes there were a lot of short comings and serious issues with the Iraqi war.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can sit on the sofa after the fact and say wooda cooda shooda.

However many were telling of the shortcomings before the war was even started. Many predicted the current situation in Iraq. It was inevitable.

Quote

The point is the US's invasion was not just done for protection of oil for Americans but the entire Western world. This is absolute b.s. so suggest the US

is alone in this invasion and the only country to blame for the mess in Iraq.

And that is the thing it was about making it easier for western countries/companies to get access to Iraqs oil.

We heard humanitarian reasons and Saddam was a bad guy but the main and biggest point was making Iraq's oil more accessible to the west.

Quote

First and foremost Iraqis have failed themselves.

I don't buy this. A foreign entity comes and brings your government down and it's now up to the Iraqis to figure it out? Creating a huge security void by disbanding the military and police forces had nothing to do with it?

Quote

Secondly political Islamist groups have destroyed Iraq, Iran and so many other nations of the Middle East. They rot them from within preventing

healthy social development. That is my subjective opinion. I find these political Islamic groups to be cancers preventing proper evolution and growth of the societies of the nations they terrorize.

Along with over a decade of sanctions, a failed UN oil for food program. No fly zones, ect ect.

Quote

Now you said Squid;

":... Saddam is gone... woohoo... hundreds of thousands of dead and sectarian violence bordering on civil war... oooops...."

Not sure what that means. Are you suggesting leaving this mad man in power was preferable? I guess so given more comments such as:

"Yes, it probably would have been better. Less Iraqis dead... less American/British soldiers dead.... less money wasted waging war...."

The devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you don't know.

Quote

Again using your logic we should remain silent in the face of genocide because people die and get hurt fighting it. What a nonsensical argument.

Democracy comes at a price. The price has been hundreds of thousands of soldiers and millions of innocent civilians.

This was not about bringing democracy to Iraq. It was about making Iraq's oil more accessible to the west.

Quote

Are you suggesting the British should have turtled against Hitler when he started bombing London because of the innocent civilian lives lost?

Not comparable in my view.

Quote

Canadian soldiers went to Afghanistan on their own free will. They were willing to put their lives on the line. You want to criticize them?

False. It was part of the job and mission, you either go, or risk court martial, derelict of duties.

Quote

Why? Seems to me you blame soldiers and people trying to do the right thing with corrupt politicians. Why? Are you suggesting they are the same?

Soldiers are tools of the government. The soldiers are not really to blame, the chicken-hawk politicians who would not send their children to war have no problem sending others to their deaths for some political gain.

Quote

That is precisely the problem I see with your argument and others on this thread. To me the scapegoat for Iraq is not the US or the US armed forces.

I don't see anyone blaming the US forces directly. But we can blame the leadership within the military and the US government who 'authorized' war with Iraq.

Quote

Seems to me you should point the finger directly at where the moral failures came from-Hussein, political Islamic extremist groups, corrupt Iraqi leaders,

But the USA loves dealing with Saudi Arabia. Also helped Bahrain suppress the uprisings there. Hopefully these won't be ignored when talking about political Islamic groups and corrupt leaders.

Quote

oil corporations seeking to protect their financial interests, Haliburton using its connections through Chaney and Rumsfeld to procure trillions of dollars in contracts in Iraq paid by US taxpayers money and flooding that country with private security forces operating above the law.

We have brought those points up, but were batted down by other posters here. It's tin foil hat territory to them.

Quote

"Perhaps there would have been an uprising... perhaps not... Americans waging war is not a bringer of democracy."

You missed the point. Put aside all the rhetoric of the Bush regime. We all know that was for domestic consumption. All of us.

The real point though was this-what about the Kurds? What about the Kurds being exterminated en masse by gas? Are you saying

to just ignore them because the price to protect them is not worth it?

There are still problems with the Kurds. No issues when the current Iraqi forces that have attacked them along with Turkey attacking the Kurdish rebels. We can completely ignore that. The USA, Iraq and Turkey for that matter don't really give a damn about the Kurds either, but made nice poster children to say Saddam was bad.

Quote

Civil war by the way in Iraq has carried on since the British created this artificial nation as pay back to the same family it created Jordan

and Saudi Arabia for. It was part of a deal to create puppet monarchies. That is what the British and French did at the to procure their

interest in oil in this area of the world. They did what they always did, create artificial nations forcing feuding tribes in one country to create necessarily unstable regimes to them justify a permanent French and British presence as the great white bwana needed to keep the savages from killing each other.

Another point I have brought up with regards to the long standing meddling in the Middle East from the Brits.

Quote

They created a deliberate feud between Zionists and Arabs, Arabs on Arabs, and on and on. Divide and conquer.

I see this as creating a problem to provide a solution down the road. You are right, it is divide and conquer. The conquer part still seems to be a work in progress.

Quote

Iraq has had continuous civil war since its creation. It was always divided int0 3 zones that hated each other, Kurd, Sunni and Shiite.

You can't possibly think it was a stable regime let alone its problems only transpired once the Americans stepped in.

Saddam kept it stable enough and kept the other factions in check. Sure Saddam was brutal, but we already see something worse in my view. Was it good to remove him from power? I lean towards 'no it was not good to remove him'. For any real change to come to Iraq it has to be done from within. Iraqis should have removed Saddam not the USA.

Quote

Now I am not sure if I have understood you or not Squid and I am just debating with you but here is my point-you won't get an argument over me about the false story used to invade Iraq. I personally believe Bush Sr. and his Haliburton cronies called the shots and wanted pay back against Hussein for

the Gulf War. Bush Sr. was embarrassed he let him go the first time. Do not underestimate macho fragility in political egos.

No argument on that bit.

Quote

I also think Hussein like Nasser, Ghaddafi, Noriega,was a rorgue CIA stooge. When you get into power because of the help of the CIA and then turn on them, pay back happens. It has to happen otherwise the CIA loses face on its ability to control its puppets. Its a warning to all other puppets.

Hussein was a Halburton stooge. He took money from them, procured business from them and let's get serious, China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, to name just a few client nations sold chemicals and weapons to Iraq during its 10 year war with Iran and ironically Israel took weapons from the US and China and resold them to Iran. Turkey, Iran and Iraq all hate the Kurds. Only Israel stood up for them and when Israel did it turned Turkey and Iran against them. Iraq has always had a declared state of war against Israel. Still continues by the way. Technically its never been lifted.

Let's stop suggesting it acted in a vacuum and is the only source of opportunistic meddling to protect its financial interests. A hell of a lot of other nations have involvement as well and then there is the joke of the UN that to this day failed the Kurds as it has so many other targets of genocide and is ironically the same UN that sat silent when the Arab League tried to exterminate holocaust survivors who fled Europe to the Middle East and now acts as if these survivors magically appeared as colonial oppressors.

You want to point a finger at moral failure. Start in Iraq with Iraqis then move to corrupt politicians and financial players and the UN.

Wait, so we have Bush/Cheney and Blackwater and Haliburton, and you hint at Hussein being a CIA puppet and yet the Iraqis are to blame for its failures? Really? I mean the decades of dicking around in that country had nothing to do with it? The west's hypocritical approach to Iraq has nothing to do with it? Propping up dictators/oppressive regimes like that in Saudi Arabia while taking down Hussein?

Do one thing say another.

Quote

Bottom line-your democracy-the country you now live in can not exist as it does without failed nations like Iraq to prop it.

How can a failed state prop anything else up? So for our benefit it's in our collective best interest to keep Iraq in the state it is in? As long as it is failing we win?

Quote

You really want to point the finger at Americans? It actually then starts with you and me and the lifestyle choices make to become and remain addicted to cars. We chose that just like we become addicted to cell phones, internet, junk food.

How much oil/resources does it take to maintain a military the size of what the USA currently has? The war machine is being used to feed itself, while taking us along for the ride thinking it's benevolent in it's actions. Edited May 2, 2013 by GostHacked

[eyeball]

I again pretty much support everything American Women says and we have both stated simply that yes there were a lot of short comings and serious issues with the Iraqi war.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can sit on the sofa after the fact and say wooda cooda shooda.

Hindsight? These short comings and serious issues were apparent from before the get go.

The reason everything you and AW say is generally written off as nuts is that 1.) you cooda and shooda seen that too and 2.) You probably wooda gone ahead and invaded anyway even if you did.

Edited May 3, 2013 by eyeball

[Rue]

Thanks for the replies Gho and Eye. Points noted. Gho-what I meant by the Canadian forces wanting to go was that they genuinely did-you say they had no choice. Yes and no. A lot of the people who went were reserves who could have quit. Also what I meant by that was the Canadian forces are pretty much volunteers to start with. They aint exactly in it for the money. I really do believe they went in with ideals and despite the obstacles faced on the return for some with ptsd, etc., believed in what they did and most of us in Canada and I really mean it, are proud of them. Its not like US GI's returning from Vietnam and being shunned. We knew they had an impossible mission and no one is dumb enough to think Karsi is anything but a corupted sob.

Eye-I can't argue with the fact that the US government ignored its US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff and went in as it did leading to a lot of avoidable issues due to lack of proper planning. There is zero doubt about that. Had they listened to the Armed Forces, they would not have conducted the campaign they did let a lone innundate Iraq with so many private soldiers or do the extensive infrastructure damage they did. I personally believe the infrastructure damage was a make work project for Haliburton.

I don't doubt there are a lot of serious planning mistakes that caused uncessary death. Hell the US Armed Forces has stated that in reports. I just don't like the US Armed Forces bearing the brunt of politicians who used them incorrectly.

Oil man. Its a masty business...but don't ask me to say sitting and letting that sob Hussein continue to torture and kill people was a better choice.

Phack him. Phack Hussein...but hell no...no one is happy about deaths to innocent people. No.

Now today's question is, how does anyone get Iraqis to live in peace?

You can't have it both ways. They can't go around killing each other and using the US as the excuse. That's b.s. Its as b.s. as blaming Israel or the US for Syria, Sudan, etc. These countries must look in the mirror at their own abject failure to honour human rights and basic freedoms and the role political extremist Islamic beliefs have had in this. Of course Iraqis have to take a good look at themselves. Who else will do that? What they should ignore their treatment of each other? Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all are now dominated by terrorist extremists and I think that is a damn shame because call me naive I believe the majority of them are not terrorist but certaintly are controlled by them into silence.

Let's not pussyfoot around it. That aint made in the US. That political Islamic extremism aint American made. It was there long before the Yanks and will be there long after they are gone and these people in these nations either come into the 21st century or remain in a tribal state and a state of perpetual tribal war. Its their choice.

What next is the US to blame for that idiot fat boy in North Korea? Come on. They aint the scapegoat for all ills although I am tempted to blame it all on New York Yankees fans or Philadelphia Fillies fans. Both can be very nasty.

I think everyone should behave like Cubs fans. decent God fearing people. Well next to Jays fans stunned by ineptitude and sheer failure.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

Hindsight? These short comings and serious issues were apparent from before the get go.

The reason everything you and AW say is generally written off as nuts is that 1.) you cooda and shooda seen that too and 2.) You probably wooda gone ahead and invaded anyway even if you did.

Is there something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension?? Or your memory, perhaps?

How many times have I said now that I didn't support going to war in Iraq???

Yet I "probably wooda gone ahead and invaded anyway even if did " [see] that too" - when I didn't support it??

Good Grief. And you say what *I* say is written off as nuts? It doesn't get any "nuttier" than that.

[eyeball]

How many times have I said now that I didn't support going to war in Iraq???

At least as many times as you've said you're glad you went anyway.

[Guest American Woman]

At least as many times as you've said you're glad you went anyway.

Show me even one post where I said such a thing. Just one.

Here's a hint: you can spend the rest of your life searching and you won't find it, as I've never said such a thing.

[GostHacked]

Show me even one post where I said such a thing. Just one.

Here's a hint: you can spend the rest of your life searching and you won't find it, as I've never said such a thing.

Saying you approve of Saddam being gone means you essentially approve of the invasion as well. Unless you think a nice small covert assassination would have been in order.

[Guest American Woman]

Saying you approve of Saddam being gone means you essentially approve of the invasion as well. Unless you think a nice small covert assassination would have been in order.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. I said I'm glad that Saddam is gone and the Iraqis have a chance at democracy. The war did take place and Saddam is gone, whether I approved of going to war or not, so yes, I am glad Saddam is gone. I'm not going to say I'm not glad of that just because I didn't approve of the war; he was a brutal dictator. Is that so difficult to follow?

Do you wish Saddam were back in power??

Edited May 5, 2013 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

Saying you approve of Saddam being gone means you essentially approve of the invasion as well. Unless you think a nice small covert assassination would have been in order.

No I don't think that's correct. From the bits I've read, AW is arguing that something positive has come out of the invasion, but she isn't saying she approves of the invasion overall.

[eyeball]

AW is desperate for redemption and Saddam's departure is a really slim picking.

[GostHacked]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. I said I'm glad that Saddam is gone and the Iraqis have a chance at democracy. The war did take place and Saddam is gone, whether I approved of going to war or not, so yes, I am glad Saddam is gone. I'm not going to say I'm not glad of that just because I didn't approve of the war; he was a brutal dictator. Is that so difficult to follow?

Do you wish Saddam were back in power??

I'd wish he had a fair trial, the back in power thing .. still not really decided either way. Stable, yet brutal dictatorship, or unstable brutal democracy. Both options seem to suck, but there is no third option at this moment.

[GostHacked]

No I don't think that's correct. From the bits I've read, AW is arguing that something positive has come out of the invasion, but she isn't saying she approves of the invasion overall.

I think the positive is mere wishful thinking. But overall I see the point, but we will be waiting for some time to see how Iraq progresses, if at all.

[Guest American Woman]

I'd wish he had a fair trial, the back in power thing .. still not really decided either way. Stable, yet brutal dictatorship, or unstable brutal democracy. Both options seem to suck, but there is no third option at this moment.

You don't think he had a fair trial? You think there was some question as to whether or not he was a murderous, cruel dictator? Really??

Sure there's a third option - that things will work out for the better for the Iraqi people - after more than 10 years have passed. You really think it should have all worked out in a shorter time span? Really??

Edited to add: You really think a brutal dictatorship might sometimes be the best thing? Really??

Edited May 6, 2013 by American Woman

[Hudson Jones]

You don't think he had a fair trial? You think there was some question as to whether or not he was a murderous, cruel dictator? Really??

Perhaps at the trial, Saddam would have talked about how it was okay for him to be a murderous, cruel dictator in America's view before it suddenly mattered in order to excuse a war which came to be, based on lies. Maybe he would talk about how U.S. sold chemical weapons to Iraq which were used on its own people and the Iranians. THAT was okay. But suddenly, Saddam decides he doesn't want to be the lapdog, and OH MY GOD HE'S A MONSTER!!!!111

Sure there's a third option - that things will work out for the better for the Iraqi people - after more than 10 years have passed. You really think it should have all worked out in a shorter time span? Really??

U.S.' actions brought Al Qaeda and instability into Iraq. People who try to sell the superficial view that "Iraq had a chance to flourish, but blew it" after Saddam's fall are either completely ignorant or they should not be trusted.

Edited to add: You really think a brutal dictatorship might sometimes be the best thing? Really??

U.S. had thought so in Saddam's case and other cases around the world. Really.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Guest American Woman]

U.S. had thought so in Saddam's case and other cases around the world. Really.

Since I was asking you, not the "U.S.," are you saying that you go along with whatever "the U.S." thinks?

But yeah, Saddam likely was innocent.

[Hudson Jones]

Since I was asking you, not the "U.S.," are you saying that you go along with whatever "the U.S." thinks?

But yeah, Saddam likely was innocent.

I don't think saddam was innocent, before or after his bff status in the middle east.

What I am saying is that it U.S. policy has supported murderous dictators, including Saddam. So Saddam's removal has nothing to do with moral standards. So stop playing that card to try to excuse what U.S. has done.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think saddam was innocent, before or after his bff status in the middle east.

What I am saying is that it U.S. policy has supported murderous dictators, including Saddam. So Saddam's removal has nothing to do with moral standards. So stop playing that card to try to excuse what U.S. has done.

Stop posting "nonsense" about things I've never said or done.

[Rue]

No I don't think that's correct. From the bits I've read, AW is arguing that something positive has come out of the invasion, but she isn't saying she approves of the invasion overall.

Thank you Moonlight. I am saying the same thing too. Good restatement.

[Guest American Woman]

No I don't think that's correct. From the bits I've read, AW is arguing that something positive has come out of the invasion, but she isn't saying she approves of the invasion overall.

Yep, that's it exactly.