So they found WMD

[spikegifted]

To be honest and to be fair, the notion of what is considered 'decent' and 'fair' in a Western society is rather unique. For many cultures, 'human rights' don't exist - take feudal Japanese, for example. For many cultures, you either have power (hence, rights) or you don't. For those who don't have power/rights, they're forever subjected to unfair treatment, for those who do have power/rights, they're forever 'abusing' them. But then again, when you comepare no rights against 'some', no matter how little these rights amounts to, they seem infinitely more powerful.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Are you suggesting that the Ayatollah's reign was "worse" than that of the Shah? Maybe you need to look up the human rights record of Iran under the (US instigated and heavily supported) Shah. I'll tell you now, he was the number one "evildoer" on the planet at the time. Really, go look up Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. He leads the field in Human Rights abuses, post war.

I was saying nothing at at all about the Shah. I was referring to the nature of the Khomeini regime. Where did I mention the Shah? I specifically said I was referring to the Khomeini regime.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I'm pretty stunned, to be quite honest Saracen. I find the notion that you can acknowledge the use of chemical weapons in a genocidal act against the Kurds as "a correct judgement" somewhat bizarre.

I most flipping certainly did NOT say that the use of chemical weapons against the kurds was the correct flipping judgement. What do you take me for?

The gas attacks had already occurred. It's therefore kind-of late to prevent them, andthe US condemned it.

Was I said was maintaining a relationship with Iraq despite those attacks might have been the best thing to do - in other words, preferable to breaking of all relationships with Iraq and thereby losing an element of balancing influence against Iran. A geopolitical rock-ands-a-hard-place situation.

What I said was, and I quote

Maybe the judgement was that the overall situation in the middle east justified maintaining a relationship with Iraq despite Halabja, and maybe, given the overall situation with Khomeini's Iran, that was a correct judgement.

Read it. overall situation .... maintaining a relationship ..... DESPITE Halabja ....

NOWHERE, absoflippinlutely NOWHERE did I say the chemical attack was justified, for flips sake!!!!!

Where, out of that, do you get that I supported genocidal attacks on the Kurds????

[DaBeeeenster]

Sorry, but you didn't make that clear in your post. The US maintained a (fairly healthy) relationship with Saddam, post-Halabja. I see where you are coming from in terms of the arguments for maintaining a relationship with Iraq irrespective of the genocide that was carried out. However, it has to be said that the reasons for invading Iraq at that point in 88 (having supplied him with weapons, supplied him with chem/bio ingredients, funded his regime etc. etc.) were FAR more defencible than invading in 2003.

I dont quite understand how you can say that there were good reasons to maintain a relationship with Saddam in 88 and not 2003. Besides, the US were providing arms to both Iraq AND Iran in the 80's. Is that meant to have helped maintain the peace in the Middle East?!?!?!?!

As I have stated above (with the example of Karimov in Uzbekistan, and to a large extent Turkey with respect to the Turkish oppression of the Kurds, ditto Israel/Palestine) the US acts in their interests AND THEIRS ALONE when it comes to foreign matters. Now, I think there is an argument to say well yes this is fair enough, countries tend to act in their own interests when it comes to foreign policy.

What REALLY p****s me off is when we get this humanitarian argument b******t being spoken by Bush, Rumsfeld et al regarding Iraq.

I dont like being lied to and I dont like being taken for a mug. The sooner the US (And the poodle that Blair is) realise that people are not as stupid as they obviously assume they are, the better.

BTW, shouldn't you be tucked up in bed with the missus

[DaBeeeenster]

Hmmm. I kind of wandered off topic there.

I think the point I was trying to make was:

A) Genocide is never justified (I think we agree on this)
B) Maintaing "positive relationships" with states that commit genocide is not done (I think we diverge here).
C) The US acts in their own interests, and not for those of others. The fact that the did not invade in 88 and did in 91 and 20003 were not for the sake of others, but for the sake of themselves.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Sorry, but you didn't make that clear in your post.

Then we'll have to disagree on that. So far as I'm concerned, it was perfectly clear - and certainly didn't say I supported genocide.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
BTW, shouldn't you be tucked up in bed with the missus

Now THAT, we agree on.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
The US maintained a (fairly healthy) relationship with Saddam, post-Halabja. I see where you are coming from in terms of the arguments for maintaining a relationship with Iraq irrespective of the genocide that was carried out. However, it has to be said that the reasons for invading Iraq at that point in 88 (having supplied him with weapons, supplied him with chem/bio ingredients, funded his regime etc. etc.) were FAR more defencible than invading in 2003.

Well, arguably yes, but the difference is the geopolitics. The background situation is different.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I dont quite understand how you can say that there were good reasons to maintain a relationship with Saddam in 88 and not 2003. Besides, the US were providing arms to both Iraq AND Iran in the 80's. Is that meant to have helped maintain the peace in the Middle East?!?!?!?!

You're putting words in my mouth again. Where did I maintain that there weren't reasons for doing it in 2003. As for the 'good reasons', well, perhaps among them might be that in 1988 Iran were threatening the Fao peninsula, and thereby by extension, the route to extend their Islamic 'revolution' into oil-rich Saudi Araba and Kuwait. Don't forget that Iran actually did manage to capture the Fao in 1986. The 2003 Iran is rather a different animal from the 1988 Iran. But again, I'm speculating about the reasons. It's not my field.

What I do believe, though, is that any government has to deal with the situation as it finds it, not as it wishes it were. We might all wish that governments round the world were run by a bunch of Mother Theresa's, but unfortately it isn't so. There is no doubt that the US took the view that keeping Iran out of Kuwait, Saudi etc was a major strategic objective, especially in the context of the Cold War and Soviet influences. It's unpleasant, distasteful and very nasty, but they had to deal with the situation they had. I'm not saying I agree with CIA dirty tricks, and Contragate, etc, because I don't, but you have to look at what happened in the context of WHY it happened. It might not justify things, but it goes a long way to explaining them.

The US administration had no particular reason to love either Khomeini's Iran or Saddam's Iraq - but they are what was there at the time and had to be dealt with. I seem to remember some senior US official (and it might well have been Kissinger) commenting "Shame they can't both lose". Well, I guess, in a sense at least, they did.

Anyway, I've said about all I want to say, and to be honest, I'm getting rather bored with perennial discussions about Iraq, WMD and the justifications for the war. So I'll bow out and let you lot get on with it.

[DaBeeeenster]

NO! WAIT! I'M NOT FINISHED

I agree that things these discussions are not getting us any further really. In fact, there was an excellent comment in the Groniad today by Jonathon Freedland making that very point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...073026,00.html

Definitely worth a read.

One thing I would like to add, and it is this. Your points are fairly well defended Saracen, but they are based on a simple premise; that the US has business in the Middle East. Now, you know what I am going to say next. What business does the US have in the Middle East?

Edit: And finally, the reasons that Kissenger is not rotting in jail for crimes against humanity is proof positive that history (and the law) is written by the victors.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Now, you know what I am going to say next. What business does the US have in the Middle East?

Well... There are four reasons why the US has 'business' in the Middle East:

1) O
2) I
3) L
4) Israel

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
[BEdit: And finally, the reasons that Kissenger is not rotting in jail for crimes against humanity is proof positive that history (and the law) is written by the victors. [/B]

From what I've read and seen, that is something I 100% agree with.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
....., but they are based on a simple premise; that the US has business in the Middle East. Now, you know what I am going to say next. What business does the US have in the Middle East?

Well, you can answer that on several levels - and I suspect that the first answer is what you are thinking of ..... and to a point I agree, but would maintain that .... the world isn't that simple.

So, point 1). None at all. In many respects, there would be a lot less trouble if the US didn't 'poke it's nose in'/'throw it's weight around' (delete as applicable) where it isn't wanted. Neither of us need to go through the list of examples, but Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Grenada, Nicaragua, et. al. make a good start, and many people would certainly add Iraq, Afghanistan to the list. Oh, and don't forget Chile. I'm certainly not likely to. The father of a close friend of mine was a very senior member of Allende's (Marxist) government, and got out of Chile (to the UK) hours ahead of a Pinochet firing squad, in 1973.

However, as I've said, the world isn't that simple. Hundreds of years ago it might have been, but not now. It's too 'small'.

So, what 'business' do the US have in the Middle East?

Point 2). Defending their own national interest. That obviously includes oil supplies, but it isn't limited to that. I'm sure it could get lively debating whether they have the right to be in the middle east to defend their interests and the Purist answer is, of course, No. But, until relatively recently (last week in geo-political terms), they (and we) were in a Cold War (and sometimes not so cold). If, for arguments sake, the Soviets have ambitions in the middle east, lets say ... Afghanistan, and THEIR aim is to threaten Wetern oil supplies, do not the US have the right to counter that external threat?

Point 3). The US, like many other nations, has trade and diplomatic links with many middle eastern countries. Suppose, for instance, one of those trading partners perceives a military threat from one of it's neighbours (as a hypothetical example, let's suppose Saudi Arabia is worried about an invasion from Iraq, or maybe even Kuwait is), and requests help, then does that not give the US a valid reason to be in the Middle East?

Point 4). From an idealist point of view, you could argue that the US and every other country, for that matter, has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of ANY other country. And, to a point, you have a point.

Lets suppose, however, that Diddyland has a peaceful and democratically elected government. Let's further suppose that a military junta takes over and deposes said democratically elected government by force, and THEN starts torturing, raping and killing it's own citizens, ad-hoc and on a grand scale.

Should the outside world just sit back and watch, on the basis that it's the internal business of Diddyland, and for the people of Diddyland to sort out? Or should they 'interfere' to protect the interests (and for that matter, the rights and even lives) of the citizens of Diddyland? Suppose the deposed democratically government of Diddyland request, from neighbouring Lilliput, external military aid in restoring the benign, democratically elected government to their rightful place. Does the rest of the world have the right to step in, or do we all just sit back and watch the barbarity perpetrated on the majority by the well-armed minority?

At what point does compassion and some sense of decency dictate that the murderous junta are dealt with? Are they allowed to institute mass ethnic cleansing programs murdering large numbers of one specific ethnic group and driving the rest out? Are they allowed to set up a modern equivalent of the Nazi concentration camps and gas chambers?

At what point is interference justified?

Surely, there must be a point at which a nation like the US, with the capability to put a stop to such barbarism and murder, not only has a right to interfere but a duty to do so.

If you accept that such a line exists that, if crossed, the MUST interfere, then the moral and ethical case is made for outside interference, and it is only a case of deciding exactly where such a line lies.

Point 4 is, of course, hypothetical. I'm NOT trying to draw direct comparisons with the US action in any recent conflict, and I'm emphatically NOT trying to suggest that their motives are based entirely on ethical concerns for their supressed brethren in Diddyl.... er, Iraq.

The point I hope I've made is that there are times when interference, even military interference, is a good thing. Arguably, that can be said of removing Saddam's regime. I've yet to see anyone prepared to admit to shedding a tear for the departure of that regime or, for that matter, for the fate of Saddam's sons, Chemical Ali, etc. I've seen countless interviews with Iraqi's that supported the removal, and indeed, even supported the war as an unpleasant and unfortunate method of doing it, but support it nonetheless as probably the ONLY method of doing it.

Of course, there are a lot of Iraqi's that, despite being glad to see Saddam, et al, gone, are NOT happy about a war being used to do it. How many Iraqi's support the war and how many don't I don't know, until and unless they hold a referendum on it, and I doubt anybody else does either.

Before anybody leaps on this as me justifying the US actions, and says "ah yes, but then shouldn't we be attacking North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc, if that moral argument is justifed", I will say now that this is not what I'm doing, and I;m not prepared to defend something I didn't say.

War isn't justified just to remove any regime we don't like. There'd be arguments in favour of war to remove New Labour if that were the case

But suppose, for arguments sake, 1000 die if you go to war to remove a regime, but 1,000,000 die internally if you don't. Is that war justified?

Somewhere down this line comes the point at which, at least in my mind, interference in other countries internal affairs, including by military means if necessary, is justified. Where do you draw the line, and who draws it?

That line of argument gives a moral case for why US involvement in the middle east is ethically justified. Note again, for the record, this is an abstract argument and I am NOT trying to say that this abstract argument represents the entire US motive for being in the Middle East, or Iraq. Such would clearly be immensely naive.

But you did ask "what business...." rather than "What motives for ....".

[DaBeeeenster]

An interesting post Saracen. I have some thoughts.

I agree that the free world (NOT just the US) has a moral obligation to help prevent acts of genocide and other nasty business that are in the same realm. I have been reading a fair amount of Chomksy recently and I find it quite bizarre that he sometimes attacks the NATO actions against Milosovic. Although I am by and large an advocate of peaceful negotiation, I supported the NATO acts (even though bombs were dropped) that removed him from power.

However, I feel that the situation regarding Iraq has reduced (quite clearly, I would add) to the following.

Yes, the US invaded partly for humanitarian reasons, and partly in an attempt to add stability to the Middle East. HOWEVER, these were incidental outcomes from their overriding aim; namely that which they have described as "full spectrum dominance". The attack on Iraq was a US power play. Now, there are a number of reasons supporting this.

1. We in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere. were fairly comprehensively lied to in the lead up to the war. I think there can be NO argument about this. So we have seeds of doubt planted by this action of our governments.

2. There ARE more pressing humanitarian needs than Iraq. The Congo has seen somewhere between 3 and 4 MILLION people dead in recent years. I mean, so many people have died that the estimates differ by millions. If Iraq was not about WOMD and not about links to Al Qaeda, if it was carried out for humanitarian reasons, there are more pressing needs around the world.

3. They said as much. "The" document by the Project of the New American Century entitled Rebuilding America's Defences lays out the case for war in Iraq. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with humanity. It has everything to do with "full spectrum dominance".

4. Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world. Saudi has been holding the US to ransom for some time.

As a final note, I would have supported a UN lead action against Iraq. I dont support unilateral actions that are based on lies, fear and greed.

[spikegifted]

There is a fine line between protecting a country's 'national interests' and 'throwing your weight around'.

The points you mentioned above are well chosen and all relevant. However, if every country behaves like the US, we're going to have a very mad world. Like for example, you are Iranian and you are living Iran and the US is labeling the country as part of the 'Axis of Evil' and make threatening gestures (economic, diplomatic and military) about weapons and human rights, etc - how would you feel? So how would you go about securing your national interests? To protect yourself, you need to remove the threat from the US, how would you go about that? Regime change? No likely... Negotiation? 'You're either with us or against us.' - there's no middle ground. In effect, you can't win and you can't draw, you can only lose. Not much of a deal, is it?

Let's return to the pre-war Iraq situation. The US, through the UN, demanded a detail list of weapon systems in Iraq - both conventional and otherwise. The Iraqis were under pressure and they came up with the goods and delivered on time. The list did not mention any WMD! While it is currently proofing to be accurate in that respect, the US chose not to believe it and tried to convince the rest of the world by telling them to 'tow the line' because they were so convinced that Saddam was lying. That's not exactly the most diplomatic of methods, is it?

Unlike opinions and attitudes, the question of whether Iraq had WDM, at the time of their dossier, only had two answers: 'Yes' or 'No'. There can't be 'may be'; there's no 'currently no, but highly suspicious'. To argue otherwise is either simply naive or darn stupid. The US may be out to ‘protect its national interest’ (and I can’t see how Iraq was more of a threat to the US’s national security than say al Qaeda), but it did not obtain UN backing and the premise on which they based their case for war was flawed. Iraq had no WDM and it was not a threat to US national security.

You can argue as much as you'd like to, in order to justify the position held by the US. However, the plain truth is the US was pushed into a war by a selection of neo-conservative politicians who:
- started out on an incorrect assumption (about WDM),
- based their strategy on poor intelligence (about WDM) and
- found that they pushed too far to pull back and kept their fingers crossed that they'd find something in the country that would justify their action (the missing WDM)
- can't find the missing 'evidence' and shifted their justification to 'liberation'.

Well, people of Iraq: welcome to democracy!

[Saracen]

Originally posted by spikegifted
You can argue as much as you'd like to, in order to justify the position held by the US. However, the plain truth is the US was pushed into a war by ......

As I said before, I'm not even going to start arguing that, having been there, done that and got the t-shirt.

Originally posted by spikegifted
The US may be out to ‘protect its national interest’ (and I can’t see how Iraq was more of a threat to the US’s national security than say al Qaeda) ......

Well, at a pragmatic level, they knew where to find Iraq but finding Al Queda is a bit trickier

Originally posted by spikegifted
Iraq had no WDM ......

We simply don't know that yet. Maybe it is the case, maybe not. But until the investigation is complete, we don't know if they had any. This is the kind of statement I've been objecting to all along. It's like listening to the first week of a six-week criminal trial and deciding the accused must be guilty because all the evidence so far suggests that. How about waiting to see if the defence can make their case?

Originally posted by spikegifted
Unlike opinions and attitudes, the question of whether Iraq had WDM, at the time of their dossier, only had two answers: 'Yes' or 'No'. There can't be 'may be'; there's no 'currently no, but highly suspicious'. To argue otherwise is either simply naive or darn stupid.

Unfortunately, I don't see it as that simple.

First off - Iraq certainly, definitely absolutely positively HAD them, and even according to Hans Bix, had failed to adequately explain where they went. Assuming that they no longer exist, the question is, had them until when? Iraq, naturally, claimed they have all been destroyed. This is the same Iraq that claimed for years, with a straight face, that it didn't have any WMD in the first place, and after having been caught absolutely red-handed, turned round with an innocent expression and said "Oh, those WMD", as if noticing then for the first time. Ooops.

Like the boy that cried wolf, it does put a certain doubt on their credibility. Again, according to Hans Blix, the dossier submitted to the UN by Iraq was distinctly lacking in many regards. Iraq did not present a clean bill of health. They also, as before, dribbled out further bits and pieces after that 'full and final' (or whatever the exact phrase was) accounting.

So lets say, they had them, and there is a question over what happened to them. Maybe destroyed, maybe not.

Then further complicating your Yes/No scenario is defining exactly what WMD are. Some people have claimed that the US supplied WMD to Iraq because of precursor chemicals or biological samples. By that definition, if the Iraq Survey group find a phial of Anthrax in Baghdad university or a couple of gallons of chlorine, they've found WMD. This is, patently, ridiculous. Conversely, if they find 100,000 artillery shells buried in the desert, either loaded with tabun/sarin/mustard gas, or anthrax/ebola or whatever, then they really HAVE found WMD.

Somewhere in-between lies the cut-off point as to what constitutes finding WMD in Iraq. Suppose they find artillery shells capable of containing biological or chemical weapons but they aren't actually filled. Then, in another location, they find a stockpile of either chemical or biological agents. Do we now have WMD? Arguably not, since they are not actually weapons - but could be converted into weapons fairly easily and quickly (if perhaps not in quite 45 minutes).

Note - the rolleyes is not targetted at anyone here, but at the cretin that came up with that 45 minute business and was daft enough to stick it in the 'dossier'.

Also, it strikes me as possible that the Iraq Survey Group might fail to find WMD even if they are there. It has hundreds of sites to investigate and, IIRC, at the interim report stage had only investigated about a third of these. Some of these sites are, again IIRC, about 50 square MILES in size. You can bury a lot of stuff in a single site of that size. And this assumes that IF WMD still exist and have been hidden, it is at a site on the ISG list, or one of which they are subsequently told.

In other words, before you can categorically answer the question Yes/No, you need to define exactly what the question is .... and even then, it is next to impossible to categorically prove a negative. Even if nothing is found, there will always remain the suspicion that they are there, and just too well hidden.


To be honest, personally, I no longer give much of a damn if there are WMD or not. To me, that is only important in terms of how much poop our government is in in terms of explaining to their respective electorates just how the results discovered jibe with the claims made, in the event that WMD aren't found. On that score, if no WMD are found, then both governments quite rightly have one heck of a lot of explaining to do. That is a topic that could yet finish Blair and, if the tories manage to put up a credible front under their new leader, COULD even result in Labour losing the next election - as the government that took the country to war on a lie.

So it's important, but to me, not really the issue. What IS the issue, now, is that having got to the point we're at, having had the war and won it, having now got Iraq under "our" control, the BIG issue is what "we" do with it?

And it seems to me that the US is totally out of it's depth, and devastatingly unprepared for THAT phase of the operation.


The Iraqi people might well, by and large, be grateful for the removal of the Saddam regime, but there is a VERY limited timescale for the occupying forces to start to get things to the point where the man in the street sees a significant improvement in his day-to-day life - or the resentment will grow. It is already starting.

Assuming that the US can get the man in the street to see an improvement in his day-to-day life, then MAJOR changes have to start becoming visible in Iraq's infrastructure and the state of the economy, and again, pretty quickly.

Iraqi's are NOT going to settle for seeing the constant presence of US troops, on the streets, and in tanks and armoured cars, for ever. Time is, in my view, fast running out for results to start becoming evident.

Iraq could yet become a model for democracy in the Middle East, and a prosperous country for the benefit of it's people and a friend of the West. It could also, all too easily, turn into the catastrophic tinderbox that many people have prophesied. THAT is more of a concern, to me, than what gets found in the way of WMD.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Yes, the US invaded partly for humanitarian reasons, and partly in an attempt to add stability to the Middle East. HOWEVER, these were incidental outcomes from their overriding aim; namely that which they have described as "full spectrum dominance". The attack on Iraq was a US power play.

Well, it's difficult to garner any hard proof of that, but yup, my judgement would be that such is the case.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
1. We in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere. were fairly comprehensively lied to in the lead up to the war. I think there can be NO argument about this. So we have seeds of doubt planted by this action of our governments.

"Lied to" might be over-stating it a bit, much of the time anyway. Actively and deliberately misled would seem to be closer to the truth - the difference, of course, being spin. It's as much in HOW things are said, and in the impression created thereby, as in what is ACTUALLY said.

On the question of the existance of WMD, for instance, the jury is, IMHO, still out. On the question of how much of a threat Iraq presented to our national interest, or that of the US, the case is, at the least, looking very strong that we were thoroughly, deliberately and pretty comprehensively conned. I still hold out hope that this might not be the case, but it's fading fast. As you know, Ben, I have a pretty low opinion of politicans - whatever their party or, for that matter, nationality. But if it turns out that Blair deliberately conned this country into war, and used his personal conviction and assurances to do it, then he did not ought to be able to get elected dog-catcher, let alone PM. I can't think of a greater sin for a PM than to take this country to war on that basis.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
2. There ARE more pressing humanitarian needs than Iraq. The Congo has seen somewhere between 3 and 4 MILLION people dead in recent years. I mean, so many people have died that the estimates differ by millions. If Iraq was not about WOMD and not about links to Al Qaeda, if it was carried out for humanitarian reasons, there are more pressing needs around the world.

Yup. No argument there. Rank hypocrisy rules, it seems.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
3. They said as much. "The" document by the Project of the New American Century entitled Rebuilding America's Defences lays out the case for war in Iraq. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with humanity. It has everything to do with "full spectrum dominance".

It does??

I confess to not having read the whole 90-page think-tank report cover to cover, but what I did read did not seem to me to make out the case for war in Iraq at all - or if it did, it was at a VERY general level. Could you point me at the bits you are referring to - since the document covers the entire military spectrum from funding and budgets, to space-based operations, to modifcations to the Marine Corps. And it seemed to me to be putting the bulk of the military emphasis, where it gets geographical at all, on South-West Asia.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
As a final note, I would have supported a UN lead action against Iraq. I dont support unilateral actions that are based on lies, fear and greed.

I wouldn't support military action based on lies, paranoia or fear, whether unilateral or not. So we agree there.

[DaBeeeenster]

http://www.pnac.info/

Is a good resource.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

This is quoted from a letter by the PNAC to the speaker of the house in the US:

We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

That is about as clear a quote as you can get, but there are many others.