The case against Iran is being established
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
No. No. No. No. Etc.
No on both counts. A great amount of bombs fell in Viet Nam. A great amount of bombs fell in Germany.
No.
It is not even remotely close to being even a fair comparison. They are so unalike that I feel retarded even thinking about arguing with you over it.
1. They will defeat Iran with their military.
2. You actually don't know how thinly stretched the military is. You can only imagine.
3. The U.S. did defeat Iraq in about a weeks time.
4. If Iran adopted Helbollah's strategy they will basically be handing the U.S. their country, and all of the resources contained therein.
I don't know how else to respond to you. You are drawing conclusions from what seems to be nothing, and you are failing to understand anything I am saying to you. Of course, you are probably thinking the same. Just know that the U.S. would defeat Iraq, Iran and your beloved Helbollah all at once should they/we be left with no option.
No on both counts. A great amount of bombs fell in Viet Nam. A great amount of bombs fell in Germany.
No.
It is not even remotely close to being even a fair comparison. They are so unalike that I feel retarded even thinking about arguing with you over it.
1. They will defeat Iran with their military.
2. You actually don't know how thinly stretched the military is. You can only imagine.
3. The U.S. did defeat Iraq in about a weeks time.
4. If Iran adopted Helbollah's strategy they will basically be handing the U.S. their country, and all of the resources contained therein.
I don't know how else to respond to you. You are drawing conclusions from what seems to be nothing, and you are failing to understand anything I am saying to you. Of course, you are probably thinking the same. Just know that the U.S. would defeat Iraq, Iran and your beloved Helbollah all at once should they/we be left with no option.
"Does Hezbollah not have a fully functioning militia/military? Does Hezbollah not for all intents and purposes control southern Lebanon? Does Hezbollah not have bases, ammunition dumps, command and control structures, communications facilities, etc? "
"Has Israel not for the last decade, at least, been considered to have one of the worlds most advanced and powerful militaries?"
Based off of the responses to these questions it seems fairly obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Convince me otherwise and then we can continue.
"Has Israel not for the last decade, at least, been considered to have one of the worlds most advanced and powerful militaries?"
Based off of the responses to these questions it seems fairly obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Convince me otherwise and then we can continue.
1. They have a functioning group, armed and capable of killing. I would not consider it/them a military in a traditional or historical sense. I would consider them at best a militia; one in which, without being supplied weapons, might be throwing stones. Perhaps you believe they are one in the same - I see that there are differences.
2. For the sake of arguement, let us assume Helbollah "controls" southern Lebanon, as you have implied, and yes they are well armed. By "control" are we to understand that they dictate policy and laws set forth in that region? Do they have the power to make declarations of war, so as to subject all of the citizens in that country to harm? Are they recognized by any country outside of Lebanon as an entity capable of dictating foreign policy? And most important, did the government of Lebanon approve of the conflict with Israel?
1. There were not a great number of bombs falling in Lebanon. Unless the number is up in the millions (as compared to history, Vietnam), then I stand corrected.
2. Do you honestly believe that Israel gave the country of Lebanon all it could with it's military might? Do you think that if war with Lebanon was "justified", and Israel carried out attacks on the entire country, that they would not level the south where Hezbollah resides?
Yes.
I completely disagree with this.
With missles, bombs, tanks, soldiers/guns, Iran would go up in flames. It has been historicly proven that under great duress, the U.S. military has absolutely no regard for human life. And if it (the U.S.) thought it couldn't win with what they had, they would force their military prowess through a draft, which has also been done.
The biggest difference between fighting a militia and a country is what each is held accountable for. A country (with it's governing body) is concerned with it's citizens and its infrastructure. A militia, as with this case, is concerned more so with it's enemy. Israel has taken this into consideration and this is evident when you observe the notes they dropped from the sky telling the people of Lebanon to stay away from Hezbollah militia. I have no doubt that if this were a beef with the country of Lebanon, that military tactics would change dramatically
I acknowledge that Hezbollah is a force in Lebanon which tends to undermine the government and it's citizens. I understand that Iran would be a much more difficult task as compared to Iraq. But I take what I have seen in the past and what I know our military is capable of and I simply state my opinion. I could be wrong in part or in whole, but I'm asking you respectfully, please think about some of the things I am telling you.
2. For the sake of arguement, let us assume Helbollah "controls" southern Lebanon, as you have implied, and yes they are well armed. By "control" are we to understand that they dictate policy and laws set forth in that region? Do they have the power to make declarations of war, so as to subject all of the citizens in that country to harm? Are they recognized by any country outside of Lebanon as an entity capable of dictating foreign policy? And most important, did the government of Lebanon approve of the conflict with Israel?
1. There were not a great number of bombs falling in Lebanon. Unless the number is up in the millions (as compared to history, Vietnam), then I stand corrected.
2. Do you honestly believe that Israel gave the country of Lebanon all it could with it's military might? Do you think that if war with Lebanon was "justified", and Israel carried out attacks on the entire country, that they would not level the south where Hezbollah resides?
Yes.
I completely disagree with this.
With missles, bombs, tanks, soldiers/guns, Iran would go up in flames. It has been historicly proven that under great duress, the U.S. military has absolutely no regard for human life. And if it (the U.S.) thought it couldn't win with what they had, they would force their military prowess through a draft, which has also been done.
The biggest difference between fighting a militia and a country is what each is held accountable for. A country (with it's governing body) is concerned with it's citizens and its infrastructure. A militia, as with this case, is concerned more so with it's enemy. Israel has taken this into consideration and this is evident when you observe the notes they dropped from the sky telling the people of Lebanon to stay away from Hezbollah militia. I have no doubt that if this were a beef with the country of Lebanon, that military tactics would change dramatically
I acknowledge that Hezbollah is a force in Lebanon which tends to undermine the government and it's citizens. I understand that Iran would be a much more difficult task as compared to Iraq. But I take what I have seen in the past and what I know our military is capable of and I simply state my opinion. I could be wrong in part or in whole, but I'm asking you respectfully, please think about some of the things I am telling you.
You can’t even get your opinions within your own posts straight. You go from saying Hezbollah is barely a militia just shy of being a rock throwing band of misfits to, within the same post, saying how well armed they are.
You go from Israel not being a powerful military force to conceding that they are just because two people besides me publicly questioned you.
“I would not consider it/them a military in a traditional or historical sense.”
Hezbollah has an armed force that supports and takes orders from a political structure which draws its support from the general populace. Beyond their militarized forces Hezbollah has an advanced and developed political structure inside and outside of the Lebanese government from a national level to the local neighborhood level. They have their own police forces. They have their own economic structure. They have territory and a significant base of support among the general population. They have their own military forces complete with officer structure. They have intelligence services. They have anti-aircraft, artillery, mechanized transport, and a “navy”. Etc, Etc, Etc.
The ceasefire provided the first evidence that Hezbollah had successfully withstood Israeli air attacks and was planning a sustained and prolonged defense of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah commanders honored the ceasefire at the orders of their political superiors. With one or two lone exceptions, no rockets were fired into Israel during this ceasefire period. While Hezbollah's capacity actually to "cease fire" was otherwise ignored by Israeli and Western intelligence experts, Hezbollah's ability to enforce discipline on its field commanders came as a distinctly unwanted shock to IDF senior commanders, who concluded that Hezbollah's communication's capabilities had survived Israel's air onslaught, that the Hezbollah leadership was in touch with its commanders on the ground, and that those commanders were able to maintain a robust communications network despite Israeli interdiction.
More simply, Hezbollah's ability to cease fire meant that Israel's goal of separating Hezbollah fighters from their command structure (considered a necessity by modern armies in waging a war on a sophisticated technological battlefield) had failed. The IDF's senior commanders could only come to one conclusion - its prewar information on Hezbollah military assets was, at best, woefully incomplete or, at worst, fatally wrong.
In your so obvious extensive knowledge of all things military what is your traditional or historical perception of a military or militia? And how does Hezbollah not fit either?
“I would consider them at best a militia; one in which, without being supplied weapons, might be throwing stones.”
If the U.S. military were not supplied with weapons what would they be fighting with?
IAF officers also argued that Hezbollah's ability to continue its rocket attacks on Israel meant that its militia was being continually re-supplied. Qana is a crossroads, the junction of five separate highways, and in the heart of Hezbollah territory. Interdicting the Qana supply chain provided the IAF the opportunity to prove that Hezbollah was only capable of sustaining its operations because of its supply-dependence on the crossroads town. In truth, however, IDF senior commanders knew that expanding the number of targets in Lebanon would probably do little to degrade Hezbollah capabilities because Hezbollah was maintaining its attacks without any hope of resupply and because of its dependence on weapons and rocket caches that had been hardened against Israeli interdiction.
“Perhaps you believe they are one in the same - I see that there are differences.”
I believe there are significant differences between a military and a militia. That has been much of what this argument is about. The smaller, lesser equipped, underdog(Hezbollah) defeated the technologically advanced, larger, standing military(Israel)! Comparison to be made – Iran weaker, lesser quipped, underdog Vs. US strong, technologically advanced, standing military. Seeing that each of these countries supply Hezbollah and Israel with their technology, weaponry, and even intelligence, how is it not made an even more valuable comparison?
“let us assume Hezbollah "controls" southern Lebanon, as you have implied”
And as Israel, the US, the EU, the UN, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc all state or as you’d say “imply”.
“By "control" are we to understand that they dictate policy and laws set forth in that region?”
Often. Additionally it means that when Syrian forces were withdrawn from the country that the official Lebanese government military had little to no significant presence in the south of Lebanon. Probably out numbered by UN forces and Hezbollah forces. It should also be noted that there is a significant power base within the Lebanese military that supports Hezbollah politically.
Do they have the power to make declarations of war, so as to subject all of the citizens in that country to harm?
Didn’t that happen? Does it need to be on a piece of paper stamped with a presidential seal and ratified by the UN for this to be reality? Or was there open combat between the forces of Hezbollah and Israel declaired by both sides that subjected all the citizenry of Lebanon (especially those in the southern portion of the country) to significant danger of losing their lives, their homes, their land, their roads, their bridges, their food supply, their economic infrastructure, etc. Was not the Israeli population in the northern settlements not in danger of nearly constant artillery strikes from Hezbollah? Did they not suffer casualties as well?
And most important, did the government of Lebanon approve of the conflict with Israel?
How is this relevant? The government of Lebanon was powerless to stop either Hezbollah or Israel. They didn’t have the forces or the popular support to stop either one and they didn’t even fully control all the territory of their own country. Besides it was a war between Hezbollah and Israel!
” There were not a great number of bombs falling in Lebanon.”
IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
“Unless the number is up in the millions (as compared to history, Vietnam), then I stand corrected.”
How many YEARS did the Vietnam war last? In comparison how many WEEKS did the Israel Hezbollah war last? How much larger is the country of Vietnam in comparison to Lebanon?
“Do you honestly believe that Israel gave the country of Lebanon all it could with its military might?”
They were at war with Hezbollah and the goal was not to destroy Lebanon. The point was to keep the friendly government of Lebanon as intact as possible while they attempted to destroy Hezbollah. They also faced significant international and domestic pressures as well as those within their own government and military while waging the war. Completely obliterating the country was not the objective. There was a strategic objective set as a goal. This goal was not met and didn’t even come close to being met.
It now is clear that the Israeli political establishment was shocked by the failure of its forces to accomplish its first military goals in the war - including the degradation of a significant number of Hezbollah arsenals and the destruction of Hezbollah's command capabilities.
“Do you think that if war with Lebanon was "justified", and Israel carried out attacks on the entire country, that they would not level the south where Hezbollah resides?”
Again not really relevant because total obliteration of Lebanon or even the southern half was not the objective of the war. They did do significant damage to Lebanon’s infrastructure all over the country and particularly the south. Could it have been greater, sure. But that wasn’t the point.
“With missles, bombs, tanks, soldiers/guns, Iran would go up in flames”
What types of arms did Israel use in their war with Lebanon? Where did they get them from?
” the U.S. military has absolutely no regard for human life.”
Israel’s does?
”And if it (the U.S.) thought it couldn't win with what they had, they would force their military prowess through a draft, which has also been done.”
Does Israel not have compulsory military service? Could they have not added significant numbers of additional troops and reserve units if they had to?
”The biggest difference between fighting a militia and a country is what each is held accountable for. A country (with it's governing body) is concerned with it's citizens and its infrastructure. A militia, as with this case, is concerned more so with it's enemy.”
Unfortunately this exposes your lack of understanding of Hezbollah and their position within Lebanese society.
” Israel has taken this into consideration and this is evident when you observe the notes they dropped from the sky telling the people of Lebanon to stay away from Hezbollah militia.”
Did it work? It was nearly impossible for the Lebanese people to remove themselves from Hezbollah because they are so entwined. Hezbollah would not be able to survive if it were not for their support from the Lebanese people. When the Lebanese people saw their government and military sitting idle not protecting them, but instead watched Hezbollah stand and fight to protect them from invaders do you not believe this endeared them further to Hezbollah and undermined what was left of their support for the government?
To the contrary:
The Israeli military's plans called for an early and sustained bombardment of Lebanon's major highways and ports in addition to its plans to destroy Hezbollah military and political assets. The Israeli government made no secret of its intent - to undercut Hezbollah's support in the Christian, Sunni and Druze communities. That idea, to punish Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and so turn the people against the militia, had been a part of Israel's plan since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
. . .
"target stretching" escalated throughout the conflict; frustrated by their inability to identify and destroy major Hezbollah military assets, the IAF began targeting schools, community centers and mosques
”I have no doubt that if this were a beef with the country of Lebanon, that military tactics would change dramatically”
DUH!
“I could be wrong in part or in whole, but I'm asking you respectfully, please think about some of the things I am telling you.”
You are. It’s ok though. Maybe we’ll get the chance to see who’s right soon enough.
* Note: italicized quotes are from the “How Hezbollah Defeated Israel” article I asked that you read.
You go from Israel not being a powerful military force to conceding that they are just because two people besides me publicly questioned you.
“I would not consider it/them a military in a traditional or historical sense.”
Hezbollah has an armed force that supports and takes orders from a political structure which draws its support from the general populace. Beyond their militarized forces Hezbollah has an advanced and developed political structure inside and outside of the Lebanese government from a national level to the local neighborhood level. They have their own police forces. They have their own economic structure. They have territory and a significant base of support among the general population. They have their own military forces complete with officer structure. They have intelligence services. They have anti-aircraft, artillery, mechanized transport, and a “navy”. Etc, Etc, Etc.
The ceasefire provided the first evidence that Hezbollah had successfully withstood Israeli air attacks and was planning a sustained and prolonged defense of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah commanders honored the ceasefire at the orders of their political superiors. With one or two lone exceptions, no rockets were fired into Israel during this ceasefire period. While Hezbollah's capacity actually to "cease fire" was otherwise ignored by Israeli and Western intelligence experts, Hezbollah's ability to enforce discipline on its field commanders came as a distinctly unwanted shock to IDF senior commanders, who concluded that Hezbollah's communication's capabilities had survived Israel's air onslaught, that the Hezbollah leadership was in touch with its commanders on the ground, and that those commanders were able to maintain a robust communications network despite Israeli interdiction.
More simply, Hezbollah's ability to cease fire meant that Israel's goal of separating Hezbollah fighters from their command structure (considered a necessity by modern armies in waging a war on a sophisticated technological battlefield) had failed. The IDF's senior commanders could only come to one conclusion - its prewar information on Hezbollah military assets was, at best, woefully incomplete or, at worst, fatally wrong.
In your so obvious extensive knowledge of all things military what is your traditional or historical perception of a military or militia? And how does Hezbollah not fit either?
“I would consider them at best a militia; one in which, without being supplied weapons, might be throwing stones.”
If the U.S. military were not supplied with weapons what would they be fighting with?
IAF officers also argued that Hezbollah's ability to continue its rocket attacks on Israel meant that its militia was being continually re-supplied. Qana is a crossroads, the junction of five separate highways, and in the heart of Hezbollah territory. Interdicting the Qana supply chain provided the IAF the opportunity to prove that Hezbollah was only capable of sustaining its operations because of its supply-dependence on the crossroads town. In truth, however, IDF senior commanders knew that expanding the number of targets in Lebanon would probably do little to degrade Hezbollah capabilities because Hezbollah was maintaining its attacks without any hope of resupply and because of its dependence on weapons and rocket caches that had been hardened against Israeli interdiction.
“Perhaps you believe they are one in the same - I see that there are differences.”
I believe there are significant differences between a military and a militia. That has been much of what this argument is about. The smaller, lesser equipped, underdog(Hezbollah) defeated the technologically advanced, larger, standing military(Israel)! Comparison to be made – Iran weaker, lesser quipped, underdog Vs. US strong, technologically advanced, standing military. Seeing that each of these countries supply Hezbollah and Israel with their technology, weaponry, and even intelligence, how is it not made an even more valuable comparison?
“let us assume Hezbollah "controls" southern Lebanon, as you have implied”
And as Israel, the US, the EU, the UN, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc all state or as you’d say “imply”.
“By "control" are we to understand that they dictate policy and laws set forth in that region?”
Often. Additionally it means that when Syrian forces were withdrawn from the country that the official Lebanese government military had little to no significant presence in the south of Lebanon. Probably out numbered by UN forces and Hezbollah forces. It should also be noted that there is a significant power base within the Lebanese military that supports Hezbollah politically.
Do they have the power to make declarations of war, so as to subject all of the citizens in that country to harm?
Didn’t that happen? Does it need to be on a piece of paper stamped with a presidential seal and ratified by the UN for this to be reality? Or was there open combat between the forces of Hezbollah and Israel declaired by both sides that subjected all the citizenry of Lebanon (especially those in the southern portion of the country) to significant danger of losing their lives, their homes, their land, their roads, their bridges, their food supply, their economic infrastructure, etc. Was not the Israeli population in the northern settlements not in danger of nearly constant artillery strikes from Hezbollah? Did they not suffer casualties as well?
And most important, did the government of Lebanon approve of the conflict with Israel?
How is this relevant? The government of Lebanon was powerless to stop either Hezbollah or Israel. They didn’t have the forces or the popular support to stop either one and they didn’t even fully control all the territory of their own country. Besides it was a war between Hezbollah and Israel!
” There were not a great number of bombs falling in Lebanon.”
IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
“Unless the number is up in the millions (as compared to history, Vietnam), then I stand corrected.”
How many YEARS did the Vietnam war last? In comparison how many WEEKS did the Israel Hezbollah war last? How much larger is the country of Vietnam in comparison to Lebanon?
“Do you honestly believe that Israel gave the country of Lebanon all it could with its military might?”
They were at war with Hezbollah and the goal was not to destroy Lebanon. The point was to keep the friendly government of Lebanon as intact as possible while they attempted to destroy Hezbollah. They also faced significant international and domestic pressures as well as those within their own government and military while waging the war. Completely obliterating the country was not the objective. There was a strategic objective set as a goal. This goal was not met and didn’t even come close to being met.
It now is clear that the Israeli political establishment was shocked by the failure of its forces to accomplish its first military goals in the war - including the degradation of a significant number of Hezbollah arsenals and the destruction of Hezbollah's command capabilities.
“Do you think that if war with Lebanon was "justified", and Israel carried out attacks on the entire country, that they would not level the south where Hezbollah resides?”
Again not really relevant because total obliteration of Lebanon or even the southern half was not the objective of the war. They did do significant damage to Lebanon’s infrastructure all over the country and particularly the south. Could it have been greater, sure. But that wasn’t the point.
“With missles, bombs, tanks, soldiers/guns, Iran would go up in flames”
What types of arms did Israel use in their war with Lebanon? Where did they get them from?
” the U.S. military has absolutely no regard for human life.”
Israel’s does?
”And if it (the U.S.) thought it couldn't win with what they had, they would force their military prowess through a draft, which has also been done.”
Does Israel not have compulsory military service? Could they have not added significant numbers of additional troops and reserve units if they had to?
”The biggest difference between fighting a militia and a country is what each is held accountable for. A country (with it's governing body) is concerned with it's citizens and its infrastructure. A militia, as with this case, is concerned more so with it's enemy.”
Unfortunately this exposes your lack of understanding of Hezbollah and their position within Lebanese society.
” Israel has taken this into consideration and this is evident when you observe the notes they dropped from the sky telling the people of Lebanon to stay away from Hezbollah militia.”
Did it work? It was nearly impossible for the Lebanese people to remove themselves from Hezbollah because they are so entwined. Hezbollah would not be able to survive if it were not for their support from the Lebanese people. When the Lebanese people saw their government and military sitting idle not protecting them, but instead watched Hezbollah stand and fight to protect them from invaders do you not believe this endeared them further to Hezbollah and undermined what was left of their support for the government?
To the contrary:
The Israeli military's plans called for an early and sustained bombardment of Lebanon's major highways and ports in addition to its plans to destroy Hezbollah military and political assets. The Israeli government made no secret of its intent - to undercut Hezbollah's support in the Christian, Sunni and Druze communities. That idea, to punish Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and so turn the people against the militia, had been a part of Israel's plan since the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
. . .
"target stretching" escalated throughout the conflict; frustrated by their inability to identify and destroy major Hezbollah military assets, the IAF began targeting schools, community centers and mosques
”I have no doubt that if this were a beef with the country of Lebanon, that military tactics would change dramatically”
DUH!
“I could be wrong in part or in whole, but I'm asking you respectfully, please think about some of the things I am telling you.”
You are. It’s ok though. Maybe we’ll get the chance to see who’s right soon enough.
* Note: italicized quotes are from the “How Hezbollah Defeated Israel” article I asked that you read.
You must read carefully and think about what I am saying. They are well armed because Iran is supplying them with weapons. In a later part of my post which should have been included with this (as it answered this already) I clearly stated: "...without being supplied weapons, might be throwing stones"; and as you have already acknowledged, Iran is supplying them with weapons. So why am I explaining myself?
Clearly that post was not provoked by thought. Half of the questions I answered "no" to I didn't even think as to wether they were right or wrong.
Okay.
Militia are simply armed citizens colaborating. Now, your probably going to tell me, well isn't that a military?", at which point I ask, are armed crips/bloods colaborating military? I think not.
They supply/manufacture their own weaponry. If this were the case with Hezbollah, I must enquire as to why they need foreing weapons supplied.
I get what you're trying to say. The first thing I would ask myself, if I were you, is why Israel backed out. Was it because they believed it was not possible to "win" or because it was not worth the cost to "win". I think the answer to that question is invaluable to this conversation. And it was not Israel's objective to overtake the country, as will be the case with the U.S.
...
Okay.
Okay. I do not agree with this, but I am convinced there can be no comprimise on this point.
The IDF commander also stated that it destroyed half of Hezbollah with their air strikes, which was thoroughly refuted.
Does not change any of the numbers.
I agree 1000000%.
This and the above are the reasons why I say to you, it will be a different approach with Iran, being in conflict with the country as a whole, as opposed to fighting a malitia within a country while attempting to keep that government in tact. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Clearly this is not the case.
You're opinion. I could tell you that you have an assbackward perception on foreign relations, but it accomplishes nothing as I hope you soon realize.
Clearly that post was not provoked by thought. Half of the questions I answered "no" to I didn't even think as to wether they were right or wrong.
Okay.
Militia are simply armed citizens colaborating. Now, your probably going to tell me, well isn't that a military?", at which point I ask, are armed crips/bloods colaborating military? I think not.
They supply/manufacture their own weaponry. If this were the case with Hezbollah, I must enquire as to why they need foreing weapons supplied.
I get what you're trying to say. The first thing I would ask myself, if I were you, is why Israel backed out. Was it because they believed it was not possible to "win" or because it was not worth the cost to "win". I think the answer to that question is invaluable to this conversation. And it was not Israel's objective to overtake the country, as will be the case with the U.S.
...
Okay.
Okay. I do not agree with this, but I am convinced there can be no comprimise on this point.
The IDF commander also stated that it destroyed half of Hezbollah with their air strikes, which was thoroughly refuted.
Does not change any of the numbers.
I agree 1000000%.
This and the above are the reasons why I say to you, it will be a different approach with Iran, being in conflict with the country as a whole, as opposed to fighting a malitia within a country while attempting to keep that government in tact. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Clearly this is not the case.
You're opinion. I could tell you that you have an assbackward perception on foreign relations, but it accomplishes nothing as I hope you soon realize.