It shows the true intentions of the "anti-war" movement. It's anti-US. Funded by overt anti-american communist groups that are still upset that the US won the cold war.
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is very true.
During the Cold War these groups were controlled and funded by the Soviets. Today, if one were to follow the money trail, I would venture a ?guess? that the same people subsidizing Midrassas are also subsidizing these anti-US movements. That is why it is very important to change the logic of the relationship with the Saudis.
As an aside:
The Iraqi people are so tired of Saddam that they are now indicating they would be willing to even sacrifice themselves as human shields in a mass bombardment of Baghdad, just so that the US removes Saddam regime. This is very encouraging, and leads me to believe that Iraq will the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.
How unfair of you groverat. If anyone else were to quote an opinion like that you'd stuff it right back in their face.</strong><hr></blockquote>
how is it unfair exactly? iraq continues to play their little games of hide and seek while offering up only half-asssed compliance to UN inspector demands for co-operation. do you honestly believe they would offer up even this much if it were not for the US military threat? i doubt it.
<strong>How unfair of you groverat. If anyone else were to quote an opinion like that you'd stuff it right back in their face.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I suppose I should've qualified that a bit more.
"Anyone who is not suffering from mental disorders will not be surprised to learn that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating."
Better?
--
gelding:
[quote]mass bombing....about a thousand cruise missles fired from battleships and the same number of "smart" bombs dropped by plane<hr></blockquote>
How do you know this is going to happen?
[quote]cilivian city....austin, texas would fit....or washington dc....or baghdad....g<hr></blockquote>
Even with military installations cities themselves are "civilian"?
Did you know that we can blow up individual buildings and we don't just nuke entire cities? It's something to do with lasers or something. The Allen Parsons Project.
While hoping the thread stays useful, heh, I can't help but respond.
I call him a "Twat," a "muppet" and a "sick fcuk." And yet I know Scott has me in the "pro-Saddam movement." Yep, me and Osama Bin Laden, pro-Saddam ... after all, OBL called him an "infidel" and a -- gasp -- "socialist" so OBL and me. Pro-Saddam all the way.
Twat.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I'm sorry were you speaking for the entire movement? I didn't see you on the speakers list for every "anti-war" march accross the world.
our government has told us...when we attack iraq it will be one to two weeks of bombing followed by a building to building search for hostiles...we are training our troops in kuwait on building to building attack right now....
as for smart bombs...it is a field that is still growing and relies on good intelligence...
my brother-in-law is ex-military...he was in panama and in desert storm...he has some great stories...he was part of the group troops that were 8 hours from attacking baghdad last time...he was about the oldest of his troops so he was the least hyped up for the attack, but he was ready to go...when it was called off at the last minute he tells me that many were down right pissed...they have to get quite worked up before attack time, and they were quite let down...
as for smart bombs...maybe this was early on, but in panama they had defectors who surrended to our troops in a barrack....one of our smart bombs was suppose to hit someplace else, but destroyed that barracks instead...my brother-in-law tells me that the brass was pretty cheesed about that...but maybe it wasn't really an accident...i don't know....i do know that our smart bombs "usually" go where we tell them...not always, but even so, what if we tell it wrong....like that wedding party in afganistan that we wiped out...we are bound to hit a hospital or orphanage or wedding party....history has shown that we always do.....g
<strong>Did you know that we can blow up individual buildings and we don't just nuke entire cities? It's something to do with lasers or something. The Allen Parsons Project.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Grove, we've crossed swords quite a bit, and I disagree with you on quite a lot. But you're very funny. Ahem.
ps...my brother-in-law and i had a long talk this weekend when his family flew out for a ski weekend...he has given me some hope in that (even though he doesn't think we should be there...but that is another long discussion), he does think that the iraq people will roll over....if we attack i really hope this is true...i think like my heritage (irish and american)...even though i concider myself a pacifist, if someone attacked my country or home or family, i would fight to the death...not a second thought...my Brother-in-law doesn't think the iraqii people will behave this way...i truely hope so....g
<strong>"Anyone who is not suffering from mental disorders will not be surprised to learn that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Doh!
It's just we can't use that as the basis for an argument until the official word from the inspectors says so. We can surmise that, and assume it, but until it's written in stone it's not a valid basis for an argument, or at least not a valid justification for war. We gotta wait until Blix hands a document to Kofhi that says so.
Until then, it's just us surmising and assuming.
There is a structure in place and it's not lightning fast, but it'll work. I have no problem with the US moving troops in the region as preparation, it is a good source of pressure. Threatening to use them is another story (goes against the UN Charter.) But having them there "just in case" is the best way to keep the inspections going.
Making the leap in logic by saying the protests are empowering Saddam is quite a jump from you. I think you're doing it simply because it supports your case even though it lacks the usual correlations you require from other people's arguments.
Long before these recent protests, there was strong opposition in the UN itself. I'm sure that's done far more for Saddam's confidence than even the millions in the streets. He's smart enough to know that Bush isn't going to pay attention to them anyway. These protests have most likely done nothing to his attitude.
Better the devil you know, I suppose, and we can't have Iraq electing Mooslims now can we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Ba'ath party's main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. They run contrary to most Islamic ideologies. Syria is the other state that have a huge following of the Ba'aths. Saddam once mentioned his desire to have a huge Arab country spanning from Morroco to Pakistan under Ba'ath control. By any means necessary. But your sarcasm is duly noted.
Of course Saddam is going to use antiwar protests for his advantage. Like, DOH!
Of course Bush is going to manipulate anti-war protests to equate them to a "pro-Saddam" stance. Like, DOH!\t
As for protesters in general, they make a difference, but sometimes it takes time. It was protesters who started the impetus towards America's independence from Britain. People peacefully en masse helped bring about the end of that dumb-ass Vietnam war, destroyed the Marcos' Philippines dictatorship, and dumped communism in the late 1980s. How about Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Rosa Parks? Wilberforce? I know many of you folks in here probably violently disagree with the social changes brought about byt the latter individuals because of the 'social justice' implications, but that doesn't make them insignificant.
Bush has personally said that he "abhors protesters" and he went to great lengths to alter the route of his presidential campaign trail in 2000 to avoid the many demonstrations that awaited him.
Regarding Saddam Hussein being supported by the antiwar protest movement: That is beyond absurd. The notion that some 17 million+ predomominantly liberal marchers in 700+ cities around the world supporting a hardline RIGHTWING brute like Hussein is laughable, if it wasn't so dumb. Hussein a liberal!!! 'scuse me while I choke on my coffee. Hussein and company have far more in common with our own bete noir George Bush and his ideology.
Don't forget...America (under Reagan and Bush Sr) was Saddam's ally in the Iran-Iraq war during the Reagan regime. Even with the help of the US and Western Europe, Iraq ended up on the worst side of that conflict, and that was when he had a military with many times the punch of what it is today. Wow...what a threat he is now.
Don't forget that the US is proposing a "head transplant" and with the Ba'ath remaining in power.
Therefore there will not be democracy in post Sadildo Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let?s say for the sake of argument this is true - that the US only cares for a "head transplant" and placing their own man in Baghdad. It will be much easier for the Iraqi people to revolt against this reality (if it actually materialized) and change it, once Saddam is removed. The Iraqi people want a democracy, believe it or not. Removing Saddam is a step forwards to that end, any which way you look at it, and the Iraqi people understand this.
<strong>our government has told us...when we attack iraq it will be one to two weeks of bombing followed by a building to building search for hostiles...we are training our troops in kuwait on building to building attack right now....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did they say "mass bombing of civilian cities"?
[quote]<strong>as for smart bombs...it is a field that is still growing and relies on good intelligence...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's grown a lot in the last 12 years.
[quote]<strong>as for smart bombs...maybe this was early on, but in panama they had defectors who surrended to our troops in a barrack....one of our smart bombs was suppose to hit someplace else, but destroyed that barracks instead...my brother-in-law tells me that the brass was pretty cheesed about that...but maybe it wasn't really an accident...i don't know....i do know that our smart bombs "usually" go where we tell them...not always, but even so, what if we tell it wrong....like that wedding party in afganistan that we wiped out...we are bound to hit a hospital or orphanage or wedding party....history has shown that we always do.....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course there are going to be mistakes made. Civilians die in all wars and civilians will die in this one. Civilians are dying right now in Iraq.
That's acceptable to me, I know that civilians die in war. Unfortunate but that's how it goes.
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>It's just we can't use that as the basis for an argument until the official word from the inspectors says so. We can surmise that, and assume it, but until it's written in stone it's not a valid basis for an argument, or at least not a valid justification for war. We gotta wait until Blix hands a document to Kofhi that says so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You wait for that and I'll just know it based on the past 12 years of interaction with Iraq and these early reports.
Why aren't previous Blix findings convincing to you? Why is this one THE ONE?
[quote]<strong>There is a structure in place and it's not lightning fast, but it'll work. I have no problem with the US moving troops in the region as preparation, it is a good source of pressure. Threatening to use them is another story (goes against the UN Charter.) But having them there "just in case" is the best way to keep the inspections going.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you on everything, except that it won't work. Saddam KNOWS he can use his citizens as a shield and that lots of people will buckle.
[quote]<strong>Making the leap in logic by saying the protests are empowering Saddam is quite a jump from you. I think you're doing it simply because it supports your case even though it lacks the usual correlations you require from other people's arguments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the article states it and so do Iraqi officials, this isn't something I have been saying or that I just posted about. Iraqi officials say that the protests empowered them, their words not mine originally.
Again, I don't think protestors were looking to say "Go Saddam! YEAH!" But that's how Saddam has taken it.
[quote]<strong>Long before these recent protests, there was strong opposition in the UN itself. I'm sure that's done far more for Saddam's confidence than even the millions in the streets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well yeah, of course, that's what's been fueling his lies and deceitful tactics for the last 12 years, the weak-kneed diplomacy of the U.N.
[quote]<strong>He's smart enough to know that Bush isn't going to pay attention to them anyway. These protests have most likely done nothing to his attitude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing support for your opposition falter is heartening, no doubt. Every quiver the world community shows he will use to his advantage. History teaches us this. Those who choose to ignore history choose to ignore it.
most protestester could give a flying god damn about Saddam. Most protestors know this ain't about hussein, regime change or building falling in flames.
Saddam is an idiot if he thinks that protestors are defending him. His mouth pieces are inefected spokesmen and don't know shyt about propaganda or use of the media.
most of us know this is about "securing" certain natural resources. Just as Condoleeza got caught agreeing with a coup in venzuela (A huge exporter of certain natural resources). How can you defend Democracy and praise a military coup at the same time? Easy, when you really don't care about Democracy.
Any whoo.. once in Iraq, And only a damn fool thinks that it wont happen AND an even bigger fool thinks that US troops are endangered more by iraqui republican guards than depleted uranium. Bombs will be dropped from 30,000 feet where the only risk is the same fate as the SS challenger. Anyways.. once in Iraq; the miltary dyks will be pointed at Iran, Syria ( who's helping now..but....as history shows...sometimes your friend..sometimes not...) and korea. Nice permanent wedge dead in the center of the Euro-Africa quadrtant. Don't sleep. You may miss the truth
Comments
<strong>
.
.
It shows the true intentions of the "anti-war" movement. It's anti-US. Funded by overt anti-american communist groups that are still upset that the US won the cold war.
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is very true.
During the Cold War these groups were controlled and funded by the Soviets. Today, if one were to follow the money trail, I would venture a ?guess? that the same people subsidizing Midrassas are also subsidizing these anti-US movements. That is why it is very important to change the logic of the relationship with the Saudis.
As an aside:
The Iraqi people are so tired of Saddam that they are now indicating they would be willing to even sacrifice themselves as human shields in a mass bombardment of Baghdad, just so that the US removes Saddam regime. This is very encouraging, and leads me to believe that Iraq will the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.
<strong>
Very interesting.
I don't know if anyone is genuinely surprised that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating with inspectors or the U.N. in general.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How unfair of you groverat. If anyone else were to quote an opinion like that you'd stuff it right back in their face.
Come on, gelding, you know these emotional arguments don't fly with me!
<hr></blockquote>
a boy can try...
mass bombing....about a thousand cruise missles fired from battleships and the same number of "smart" bombs dropped by plane
cilivian city....austin, texas would fit....or washington dc....or baghdad....g
<strong>
How unfair of you groverat. If anyone else were to quote an opinion like that you'd stuff it right back in their face.</strong><hr></blockquote>
how is it unfair exactly? iraq continues to play their little games of hide and seek while offering up only half-asssed compliance to UN inspector demands for co-operation. do you honestly believe they would offer up even this much if it were not for the US military threat? i doubt it.
<strong>How unfair of you groverat. If anyone else were to quote an opinion like that you'd stuff it right back in their face.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I suppose I should've qualified that a bit more.
"Anyone who is not suffering from mental disorders will not be surprised to learn that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating."
Better?
--
gelding:
[quote]mass bombing....about a thousand cruise missles fired from battleships and the same number of "smart" bombs dropped by plane<hr></blockquote>
How do you know this is going to happen?
[quote]cilivian city....austin, texas would fit....or washington dc....or baghdad....g<hr></blockquote>
Even with military installations cities themselves are "civilian"?
Did you know that we can blow up individual buildings and we don't just nuke entire cities? It's something to do with lasers or something. The Allen Parsons Project.
<strong>
While hoping the thread stays useful, heh, I can't help but respond.
I call him a "Twat," a "muppet" and a "sick fcuk." And yet I know Scott has me in the "pro-Saddam movement." Yep, me and Osama Bin Laden, pro-Saddam ... after all, OBL called him an "infidel" and a -- gasp -- "socialist" so OBL and me. Pro-Saddam all the way.
Twat.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I'm sorry were you speaking for the entire movement? I didn't see you on the speakers list for every "anti-war" march accross the world.
<strong>
This is very encouraging, and leads me to believe that Iraq will the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mika,
Don't forget that the US is proposing a "head transplant" and with the Ba'ath remaining in power.
Therefore there will not be democracy in post Sadildo Iraq.
as for smart bombs...it is a field that is still growing and relies on good intelligence...
my brother-in-law is ex-military...he was in panama and in desert storm...he has some great stories...he was part of the group troops that were 8 hours from attacking baghdad last time...he was about the oldest of his troops so he was the least hyped up for the attack, but he was ready to go...when it was called off at the last minute he tells me that many were down right pissed...they have to get quite worked up before attack time, and they were quite let down...
as for smart bombs...maybe this was early on, but in panama they had defectors who surrended to our troops in a barrack....one of our smart bombs was suppose to hit someplace else, but destroyed that barracks instead...my brother-in-law tells me that the brass was pretty cheesed about that...but maybe it wasn't really an accident...i don't know....i do know that our smart bombs "usually" go where we tell them...not always, but even so, what if we tell it wrong....like that wedding party in afganistan that we wiped out...we are bound to hit a hospital or orphanage or wedding party....history has shown that we always do.....g
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
Mika,
Don't forget that the US is proposing a "head transplant" and with the Ba'ath remaining in power.
Therefore there will not be democracy in post Sadildo Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The "head" should be the Ba'ath party itself. From what I have read, it's a dangerous movement.
<strong>Did you know that we can blow up individual buildings and we don't just nuke entire cities? It's something to do with lasers or something. The Allen Parsons Project.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Grove, we've crossed swords quite a bit, and I disagree with you on quite a lot. But you're very funny. Ahem.
<strong>
The "head" should be the Ba'ath party itself. From what I have read, it's a dangerous movement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Better the devil you know, I suppose, and we can't have Iraq electing Mooslims now can we?
<strong>"Anyone who is not suffering from mental disorders will not be surprised to learn that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Doh!
It's just we can't use that as the basis for an argument until the official word from the inspectors says so. We can surmise that, and assume it, but until it's written in stone it's not a valid basis for an argument, or at least not a valid justification for war. We gotta wait until Blix hands a document to Kofhi that says so.
Until then, it's just us surmising and assuming.
There is a structure in place and it's not lightning fast, but it'll work. I have no problem with the US moving troops in the region as preparation, it is a good source of pressure. Threatening to use them is another story (goes against the UN Charter.) But having them there "just in case" is the best way to keep the inspections going.
Making the leap in logic by saying the protests are empowering Saddam is quite a jump from you. I think you're doing it simply because it supports your case even though it lacks the usual correlations you require from other people's arguments.
Long before these recent protests, there was strong opposition in the UN itself. I'm sure that's done far more for Saddam's confidence than even the millions in the streets. He's smart enough to know that Bush isn't going to pay attention to them anyway. These protests have most likely done nothing to his attitude.
<strong>
Better the devil you know, I suppose, and we can't have Iraq electing Mooslims now can we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Ba'ath party's main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. They run contrary to most Islamic ideologies. Syria is the other state that have a huge following of the Ba'aths. Saddam once mentioned his desire to have a huge Arab country spanning from Morroco to Pakistan under Ba'ath control. By any means necessary. But your sarcasm is duly noted.
Of course Bush is going to manipulate anti-war protests to equate them to a "pro-Saddam" stance. Like, DOH!\t
As for protesters in general, they make a difference, but sometimes it takes time. It was protesters who started the impetus towards America's independence from Britain. People peacefully en masse helped bring about the end of that dumb-ass Vietnam war, destroyed the Marcos' Philippines dictatorship, and dumped communism in the late 1980s. How about Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Rosa Parks? Wilberforce? I know many of you folks in here probably violently disagree with the social changes brought about byt the latter individuals because of the 'social justice' implications, but that doesn't make them insignificant.
Bush has personally said that he "abhors protesters" and he went to great lengths to alter the route of his presidential campaign trail in 2000 to avoid the many demonstrations that awaited him.
Regarding Saddam Hussein being supported by the antiwar protest movement: That is beyond absurd. The notion that some 17 million+ predomominantly liberal marchers in 700+ cities around the world supporting a hardline RIGHTWING brute like Hussein is laughable, if it wasn't so dumb. Hussein a liberal!!! 'scuse me while I choke on my coffee. Hussein and company have far more in common with our own bete noir George Bush and his ideology.
Don't forget...America (under Reagan and Bush Sr) was Saddam's ally in the Iran-Iraq war during the Reagan regime. Even with the help of the US and Western Europe, Iraq ended up on the worst side of that conflict, and that was when he had a military with many times the punch of what it is today. Wow...what a threat he is now.
Saddam a liberal!!...
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
VIVE LA FRANCE!!!!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
Mika,
Don't forget that the US is proposing a "head transplant" and with the Ba'ath remaining in power.
Therefore there will not be democracy in post Sadildo Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let?s say for the sake of argument this is true - that the US only cares for a "head transplant" and placing their own man in Baghdad. It will be much easier for the Iraqi people to revolt against this reality (if it actually materialized) and change it, once Saddam is removed. The Iraqi people want a democracy, believe it or not. Removing Saddam is a step forwards to that end, any which way you look at it, and the Iraqi people understand this.
<strong>our government has told us...when we attack iraq it will be one to two weeks of bombing followed by a building to building search for hostiles...we are training our troops in kuwait on building to building attack right now....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did they say "mass bombing of civilian cities"?
[quote]<strong>as for smart bombs...it is a field that is still growing and relies on good intelligence...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's grown a lot in the last 12 years.
[quote]<strong>as for smart bombs...maybe this was early on, but in panama they had defectors who surrended to our troops in a barrack....one of our smart bombs was suppose to hit someplace else, but destroyed that barracks instead...my brother-in-law tells me that the brass was pretty cheesed about that...but maybe it wasn't really an accident...i don't know....i do know that our smart bombs "usually" go where we tell them...not always, but even so, what if we tell it wrong....like that wedding party in afganistan that we wiped out...we are bound to hit a hospital or orphanage or wedding party....history has shown that we always do.....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course there are going to be mistakes made. Civilians die in all wars and civilians will die in this one. Civilians are dying right now in Iraq.
That's acceptable to me, I know that civilians die in war. Unfortunate but that's how it goes.
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>It's just we can't use that as the basis for an argument until the official word from the inspectors says so. We can surmise that, and assume it, but until it's written in stone it's not a valid basis for an argument, or at least not a valid justification for war. We gotta wait until Blix hands a document to Kofhi that says so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You wait for that and I'll just know it based on the past 12 years of interaction with Iraq and these early reports.
Why aren't previous Blix findings convincing to you? Why is this one THE ONE?
[quote]<strong>There is a structure in place and it's not lightning fast, but it'll work. I have no problem with the US moving troops in the region as preparation, it is a good source of pressure. Threatening to use them is another story (goes against the UN Charter.) But having them there "just in case" is the best way to keep the inspections going.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you on everything, except that it won't work. Saddam KNOWS he can use his citizens as a shield and that lots of people will buckle.
[quote]<strong>Making the leap in logic by saying the protests are empowering Saddam is quite a jump from you. I think you're doing it simply because it supports your case even though it lacks the usual correlations you require from other people's arguments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the article states it and so do Iraqi officials, this isn't something I have been saying or that I just posted about. Iraqi officials say that the protests empowered them, their words not mine originally.
Again, I don't think protestors were looking to say "Go Saddam! YEAH!" But that's how Saddam has taken it.
[quote]<strong>Long before these recent protests, there was strong opposition in the UN itself. I'm sure that's done far more for Saddam's confidence than even the millions in the streets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well yeah, of course, that's what's been fueling his lies and deceitful tactics for the last 12 years, the weak-kneed diplomacy of the U.N.
[quote]<strong>He's smart enough to know that Bush isn't going to pay attention to them anyway. These protests have most likely done nothing to his attitude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seeing support for your opposition falter is heartening, no doubt. Every quiver the world community shows he will use to his advantage. History teaches us this. Those who choose to ignore history choose to ignore it.
Saddam is an idiot if he thinks that protestors are defending him. His mouth pieces are inefected spokesmen and don't know shyt about propaganda or use of the media.
most of us know this is about "securing" certain natural resources. Just as Condoleeza got caught agreeing with a coup in venzuela (A huge exporter of certain natural resources). How can you defend Democracy and praise a military coup at the same time? Easy, when you really don't care about Democracy.
Any whoo.. once in Iraq, And only a damn fool thinks that it wont happen AND an even bigger fool thinks that US troops are endangered more by iraqui republican guards than depleted uranium. Bombs will be dropped from 30,000 feet where the only risk is the same fate as the SS challenger. Anyways.. once in Iraq; the miltary dyks will be pointed at Iran, Syria ( who's helping now..but....as history shows...sometimes your friend..sometimes not...) and korea. Nice permanent wedge dead in the center of the Euro-Africa quadrtant. Don't sleep. You may miss the truth
but how many civilians die in wars we start?? g
More fuel for the fire.