Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

[Dragonlady]

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

I'm sure that's a comfort to their families but they're still DEAD, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who killed them they are still DEAD. The are no less DEAD because they were killed as "collateral damage" in an American raid or if they were killed by Assad. It is no less horrible for their friends and loved ones.

No one has ever said "I am so glad Ahmed was killed by the Americans and not by the Russians".

Americans are now killing more civilians in Syria than ISIS, Assad or the Russians. How is this a good thing?

That is so much bullshit. Speak out against Assad or Putin publicly and you wind up in jail. Political opponents are killed. Yet you give these thugs the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you get out. If this was Syria or Russia you would be jailed at best for your post. At worst you would be lined up against a wall and shot.

Oh stifle yourself. I'm not giving Assad or Putin anything. Everyone over there is horrible, and there are degrees of horrible, but at this point in time, more civilians are being killed by American forces than by any other forces in the region.

There is no way that this will ever be acceptable. When you're killing more civilians, than the bad guys that makes you one of the bad guys. It does not make you the good guys. Not under any definition.

 

[Markle]

Wow!

My far left Progressive good friends are in a royal panic. Things are already turning around in the country now with the Free World giving a standing ovation to President Donald Trump for his actions in Syria and now Afghanistan.

After an EIGHT YEAR GAP of leadership, the United States is no longer leading from behind and has the bad guys, whirling in circles wondering WHAT JUST HAPPENED? For EIGHT YEARS the world suffered from the President of the United States proudly LEADING FROM BEHIND. Progressives, man up. You might as well get accustomed to WINNING. I fully understand that this runs against your very fibers of your soul, but it's happening!

 

[JBond]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

I'm sure that's a comfort to their families but they're still DEAD, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who killed them they are still DEAD. The are no less DEAD because they were killed as "collateral damage" in an American raid or if they were killed by Assad. It is no less horrible for their friends and loved ones.

No one has ever said "I am so glad Ahmed was killed by the Americans and not by the Russians".

Americans are now killing more civilians in Syria than ISIS, Assad or the Russians. How is this a good thing?

That is so much bullshit. Speak out against Assad or Putin publicly and you wind up in jail. Political opponents are killed. Yet you give these thugs the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you get out. If this was Syria or Russia you would be jailed at best for your post. At worst you would be lined up against a wall and shot.

I don't live in Russia or Syria. I can speak out against anyone I choose.

At this point, I would leave the Middle East to themselves and let them all kill one another.

 

[ChrisL]

When they report numbers on the deaths of Iraqis, they even admit that they really cannot determine the difference between "innocent" civilians and those who are in cahoots with the terrorists and those who actually are terrorists because terrorists are "civilians."

 

[Valerie]

Collateral or incidental damage occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. It often occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in cities or villages or close to civilians. Attacks that are expected to cause collateral damage are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict, “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects.” In addition, under Article 51, carpet bombing is prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally, attacks are prohibited if the collateral damage expected from any attack is not proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Military commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching an attack, suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or replan an attack so that it complies with the laws of armed conflict.

Crimes of War – Collateral Damage

 

[mudwhistle]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

I figure if you insist on waging war on your neighbors you risk getting caught up in a war yourself.

 

[Valerie]

Geneva Conventions | 1864-1977

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Geneva Protocol)

Geneva Protocol

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's about intent.

When America bombs a location harm to civilians is accidental, unintented and regrettable. When tyrants gas their own citizens or terrorists blow themselves up, it's to specifically target innocent civilians.

I'm sure that's a comfort to their families but they're still DEAD, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who killed them they are still DEAD. The are no less DEAD because they were killed as "collateral damage" in an American raid or if they were killed by Assad. It is no less horrible for their friends and loved ones.

No one has ever said "I am so glad Ahmed was killed by the Americans and not by the Russians".

Americans are now killing more civilians in Syria than ISIS, Assad or the Russians. How is this a good thing?

That is so much bullshit. Speak out against Assad or Putin publicly and you wind up in jail. Political opponents are killed. Yet you give these thugs the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you get out. If this was Syria or Russia you would be jailed at best for your post. At worst you would be lined up against a wall and shot.

I don't live in Russia or Syria. I can speak out against anyone I choose.

At this point, I would leave the Middle East to themselves and let them all kill one another.

Before we entered WWI, there were many Americans who said he same thing about Europe.

 

[Dschrute3]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

The reason is simple. We go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties. The fact is that Bush left a stable Iraq. If Obama had done what Bush had done, things would be different. It is the terrorists who are extending the war. Better to fight them over there than here.

Saudi Arabia and Israel both recognize the danger in Syria. It is not Syria itself but Iran that is using Syria as a building block to a Persian Empire that if successful would lead to Iran backed attacks against the US. The fact is that Syria launched the attack. Obviously our intelligence sources proved that Syria launched the gas attack. Also Russia's ridiculous explanation is further proof that Syria did it.

They haven't 'proved' anything. It has Wag the Dog False Flag written all over it. It's time to end the 'Regime Change' policy. It would be an incredibly important first step towards ending our endless wars.

 

[Dschrute3]

Wrong, your Government burnt fellow Americans to death. The fires were not started by the inhabitants of the compound. That was a despicable Government lie. They slaughtered those women & children. It could have been handled much differently. But the US Government chose massacre.

Why don't you point out that it was President Bill Clinton, Democrat and Attorney General Janet Reno who made that decision.

I'm not a Clinton supporter. Neither him or Reno were ever held accountable for the Waco massacre. Reno wasn't even forced to resign. A truly disgraceful chapter in our Government's history.

 

[Dschrute3]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

I figure if you insist on waging war on your neighbors you risk getting caught up in a war yourself.

End the 'Regime Policy' and dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. We don't belong in those lands. We never did.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

 

[flacaltenn]

The saddest thing is, Obama and Hillary Clinton were well aware that 'Allies' like Saudi Arabia and Qatar were arming ISIS in Syria. But they did nothing. It's a bloody mess over there. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. It's time.

ISIS and Russia rushed in to occupy the vacuum left by petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama when he pulled all our troops out of Iran. That was against the advice of his military advisors. President Obama, if he did not bring about the existence of ISIS, he certainly provided them with a fertile country to grow and prosper.

So tell us, how did that vacuum left by President Obama work out?

Hey moron. Think 350,000 deaths during a 10 year LOCK-DOWN of Iraq is funny huh? You're worried about the "vacuum" that OBama/Hillary left -- but not the ones that Bush left.. We left a huge vacuum in Iraq. One we couldn't solve unless we rigged the elections.

Point is -- that's why people who have learned the lesson that you funnied -- are in no hurry to remove Assad. Lemme say it again, so you know what the lesson is --- Countries in the MidEast REQUIRE an evil bastard dictator to live "in peace".. The peace is kept thru SECULAR rule by folks that brutally control the sectarian partisan issues and external forces like ISIS and Al Queda.

The sooner you catch on that fact (which we've screwed up on 4 or 5 times now) the sooner we'll stop CREATING vacuums and wasting blood and treasure. Funny that you useless party animal...

 

[JBond]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

So the US military did not kill 600,000, as you claimed. Got it. Thanks pussy hat.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

So the US military did not kill 600,000, as you claimed. Got it. Thanks pussy hat.

US military ENFORCED the lock-down of Iraq for 11 years. Part of the US POLICY that killed all those people. No enforcement --- no deaths. Are you that stupid? What about the daily bombing for 10 years? Destroying sanitarian, electric, water systems?

Here's you ---- WhyTF you want to avoid past history? No wonder your guys are still intent on making democracy BLOOM in the mid-east. Isn't an ounce of sense on foreign policy between BOTH of your failed parties...

 

[flacaltenn]

It is an interesting question. Good piece by Dennis Kusinich.


The number of civilians killed in recent US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria is rising. As we bomb villages to save villages isn't it time to look back to 2002, when President Bush was so sure Iraq had WMDs that he launched a war which killed over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 4,500 US soldiers have been killed. The monetary cost of the war in Iraq will exceed three trillion dollars. The US war in Iraq is in its 14th year.

Now President Trump, with the support of Saudi Arabia (which has helped fund many of the ISIS, Al Qaeda and Al Nusra fighters from 90 different countries who have descended on Syria) is escalating the war, amid rising calls for regime change, in the face of a recent gas attack (which has still not been independently investigated).

Why are the innocent civilian deaths acknowledged to be caused by US bombers less consequential?

Why Do Civilians Killed by US Bombers Count Less?

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

So the US military did not kill 600,000, as you claimed. Got it. Thanks pussy hat.

Because you're a short bus student and don't WANT to read threads -- here's a start to your education on the carnage we caused in Iraq. Both PRIOR to invasion -- and POST invasion..

Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You have no fucking clue as to what you are yammering about. Negligence still does not make it intentional you dip shit!

Ground support? Are you serious? Please find another topic. You are embarrassing yourself beyond belief in this thread. Everything you post is dead wrong.

You saying that chasing a running battle in Afghan from satellite is SUFFICIENT to guarantee you wouldn't hit that Doctors without Borders hospital? Someone on the ground called IN that strike. And it was probably bad communications and time delay that caused the hospital to be hit.

You know better. That's why there were "boots on the ground" in Syria before anyone ACKNOWLEDGED "boots on the ground" in Syria. Because you cannot do close quarter urban targeting without reliable intel and spotting.

If you would remove your head from your hindquarters, the hospital was not intentionally targeted as a hospital, so the rest of your meaningless rant is irrelevant, just like you are quickly becoming to the discussion.

Really? The hospital was not an INTENTIONAL target? Which run of the AC gunship was that? The FIRST run with guns blazing? Or the 4th one about an hour later? That's a very REPETITIVE mistake. Not like a sending a single cruise missile or smart bomb to the wrong place...

Have you ever served in the military? If not, you have no basis of knowledge for how missions are undertaken and accomplished. You are pissing into the wind!

Didn't serve in the military. But I was involved in the systems for Intel gathering and reconnaissance. One of those guys who did the real time analysis and appraisals. So I know what info is AVAILABLE to making those decisions.. I've seen more hot zones from the signals and imaging aspect than most people who were in the military.

I would see a shrink about those delusions.

 

[JBond]

Our policy is to avoid civilian deaths, while the enemies plan is to maximize civilian deaths. I understand why you are confused. It baffles most liberals.

Yet for TWO DECADES --- you evidently snoozed thru a complete embargo and isolation and a war and occupation in Iraq that resulted in AT LEAST 600,000 dead civilians. "We avoid civilian deaths"?? Apparently not if there's a coalition or UN resolution blessing our military activities.

So your claim is the US Military killed 600,000 civilians in Iraq? Really? Post the proof. More likely, your idiotic response will be worded in a certain way that proves dumb ass liberals believe they are clever.

Can't compensate for the fact that Markle found 8 of my posts funny when we're talking about civilian deaths from American military actions. Makes any attempt for rational discussion futile.

Furthermore I posted 4 or 5 estimates of deaths due to the 10 year embargo and bombings already. Which means you didn't read any of them. The UN chief of Humanitarian Operations in Iraq RESIGNED over that carnage and Mad Albright said that 500,000 deaths over 10 years was an "acceptable level".

I also posted estimates of deaths from the period of invasion and occupation which put the total WAY over 700,000 at least. You're despicable for treating this as a partisan issue.

Go back and read.. Or continue to look stupid and callous. That's what separates Leftists from true Liberals like me..

So the US military did not kill 600,000, as you claimed. Got it. Thanks pussy hat.

Because you're a short bus student and don't WANT to read threads -- here's a start to your education on the carnage we caused in Iraq. Both PRIOR to invasion -- and POST invasion..

Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

Iraqis have been slaughtering each other for a long time. Lots of civilians die in a civil war. I asked you about the US military. Stop being a dupe.

 

[Kondor3]

Dennis Kucinich: Why Do Civilians Killed By US Bombers Count Less?...

Next contestant, please...