McCain's timeline

[RunInRed 16,495]

I thought McCain was against Iraq timelines/withdrawal plans? Flip flop, flip flop. Again.

For CCTAU:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mcc...2013/index.html

[CCTAU 3,350]

Random post. 2008.

[RunInRed 16,495]

Random post. 2008.

Do you pay attention? Did you see McCain's speech this morning? Hardly random.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mcc...2013/index.html

[CCTAU 3,350]

It would have made more sense if you actually had the link in there when you first posted. Nice try.

[RunInRed 16,495]

It would have made more sense if you actually had the link in there when you first posted. Nice try.

Some of us pay attention, some of us don't. Catch up.

[Auburn85 432]

but I thought McCain wasn't going to win? Is this your insurance policy?

[AUTiger1 0]

Random post. 2008.

Do you pay attention? Did you see McCain's speech this morning? Hardly random.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mcc...2013/index.html

To be honest I didn't know what the heck you were talking about when I first read this. I didn't see a link. I didn't get to see the speech myself either. I have been at work all day.

[RunInRed 16,495]

but I thought McCain wasn't going to win? Is this your insurance policy?

What?

It's just another example of his continuous flip flops.

[AUTiger1 0]

Oh, you mean he predicts that it will be over by 2013. A prediction is hardly setting a time line for troop withdrawal.

"What I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things,"

Speaking with reporters after his address, McCain insisted that "we are winning and we will win" in Iraq, but said he's not assigning a date for success.

"It could be next month, it could be next year. It could three years from now. It could be, but I'm confident that we will have victory in Iraq, but I'm certainly not putting a date on it.

He said withdrawing troops would basically be setting "a date for surrender.""

I don't see how that is setting a time line and a flip flop but good try though.

[Auburn85 432]

Ok, so now since he's for a timeline, does this still make him a Bush 3rd term on Iraq?

[otterinbham 0]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

[RunInRed 16,495]

Ok, so now since he's for a timeline, does this still make him a Bush 3rd term on Iraq?

Honestly, i'm not sure what his position is on Iraq anymore...it seems to be changing daily with the political winds.

[RunInRed 16,495]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

[Auburn85 432]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

do you ever spin on politics or is it just us?

[RunInRed 16,495]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

do you ever spin on politics or is it just us?

I try to shoot straight and will be the first to call Obama out when he is wrong. Perfect examples would be my disagreement with him on the cap gains tax.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Random post. 2008.

Do you pay attention? Did you see McCain's speech this morning? Hardly random.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mcc...2013/index.html

To be honest I didn't know what the heck you were talking about when I first read this. I didn't see a link. I didn't get to see the speech myself either. I have been at work all day.

I think it's hard for him to see past achmed that his post is marked every time he edits it. He had NO link the first time.

AND the link he did put up, proved nothing. More spaghetti against the wall.

[lukeduke 8]

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I don't base my day around reading what McCain had for breakfast, but I'm pretty sure the 100 years comment was referring to a military presence, as in similar to what we have in Germany, Korea, Okinawa, etc. The 2013 comment was that American combat would be over by 2013.

Using your analogy, please let us know how many are killed in combat in Germany, Korea, Okinawa, Iceland, Italy, and our other assorted military bases.

[otterinbham 0]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

If anyone is clueless on this, it's Obama. No sane person can advocate yanking out the troops in 16 months. As bad as the situation has been in the past, it's showed promising signs of stabilizing over the past year. Now that we're on the cusp of actually putting the country back on some kind of decent footing, pulling out American forces will yield total chaos. You might as well mail an engraved invitation to the Iranians offering them the opportunity to take over the country, and then hold sway over the Arabian Peninsula. And if you're whining about the price of oil now, just you wait when that happens.

I'm really astonished that people believe in this childish drivel. Hell no, I wasn't in favor of the invasion. But I also believe in cleaning up the messes we make. And pulling a suave qui peut will cause a far greater degree of damage to Iraqis, the economy, and the long-term strategic interests of the country.

[RunInRed 16,495]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

If anyone is clueless on this, it's Obama. No sane person can advocate yanking out the troops in 16 months. As bad as the situation has been in the past, it's showed promising signs of stabilizing over the past year. Now that we're on the cusp of actually putting the country back on some kind of decent footing, pulling out American forces will yield total chaos. You might as well mail an engraved invitation to the Iranians offering them the opportunity to take over the country, and then hold sway over the Arabian Peninsula. And if you're whining about the price of oil now, just you wait when that happens.

I'm really astonished that people believe in this childish drivel. Hell no, I wasn't in favor of the invasion. But I also believe in cleaning up the messes we make. And pulling a suave qui peut will cause a far greater degree of damage to Iraqis, the economy, and the long-term strategic interests of the country.

If you think we are on the cusp of doing anything but continuing to fan the flames of American anti-resentment and mediate a civil war then you are nuts. There is no military solution there. And our presence there has not made us any more safe - in fact it's pretty easy to argue (as Bush's intelligence community has recently pointed out) that we are now less safe.

So until you can tell us all what military solution there is and how this war has made us more safe, then I suggest you take your blowhard-know it all opinions and spare us all.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

If anyone is clueless on this, it's Obama. No sane person can advocate yanking out the troops in 16 months. As bad as the situation has been in the past, it's showed promising signs of stabilizing over the past year. Now that we're on the cusp of actually putting the country back on some kind of decent footing, pulling out American forces will yield total chaos. You might as well mail an engraved invitation to the Iranians offering them the opportunity to take over the country, and then hold sway over the Arabian Peninsula. And if you're whining about the price of oil now, just you wait when that happens.

I'm really astonished that people believe in this childish drivel. Hell no, I wasn't in favor of the invasion. But I also believe in cleaning up the messes we make. And pulling a suave qui peut will cause a far greater degree of damage to Iraqis, the economy, and the long-term strategic interests of the country.

If you think we are on the cusp of doing anything but continuing to fan the flames of American anti-resentment and mediate a civil war then you are nuts. There is no military solution there. And our presence there has not made us any more safe - in fact it's pretty easy to argue (as Bush's intelligence community has recently pointed out) that we are now less safe.

So until you can tell us all what military solution there is and how this war has made us more safe, then I suggest you take your blowhard-know it all opinions and spare us all.

Well, not that I always agree with Otter, but he does have his own opinions. He does not sit around and wait for achmed to give him his opinion. Blow-hard! YOU said blow-hard! Or did achmed say that to you?

[otterinbham 0]

Good lord, Ruin. You really should learn to be a better listener and reader. You just post stuff willy-nilly without really paying attention to it. That's not political discourse. It's just some terrible spasm you have.

First of all, there's nothing in that video that states "I think we should withdraw by XX date." I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but he was talking about the upcoming political debate in the Senate, citing a raft of political and military experts who are against an arbitrary withdrawal date. Now, his wording was a bit convoluted, but there is simply no statement in there that suggests that he favored a pullout.

However, if you're comparing how the candidates view the endgame in Iraq, then let's see:

Hmmm...let's see. Obama has an artificial timeline to pull all troops out in the next few months, regardless of the political and military situation on the ground.

McCain's remarks today, on the other hand, projects that a large presence of American troops will not be required in Iraq. His reasoning is based on the ongoing success we're now enjoying due to the wholesale change in American doctrine implemented in 2007. However, again, he does not state that all American troops will be out of the country by then.

There is no artificial timeline, they will be out in 16 months.

As for McCain, this guy is clueless. One minute he's talking about 100 years, the next he's talking about 2013. One minute he's saying stay the course, the next he's saying that's not what he means.

I guess the funniest part is coming on this board and watching you all trying to make sense of his spin.

If anyone is clueless on this, it's Obama. No sane person can advocate yanking out the troops in 16 months. As bad as the situation has been in the past, it's showed promising signs of stabilizing over the past year. Now that we're on the cusp of actually putting the country back on some kind of decent footing, pulling out American forces will yield total chaos. You might as well mail an engraved invitation to the Iranians offering them the opportunity to take over the country, and then hold sway over the Arabian Peninsula. And if you're whining about the price of oil now, just you wait when that happens.

I'm really astonished that people believe in this childish drivel. Hell no, I wasn't in favor of the invasion. But I also believe in cleaning up the messes we make. And pulling a suave qui peut will cause a far greater degree of damage to Iraqis, the economy, and the long-term strategic interests of the country.

If you think we are on the cusp of doing anything but continuing to fan the flames of American anti-resentment and mediate a civil war then you are nuts. There is no military solution there. And our presence there has not made us any more safe - in fact it's pretty easy to argue (as Bush's intelligence community has recently pointed out) that we are now less safe.

So until you can tell us all what military solution there is and how this war has made us more safe, then I suggest you take your blowhard-know it all opinions and spare us all.

Blowhard?

As usual, you can't counter me so you start slinging invective. One of these days, you're going to have to grow up and argue your points like an adult, not somebody who gets all his inarticulate political opinions from Rolling Stone.

First I point out that content in both the video and the CNN news article don't have the vaguest resemblance to your original talking point. Then when I pretty much draw the distinction between Obama's "Bug Out" strategy and McCain's belief that American forces should remain on the ground until some kind of stasis is achieved, you then accuse him of being clueless.

Then when I counter that argument, citing progress and stating pretty good strategic reasons to stay--chiefly based on my in-depth conversations with military leadership who actually know the political situation on the ground there through actual experience--you call me a blowhard. I'm not sure if you realize this, but I have these discussions with the military every 6-8 weeks as a consultant. I see the reports and I talk to people in both intelligence and ground operations. I get to hear about what the Iranians and Syrians are up to in great detail. I get to learn about our countermeasures to the insurgency's countermeasures. I've had to sit in on exercises and tactics training. You, on the other hand, seem to get all your scoop third-hand from a war correspondent who never leaves the hotel bar at the Baghdad Hilton.

Heck, even the New York Times conceded last week that the political situation on the ground has improved enormously from a year ago and that Iraqi forces appear to have forced a major concession from insurgents. All because American and Iraqi forces totally reformulated doctrine along the same lines as those used by the British in highly successful counterinsurgency operations such as Malaysia in the 1950s.

And, once again, because your reading comprehension skills are totally lacking (A given, based on your misinterpretation of the YouTube and CNN report), I opposed the Iraq invasion from the get-go. It was mission creep of the worst kind. However, it's the situation we have now. Abandoning Iraq will cause a much greater mess than the mess we have at the moment.

[RunInRed 16,495]

You just don't get it. It's about Iraqi political reconciliation which is not happening. And your reasoning is so flawed it's not even worth arguing point by point.

Sure we can stay there for 100 years and keep the peace and "stabalize" the country but so what? Where does that get us? There is no military solution to the problem and you are smart enough to know it. Not to mention, the thousands of other problems this strategy creates including an overstretched military, taken our eyes off of AQ and I could go on and on. Your grandstanding is laughable because even you know your positions are flawed.

Again, this whole notion that we should keep injecting treasure and troops into someone else's civil war is beyond stupid. We can stabalize Iraq from North to South but we can't make people get along and form a democracy. You realize how pointless this whole "stategy" is don't you?

You refuse to answer my questions about a military solution, how this has made us more safe, etc. b/c you can't.

I see right through you. Take your dog and pony show elsewhere. The politics of fear is not going to work any more and neither is Bush's head-in-the-sand cowboy-approach to foreign policy.

[otterinbham 0]

You just don't get it. It's about Iraqi political reconciliation which is not happening. And your reasoning is so flawed it's not even worth arguing point by point. Sure we can stay there for 100 years and keep the peace and "stabalize" the country but so what? Where does that get us? There is no military solution to the problem and you are smart enough to know it. Not to mention, the thousands of other problems this strategy creates including an overstretched military, taken our eyes off of AQ and I could go on and on. Your grandstanding is laughable because even you know your positions are flawed.

I get it entirely, actually.

Again, the entire point of asymmetrical warfare, which has been our doctrine for all of one year, is seeking a political solution as the end game of military operations, not simply shooting up Iraqi villages. It is an important and crucial distinction. I really wish you'd bother actually learning this stuff.

Further, Iraqi units have steadily begun taking more and more operational initiative in the field, and doing a progressively better job of it. You no longer have rampant desertions. As recent operations have shown, Iraqis are showing flexibility in the field, a good command structure, and competent small-unit tactics.

Because the Iraqi military has improved markedly, and is continuing to improve, it becomes much more likely that over the next several years, the Iraqi state can be self-policing and fight this dwindling insurgency with much lower levels of support. The signs are there. The foundation is now in place. Five more years of this, and our force levels can be a fraction of what they are today.

But the situation remains fragile at the moment, and I've already addressed the ramifications of pulling out before this happens. A belief that we can pull out 16 months after Obama takes the oath of office will cause far more damage than our current policy. Obama's strategy is nothing of the kind.

[RunInRed 16,495]

You just don't get it. It's about Iraqi political reconciliation which is not happening. And your reasoning is so flawed it's not even worth arguing point by point. Sure we can stay there for 100 years and keep the peace and "stabalize" the country but so what? Where does that get us? There is no military solution to the problem and you are smart enough to know it. Not to mention, the thousands of other problems this strategy creates including an overstretched military, taken our eyes off of AQ and I could go on and on. Your grandstanding is laughable because even you know your positions are flawed.

I get it entirely, actually.

Again, the entire point of asymmetrical warfare, which has been our doctrine for all of one year, is seeking a political solution as the end game of military operations, not simply shooting up Iraqi villages. It is an important and crucial distinction. I really wish you'd bother actually learning this stuff.

Further, Iraqi units have steadily begun taking more and more operational initiative in the field, and doing a progressively better job of it. You no longer have rampant desertions. As recent operations have shown, Iraqis are showing flexibility in the field, a good command structure, and competent small-unit tactics.

Because the Iraqi military has improved markedly, and is continuing to improve, it becomes much more likely that over the next several years, the Iraqi state can be self-policing and fight this dwindling insurgency with much lower levels of support. The signs are there. The foundation is now in place. Five more years of this, and our force levels can be a fraction of what they are today.

But the situation remains fragile at the moment, and I've already addressed the ramifications of pulling out before this happens. A belief that we can pull out 16 months after Obama takes the oath of office will cause far more damage than our current policy. Obama's strategy is nothing of the kind.

Political reconcilication is not happening. I mean for gosh sake, wake up son. Sunnis members have literally walked out of the process.

[otterinbham 0]

You just don't get it. It's about Iraqi political reconciliation which is not happening. And your reasoning is so flawed it's not even worth arguing point by point. Sure we can stay there for 100 years and keep the peace and "stabalize" the country but so what? Where does that get us? There is no military solution to the problem and you are smart enough to know it. Not to mention, the thousands of other problems this strategy creates including an overstretched military, taken our eyes off of AQ and I could go on and on. Your grandstanding is laughable because even you know your positions are flawed.

I get it entirely, actually.

Again, the entire point of asymmetrical warfare, which has been our doctrine for all of one year, is seeking a political solution as the end game of military operations, not simply shooting up Iraqi villages. It is an important and crucial distinction. I really wish you'd bother actually learning this stuff.

Further, Iraqi units have steadily begun taking more and more operational initiative in the field, and doing a progressively better job of it. You no longer have rampant desertions. As recent operations have shown, Iraqis are showing flexibility in the field, a good command structure, and competent small-unit tactics.

Because the Iraqi military has improved markedly, and is continuing to improve, it becomes much more likely that over the next several years, the Iraqi state can be self-policing and fight this dwindling insurgency with much lower levels of support. The signs are there. The foundation is now in place. Five more years of this, and our force levels can be a fraction of what they are today.

But the situation remains fragile at the moment, and I've already addressed the ramifications of pulling out before this happens. A belief that we can pull out 16 months after Obama takes the oath of office will cause far more damage than our current policy. Obama's strategy is nothing of the kind.

Political reconcilication is not happening. I mean for gosh sake, wake up son. Sunnis members have literally walked out of the process.

And walked back in. And walked back out, and walked back in. Note that they're now using political tactics as opposed to AK47s.

What's more, this business about various ethnic groups not being able to agree to create a functioning democracy is rubbish. All you have to do is look at Malaysia as a textbook example--there was no democratic tradition there before the 1950s. Or India. Or Taiwan. Half of Latin America. Belgium. Canada. And the list goes on and on. Lots of countries manage to put together successful democracies without anything approaching a homogenous population.