Britain warns of Iran-U.S. conflict, Pompeo meets Europeans

[spidermike007]

A conflict with Iran would be a worse idea than either Iraq or Afghanistan. How are those wars working out? More hubris from blindfold Bolton and the disastrous foreign policy of this administration.

 

There was a great movie about the Afghanistan war called Hyena Road. Highly recommend it. It shows the futility of the war, and the knowledge on the part of the officers, of the futility of the conflict. One of my favorite lines was:

 

Pete: Alexander the Great marched into this graveyard about 2,500 years ago. Easy to march in, hard to march out. His words. He and his mother wrote to each other all the time. One day, he got a letter from her saying: "What the hell? You conquered most of the known world in a day and a half, what are you doing bogged down in Afghanistan?" He grabbed a bag and shoveled it full of dirt and had it sent back to Greece with a message to his mother: "Take this dirt and dump it around the palace, see what happens." 

Pete: So Alexander's mother spread the dirt all around the palace. Later that night, a couple of attendants showed up to make sure she was alright. One says: "Go ahead, after you." And the other says: "No, after you." And the first one says: "No, I insist." And the second one says: "Don't you tell me what to do." They pull their swords and go at it till they kill each other. Alexander's mother watched all this and wrote a note to him saying: "Okay, okay, now I get it." And he wrote back saying: "Even the dirt is hostile." In Afghanistan, dogs fight dogs, birds fight birds, men kill men.

 

My favorite line in the movie is also stated by the character Pete. He is talking to a very earnest sniper, who thinks a properly placed bullet could change the course of the war.

 

But my sh++? Hearts and Minds?

They lap that stuff up

'cause it's got

a moral ring to it,

even if it's mostly just PR.

You believe that?

These people here...

they got no use

for what we have on offer.

They don't want Justin Bieber

and Tom Jefferson

and our ++++ing pornography.

They just want our money

and a little bit of stability.

- So how do we win?

- There is no winning.

There's just an end state

and that's gonna get laid down

by foreign policy, not by us.

 

There you have it. Same in Iraq. Will be exactly the same in Iran, if these nitwits keep the saber rattling going. Hubris. Cheney style hubris.

[car720]

On 5/15/2019 at 1:16 PM, Morch said:

 

Which doesn't really answer the question, or explain your initial, wide brush comment.

Your right, as usual.  I should have said that they think with their brains.

[Thaidream]

On 5/14/2019 at 9:03 AM, Pedrogaz said:

the US in the 70s. Any pretext is acceptable to the US to start wars, even false flags perpetrated by the CIA....just like all the wars....a PR campaign full of lies, with all the establishment press on board, then the war. The ill educated, brainwashed, incurious, sheeplike population of the US then supports it because of naive patriotism. 

IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS EVIL CYCLE. The US must obey its own laws and international agreements

As an American and a Vietnam War Vet- I am appalled by what Trump and his minions are trying to do.  Sanctions are one thing but stopping a country from selling it's main source of income will force them to strike and then Trump will use the pretext of self defense.

 

I am not a supporter of Iran but  past American interference in Iran set the stage for the current Iran. The seizing of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding  Americans hostage was wrong- but the time to strike was then- not now.

  The Iranians signed an agreement with the US- backed by the EU and Russia limiting it's ability to go nuclear and Trump pulled out. He did this against the advice of the EU/

 

Trying to force the Iranians to further negotiate either by sanctions or war will never work. Trump needs to remember Iran and Iraq fought an 8 year war- with hundreds of thousands dead and never capitulated.

 

Trump is being manipulated by  his National Security Chief- John Bolton; The Israeli PM Netananhayu and the Saudi Arabians.

 

Let's hope the EU including Britain does not support this nonsense and tells  Trump that if he pushes forward there will be no support coming from Europe.  Maybe if Europe tells Trump they won't support this, he might think twice about the consequences.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Thaidream said:

As an American and a Vietnam War Vet- I am appalled by what Trump and his minions are trying to do.  Sanctions are one thing but stopping a country from selling it's main source of income will force them to strike and then Trump will use the pretext of self defense.

 

I am not a supporter of Iran but  past American interference in Iran set the stage for the current Iran. The seizing of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding  Americans hostage was wrong- but the time to strike was then- not now.

  The Iranians signed an agreement with the US- backed by the EU and Russia limiting it's ability to go nuclear and Trump pulled out. He did this against the advice of the EU/

 

Trying to force the Iranians to further negotiate either by sanctions or war will never work. Trump needs to remember Iran and Iraq fought an 8 year war- with hundreds of thousands dead and never capitulated.

 

Trump is being manipulated by  his National Security Chief- John Bolton; The Israeli PM Netananhayu and the Saudi Arabians.

 

Let's hope the EU including Britain does not support this nonsense and tells  Trump that if he pushes forward there will be no support coming from Europe.  Maybe if Europe tells Trump they won't support this, he might think twice about the consequences.

EU is advising Iran not to react to US pressure by starting down the path of nuclear enrichment and some other activities the Iranians have threatened to do. As you know EU member signatories have been threatened by trump with sanctions if they continue to trade with Iran, IMO outrageous interference, will have to see if trump will actually go down that path and if so will the signatories collectively push back or not. One hopes Iran doesn't ignore the advice from the EU.

[bizboi]

On 5/14/2019 at 8:24 AM, car720 said:

important to remember here that the Iranians are not Arabs and think differently.

They are muslims and think the same!!

[bizboi]

On 5/14/2019 at 8:38 AM, grumbleweed said:

but but... they're the world's peace keepers. Blissfully unaware that most of the world regards them as the biggest threat to world peace

only left wing socialists think that the rest see Iran for what it is!!

[bizboi]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:33 AM, pegman said:

Hunt forgot to say that as per tradition the UK will be a good poodle and follow the Americans into whatever folly its Israeli lobby masters take them.

You need to stop reading you chewb comments!!

[bizboi]

On 5/15/2019 at 5:29 PM, spidermike007 said:

A conflict with Iran would be a worse idea than either Iraq or Afghanistan. How are those wars working out? More hubris from blindfold Bolton and the disastrous foreign policy of this administration.

 

There was a great movie about the Afghanistan war called Hyena Road. Highly recommend it. It shows the futility of the war, and the knowledge on the part of the officers, of the futility of the conflict. One of my favorite lines was:

 

Pete: Alexander the Great marched into this graveyard about 2,500 years ago. Easy to march in, hard to march out. His words. He and his mother wrote to each other all the time. One day, he got a letter from her saying: "What the hell? You conquered most of the known world in a day and a half, what are you doing bogged down in Afghanistan?" He grabbed a bag and shoveled it full of dirt and had it sent back to Greece with a message to his mother: "Take this dirt and dump it around the palace, see what happens." 

Pete: So Alexander's mother spread the dirt all around the palace. Later that night, a couple of attendants showed up to make sure she was alright. One says: "Go ahead, after you." And the other says: "No, after you." And the first one says: "No, I insist." And the second one says: "Don't you tell me what to do." They pull their swords and go at it till they kill each other. Alexander's mother watched all this and wrote a note to him saying: "Okay, okay, now I get it." And he wrote back saying: "Even the dirt is hostile." In Afghanistan, dogs fight dogs, birds fight birds, men kill men.

 

My favorite line in the movie is also stated by the character Pete. He is talking to a very earnest sniper, who thinks a properly placed bullet could change the course of the war.

 

But my sh++? Hearts and Minds?

They lap that stuff up

'cause it's got

a moral ring to it,

even if it's mostly just PR.

You believe that?

These people here...

they got no use

for what we have on offer.

They don't want Justin Bieber

and Tom Jefferson

and our ++++ing pornography.

They just want our money

and a little bit of stability.

- So how do we win?

- There is no winning.

There's just an end state

and that's gonna get laid down

by foreign policy, not by us.

 

There you have it. Same in Iraq. Will be exactly the same in Iran, if these nitwits keep the saber rattling going. Hubris. Cheney style hubris.

So you’re siding with Iran on this then?

[bizboi]

On 5/15/2019 at 5:29 PM, spidermike007 said:

A conflict with Iran would be a worse idea than either Iraq or Afghanistan. How are those wars working out? More hubris from blindfold Bolton and the disastrous foreign policy of this administration.

 

There was a great movie about the Afghanistan war called Hyena Road. Highly recommend it. It shows the futility of the war, and the knowledge on the part of the officers, of the futility of the conflict. One of my favorite lines was:

 

Pete: Alexander the Great marched into this graveyard about 2,500 years ago. Easy to march in, hard to march out. His words. He and his mother wrote to each other all the time. One day, he got a letter from her saying: "What the hell? You conquered most of the known world in a day and a half, what are you doing bogged down in Afghanistan?" He grabbed a bag and shoveled it full of dirt and had it sent back to Greece with a message to his mother: "Take this dirt and dump it around the palace, see what happens." 

Pete: So Alexander's mother spread the dirt all around the palace. Later that night, a couple of attendants showed up to make sure she was alright. One says: "Go ahead, after you." And the other says: "No, after you." And the first one says: "No, I insist." And the second one says: "Don't you tell me what to do." They pull their swords and go at it till they kill each other. Alexander's mother watched all this and wrote a note to him saying: "Okay, okay, now I get it." And he wrote back saying: "Even the dirt is hostile." In Afghanistan, dogs fight dogs, birds fight birds, men kill men.

 

My favorite line in the movie is also stated by the character Pete. He is talking to a very earnest sniper, who thinks a properly placed bullet could change the course of the war.

 

But my sh++? Hearts and Minds?

They lap that stuff up

'cause it's got

a moral ring to it,

even if it's mostly just PR.

You believe that?

These people here...

they got no use

for what we have on offer.

They don't want Justin Bieber

and Tom Jefferson

and our ++++ing pornography.

They just want our money

and a little bit of stability.

- So how do we win?

- There is no winning.

There's just an end state

and that's gonna get laid down

by foreign policy, not by us.

 

There you have it. Same in Iraq. Will be exactly the same in Iran, if these nitwits keep the saber rattling going. Hubris. Cheney style hubris.

Don’t read much do you - Afghanistan is a UN conflict NOT a US conflict which the US was involved in because of the Afghanistan Govt asking for help with the Taliban - maybe you prefer the model of civilisation that the Taliban presents - I personally DONT!!

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, bizboi said:

So you’re siding with Iran on this then?

Remember how villified opponents of the Iraq war were before it's outbreak? Because of that they were accused of siding with Iraq. Sound familiar?

Edited May 16, 2019 by bristolboy

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, bizboi said:

So you’re siding with Iran on this then?

You're either with us or against us. Remember that rhetoric, didn't do the world or the US much good.

[thaiguzzi]

2 hours ago, bizboi said:

So you’re siding with Iran on this then?

Yes.

 

Hi Bizboi.

I note you are pro USA and pro conflict in all your comments.

I also note your "sad" emojis in all the posts where people write a sensible, non war mongering, conflicting opinion.

Go USA go hey?

We right, they wrong.

Nuke those godamm Muslims.

Trump! MAGA! and all that stuff....

 

You actually ever been to Iran, Asia or the Middle East?

Fascinating, friendly, hospitable, intelligent cultures and peoples.

Try it sometime, and don't listen to your right wing cretins which posture as intelligent politicians. Because they are not.

Peace.

Not war.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by thaiguzzi

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, thaiguzzi said:

Yes.

 

Hi Bizboi.

I note you are pro USA and pro conflict in all your comments.

I also note your "sad" emojis in all the posts where people write a sensible, non war mongering, conflicting opinion.

Go USA go hey?

We right, they wrong.

Nuke those godamm Muslims.

Trump! MAGA! and all that stuff....

 

You actually ever been to Iran, Asia or the Middle East?

Fascinating, friendly, hospitable, intelligent cultures and peoples.

Try it sometime, and don't listen to your right wing cretins which posture as intelligent politicians. Because they are not.

Peace.

Not war.

 

Thank you. A voice of reason is always refreshing. So is a voice of moderation. Alot of Americans get really excited when the drumbeat for war begins. It is actually just the government complying with the wishes of the corporations that own the government. After all, Trump never said no to any lobbyist. Yes sir! You want war? We can give you war. No problem, I want you to make billions, and use alot of American weapons. 

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, bizboi said:

So you’re siding with Iran on this then?

Back to the old George Bush Jr. "there is no gray area" argument? Really? Is that the best you can do? This is a discussion. Is the possibility of a dissenting view, one that opposes war, and the escalation of a conflict, for political purposes, really that upsetting to you? 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Thaidream said:

As an American and a Vietnam War Vet- I am appalled by what Trump and his minions are trying to do.  Sanctions are one thing but stopping a country from selling it's main source of income will force them to strike and then Trump will use the pretext of self defense.

 

I am not a supporter of Iran but  past American interference in Iran set the stage for the current Iran. The seizing of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding  Americans hostage was wrong- but the time to strike was then- not now.

  The Iranians signed an agreement with the US- backed by the EU and Russia limiting it's ability to go nuclear and Trump pulled out. He did this against the advice of the EU/

 

Trying to force the Iranians to further negotiate either by sanctions or war will never work. Trump needs to remember Iran and Iraq fought an 8 year war- with hundreds of thousands dead and never capitulated.

 

Trump is being manipulated by  his National Security Chief- John Bolton; The Israeli PM Netananhayu and the Saudi Arabians.

 

Let's hope the EU including Britain does not support this nonsense and tells  Trump that if he pushes forward there will be no support coming from Europe.  Maybe if Europe tells Trump they won't support this, he might think twice about the consequences.

 

Sanctions are means to an end. One could argue as to their effectiveness or morality. What's the point of laying sanctions if they bark but don't bite, though? As for "will force them to strike" - well, no. That's an option. Another one would be to negotiate. And there's quite a range of variations between these two. So far, anyway, Iran is denying any involvement in or actual intention of "striking". If I got it right - deplorable to lay economic sanctions, but acceptable to retaliate with a (military/violent) "strike"? And following that, dealing with said retaliation in a similar manner is "pretext"? Understand the sentiment, but doesn't make much sense.

 

The so-called Iran Deal was signed under particular circumferences and constraints which I'm sure you're perfectly aware of. Whether or not it was wise to sign the agreement given these is a good question. The risk of the next administration acting on the provisions enabling withdrawal was no secret. While I agree that leaving the agreement was a mistake, the writing was on the wall.

 

As for the supposed futility of forcing Iran to the negotiation table through sanctions - guess the Iran Deal itself is proof this is incorrect. With regard to war - by itself, maybe not. Coupled with sanctions and the military might of the USA - wouldn't bet on it. 

 

Trump being manipulated - quite possibly. Or he's actually into it. Or he's caught up in his own rhetoric. Or it gets decent approval ratings with his base. Maybe all. 

 

The EU "not supporting this nonsense" amounts to what? It opposed (or said it will) sanctions. Sanctions went through, and EU firms bailed out of doing business with Iran. Military support? It's more political, a nice to have, but probably not essential, if things come to that. Diplomatic support? The UN is ineffective and unlikely the EU will get in bed with Russia and/or China for Iran's sake.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

EU is advising Iran not to react to US pressure by starting down the path of nuclear enrichment and some other activities the Iranians have threatened to do. As you know EU member signatories have been threatened by trump with sanctions if they continue to trade with Iran, IMO outrageous interference, will have to see if trump will actually go down that path and if so will the signatories collectively push back or not. One hopes Iran doesn't ignore the advice from the EU.

 

The threat is mostly to deny EU firms doing business with Iran the opportunity to do so with the USA. While I don't see this as a good way of dealing with allies, outrageous interference? Doubtful. So far, it seems that EU firms either do not have much faith in their governments "push back" potential, or that they do the math pitting respective trade prospects with Iran and the USA. The signatories acting collectively and managing to do something constructive, never mind effective....not holding my breath.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Thank you. A voice of reason is always refreshing. So is a voice of moderation. Alot of Americans get really excited when the drumbeat for war begins. It is actually just the government complying with the wishes of the corporations that own the government. After all, Trump never said no to any lobbyist. Yes sir! You want war? We can give you war. No problem, I want you to make billions, and use alot of American weapons. 

 

Voice of reason. Voice of moderation. Got to love the lack of self awareness there. Especially with that bit about Americans getting excited when "the drumbeat for war begins".

What actual wars were started by Trump?

 

[TheHangingJudge]

My friend let me advise you war is not Hollywood yes that’s wright not even close.

Im a Brit and worked with the Americans for five years outside the wire in Iraq.

To be honest my motivation was money but when I was asked by a US colonel what my thoughts were I replied that I hated being on the losing side.

I have a brotherly love for my American cousins great people just remember that they are more kin to us than anybody else on the planet .

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Voice of reason. Voice of moderation. Got to love the lack of self awareness there. Especially with that bit about Americans getting excited when "the drumbeat for war begins".

What actual wars were started by Trump?

 

What has the fact the Trump hasn't started a war yet got to do with it? He's only been in office a little more than 2 years. Spidermike007  said when "the drumbeat for war begins." Drumbeats are a prelude, an incitement to action.  I don't think it's unreasonable to characterize what the Trump administration is doing as in fact a possible drumbeat for war. Especially given that Pompeo and even more so Bolton are not at all averse to it.

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The threat is mostly to deny EU firms doing business with Iran the opportunity to do so with the USA. While I don't see this as a good way of dealing with allies, outrageous interference? Doubtful. So far, it seems that EU firms either do not have much faith in their governments "push back" potential, or that they do the math pitting respective trade prospects with Iran and the USA. The signatories acting collectively and managing to do something constructive, never mind effective....not holding my breath.

Europe’s fury over Trump’s Iran decision, explained in one word

 

To understand why Europe is so angry with Trump’s Iran decision, it’s important to understand that the initial pact — which imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions on the country — opened the door to an array of European companies eager to sign lucrative business deals with Tehran.

Those deals are now in jeopardy because of the nature of Trump’s Iran move...Instead, Washington is reimposing what are known as “secondary sanctions,” designed to punish any foreign companies that do business with Iran by not allowing them to do business with US banks or financial institutions.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/9/17335308/trump-decertify-iran-nuclear-deal-europe-sanction

I think the author of this piece would agree that "outrageous" would be a very good word to describe how Europeans business people and government officials, feel about Trump's decision. Although the word in question in the headline is actually "unisolationism" as coined by an angry French diplomat.

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What has the fact the Trump hasn't started a war yet got to do with it? He's only been in office a little more than 2 years. Spidermike007  said when "the drumbeat for war begins." Drumbeats are a prelude, an incitement to action.  I don't think it's unreasonable to characterize what the Trump administration is doing as in fact a possible drumbeat for war. Especially given that Pompeo and even more so Bolton are not at all averse to it.

 

Yeah, and don't some posters (like the one I replied to) tend to get excited when "the drumbeat of war begins", eh? The post I replied to went a step further than you own, may wish to read it again.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Europe’s fury over Trump’s Iran decision, explained in one word

 

To understand why Europe is so angry with Trump’s Iran decision, it’s important to understand that the initial pact — which imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions on the country — opened the door to an array of European companies eager to sign lucrative business deals with Tehran.

Those deals are now in jeopardy because of the nature of Trump’s Iran move...Instead, Washington is reimposing what are known as “secondary sanctions,” designed to punish any foreign companies that do business with Iran by not allowing them to do business with US banks or financial institutions.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/9/17335308/trump-decertify-iran-nuclear-deal-europe-sanction

I think the author of this piece would agree that "outrageous" would be a very good word to describe how Europeans business people and government officials, feel about Trump's decision. Although the word in question in the headline is actually "unisolationism" as coined by an angry French diplomat.

 

 

Yeah....and how does that actually make the sanctions "outrageous"?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah....and how does that actually make the sanctions "outrageous"?

out·ra·geous

/outˈrājəs/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   shockingly bad or excessive.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, and don't some posters (like the one I replied to) tend to get excited when "the drumbeat of war begins", eh? The post I replied to went a step further than you own, may wish to read it again.

 

So you think that these latest moves from the Trump administration could actually be a drumbeat or drumbeats for war? And I still don't understand what relevance the fact that Trump hasn't yet started a war has in relation to this.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

out·ra·geous

/outˈrājəs/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   shockingly bad or excessive.

 

Guess it's down to a relative point of view then, and of course, interests. And speaking of interests, wonder if the EU stance was always that principled on such issues.

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So you think that these latest moves from the Trump administration could actually be a drumbeat or drumbeats for war? And I still don't understand what relevance the fact that Trump hasn't yet started a war has in relation to this.

 

I think that you got what I posted the first time, and now just spoiling for a petty, pointless argument. In case I'm wrong - going on about Americans getting excited over drumbeats of war is kinda amusing seeing poster's own excitability on this topic and related ones. Same with regard to the relation between posting style/content vs. reason and moderation. As for the relevance of Trump not actually initiating any war - kindly re-read the original I responded to.

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess it's down to a relative point of view then, and of course, interests. And speaking of interests, wonder if the EU stance was always that principled on such issues.

 

It's quite one thing to withdraw from an agreement and have your nation boycott trade with another. Quite something else to take advantage of the structure of the international banking system to make other free and democratic nations, and supposedly allies, knuckle under. I think it's quite bizarre that you don't find that outrageous.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's quite one thing to withdraw from an agreement and have your nation boycott trade with another. Quite something else to take advantage of the structure of the international banking system to make other free and democratic nations, and supposedly allies, knuckle under. I think it's quite bizarre that you don't find that outrageous.

 

Can also see things the opposite way - the EU (or European signatories, whatever) wished to try and defy or sabotage the USA's (ally, free, democratic nation - cue expected objections) foreign policy yada yada yada....could this failure to support the USA administration by supposed allies and partners be construed as "outrageous" by Trump & Co.? Probably.

 

I think that a lot of this falls under realpolitik, that the generous application of moralizing and/or virtue signaling is not a proper substitute for an argument.

 

I find laying lame sanctions a waste of time. I find crying when realizing you can't back up words with actions pathetic.

 

My views on the merit of Trump's policies, or the way he deals with allies appears on many a topic - and it isn't supportive. But this "outrageous" bit is nonsense. Again, got to wonder whether the supposed European position a principled or a specific one.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Can also see things the opposite way - the EU (or European signatories, whatever) wished to try and defy or sabotage the USA's (ally, free, democratic nation - cue expected objections) foreign policy yada yada yada....could this failure to support the USA administration by supposed allies and partners be construed as "outrageous" by Trump & Co.? Probably.

 

I think that a lot of this falls under realpolitik, that the generous application of moralizing and/or virtue signaling is not a proper substitute for an argument.

 

I find laying lame sanctions a waste of time. I find crying when realizing you can't back up words with actions pathetic.

 

My views on the merit of Trump's policies, or the way he deals with allies appears on many a topic - and it isn't supportive. But this "outrageous" bit is nonsense. Again, got to wonder whether the supposed European position a principled or a specific one.

To see things Trump's way you would have to accept the falsehood that the Iranians weren't abiding by the agreement. So while the outrage may be there, the basis for it isn't. To some of us, that would be a significant difference.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

To see things Trump's way you would have to accept the falsehood that the Iranians weren't abiding by the agreement. So while the outrage may be there, the basis for it isn't. To some of us, that would be a significant difference.

 

Yay, more spins and virtue signaling. Let's spell it out - I'm not seeing things Trump's way, but pointing out that they could be perceived differently. But seems like assuming ownership of what's "outrageous" is about will be as valid a counter-argument as I'll get, though. The European position, whether one likes or dislikes Trump, is still basically crybaby stuff. 

 

Not so outrageous, it seems, as to make the Europeans actually get their act together and make a stand.