One step closer to tyranny

[mrchimp]

why arnt people as sane and broad minded as you Pogrom... very well said. I think you really hit the nail on the head,

So what your saying is your right and anybody that argues with you is insane...

I don't think that vast majority of the general public understand how much oil we have left and where it is. They probably don't understand that it's not just used for fuel and what would happen if it stopped flowing or came remotely near to stopping.

Unless there's some big conspiracy the reason Bush went into Iraq was to secure America's energy program which is a good measure against WW3 and the world economy collapsing. The only other way to secure it is by plumbing the Antartic and that would probably be harder than invadeing Iraq politically if not physically.

I would start digging up Antartica, it's the last place on earth untouched by industry and it would probably make country's that rely on there oil industry alot poorer but only a couple of 100 workers would die and some of the wildlife so it would keep you happy.

Of course Saddam will continue to kill 2000 people a year and the country will sink further into the 3rd world and terrorism will still exist and America will still get blamed for it.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Antartica isnt the only place...there are vast areas under permat frosnt in places like russia and north america which are not yet economically viable to drill but will be when oil runs low.

 

[The Mullinator]

Its nice to have someone agree with seinfeld for a change .

More people here agree with you than you think (and who agree with the other side of this argument), they just don't want to get involved in any more of these debates (and its very understandable as we have had many and they are always very dangerous to get into). Personally I think its a bigger and better surprise that this hasn't devolved into a complete flame war like they usually end up doing.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yeap, its all to save a few caribu that many will never see. When was the last time you saw a caribu anyways ?

 

[CptStern]

Or something along those lines, and then of course there are the really ignorant to think the US could have simply not dropped the bombs or invaded Japan and should have just left them alone. In which case it wouldn't have been long before Japan decided to attack the US again.

the US knew japan was trying to surrender weeks before the bomb was dropped. The Truman diaries confirms this

 

[seinfeldrules]

the US knew japan was trying to surrender weeks before the bomb was dropped. The Truman diaries confirms this

Then why didnt they? The emeperor wasnt going to surrender (due to his hardcore military advisors) until the US invaded Japan. Are you anti-US on everything?

 

[thehunter1320]

a bit disturbing...

 

[The Mullinator]

The emperor was trying to surrender however it is well known that the emperors generals were likely to have assasinated the emperor and continue the war had an agreement to surrender not been misinterpreted (an error in translation caused the US to think that the emperor was not going to surrender) and the bombs dropped.

 

[seinfeldrules]

As it is, the Generals did attempt to assasinate the Emperor in the final hours of the war. They invaded his compound, but were repulsed (this is all from memory, dont use it in a book or anything )

 

[Pogrom]

Yeah, I vote for sitting by idlely and waiting for our enemies to encircle us to a point in which we have no choice but to lose millions of lives. Has WWII taught you people nothing! Appeasement doesnt work! It never has, never will.

Again it is the misled argument about appeasement. The political and economic policies of the UN, US and Europe before the Iraq war bear absolutely no relation to the appeasement policies pre-WWII.

Were countries imposing sanctions before WWII? Were regulators inspecting countries before WWII?

You obviously don't even know what appeasement means. IF Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and we said "Ok, you can keep a bit of that, as long as you don't take any more."

THAT is appeasement.

Oh, and nice going on the selectively answering my arguments :thumbs: Must be nice to ignore the statements you don't want to answer.

 

[Pogrom]

The economy has gained over a million jobs in three months alone and the stock market is booming. Remind me how it is bad again? Also, do some research on the natural progression of capitalistic economies. There is an inevetiable prosperity, recession/depression, and recovery. Finally, show me a link to back up that statement, unless it is, as usual, "common knowledge".

PS Have you even seen Kerry's ads against Bush? Obviously not. And all an advertisement is anyways is propoganda, everyone uses it in free elections bud.

Yes - the economy HAS gained over a million jobs in the last three months. However, what a large number of news sources neglect to mention is that over TWO THIRDS of those jobs are temporary/short-term jobs. That means the net job gain in real terms is closer to 300,000 in the last three months.

And the economy is not "booming". If it was the Federal Reserve would not be meeting to raise interest rates and curb inflation.

 

[Pogrom]

On these critical issues the administration has so far won by default. The assumption that a war to overthrow Hussein would be a just war and one that, if it succeeded without excessive negative side effects, would serve everyone’s interests has gone largely unchallenged, at least in the mainstream. The administration’s justification for preemptive war is the traditional one: that the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now. Saddam Hussein, an evil despot, a serial aggressor, an implacable enemy of the United States, and a direct menace to his neighbors must be deposed before he acquires weapons of mass destruction that he might use or let others use against Americans or its allies and friends. A few thousand Americans died in the last terrorist attack; many millions could die in the next one. Time is against us; once Hussein acquires such weapons, he cannot be overthrown without enormous losses and dangers. Persuasion, negotiation, and conciliation are worse than useless with him. Sanctions and coercive diplomacy have failed. Conventional deterrence is equally unreliable. Preemptive action to remove him from power is the only effective remedy and will promote durable peace in the region.

*not written by me, but I thought it was valid.

So you support deceiving the public if the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now?

It was confirmed, time and time again, before the invasion, that the only justification for unilateral action was Saddam posed an IMMEDIATE threat. That he could within 30 minutes deploy weapons of mass destruction.

The point still remains - if merely overthrowing a dictator was the stated goal of the Iraqi war, why stop at Iraq? Why shouldn't the US now invade EVERY country that is considered dangerous?

 

[Pogrom]

Iraqis fired at us in the No-Fly zone. Furthermore, those accords need to be updated into the modern world. I agree with much of what they say, but some of the laws make little or no sense in the modern War v. Terror.

Yes, but the US had been bombing them for years already. Ooops!

 

[Javert]

Yay, another politcal debate of pubescence! :upstare:

Economy booming?
/checks gas prices...calls dad...

By the way, the Patriot Act is at best frivolous! Firstly, it requires a deadening euphemistic name: the "Patriot" Act, not something useful like the "Security" Act or the "Anti-Terrorism" Act.
Plus, it was signed in a matter days (on average, it takes months if it even passes at all), in the dead of the night, without even half the senators fully reading or comprehending it. If they did, they would never agree to such effrontery.

And I don't know how WWII all of a sudden got into this (I skipped some posts) but both sides commited atrocities, end of story. Sure the Nazi's were bad, but the Americans weren't exactly knights in shining armor either. Troops were still racially segregated, there was Japanese internment AND German/Italian immigrant internment (Source) . There's the bombing of Dresden, the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki (no industries/factories/troops etc...).

Guys, you'd be surprised what a little RESEARCH and CITATION can do for your arguments

 

[Pogrom]

"t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001

You are confusing state-sponsored propaganda with state policy. No serious historian or diplomatic statesman would consider the above even remotely close to a declaration of war.

It's laughable, really.

Yes Spraga you are correct about the indiscriminate bombing against Germany, but then again Germany was the first to use this tatic against Britian. Also, the Americans did kill thousands of people in Japan, but that was an attempt to end the war (same in Germany). What we failed to realize was the leaders of each respective country had no heart for the thousands being killed around them on a daily basis. Think about this: If we hadnt nuked Japan we would have been forced to invade. That would of cost an estimated 1 million American troops. And if 1 million troops had perished; think about how many Japanese would have died. It would have been an unthinkable number.

Agreed, if the US didn't drop the bombs then instead of hearing "YOU AMERICANS ARE SO HYPOCRITCAL!!!111!1 YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES TO DROP AN ATOMIC BOMB!!11!"

We would be hearing:

"HOW CAN YOU AMERICANS SAY YOU STAND FOR JUSTICE AND TRY NOT TO HURT CIVILIANS WHEN YOU KILLED MILLIONS WHEN YOU INVADED JAPAN!!11!!1"

Or something along those lines, and then of course there are the really ignorant to think the US could have simply not dropped the bombs or invaded Japan and should have just left them alone. In which case it wouldn't have been long before Japan decided to attack the US again.

Actually, the nuclear attacks on Japan (while deplorable) were not the worst of it. The US firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities could be considered the true atrocity.

If you watch the documentary The Fog of War, Robert S. McNamara recounts a conversation he had with the then General in command of the Allies against Japan.

In that conversation the General stated that he was aware what the Allies were doing was despicable. He also said that they could not afford to lose, because if they lost then the US would be tried for WAR CRIMES - and would be found guilty.

 

[Javert]

Patriot Act
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
WSJ on Torture Memo
http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/blog/publicspaces/archives/000135.html
Here, read.

(Was gonna include in original post except for 15 minute edit limit)
Oh, and some people here gotta learn the virtues of the holy "edit" button

 

[mrchimp]

Antartica isnt the only place...there are vast areas under permat frosnt in places like russia and north america which are not yet economically viable to drill but will be when oil runs low.

In that case It wouldn't make sense for America to go to Iraq for oil.

 

[Pogrom]

In that case It wouldn't make sense for America to go to Iraq for oil.

Except that you can't drill for oil in Antarctica - all that nonsense about "pristine wilderness" and "International Treaty" and such. Oh, and Alaska is a protected wilderness as well. Damn.

You're taking what he said out of context - it isn't economically viable now. Iraq IS economically viable now.

But why spend so much on oil? Shouldn't they be diverting resources AWAY from oil acquisition and INTO research on alternate fuels?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Again it is the misled argument about appeasement. The political and economic policies of the UN, US and Europe before the Iraq war bear absolutely no relation to the appeasement policies pre-WWII.

Were countries imposing sanctions before WWII? Were regulators inspecting countries before WWII?

You obviously don't even know what appeasement means. IF Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and we said "Ok, you can keep a bit of that, as long as you don't take any more."

THAT is appeasement.

Oh, and nice going on the selectively answering my arguments :thumbs: Must be nice to ignore the statements you don't want to answer.

We had placed sanctions on Japan. Where did that get us? And you are correct. Isolationism is the correct word for this particular situation, but appeasement would become the next, inevitable stage.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Except that you can't drill for oil in Antarctica - all that nonsense about "pristine wilderness" and "International Treaty" and such. Oh, and Alaska is a protected wilderness as well. Damn.

You're taking what he said out of context - it isn't economically viable now. Iraq IS economically viable now.

But why spend so much on oil? Shouldn't they be diverting resources AWAY from oil acquisition and INTO research on alternate fuels?

Are you saying as well the war was over oil?

 

[seinfeldrules]

You are confusing state-sponsored propaganda with state policy. No serious historian or diplomatic statesman would consider the above even remotely close to a declaration of war.

Saddam said those exact quotes bud. Put into historical context, it is not unlikely he would of followed through with what he said. He wasnt afraid to use WMD and wasnt afraid to attack America (he tried to get Bush on a few occasions).


Also, if you look at the ratios it is clear that more lives were saved using the nuke.

12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed

Now, most historians agree 1 million American men would have perished invading Japan. That would equal out into 9 million Japanese. That number doesnt even take into account that the Japanese would have fought even harder to defend their homeland in an invasion. The number would have been closer to 20 million in reality.

 

[Pogrom]

Saddam said those exact quotes bud. Put into historical context, it is not unlikely he would of followed through with what he said. He wasnt afraid to use WMD and wasnt afraid to attack America (he tried to get Bush on a few occasions).

Using that logic, then when Bush said Iraq was part of the 'Axis of Evil' and that America would do whatever it takes to bring those 'rogue states' in line was also a declaration of war. Saddam's quotes were certainly no more vehement than the rhetoric between the US and the USSR during the Cold War.

Also, if you look at the ratios it is clear that more lives were saved using the nuke.
Now, most historians agree 1 million American men would have perished invading Japan. That would equal out into 9 million Japanese. That number doesnt even take into account that the Japanese would have fought even harder to defend their homeland in an invasion. The number would have been closer to 20 million in reality.

But why firebomb Tokyo and the other Japanese cities so extensively in the sure knowledge that there were no soldiers or military targets? Over 200,000 civilians dead from firebombing BEFORE they dropped the nukes.

 

[Pogrom]

Oh, and you also missed a few of my earlier arguments. Here - I've reposted them for you:

Yes - the economy HAS gained over a million jobs in the last three months. However, what a large number of news sources neglect to mention is that over TWO THIRDS of those jobs are temporary/short-term jobs. That means the net job gain in real terms is closer to 300,000 in the last three months.

And the economy is not "booming". If it was the Federal Reserve would not be meeting to raise interest rates and curb inflation.

So you support deceiving the public if the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now?

It was confirmed, time and time again, before the invasion, that the only justification for unilateral action was Saddam posed an IMMEDIATE threat. That he could within 30 minutes deploy weapons of mass destruction.

The point still remains - if merely overthrowing a dictator was the stated goal of the Iraqi war, why stop at Iraq? Why shouldn't the US now invade EVERY country that is considered dangerous?

 

[Sprafa]

The world would be a soooo mcuh better place if we all had a nuke....

 

[Korgoth]

Show me evidence to back up your claims. Your 'news sources' have been nothing but jokes and sites to back up my claims so far...

Read my posts, I quote CNN news articles and you quote some opinion forum website. I think my links pull a little more weight. I think you make stuff up as you go along.
Look everyone is going to have a different opinion on how these situations are going to affect us, and how they are affecting us now. Read back, my goal in starting this thread was to share awareness of legislation that has been passed (this is fact)... Not neccessarily to debate the war in Iraq and the credability of this administration. I knew good and well that it would probably turn in to such, but that wasn't the idea behind the thread.
I respect your views, and everyone elses. I don't wish to change your mind, I only wish to open it up to different perspectives. You come off as believing this administration has been right %100 of the time. I tend to believe no one is perfect.
When your job description is "preside over and see to the well being of the ?United States and all its people" I tend to hold them under a harsher light. I'd say thats not such a bad thing as its a sort of checks and balances on a civil level.
And because I pull no political weight as a single citizen, spreading awareness of things that are actually occuring here at home and abroad will put more weight behind the message... United we stand divided we fall.

Cheers!

 

[CptStern]

the discussion is splintering

Also, if you look at the ratios it is clear that more lives were saved using the nuke.
Now, most historians agree 1 million American men would have perished invading Japan. That would equal out into 9 million Japanese. That number doesnt even take into account that the Japanese would have fought even harder to defend their homeland in an invasion. The number would have been closer to 20 million in reality.

you are distorting what truman said. The figures were 250,000 american soldiers and millions of japanese (this later proved to be closer to 60,000 american soldiers and 250,000 japanese...a number surpassed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

As to japan and ww2, the US had decoded japanese transmissions stating that they wanted to begin surrender negotiations. The Truman diaries confirms this.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff and every other high military official, as well as all Truman's key advisers, save one, were against the use of the A-bombs against the Japanese. Many were particularly concerned about the impact to America's moral stature for using bombs that they considered barbaric, especially upon a nation that they knew was beaten. After all, the U.S. military had already gained complete domination of Japanese airspace and waterways. They were simply waiting for the terms of surrender to be formulated between the U.S. and Japanese governments.

Truman repeatedly delayed acceptance of the Japanese government's conditional surrender attempts until after both types of A-bomb had been used.

The story of a million American lives (and many more Japanese lives) saved by the A-bombs was a complete fabrication designed to eliminate public criticism of the president's decision.

linky

even Dwight Eisenhower didnt agree with dropping the bomb:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of deep depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer necessary to save American lives." - Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, later President

linky


further reading:

important chain of events leading to the bombings

what I'll never understand is how some people can justify killing 250,000 civilians to end a war,

 

[Gorgon]

I have a question:

What America want the World to be ?
1-A Safer place (I doubt that)
2-America's slave (In other word, the world will be a slave to America) and that is Highly Likely
3- others (state them)

 

[CptStern]

I have a question:

What America want the World to be ?
1-A Safer place (I doubt that)
2-America's slave (In other word, the world will be a slave to America) and that is Highly Likely
3- others (state them)

here read this, it might give you some of the answers you're looking for:

note that some of the members of this cabal of the illuminati are well known:

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfiwitz, Jeb Bush and others

The Project For the New American Century

the 21 st century's answer to Mein Kampf

 

[Pogrom]

This is a pertinent quote I stumbled over today. I also think it is fitting to look back at a previous US 'triumph'.

As the backslapping continues over the UN resolution on Iraq, it is pertinent to look at Afghanistan more than two years after its "liberation". Non-government organisations say the US has just increased its forces from 13,500 to 20,000 because of unrest. President Hamid Karzai is reportedly making deals with Taliban leaders to keep control. Opium cultivation is up by 6 per cent, from 3400 to 3600 tonnes since 2001. No elections have been held. Women are frequently raped and subjected to forced marriages. Girls' schools are being closed down by fundamentalists. Less than 10 per cent of people have access to clean water and electricity. Reportedly, between 300 and 400 children per month are killed by landmines. The US has spent $US50 billion ($71 billion) on military efforts, but only $US4.5 billion on aid. However, the oil and gas pipelines are secure. Nice to know we did such a good job.

 

[CptStern]

oh and dont forget that during the taliban Afghanistans Opium production was 0 %. After the US moved in Opium production returned to pre-taliban levels and now accounts for more than 50% of it's exports. Afghanistan is the worlds largest cultivator of opium. BTW do you have the link to the quote? I'd like to read some more plz

 

[Kangy]

Anyone pretending they've done some good in Iraq so far is talking out of their ass. By the time the allied forces had taken Iraq completely, over 2 million innocent Iraqis will have died. The UN weapon inspection had completely disarmed Iraq of any WOMD, and all attempts to prove otherwise so far have failed. Bush knew he could get you rednecks to believe anything in a post-11/9 world, and he exploited this to finish off what his incompetent father failed to do.

Whilst I'm not saying Saddam was good, today is worse. Daily, cities are racked with fighting and recruiting for terrorist organisations, where as before, with Saddam, there was rarely this kind of violence going on. Bush is a war criminal, and should be charged with death of 2 million+.

 

[The Mullinator]

If there is anything I have learned from reading threads like these its that there are rarely any clear good guys or bad guys, for every point made there is always going to be some sort of valid counter point. Sticking so blindly close to one side as people on both sides of this argument doesn't help either. The US is not a bad guy nor is it a good guy, Bush is neither a bad guy nor is he a good guy, Isreal is neither bad nor good, the Palestinians are neither bad nor good, completely pro Bush supporters are neither right nor wrong, completely anti-Bush people are neither right nor wrong. Do you understand what I am saying?

If these things were so plain and simple and one side was so obviously right then we wouldn't be having these debates, so don't assume that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[clarky003]

The US is not a bad guy nor is it a good guy, Bush is neither a bad guy nor is he a good guy

agreed , but they certainly havnt got their morals right,and are being very narrow minded, really focusing more on how the US alone will survive rather than relations and 'world' developement.

 

[seinfeldrules]

By the time the allied forces had taken Iraq completely, over 2 million innocent Iraqis will have died.

Wouldnt that have been Clinton/the UN's problem?

Daily, cities are racked with fighting and recruiting for terrorist organisations, where as before, with Saddam, there was rarely this kind of violence going on.

Want to know why there wasnt this kind of violence? Everyone who even thought of opposing him was already dead. The UN DID NOT account for all the WMD, God you accuse me of being a redneck when you do not even know the facts. Saddam factually had a certain amount of weapons, the UN, US, everyone knew this. He failed to account for most of these weapons. Just because the UN could not find them did not mean they didnt exist. Also, why would Saddam continually kick out the inspectors if he had nothing to hide?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Also, clarky have you responded to my post yet? Or are you still too 'preoccupied'.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Read my posts, I quote CNN news articles and you quote some opinion forum website. I think my links pull a little more weight. I think you make stuff up as you go along.

I post a link with almost all of my claims. That forum link was taken from an actual report, its not like they made it up. I resent otherwise. I never said the Bush administration is correct 100% of the time, I would say 85%. Its Anti-Americans that I resent that believe everything they claim or say is a lie. It disgusts me. One day when you need America's help, I hope we remember this.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Using that logic, then when Bush said Iraq was part of the 'Axis of Evil' and that America would do whatever it takes to bring those 'rogue states' in line was also a declaration of war. Saddam's quotes were certainly no more vehement than the rhetoric between the US and the USSR during the Cold War.

Agreed. The US and the USSR were really at war (it wasnt called the Cold War for nothing), and we are at war with the Axis of Evil as the world turns today (War v Terrorism).

But why firebomb Tokyo and the other Japanese cities so extensively in the sure knowledge that there were no soldiers or military targets? Over 200,000 civilians dead from firebombing BEFORE they dropped the nukes.

At what point in the war did we have nuclear weapons? Just post a date for me. Duh..

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.newaus.com.au/040706usrecovery.html

Two powerful forces have been at work in the economy. The first was the Bush tax cut. With respect to the cuts I stated at the start of February last year: ". . . the beneficial effects of the cuts will certainly have made their presence by late 2004 . . . therefore revealing the economic wisdom of the cuts and the political shrewdness of the man who made them."

Recent Data from the Institute of Supply Management, which monitors the state of the manufacturing sector, showed that production, new orders and the demand for labour were rising strongly. The rate of increase in the demand for labour in manufacturing is now the highest since 1973. The strength of recovery is also indicated by the fact that the speed of supplier deliveries is at its highest since April 1979.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So you support deceiving the public if the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now?

It was confirmed, time and time again, before the invasion, that the only justification for unilateral action was Saddam posed an IMMEDIATE threat. That he could within 30 minutes deploy weapons of mass destruction.

The point still remains - if merely overthrowing a dictator was the stated goal of the Iraqi war, why stop at Iraq? Why shouldn't the US now invade EVERY country that is considered dangerous?

When did I say that we should deceive the public? Again, Bush believed he posed an immediate threat! This is the hundreth time I've been over this. Look to past Presidents. I posted an article in which Clinton said Saddam had WMD and when Kerry said the same thing. We went in because our CIA told us too, they were 'incorrect' (that has been yet to be fully determined). You never know where those weapons may have ended up. Why not question where they may have gone instead of jump on the Anti-Bush bandwagon? That seems to be the most pressing question people are unwilling to act. You seem to believe Saddam more often than Bush, if so, then it is a sad day to be alive. All Saddam had to do was prove the weapons had been destroyed, he didnt and couldnt.

why stop at Iraq?

We shouldnt. I am not willing to wait around for another 9/11. I'm not saying we support puppet gov'ts either. If possible, we go in, go out. Leave the country to clean up for its own mess (I mean, you support that in Iraq anyways right?). That way we wont have to deal with the prisoner garbage anymore and can accomplish our goals without listening to rhetoric from people like yourself. I can see the next question: Where? Well NK and Saudi Arabia would be on the top of my list. Also, the stated objective was to make America a safer place, be it to take down Saddam or get rid of WMDs. I would rather fight the battle in Baghdad with trained troops than on American soil with police officers and medics.

Finally, post some links with your articles. They are all invalid without some sort of site to back it up.

 

[seinfeldrules]

you are distorting what truman said. The figures were 250,000 american soldiers and millions of japanese (this later proved to be closer to 60,000 american soldiers and 250,000 japanese...a number surpassed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

As to japan and ww2, the US had decoded japanese transmissions stating that they wanted to begin surrender negotiations. The Truman diaries confirms this.

Historians say a million Americans would have perished in an invasion, not Truman. Again, you have completely skipped over the argument me and Mullitator (sp) have posted disproving the surrender theory.

Finally, check your sources out first. One of them you posted in this was a blatantly anti-everything war or Conservative. Days after Reagan's death they feel the need to post two articles criticizing him? Please, show some compassion :frown: