[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by aldo_14
And to also support Miks' argument, the Arab world could make pretty much exactly the same argument for invading Israel as the US did for Iraq.

You reckon Israel would use nukes as anything other than a deterrant do you?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael

Funny though, that you say "american hot dog mustard". We knew about the chemical and biological weapons in 1988. We didn't have to do inspections to know about them back then. All we needed to do was CHECK THE DAMN RECIEPTS. It was Americans (the Reagan/Bush administration) that sold him all those weapons and trained his people to use them.

Really? Huh - then perhaps Bush was trying to right a wrong? Then again, was it all sold to Saddam, or to a different regime? I recall there being a number of uphevals...

Originally posted by mikhael
Allow me to paraphrase something I read the other day: they're freedom fighters when we like them, terrorists when we don't and guerillas when we're not sure.

No offense, but that's bull****, without even having anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians.

Freedom fighters and guerillas don't target civilians - their fight is a clear-cut one against oppresive ruling powers and/or against opponents larger, stronger, and more powerful than they are.

Terrorists have similar agendas, but their means is different - they also target civilians, to garner (amazingly enough) terror in the general populace.

Originally posted by mikhael
We have to take your government's word that they are targetting the right people, that those people are guilty, and that the evidence them is so overwhelming that apprehension and trial are unnecessary. Somehow, we have to trust that the Israeli government makes mistakes and that every last one of those assassinations are justified. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, especially considering the overall situation with Israel and Palestine.

Quite true, and your skepticism is completely understandable. I'd go into looking at the track records of different parties as a way of judging their trustability, but I don't feel like getting into that area at the moment.

Originally posted by mikhael
You mean opressing ethnically separate civilians, shooting at them with gunships, flattening buildings with bulldozers and flying jets into Syria ISN'T enough to roll tanks? Unproven suspicion of the existence of nuclear weapons is enough, but the actual oppression of a populace and actual assassinations AREN'T? Talk about a double standard.

Let's look at history for a moment... were they "oppressed" at any time when there wasn't a heavy spate of violence? No... the "opression" comes as part and parcel of the ever-increasing security measures Israel's been forced to take.

Targeting the civilians with gunships? Again, never happened. Targets were terrorists. You think we'd waste flight fuel and expensive weaponry just so that we could target any old civilian? We can do that at any old checkpoint with any old M16.

Flattening buildings... now this one I like. According to world media, of course, Israel flattens random buildings as they please, right? Again, what's the point? Why not just blow a building up from a distance instead of risking the life of a tractor operator and support units? No, the buildings that have been razed are demolished as deterrent to suicide bombers - all that reward money for the "sacrifice" the families make of giving their son/father/brother/uncle/sister/daughter/mother/aunt as a suicide bomber go into making the hose a luxury mansion. Demolishing said buildings removes that reasoning from the potential suicide bomber's equation.

And the attack on the Hezbollah training camp inside Syria was definitely a violation of their territory, I agree. It was a bold, gutsy move. I'm surprised Syria took it so quietly.

Of course, nobody talks about the breach of national borders when a suicide bomber crosses over into Israel and kills 15 people on a bus. Which happens multiple times a year.

Originally posted by mikhael
I honestly don't know what is enough. The Soviet Union parked nukes on our doorsteps in Cuba and we didn't go to war. I'd consider that a far more credible threat than the foolishness with Hussein. Again, I challenge you to provide a shred of credible proof that Hussein had NBC weapons in 2003. Without even a shred of credible proof, you can't consider it a credible threat. Its a supposition, a suspicion. If all you've got is supposition and suspicion you don't commit lives to war. You're not being too cautious, you're being cautious enough.

Purely hypothetical question here... assume that they DO find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Assume that it is even the UN who makes the discovery, to rule out "made-up" evidence "planted" there by Bush and friends. If above is hypothetically true, will that have been enough provocation to attack and invade for you?

Back to reality, I doubt open nuclear warfare will ever happen, and I'm willing to bet that the leaders of the US and USSR knew it back then, too. A nuclear ICBM launch will clearly bring about like retaliation, thus basically ending life as we know it in the affected countries. Nobody in power is stupid enough to do that. No, nukes are far more threatening in suitcase form, a surprise attack that nobody could see coming, where you don't know who it was that attacked you.

Imagine an Iraqi suitcase nuke attack on San Fransisco. Tens of thousands killed, etc. But the USA doesn't know whodunnit for a couple of weeks. 5 weeks later, they get proof that it was Iraq. Do you think that they'd then launch a nuclear attack on Iraq in retaliation? Not a chance. They'd invade, and basically do what the US just did. But that opens things up for all sorts of defamations and decries of "falsified evidence" and crap like that. Which gives our example nation of Iraq a free nuke hit against the US, with the chance of not even getting hit back. Sounds like quite the deal.

Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, what you call a "delaying action", I call "following international law", or "multinational cooperation", or "allowing the UN to perform its mandate". More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition. What coalition? well lets move on...

"More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition." - For how long? Don't you think that they gave Iraq more than enough time to comply? That's what I saw in the American action - they were sick and tired of watching the UN and EU play along with Saddam's delaying game, and decided to draw the line.

Originally posted by mikhael
...aggressively push inspections, aggressively push sanctions and aggressively push blockade busting...

As opposed to the regular pushing of said actions? When is enough finally enough? When the suitcase nuke made in the 10-by-12 laboratory in the middle of nowhere that was never discovered is en route to the US by cargo container?

Originally posted by mikhael
One thing you brought up Sandwich, is that there are things the government knows that the public does not. I was in the military and worked with the intelligence community. I understand how true this is. I also know that intelligence is shared among friendly governments. If would couldn't convince our staunchest allies, perhaps our intelligence wasn't as good as we thought.

IIRC, Blair was supportive of military action against Iraq. Perhaps he knew what the US knew, and the US simply didn't share that info with anyone else. Perhaps wisely, even, depending on if those reports of the French govt. sharing info with Iraq are true or not.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Nico

Source? geez, man. Take any darn history book ( but preferably not one written by a US historian, you probably heard of "history is written by the winners", right? ). Their military was crippled, their moral was crippled, their land was cripped, the soldiers were starting to desert in mobs, hell, they were so frightened of the US soldiers that civilians commited mass suicides when they were approching. Didn't ever occur to you it was odd those B29 came so freely right over the japanese mainland ( heck, not some remote island, Japan itself ), back and forth, dropped their little surprise and returned back home w/o the slightest trouble? What did they actually teach at school, I'm curious. Now I understand better some stuff, tho. Talk about disinformation .

I hate this argument, I really do, because it gets distorted so easily that no one knows who to believe.  This is how I've heard it, not just from American sources either.  And from one, my Grandfather, who actually served out there.  When US forces were island hopping in the Pacific in WWII, they saw firsthand how hard the Japanese were willing to fight to hold on to every inch of ground that they possessed and committed suicide rather than suffer the humiliation of being captured.  It doesn't mean they were scared.  The Pacific theater saw some extremely brutal fighting, right up until the end.  Yes, Japan was desperate, but that didn't mean a military campaign onto the Japanese mainland was known to be a cakewalk.  I've never heard tell of mass desertions, ever, and I've read quite a bit about World War II.  Hell, there were still soldiers on islands that had been cut off from reinforcements in the 70's that had Japanese soldiers on them still thinking the war was on.  At the time all we could assume was that every man, woman and child in Japan was being armed and would have forcefully resisted invasion, and they would not have surrendered under anything less than American tanks knocking down the palace walls or some other close-to-home demonstration that Japan would be defeated at any cost.  That's why the nukes were deployed, to send a message.  It was only after the fact that the full significance of those bombings was understood; US troops in both Hiroshima and Nagisaki long before the radiation had cleared because no one really knew it was there.

I will also add that if you judge the United States by its actions today, that's fine.  You're entitled to your opinions and we are all free to discuss them.  But when you try to hold a nation accountable for its "crimes" 50 years ago or more, you had better take a good hard look in the mirror.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Really? Huh - then perhaps Bush was trying to right a wrong? Then again, was it all sold to Saddam, or to a different regime? I recall there being a number of uphevals...

Nope. It was Hussein. No one else. The Reagan/Bush administration was afraid of Iran's hardline theocracy. They were willing to help a "friendly" dictator do their dirty work for them.

No offense, but that's bull****, without even having anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians.

Freedom fighters and guerillas don't target civilians - their fight is a clear-cut one against oppresive ruling powers and/or against opponents larger, stronger, and more powerful than they are.
...

You're missing the point. The point is that "terrorist" is a label. Who does the labelling determines who gets the label. We called the Contras "freedom fighters" when we were helping them, and they were killing civilians. Its just a label. Perhaps using the Israel/Palestine situation was a bad idea. You're too close to it.

Purely hypothetical question here... assume that they DO find evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Assume that it is even the UN who makes the discovery, to rule out "made-up" evidence "planted" there by Bush and friends. If above is hypothetically true, will that have been enough provocation to attack and invade for you?

Yes. If unambiguous, credible proof is found, then yes. That, however, does not change the fact that Bush went about things the wrong way around. Proof first, action later.

...
Imagine an Iraqi suitcase nuke attack on San Fransisco. Tens of thousands killed, etc. But the USA doesn't know whodunnit for a couple of weeks. 5 weeks later, they get proof that it was Iraq. Do you think that they'd then launch a nuclear attack on Iraq in retaliation? Not a chance. They'd invade, and basically do what the US just did. But that opens things up for all sorts of defamations and decries of "falsified evidence" and crap like that. Which gives our example nation of Iraq a free nuke hit against the US, with the chance of not even getting hit back. Sounds like quite the deal.

I have imagined an attack on the US. Not that I have to, a bunch of terrorists already did it (not that any of them were Iraqi). But why stop at an IRAQI suitcase nuke. Why not a North Korean suitcase nuke? Why not anyone with an axe to grind? Why shouldn't we invade all those other places that might have people who might want to send a nuke to the US and might have the ability to do so? Why not invade North Korea? Li'l Kim is starving his people and riding high. I've got a little conspiracy theory to explain that, but I'll save that for later.

"More sanctions, more inspections, more friends, more allies, more real members of the eventual coalition." - For how long? Don't you think that they gave Iraq more than enough time to comply? That's what I saw in the American action - they were sick and tired of watching the UN and EU play along with Saddam's delaying game, and decided to draw the line.

As opposed to the regular pushing of said actions? When is enough finally enough? When the suitcase nuke made in the 10-by-12 laboratory in the middle of nowhere that was never discovered is en route to the US by cargo container?

Given that Hussein hadn't invaded another country since the end of the Gulf War, I'd say that sanctions were going pretty well. If you could, perhaps, produce this 10-by-12 lab in the middle of nowhere, I might buy into it.
The whole cargo container thing is interesting. We search people going on to planes now, but we don't even glance at shipping containers. They're still completely ignored in the 'homeland security' strategy. Its really odd. But I digress.

IIRC, Blair was supportive of military action against Iraq. Perhaps he knew what the US knew, and the US simply didn't share that info with anyone else. Perhaps wisely, even, depending on if those reports of the French govt. sharing info with Iraq are true or not.

Until someone can show proof of the French giving Iraq intelligence, I'd like to leave that off the table. Its more rumor mongering.
The fact is that the evidence that the US did produce for the international community convinced no one. Every piece of evidence Bush and Blair used was discredited. If there had been a single piece of evidence revealed, I'd not be arguing so vehemently about this, and our allies would have stood beside us.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Nico
Source? geez, man. Take any darn history book ( but preferably not one written by a US historian, you probably heard of "history is written by the winners", right? ). Their military was crippled, their moral was crippled, their land was cripped, the soldiers were starting to desert in mobs, hell, they were so frightened of the US soldiers that civilians commited mass suicides when they were approching. Didn't ever occur to you it was odd those B29 came so freely right over the japanese mainland ( heck, not some remote island, Japan itself ), back and forth, dropped their little surprise and returned back home w/o the slightest trouble? What did they actually teach at school, I'm curious. Now I understand better some stuff, tho. Talk about disinformation .

Baloney. The Japanese fought like madmen on Saipan and the rest of the Marianas Islands. Their atrocities on civilians all over the Pacific area and China are well-documented. I suggest you read "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang for just one example of the Japanese atrocities during WWII. It's a damn interesting read on how Japanese soldiers massacred more than 300,000 Chinese civilians in 1938 in the city of Nanking. It's even got some really...blatant pictures. Oh, BTW, more Chinese died at the Nanking massacre alone than the Japanese who died at BOTH Hiroshima (est. dead 140,000) and Nagasaki (est. dead 70,000).

Mass rapes, massacres of civilians, women taken away from their families to be made into sexual slaves (AKA "comfort women")? The Empire of Japan committed so many atrocities, it's not at all unreasonable to say that Japan had the A-bomb coming to it.

Before Hiroshima, the US warned Japan that it had a new weapon capable of destroying an entire city and would use it on a Japanese city if the Empire of Japan did not surrender unconditionally. Of course, the Japanese thought the Americans were bluffing and refused to surrender. Hiroshima went *POOF* right afterwards. After Hiroshima, the Emperor had several days to surrender. He didn't. All he had to do to save the lives of the people at Nagasaki was to transmit his unconditional surrender and end the war his country started. He refused (or was convinced by his advisors that what happened at Hiroshima couldn't possibly happen again). As a result, the blood of the people who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the hands of the Japanese government, NOT the Americans.

Oh, let's not forget one important detail that led to the whole use of the A-bomb, rather than a conventional invasion of Japan. Projected casualties of an American invasion of the Japanese mainland were in the neighborhood of 250,000. That's right, folks. A land invasion of Japan would have added anywhere from 6 months to a year of additional WWII wartime AND resulted in the death or maiming of at least another quarter million American troops.

As for the Japanese civilians committing suicide rather than let themselves be taken prisoner, well, if they were stupid enough to believe the Japanese government's propaganda that American soldiers would torture and rape them, that's not our fault. When those American soldiers saw the Japanese civilians kill themselves at Saipan, they were horrified by what they saw and would have prevented it if they could have.

And as for the Enola Gay (the B29 that dropped the Big One over Hiroshima) "without the slightest trouble" as you so eloquently put it was because they were flying at a very high altitude so that they could escape the shockwave of the blast. With the Enola Gay flying at such a high altitude, no Japanese anti-aircraft could have touched them. Hell, the Enola Gay was so high in the clouds, no ground-based lookout would have seen it. And the Japanese didn't have radar back then. If the Japanese didn't know it was there, they couldn't even have sent fighters after it.

One would wish that all bombing runs were so easy.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by StratComm

I will also add that if you judge the United States by its actions today, that's fine.  You're entitled to your opinions and we are all free to discuss them.  But when you try to hold a nation accountable for its "crimes" 50 years ago or more, you had better take a good hard look in the mirror.

To be fair, StratComm, one should judge the US (and all other countries) on the basis of their present crimes and their crimes of 50yrs ago. We SHOULD take a good look in the mirror and own up to the foolish and stupid things we've done.

[Nico]

Did I judge today's USA for what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. About your grandfather stuff, well, what can I say? You're not the only one to have grandparents who served during the wars, members of my family even went to concentration camps ( they weren't reserved only to jews, you know ), and that's not enough to prove anything. You always find guys this way or that way, you've seen them, ok, but that won't resume the whole deal, it would be to easy. Don't take it personally, but I've read a lot of stuff on WW2 too, and what I said above is the result from what I've heard. You've heard another story, that's fine, but don't come and say "I'm right, you're wrong". You're entitled to your opinions too, but don't tell me my argument is the distorded one just for a couple exemples. Japanese soldiers thinking the war wasn't over in the 70's? There's psycho everywhere, they don't represent a whole nation and the course of events back then. And I never said they would surrender w/o fighting, obviously, japanese are full of pride, not only the soldiers, it's in there culture. But don't tell me those mass suicides were jsut some "darn we lost, let's ALL die" .
You're making easy shortcuts there.
But when you're getting personal like that in an argument, it just can't end, so there's little point going on.

[Gloriano]

 


look well what happened in Hiroshima



A-bomb mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, August 6th, 1945, about one hour after the bombing. Photo taken from a U.S. airplane over the Seto Inland Sea about 80 kilometers from the hypocenter. U.S. Army photo courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation

war os bad thing peoples die's so could youn stop talking about it

[Dark_4ce]

Yep. Pritty much obliterated the city. Though the pic of Nagasaki is a better one. But what does this teach us, boys and girls?

Nukes are bad, mmm'kay?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer

You reckon Israel would use nukes as anything other than a deterrant do you?

I didn't say anything about what I thought, did I?

Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano

war os bad thing peoples die's so could youn stop talking about it

It's only by talking about war that you can understand it, and try to prevent it.  You can't ignore the past, or you'll make the same mistakes in the future.

[Gloriano]

oh,well you are right

[Nico]

Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano

war os bad thing peoples die's so could youn stop talking about it

Sure. I've had my share of pointless arguments for the month, anyway.

[Mr. Vega]

After Hiroshima, the Emperor had several days to surrender. He didn't. All he had to do to save the lives of the people at Nagasaki was to transmit his unconditional surrender and end the war his country started. He refused (or was convinced by his advisors that what happened at Hiroshima couldn't possibly happen again). As a result, the blood of the people who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the hands of the Japanese government, NOT the Americans.

The Nagasaki bomb was dropped as the Japanese leaders(I'm not sure how much power Hirohito actually had) were debating whether to try for provisions or to accept unconditional surrender. And the Soviets invaded Manchuria a day before (2 days after Hiroshima). Nagasaki was completely unnessesary.

[redsniper]

... yeah, Saddam
What I think they should do is use the whole Muslim justice thing but start with the smallest crimes and work up from there. Ex: cut off a finger, cut off a hand, cut out tongue, then kill him.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega


The Nagasaki bomb was dropped as the Japanese leaders(I'm not sure how much power Hirohito actually had) were debating whether to try for provisions or to accept unconditional surrender. And the Soviets invaded Manchuria a day before (2 days after Hiroshima). Nagasaki was completely unnessesary.

I think there is evidence that the bomb was dropped as much to intimidate Stalin as to force the Japanese to surrender.  I don't have a specific source though - I remember reading it in the paper a while back.

[vyper]

Am I the only one happy we've got a basis for establishing a strategic base in the middle east?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael

Nope. It was Hussein. No one else. The Reagan/Bush administration was afraid of Iran's hardline theocracy. They were willing to help a "friendly" dictator do their dirty work for them.

Ahh, I see. The same twisted logic of "he's doing what I want to be done now, so let's help him, and damn the consequences". Got it.

Originally posted by mikhael
You're missing the point. The point is that "terrorist" is a label. Who does the labelling determines who gets the label. We called the Contras "freedom fighters" when we were helping them, and they were killing civilians. Its just a label. Perhaps using the Israel/Palestine situation was a bad idea. You're too close to it.

"Just a label" doesn't cut it. Words are used because they mean a specific thing, so that people can understand each other without having to guess "Did he mean terrorist terrorist or terrorist terrorist?" So, unless you want to drop the whole discussion, we must agree on a common definition to the words (not labels), "Terrorist", "Freedom Fighters", and "Guerilla".

And I was distancing my definitions from the I-P situation, like I said:

[q]"...without even having anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians."[/q]

So again, regardless of who we're talking about, I stand by my definitions.

Originally posted by mikhael
Yes. If unambiguous, credible proof is found, then yes. That, however, does not change the fact that Bush went about things the wrong way around. Proof first, action later.

Ok. So, for all we as the public know, he has proof. We can't know for sure, so until they give up the search for WMDs, we cannot justly and logically come to a definite conclusion one way or another. Sure, we can have opinions, but stating that something is a fact is irresponsible of us as beings with the capability for logic and reason.

Originally posted by mikhael
I have imagined an attack on the US. Not that I have to, a bunch of terrorists already did it (not that any of them were Iraqi). But why stop at an IRAQI suitcase nuke. Why not a North Korean suitcase nuke? Why not anyone with an axe to grind? Why shouldn't we invade all those other places that might have people who might want to send a nuke to the US and might have the ability to do so? Why not invade North Korea? Li'l Kim is starving his people and riding high. I've got a little conspiracy theory to explain that, but I'll save that for later.

Indeed, why not? What's NK's belligrency level on a scale of 1 to 10, anyway? Have they invaded any neighbors recently, or flipped the birdy at the US?

Originally posted by mikhael
Given that Hussein hadn't invaded another country since the end of the Gulf War, I'd say that sanctions were going pretty well. If you could, perhaps, produce this 10-by-12 lab in the middle of nowhere, I might buy into it.

Just because a nation hasn't invaded another nation in a single decade, you conclude that sanctions against that nation are the cause and reason for the lack of aggressiveness? Sounds like pretty shaky logic to me.

Originally posted by mikhael
Until someone can show proof of the French giving Iraq intelligence, I'd like to leave that off the table. Its more rumor mongering.

Depends on who you listen to, now doesn't it? Of course, when you get down to it, everything we "know" depends on who we listen to or what source we aquired any given bit of "knowledge" from.

Originally posted by mikhael
The fact is that the evidence that the US did produce for the international community convinced no one. Every piece of evidence Bush and Blair used was discredited. If there had been a single piece of evidence revealed, I'd not be arguing so vehemently about this, and our allies would have stood beside us.

Perhaps you're right. But perhaps they had their reasons not to reveal anything more. Who knows?

Just keep in mind that with enough skill, pretty much anything can be manipulated into looking like something completely else.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

"Just a label" doesn't cut it. Words are used because they mean a specific thing, so that people can understand each other without having to guess "Did he mean terrorist terrorist or terrorist terrorist?" So, unless you want to drop the whole discussion, we must agree on a common definition to the words (not labels), "Terrorist", "Freedom Fighters", and "Guerilla".

Oh, you and I agree on the definition of terrorist. Its my government that uses a subjective, case-by-case basis definition of terrorist. Contras were freedom fighters, even though you and I would consider them terrorists. Osama was a guerilla and a freedom fighter, when we were funding and training him even though he supported a regime that felt no remorse in burning women alive, but now he's a terrorist. The problem with labels is that they don't really mean what YOU want or what I want. They mean what the SPEAKER wants and we're left to interpret them.

Just because a nation hasn't invaded another nation in a single decade, you conclude that sanctions against that nation are the cause and reason for the lack of aggressiveness? Sounds like pretty shaky logic to me.

Lack of aggressiveness? Hell no. Lack of ability? Hell yes.
Let us consider a salient fact: the complete and utter obliteration of Iraq in less time than it takes to get a house loan. Iraq couldn't fight back. They didn't have have anything that resembled the strength of arms to defend themselves, let alone invade someone else. That lack of strength is a direct result of a regime of sanctions and inspection that crippled the country.

Depends on who you listen to, now doesn't it? Of course, when you get down to it, everything we "know" depends on who we listen to or what source we aquired any given bit of "knowledge" from.
...
Just keep in mind that with enough skill, pretty much anything can be manipulated into looking like something completely else.

You've pretty much summed up exactly why I maintain that you cannot work from supposition and suspicion. To be anything but a hawkish cowboy, a leader has to show proof that is compelling not to just his own people, but to the global community.

[Sandwich]

Hey Mik, this is cool - our posts are getting shorter! The end is nigh!!

Originally posted by mikhael
Lack of aggressiveness? Hell no. Lack of ability? Hell yes.
Let us consider a salient fact: the complete and utter obliteration of Iraq in less time than it takes to get a house loan. Iraq couldn't fight back. They didn't have have anything that resembled the strength of arms to defend themselves, let alone invade someone else. That lack of strength is a direct result of a regime of sanctions and inspection that crippled the country.

"Obliteration"? Huh?

And isn't the point of sanctions to cause economical damage to a country?

[mikhael]

I always thought the point of sanctions are to cripple a country and convince the people that the cause of their problems is policies of their current leadership OR to cause that leadership to change its policies. In either case, the sanctions flattened Iraq's ability to defend, let alone attack. It had been weakened to the point where it couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone.