The Libya Thread (III)

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. Spector M. Spector's picture

A_J wrote:

I'll give Falk the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "bipartisan call" he's talking about those Representatives and Senators who are advocating unilateral action.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unaware of the use of the word "bipartisan" in the U.S. media to mean "supported by both Republicans and Democrats."

It has nothing to do with the Executive Branch of the government, which is never "bipartisan", but always either Republican or Democratic.

I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt that you are blissfully unaware that the UN Security Council has been doing the bidding of the United States for at least the last dozen years. Any intervention will be "United Nations" in name only.  

A_J

M. Spector wrote:

It has nothing to do with the Executive Branch of the government, which is never "bipartisan", but always either Republican or Democratic.

Exactly what I was saying. He's referring to various members of Congress - AKA the folks who don't really count in matters like this.

If you want to fret about what the U.S. is going to do, look to the Executive. I'm sure you can find a "bipartisan call" for next to anything you can imagine (i.e. a Democrat and a Republican who support it), doesn't make it remotely government policy.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

The hysteria is all on the side of the Tea Party, the Democrats, Sarkozy, Harper, and their friends in the cruise-missile left.

Where was the hysteria to invade the Congo when millions were being slaughtered in a civil war? Where was the hysteria to launch strategic air strikes against Pinochet when he was killing leftists? Where was the hysteria for humanitarian military intervention in Gaza?

Hypocrisy!

[url=http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/]Libya has highest human development[/url] among all African countries, higher than Mexico, Brazil, Ukraine and Costa Rica. Gadaffi is sharing too much of the oil wealth with Libyans and leading them away from religious fundamentalism. That's what's bugging heck out of the vicious empire.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Gadhafi forces drive rebels from key oil town

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110313/ap_on_bi_ge/af_libya

Quote:

Moammar Gadhafi's forces swept rebels from a key oil town Sunday with waves of strikes from warships, tanks and warplanes, closing on the opposition-held eastern half of Libya as insurgents pleaded for a U.N.-imposed no-fly zone.

Gadhafi's troops have been emboldened by a string of victories in the struggle for Libya's main coastal highway but their supply lines are stretched and their dependence on artillery, airstrikes and naval attacks makes it hard for them to swiftly consolidate control of territory, particularly at night.

The insurgents claimed they moved back into the strategic town of Brega after dusk in a fast-moving battle with a constantly shifting front line, destroying armored vehicles and capturing dozens of fighters from Gadhafi's elite Khamis Brigade.

 

Frmrsldr

M. Spector wrote:

The hysteria is all on the side of the Tea Party,...

Well, it depends on the way the Tea Party evolves:

Will it become Palinist, pro-war and pro-interventionist?

Or will it become Paulite, anti-war and anti-interventionist?

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/03/10/ron-paul-a-no-fly-zone-is-an-act-...

Ron Paul raises the all important moral question you alluded to earlier.

 

 

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Gadhafi's troops have been emboldened by a string of victories in the struggle for Libya's main coastal highway but their supply lines are stretched and their dependence on artillery, airstrikes and naval attacks makes it hard for them to swiftly consolidate control of territory, particularly at night.

The insurgents claimed they moved back into the strategic town of Brega after dusk in a fast-moving battle with a constantly shifting front line, destroying armored vehicles and capturing dozens of fighters from Gadhafi's elite Khamis Brigade.

Very good. That's what I like to hear.

The clock is still ticking.

Will the people be able to hold out long enough for Gadhafi's forces to wear down and become a spent force?

If so, then victory for the people is assured.

Godspeed to the people of Libya!

Viva the Libyan Revolution!

 

Doug

M. Spector wrote:

The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from any use of force unless it can be justified as self-defence after a cross-border armed attack or mandated by a decision of the UN Security Council.

Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world.

The imperial mentality is not inclined to discuss the question of legality, much less show behavioural respect for the constraints embedded in international law.

 

I'm not really convinced by the national sovereignty-at-all-costs arguments. Those allow a government to get away with anything in relation to those it governs up to and including genocide. If international laws and conventions are good for anything, they ought to be good for this. That's far from enough in itself to make any proposed humanitarian intervention a good idea but I don't think we do a good thing by ruling the idea out entirely based on national sovereignty. 

A much more convincing argument is that it usually doesn't work.

Fidel

Where is there proof of a genocide in a country where HDI is higher than it is for most third world capitalist hell holes?

Is this going to be another case of blitzkrieg for humanitarian reasons? Gadaffi agreed to a non-aggression pact with her Bushler and went along with the phony global war on terror.

Blood-for-oil terrorists are at it again.

NDPP

Gaddafi Tries to Crush Rising, West Threatens Attack  - by Peter Boyle

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46988

"The Libyan rebels are a mixed force and the composition of the interim Transitional National Council reflects this. At this stage, the rebel leaders getting the most publicity are those who once were in the Gaddafi regime. But there are other elements, including some from various Islamic opposition groups (bloodily suppressed by the Gaddafi regime), more secular elements, representation from various tribes, some youth and even veterans of the 1969 revolution who were subsequently repressed by Gaddafi.

Unlike in Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt, there is no discernible leftist voice in this revolution. The exiled opposition groups, (including monarchists and the once CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya) are said to have little support among Libya's 6.5 million people...But the broader, evolving character of the opposition is also a cause for nervousness in imperialist power circles, who want a stable regime friendly to their interests...If Gaddafi looks as though he has the power to crush this revolt, Western governments, whose biggest concern is a stable, pro-West regime - may be willing to let this play out..."

Libyan Revolutionaries Retake Brega

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169792.html

Libyan revolutionaries have reportedly regained the control of the strategic oil town of Brega after heavy fighting in with forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. 'We have captured 20 of Gaddafi's forces and we killed 25. We have forced them to retreat 20 km from the town,' Reuters quoted Colonel Hamed - al- Hasi, a spokesman for opposition forces, as saying on Sunday."

Gaddafi Urges Investment in Oil Sector

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169810.html

"The Libyan ruler has urged Russia, China and India to invest in the Libyan oil sector as the ongoing turmoil continues to wreak havoc on the country's oil industry. 'In the discussion with the ambassadors...a call was made for the companies of these countries to invest in the Libyan oil industry,' Reuters quoted Muammar Gadddafi saying in his meetings with Chinese, Russian and Indian ambassadors on Sunday.."

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Doug wrote:

I'm not really convinced by the national sovereignty-at-all-costs arguments.

What this has to do with the passage I quoted is a mystery to me. The quote clearly says intervention can be justified by a Security Council resolution. Nobody's arguing sovereignty-at-all-costs.

Quote:
If international laws and conventions are good for anything, they ought to be good for this.

International laws and conventions are predicated on respect for national sovereignty - in fact that is practically their whole raison d'être.

Quote:
A much more convincing argument is that it usually doesn't work.

As Richard Falk says, "Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world."

It's a completely amoral position. It's like saying "I oppose torture because it doesn't work" in order to avoid having to actually take a moral position against torture. The implication is that if it could be proven to "work" then the speaker would be in favour of torture, or "humanitarian" war, or whatever.

Read the whole article, not just the part I quoted. You'll find wisdom in passages like this:

Quote:
Mahmoud Mamdani has taught us to distinguish 'good Muslims' from 'bad Muslims', now we are being instructed to distinguish 'good autocrats' from 'bad autocrats'.

By this definition, only the pro-regime elements in Libya and Iran qualify as bad autocrats, and their structures must at least be shaken if they cannot be broken.

What distinguishes these regimes? It does not seem to be that their degree of oppressiveness is more pervasive and severe than is the case for the others. Other considerations give more insight: access and pricing of oil, arms sales, security of Israel, relationship to the neoliberal world economy.

What I find most disturbing is that despite the failures of counterinsurgency thinking and practise, American foreign policy gurus continue to contemplate intervention in post-colonial societies without scruples or the slightest show of sensitivity to historical experience, not even the recognition that national resistance in the post-colonial world has consistently neutralised the advantages of superior hard power deployed by the intervening power.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Members of the cruise missile left may be under the mistaken impression that the rebellious forces in Libya are homogeneous in their class composition and political outlook; they are not.

Generalizations about what the rebels are asking for or what the rebels want from the international community are invariably wrong. Undoubtedly there are bourgeois and right-wing elements among the rebels who would welcome Western intervention; they have the backing of the capitalist conservative governments of the Arab League. Undoubtedly there are also working class and leftist elements who are profoundly suspicious of the imperialists and rightly believe that intervening foreign powers would end up backing the upper class elements among the rebels after the demise of Qaddafi.

Calls for foreign intervention by the western armchair left play right into the hands of those rightist elements who would benefit the most from having the world's most fearsome military forces enforcing the existing social order and economic relations. 

ETA: After all, once a no-fly zone has been established, or a ground force has been sent in, the intervention will not be terminated until the intervening power(s) are happy with the situation. And so supporting imperialist intervention is tantamount to nothing less than throwing Libyans to the wolves.

NDPP

Western Countries Advocating Intervention As Pretext for Oil Grab - Russian Envoy (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/intervention-libya-military-nato/

"Some major Western oil companies with an axe to grind where their concessions and oil development projects in Libya are concerned, are quite likely to be pushing certain Western countries towards hasty decisions with regard to an intervention in Libya..."

Libyans Fear West is More Interested in Gaddafi's Money than Human Rights (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/fear-money-benghazi-opposition/

"International deliberations on what to do about the Libyan uprising have been going on for so long that many people in Benghazi no longer hope that help will come. Instead they are appealing to Allah, their last hope, as the Gaddafi forces are closing in on the embattled city. As more coffins arrive from the frontline, high spirits have given way to a sense of abandonment. After several weeks of encouraging statements from Western capitals, many here feel deceived.

Benghazi resident Kaled Obeidi says that he feels sorry to say that they expected Barack Obama to be a 'real democrat' who is for liberty for people, but in reality, he says, Obama is looking for Gaddafi's money first..."

and it may very well be that the Libyan funds seized may not ever be repatriated to Libyans. These assets are not insignificant.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Just wanted to thank M. Spector for coming out of exile and along with him, NDPP and many others, providing me stories I, or others, wouldn't easily find otherwise.

Vansterdam Kid

West Coast Greeny wrote:

1) Libya is a much different situation than Egypt. Egypt was bad, yes, but forces there tended to resort to beatings and not shootings. In Libya Gaddafi forces have killed between 1000 and 10,000 people. Considering the language Gaddafi has used, calling his own people rats and cochroaches, I doubt he's willing to accept any cease-fire that doesn't leave him in power. I also doubt that any solution that leaves Gaddafi in power won't result in rebels being left in grave danger.

2) THE ARAB LEAGUE ITSELF HAS CALLED FOR A NO FLY ZONE. The only two countries opposed to this measure during the vote were Algeria (which has an interest in not being the only North African country to avoid regime change) and Syria (who occupied Lebanon just 6 years ago). Revolutionary-led Tunisia, revolutionary-led Egypt, Lebanon (who has plenty of experience getting bombed by Western ordinence) and Iraq (ditto)

What the fuck else do you need? Libyans want it. Arabs want it. The US has been politely waiting on the sidelines, and were on the verge of seeing a Security council resolution pass for it. Instead you're all durp, durr, hurrrrr, Amerikkka is planning to steal oil.

You're not even grounded in reality.

Amerikkka is bad.

The 'Imperalists' are bad.

Amerikkkans and the 'Imperialists' like the rebels therefore the rebels are bad.

Ghadaffi is against the rebels.

Therefore advocating anything that's anti-Ghadaffi, involving western intervention, is pro-imperialist and bad.

This theory is straight out of the University of Babble's Philosophy 101 class, didn't you get the memo?

Vansterdam Kid

Papal Bull wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

The hysteria is all on the side of the Tea Party, the Democrats, Sarkozy, Harper, and their friends in the cruise-missile left.

Where was the hysteria to invade the Congo when millions were being slaughtered in a civil war? Where was the hysteria to launch strategic air strikes against Pinochet when he was killing leftists? Where was the hysteria for humanitarian military intervention in Gaza?

 

Or, more pressingly and totally going unnoticed, the violence in Ivory Coast.

 

Obviously it's impractical and undesirable, as a rule, to intervene in any and all countries. Yet it appears that this line of thought goes something along the lines of: because x, y and z countries were allowed to suffer at the hands of a brutal despot a, b and c countries should too. I'm not going to criticize this type of logic. Because it's at least theoretically logical, if context is completely ignored.

You can take solace in the fact that you're being logically consistent as a genuine people powered revolution gets crushed by a dictator that has essentially been rehabilitated by the evil Amerikkans and imperialist westerners in recent years, since he's been willing, ready and able to provide the Amerikkkans and imperialists with oil and join in the 'War on Terror'.

Fidel

Oil extraction costs are $1 dollar a barrel in Libya.

Fascist Western World concern is not for democracy in Libya.

It's about the oil.

They've committed mass murder for it before, and it looks like they are maneuvering to do so again.

Vansterdam Kid

Yes, obviously Oil is a big issue for all countries that rely on Oil imports including non-Western countries like China. This is not news. What's interesting, is the general assertion, by some of the posters on this thread that doing nothing would somehow be the best solution because doing something is a thinly disguised Oil grab. What seems most likely by nothing being done is that Ghdaffi will sooner or later (more likely sooner though) crushed the rebellion and therefore regain control of the Oil. The West will scream about "human rights" for a while, meanwhile everyone will realize they need Oil, and will start doing business with Ghdaffi again (like they were before this whole thing started). Hence, Oil (as a determinate over whether or not a no-fly zone should be established) isn't one of the measures we need to look at. All things considered, regardless of which regime gains control, Oil will be flowing to those who want it again at some point in the near future.

Frmrsldr

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Yes, obviously Oil is a big issue for all countries that rely on Oil imports including non-Western countries like China. This is not news. What's interesting, is the general assertion, by some of the posters on this thread that doing nothing would somehow be the best solution because doing something is a thinly disguised Oil grab. What seems most likely by nothing being done is that Ghdaffi will sooner or later (more likely sooner though) crushed the rebellion and therefore regain control of the Oil. The West will scream about "human rights" for a while, meanwhile everyone will realize they need Oil, and will start doing business with Ghdaffi again (like they were before this whole thing started). Hence, Oil (as a determinate over whether or not a no-fly zone should be established) isn't one of the measures we need to look at. All things considered, regardless of which regime gains control, Oil will be flowing to those who want it again at some point in the near future.

Absolutely right.

And as H.W. Bush said concerning Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Iraq War I, "It's better to deal with the devil you know than the one you don't."

Caissa

The Libyan revolt seems dead.

Unionist

Vansterdam Kid wrote:
Hence, Oil (as a determinate over whether or not a no-fly zone should be established) isn't one of the measures we need to look at.

Agreed. Even if Libya had no oil, we should not bomb it.

 

Caissa

So exactly when should countries support revolts in other countries?

Mike Stirner

Again I repeat the term imperialism is stupid, we don't exist in an age of empires anymore but an entirely ecomomic exploitative age, who cares who controls the oil, ultimtimately the alienated nature of wealth creation is still there either way, in terms the libyan "people" and what is good for them, it seems obvious by majority preference that they just want this guy out, whatever happens from there happens, I don't think most people right now care about the retoric of american interests.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Gadhafi warplanes strike rebel-held Libya city

 

A rebel rocket launcher. The rebels have some artillery... mostly captured stuff, but it's nothing to what the Gadaffi forces have. I'm sure ammo is in short supply.

Quote:

The doctor, receiving reports from fighters returning from the front, said the rebels on Sunday initially fled Brega in the face of bombardment, but then pushed back in later in the day, battling Gadhafi troops who arrived by sea. The rebels retook the area and even pushed a little further west, he said. The doctor, echoing other rebels, said Gadhafi's forces appeared to be short on troops, meaning they could not hold ground they had forced the rebels from.

"They can't advance by land. They know that," he said.

The regime forces' most effective weapon so far appears to have been use of overwhelming bombardment - mainly by artillery, tanks and rockets, as well as with warplanes, hitting the poorly organized rebels trying to move in a desert region with little cover. The opposition has been pleading with the West to impose a no-fly zone to remove at least part of that threat and help even the odds. But for weeks, Western nations have been divided and hesitant on the move.

Cracks are (maybe) appearing in Gadaffi's forces.

Quote:

Opposition fighters were building sandbag fortifications and other defenses in anticipation that Gadhafi troops, positioned at an air base and military college about six miles (10 kilometers) from the city could launch an assault.

However, there were reports that infighting had broken out among the pro-regime forces. Several rebels said it appeared that some units in the besieging force had refused to attack the city. They said gunbattles had broken out among the government troops and that the rebels themselves were not engaging the troops, instead digging in at their positions.

"There are divisions inside the (pro-Gadhafi) militia," said one rebel fighter, citing reports from fellow fighters closest to the government troops. "Some of the forces don't want to enter the town and attack civilians. Others want to attack the city, Others want to join the rebels. Those wanting to attack the town are attacking the refuseniks."

 

 

Caissa wrote:

The Libyan revolt seems dead.

 

On the ropes perhaps but I wouldn't call it dead yet.  

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Obviously it's impractical and undesirable, as a rule, to intervene in any and all countries. Yet it appears that this line of thought goes something along the lines of: because x, y and z countries were allowed to suffer at the hands of a brutal despot a, b and c countries should too.

Who the hell are you to "allow" or disallow what other people do in their own countries? More to the point, who the hell are the US, Canadian, and European governments to "allow" or disallow?

I'll tell you who they are. They are the people you call "imperialists", complete with the sneer-quotes. They are the people who have brought exploitation, misery, death, and war to every corner of the earth, because they allow or disallow other countries to have their own economies and manage their own affairs.

They are the self-appointed cops and mob enforcers of the world capitalist system. And apparently they have the full support of the cruise-missile left and the limousine liberals.  

Mike Stirner

Oh M you've allowed the concept of imperialism to outstrip a critique of capitalism, EVERYONE is caught up in a logic of exploitation misery and death, whether its in one coutry or integrated across the world, nobody manages their own affairs where states and alienated labour is involved, its not happening with gaddafi or what replaces him.

Ghislaine

Caissa wrote:

The Libyan revolt seems dead.

That is seeming more and more likely an outcome.

I really really really hope that UN/NATO/US etc. do not decide to intervene. My impression is that they just plan to keep talking about making a decision until the rebels give up and surrender to the superior firepower of Ghaddafi...thus avoiding the need to make a definitive decision.

Ghislaine

It will be interesting to see if Ghaddafi re-emerges as an ally of Western powers if/when he crushes the rebellion.

NDPP

'Gaddafi Regime Brutality Unfathomable'

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169878.html

"A group of doctors who journeyed to Libya recently has portrayed a gruesome picture of the massacre unfolding in Libya under the country's ruler Muammar Gaddafi.."

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

So exactly when should countries support revolts in other countries?

You mean, should China have sent troops to free the G20 detainees? No, I think a no-fly zone would have sufficed.

On a more serious note, I think the best answer, under conditions of imperialism, is: "Almost never, so long as the other country in question is not committing aggression or doing violence to other countries."

Part 2 of the answer is: Pay more attention to supporting the revolt in one's own country. If we can't rescue ourselves, we will not be of much assistance to others - even if we are able to peer through the fog of war and determine who is "right" and who is "wrong".

What do you think, Caissa?

 

Mike Stirner

Unionist you're making a false equvelancy for your first point...again, the reason the chinese would not intervene is because they do it better then the toronto/canada branch of the police state, what you're saying is down right insulting to those who lived through tiananmin square and the reason nobody takes your brand of ideology seriously.

i'm not nessesarily supporting intervention btw but the usual anti-imperialist rhetoric in this regard is laughable, there are plenty of examples where progessive forces did ask for help, the Krondstadt sailors in Russia actually asked for intervention in their dying days, we live in a fairly integrated world anyway I can understand the reason why people in those situations would ask for help, its something the overly balkanized sovereignty fetishist anti-imperialist(sovereignty serves no one btw its a stupid western/aristotalian term) doesn't really understand.

Caissa

Your answer Unionist presupposes countries as being natural constructs and therefore a citizen's actions need to take place on his/her homefront. It in essence suugests that countries are stuck with the leadership they have unless they are able to overthrow it themselves.

I think the behaviour of the international community in relationship to the Libyan revolt has been farcical.

NDPP

Cannon to Meet With Libyan Rebel Leaders

http://www.canada.com/news/Cannnon+meet+with+Libyan+rebel+leaders/443586...

"Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said Monday that Canada will consider all options, from tougher sanctions to military intervention, to rid Libya of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. He said the world is now seeing the same Gadhafi implicated in the Lockerbie terrorist bombing. 'What we are witnessing is the Lockerbie Gadhafie,' he told reporters. And he wouldn't rule out endorsing military intervention without the support of the UN Security Council. 'We all agree that Gadhafi must leave.'"

Gadhafi didn't do Lockerbie:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23362

http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer73.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23357

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Your answer Unionist presupposes countries as being natural constructs and therefore a citizen's actions need to take place on his/her homefront. It in essence suugests that countries are stuck with the leadership they have unless they are able to overthrow it themselves.

International law is important. Without it, the U.S. will decide which country is a "natural construct" and which is not. I prefer the other, slower, more cumbersome way of doing business.

 

Quote:
I think the behaviour of the international community in relationship to the Libyan revolt has been farcical.

There's still time for farce to turn to tragedy.

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Caissa wrote:

Your answer Unionist presupposes countries as being natural constructs and therefore a citizen's actions need to take place on his/her homefront. It in essence suugests that countries are stuck with the leadership they have unless they are able to overthrow it themselves.

Pretty well correct as I understand it. Humanitarian imperialism and recent justifications for bombing this or that country all come from the rich, imperial centres.

And it's not like there's nothing that can be done. The left INVENTED solidarity (or internationalism which I prefer as a term). Stopping weapons from getting to the aggressor, ensuring that OTHER outside forces arent' influencing the result, etc. are all things that can be done. As Spector has put it, understanding the struggle better and supporting those elements that best represent ordinary people and their class interests.

Who has the power to intervene? The NATO countries and their puppet UN. That much should be obvious. When was the last time that NATO carried out any 'humanitarian" imperialism? In the former Yugo? ARe you kidding??!

Unionist

Mike Stirner wrote:

Unionist you're making a false equvelancy for your first point...again, the reason the chinese would not intervene is because they do it better then the toronto/canada branch of the police state, what you're saying is down right insulting to those who lived through tiananmin square and the reason nobody takes your brand of ideology seriously.

If I understood your paragraph, I would have a cogent, persuasive, and ringing response to it!!

 

Quote:
i'm not nessesarily supporting intervention btw

I love that "not necessarily" phrase. Use it much? Do you support intervention or don't you? Or do you think it's an irrelevant question for Canadians to ask, at a time when we could be dragged into another war of aggression?

Quote:
... but the usual anti-imperialist rhetoric in this regard is laughable, there are plenty of examples where progessive forces did ask for help, the Krondstadt sailors in Russia actually asked for intervention in their dying days,

Huh? I seem to recall there was a fair bit of intervention in Russia in those dying days - fourteen (14) benevolent foreign powers exercised their "responsibility to protect" the old order. Canada even sent a detachment of 4000 troops. Am I supposed to support that? I'm having trouble understanding all your paragraphs now.