Quote:Bush hasn't admitted false information, nor has Blair. Until someone proves it with extremely strong evidence (not going to happen) or Bush comes out and admits, he didn't lie. Its not that confusing. Now shut up, grow up, and get on with your life.

A U.N. report isn't good enough for you?

How about a poll released by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes.

It indicated that 71 percent of respondents said they believed the Bush administration implied that Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, while 25 percent believed Iraq was directly involved in the attacks.

Oh, but you'll only believe Bush was fibbing if he actually admits it.

Good luck with that. It took the tobacco companies decades to admit they were lying about the safety of their products.

The evidence is clear.

This war did not make the world safer from terrorism. Indeed, it has spawned more of it as shadowy rebels attack our tired soldiers every chance they get.

This war did not save us from attack from weapons of mass destruction. If any WMDs were in Iraq -- and its growing more doubtful by each passing day that any were -- they were so well hidden they couldn't possibly have been pointed at us.

Our security was not at stake. Yet we attacked, and without international approval in what was a clear, gross violation of international law.

The war has not improved international relations, either. Indeed, it's pissed off half ths civilized world.

Finally, this war is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars before we're done.

In short, it is a god-damned waste of money -- to say nothing of our soldiers lives.

Hey, I'm glad Saddam's gone.

But if that's the sole criterion for a just war -- trying to restore decency to a country -- then why are we pussyfooting around in Liberia?

This is a country we *founded*, a country that's *begging* us to come in, a country that loves America and a country whose problems could be solved with a fraction of the cost of our Iraqi adventure.

Part of the answer is clear: We can't afford the troops. It's obvious our military is stretched extremely thin.

In fact, one has to wonder what we'll do the next time we need the military to actually defend *our* country instead of pissing away money and lives romping around in someone else's.

But Bush did get a great photo-op on that aircraft carrier, didn't he?

I'm sure for Karl Rove, that's all that matters.

Liberals only care about getting into other countries bussiness when American interests are not involved. Otherwise they ***** about imperialism. Liberals hate America. Face it. They want us to lose.

Quote:But Bush did get a great photo-op on that aircraft carrier, didn't he?

I'm sure for Karl Rove, that's all that matters.

As far as you claiming Bush's carrier landing as a photo op, then what do you call Governor Easley (NC) driving a stock car into a wall at 150 MPH? Anything Bush does, liberals have done worse.

Quote:A U.N. report isn't good enough for you?

In case you didn't realize, the UN also said Saddam did have WMD (heard of 1441?). The liberals and french in the UN just didn't want to do anything about it, so the military part of the UN (the US Army) went ahead and took care of the problem.

Quote:Finally, this war is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars before we're done.

If you think Iraq is a waste of time, lets look at Bosnia and Somalia. Once again reinforcing the idea that liberals only get into wars with no US interest involved.

Quote:It indicated that 71 percent of respondents said they believed the Bush administration implied that Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, while 25 percent believed Iraq was directly involved in the attacks.

Oh, but you'll only believe Bush was fibbing if he actually admits it.

Once again you resort to ignoring parts of my post to. I said "Until someone proves it with extremely strong evidence (not going to happen) or Bush comes out and admits, he didn't lie." We didn't think Clinton lied till he admitted it. You still haven't produced any evidence about Bush lying. All you've used is polls.

Quote:The war has not improved international relations, either. Indeed, it's pissed off half ths civilized world.

In case you didn't get the memo, the Arab world is not civillized. And these arabs will continue to hate America until we become a totalitarian country under Islamic rule. We can't piss them off if they already were because of our rule "freedom of religion".

Quote:This is a country we *founded*, a country that's *begging* us to come in, a country that loves America and a country whose problems could be solved with a fraction of the cost of our Iraqi adventure.

Read the newspaper buddy (and hopefully not the NY Times which is full of BS) and you'll see that we don't need to send in troops because we convinced African nations to solve their problems. Niger sent in about a thousand troops. All of a sudden liberals want us to go to war, but when they go its called "peace-keeping". Yet when the only real leader America has had in 11 years does something in America's interest, they call it "unnecessary aggression or imperialism".

Finally you need to understand the object of a preemptive strike. Its designed to stop things before they happen. Take 9/11 for example. We let Al Qaeda go because we didn't think they were a threat to national securtiy (but really Clinton didn't want to piss off Osama) and look what happened. We get hit in the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil. Another example, 12/7. Lets negotiate with the enemy after they sign a non-aggression pact with the Nazis and Soviets. Another 2,000 lives lost. Know what the trend here is? They were both liberal presidents.

Finally... Quit bitching. We won the war. The Iraqis are better off without Saddam. And there is gonna be a new democratic country in the Middle East.

T-Monay820 Wrote:As far as you claiming Bush's carrier landing as a photo op, then what do you call Governor Easley (NC) driving a stock car into a wall at 150 MPH? Anything Bush does, liberals have done worse.

...or Dukakis in a military tank while campaigning....or Clinton posing on a carrier wearing a bomber jacket......or Clinton posing at a WWII cemetary in France with a battleship in the background(We don't patrol the English channel)....etc., etc., etc.

That's all ok, so long as it IS a Democrat.

Quote:Liberals only care about getting into other countries bussiness when American interests are not involved.

This misses an important point of my last post, which is that American interests were not involved in Iraq. This wasn't a victory over terrorism and it wasn't a victory over WMDs, which we can't seem to find.

Quote:Liberals hate America.

Don't you dare say that. I love America.

Quote:Face it. They want us to lose.

Empty rhetoric.

We have lost -- a great deal of respect in the world, that is.

And we may lose again if our interests really are at stake in the next five years. How are we going to muster the troops? They are bogged down in Iraq.

Quote:As far as you claiming Bush's carrier landing as a photo op...

It was a photo op. And, as far as I can tell, it was the only discernable benefit to this war.

It worked out great for Bush. Meanwhile, young men are dying.

Quote:

Quote:A U.N. report isn't good enough for you?

In case you didn't realize, the UN also said Saddam did have WMD (heard of 1441?).

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see where it said any such thing.

This is the resolution:

<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,863569,00.html</a>

I interpret it to reflect concern about Iraq's lack of disclosure and *not* a confirmation that the country actually possessed WMDs.

Quote:The liberals ...

Doesn't it bother you that most of the world is far more liberal than you? Have you ever stopped to think just how freakish that makes you, when it comes down to it?

Quote:and french in the UN

You left out the Germans, Chinese, the Mexicans, the Chileans, and that's just off the top of my head.

Quote:just didn't want to do anything about it,

They weren't ready to authorize a war -- which is *not* the same thing.

Were the Bush administration more skilled at diplomacy, maybe he could have talked them into it -- or given it a little more time.

Quote:so the military part of the UN (the US Army) went ahead and took care of the problem.

Cute. You misspelled "broke international law by going in without UN approval."

Quote:

Quote:Finally, this war is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars before we're done.

If you think Iraq is a waste of time, lets look at Bosnia and Somalia.

Okay, smart guy. How much do these conflicts cost us? Are they as expensive?

I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing not. Why? In the case of Bosnia, at least, we aren't paying the full bill. We've got tons of allies and full U.N. support. They are sharing the cost.

Meanwhile, our president is such a juvenile frat boy, he won't bring the international community, even though he's putting our national security at stake by not doing so. All because he's mad at the French, whatever it is that's sticking in his craw.

Quote:Once again reinforcing the idea that liberals only get into wars with no US interest involved.

As I've argued, no real U.S. interest is involved in Iraq.

Quote:You still haven't produced any evidence about Bush lying. All you've used is polls.

There is the matter of that U.N. report.

Quote:And these arabs will continue to hate America until we become a totalitarian country under Islamic rule. We can't piss them off if they already were because of our rule "freedom of religion".

This reflects such a gross misunderstanding of the Arab world, I don't know where to begin.

I will say this: Our freedom of religion has very little to do with the question of why Arabs hate us, despite the line the right wing televangelists are peddling right now.

Far more to do with it:

1. The U.S. decidedly taking sides in the Palestinian question.

2. U.S. support for autocrats across the Arab world.

In one sense, the U.S. attack on Iraq is a welcome change from its strict toeing of the realpolitik line. On the other, Arabs also know that Saddam is a guy we once supported -- in part, by letting American companies sell him the tools to build WMDs and then turning a blind eye as he used them.

It will take more than this invasion for Arabs to see our foreign policy as anything but cynical when it comes to them.

Quote:All of a sudden liberals want us to go to war, but when they go its called "peace-keeping".

Bush is doing an awful lot of peace keeping right now.

Quote:Yet when the only real leader America has had in 11 years does something in America's interest, they call it "unnecessary aggression or imperialism".

What interest?

Quote:Finally you need to understand the object of a preemptive strike. Its designed to stop things before they happen.

It's revolting and illegal -- foreign policy a la Minority Report.

Quote:Take 9/11 for example. We let Al Qaeda go because we didn't think they were a threat to national securtiy (but really Clinton didn't want to piss off Osama)

Clinton fired missiles at Osama. He was hardly soft on Osama.

:stupid:

Quote:

Quote:Finally you need to understand the object of a preemptive strike. Its designed to stop things before they happen.

It's revolting and illegal -- foreign policy a la Minority Report.

Tough if you don't like it. The purpose is to protect Americans and so far its worked.

Quote:

Quote:Take 9/11 for example. We let Al Qaeda go because we didn't think they were a threat to national securtiy (but really Clinton didn't want to piss off Osama)

Clinton fired missiles at Osama. He was hardly soft on Osama.

:roflol: Looks like someone needs to do some more investigating on cruise missiles. Do you know how long the attacks took to get to him? By the time they hit, he was gone.

Shad is a wonderful example of why liberals/leftists/democrats can't be trusted with national security. Leave it to the professionals on the right to take care of America. We not only have a better track record (Cold War, Iraq, Guam, etc), we know what were doing.

T, this is all I need to COMPLETELY disregard anything he says:

Quote:Doesn't it bother you that most of the world is far more liberal than you? Have you ever stopped to think just how freakish that makes you, when it comes down to it?

The simple FACT that he thinks its BAD to be different from the rest of the world speaks volumes. Most of the world is despotism, socialism, or communism.....and not ONE of them are as prosperous as we are.

Should we try to be like them? Or should THEY try to be more like us? Really, that's like Miami's(Fla.) football team trying to emulate Bowling Green. :rolleyes:

Quote:Tough if you don't like it. The purpose is to protect Americans and so far its worked.

"Tough?"

I'm not sitting here and accepting it.

I love my country -- and I believe our foreign policy has to give people across the world reasons to love it, too.

We have an immense military advantage over any other nation in the world. We spend nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. And our technology is better. Any nation that manages to inflict significant damage on us ensures its own destruction.

History informs us we won't always have this advantage. This is inevitable. Rome couldn't maintain its advantage. Britain couldn't. We won't either. That's just reality.

When another nation -- or several -- reach military parity with us, how will they view us at that time? Will America still be an inspiration to the world, a model of decency, civility and freedom? Will we be able to offer the world moral authority when our military authority is gone?

Or will other peoples regard our actions with such cynicism that they lash out at us the first chance they get?

In this context, pre-emptive strikes against countries that have no plans to attack us -- and in the the absence of U.N. approval or significant international support -- is terrible foreign policy. We squandered an unprecedented amount of goodwill brought on by the Sept. 11 attack.

The Bush administration is gambling other countries will get over it. He is gambling he can turn Iraq into some semblance of a democracy.

I hope we can make Iraq a place where the will of the people is heard, a new model for the rest of the Arab world.

But I wouldn't bet on it. We can see how affairs are playing out there.

And, in any case, its a gamble. Bush has made a big foreign policy gamble here -- and its cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, plenty of American lives and untold goodwill around the world.

I can't wait to be rid of this guy.

Howard Dean is right.

Schadenfreude Wrote:History informs us we won't always have this advantage. This is inevitable. Rome couldn't maintain its advantage. Britain couldn't. We won't either. That's just reality.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!! I heard this SAME drivel from some Liberal politician a while back. "We have to prepare for the day when America isn't the strongest force on Earth". ...and was GOING to put it in my last rant, but gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your right, you probably don't hate this country, but you hate EVERY DAMN THING about our prosperity and status in the world. People like you want us to level the playing field with the rest of the world and basically "Give up" what we have fought so hard to achieve...moral authority, wealth, and freedom. You blame US for the economic and political woes of the rest of the world. ...and it never even friggin' occurs to you that WE are the ones that have it right.

Get this through your head, we are NOT Rome. Rome came into power by force. We are the freeest country on Earth. This is not by accident, it is by design. In my lifetime, I will NEVER allow this country to be forced to bow down to other counties that you might worship. I have done it before and WILL again join the military to see that that never happens.


Delta is ready when you are. Get the hell out if you don't like how we are as a nation. Yes. I said it and usually never do because I usually can't argue that there is always room for improvement. However, you don't WANT to improve it. You want to tear us down. You see our position as a threat. To what, I have no clue. Not going to happen sport. When the bullets start flying, I will not separate our enemies, foreign OR domestic.

Traditional liberal "Blame America First" rehtoric. All the liberals use Ameica as their scapegoat for the rest of the worl's problems.

Hey Kev... You know what liberal foreign policy is right? Pre-emptive surrender and appeasement.

As far as Howard Dean is concerned.

T-Monay820 Wrote:Hey Kev... You know what liberal foreign policy is right? Pre-emptive&nbsp; surrender and appeasement.

Sounds about right. Either that or wondering what we have done to the other nation or group and what we need to do to change the way they feel about us, because Lord knows we can't have other people mad at our prosperity. We must change and become like them....it's only fair. Sounds kinda like blaming the problems of the poor on the successful, doesn't it? Typical BS.

Every empire falls... we will too... it won't be for a very long time, but America will fall... if you don't think so you're simply delusional...

Ya know how many people never thought Rome would ever fall? Britain? China?

nate jonesacc Wrote:Every empire falls... we will too... it won't be for a very long time, but America will fall... if you don't think so you're simply delusional...

Ya know how many people never thought Rome would ever fall? Britain? China?

None of them, in their prominance, was based on freedom.

I also don't view us as an "empire". The only way we would fall would be from within. That, I can see, but I honestly think Shad is in the minority. If Clinton had done the same thing with Iraq, i'd have put my differences aside and support his decision.

nate jonesacc Wrote:Every empire falls... we will too... it won't be for a very long time, but America will fall... if you don't think so you're simply delusional...

Ya know how many people never thought Rome would ever fall? Britain? China?

Notice what they all had in common when they fell. All of them changed from a government that doesn't work and will eventually fail. China became communist, Britain became a constitutional monarchy, and Rome... I'm not sure what Rome became, but they were a dictatorship.

America will not fall.

I tried ignoring you, RebelKev, but you did threaten to shoot me.

I figure it is smart to answer those who threaten to shoot me.

Quote:I KNEW IT!!!!!!! I heard this SAME drivel from some Liberal politician a while back. "We have to prepare for the day when America isn't the strongest force on Earth". ...and was GOING to put it in my last rant, but gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Your right, you probably don't hate this country, but you hate EVERY DAMN THING about our prosperity and status in the world.

I don't see how you get from the first paragraph to the second. As far as I can see, your logic train has complete derailed in a bloody mess.

Quote:People like you want us to level the playing field with the rest of the world

I never said anything about leveling the playing field.

I'd restate what I did say this way: I'm suggesting we ought to conduct foreign policy with the Golden Rule in mind.

Let me explain.

You could argue, "well, if the United States were ruled by a murderous tyrant, I would *want* the richest country in the world to liberate us."

I would respond in two ways.

First, You oversimplify into stark black and white a decision that contains at least a few shade of grey.

For instance, how would you feel having Iraqis marching around our country and running it for five years? I suspect you'd want to shoot them.

How would you feel being bombed into submission? Wouldn't you be ticked off if the power no longer worked? Wouldn't you be ticked off if your water was unsafe? Wouldn't you be angry if your house was bombed into rubble?

You'd be a little put out.

Essentially the United States imposed a trade on Iraq that could be explained this way:

"Iraq, we will get rid of your police state and offer at least the possibility (a possibility -- for this isn't over yet) of a representative democracy. Trust us. We mean well.

"The cost, of course, is our offensive foreign presence (offensive because it is foreign). We'll run your government for a while and if we fear the kind of government y'all would come up with on your own doesn't suit us -- we aren't going to let that happen. Also, your power grid may be on the fritz for months if not years. Also, some of you may starve and get dyssentry, at least for a while. And you might be homeless -- again, it will only before a while.

"But you will get a chance -- a chance -- at a representative democracy. What do you think?"

You can say the choice is easy and that our motives are not maleovent.

I agree our intentions are good.

But you don't know real hunger or thirst and neither do I. You and I are also steeped in the ideals of our Founding Fathers from the moment we entered kindergarten.

In contrast, many Iraqis only have a dim idea of how a modern representative democracy works. They have a strong passion for the Palestinian side of the Palestine-Israel dispute -- and see us on the other side. And they know full well that our government once strongly supported Saddam Hussein.

And they're living right on the edge of hunger -- and some of them have toppled over the edge.

So I'd suggest this isn't as easy a trade as many want to make it. Some Iraqis, clearly, would reject the offer -- and we see that in the form of the hit and run attacks now being made on our solders. These people see themselves as patriots.

Now, don't get me wrong: I share your view of the trade. I think might be a pretty good deal for Iraq. I, too, would have supported an invasion -- under the right circumstances.

But I don't believe we had the right to impose that choice on Iraq unilaterally. It's a huge decision.

In fact, in the absence of an specific immenent threat of attack, I just refuse to believe that any country has the unilateral right to invade another. That's what we fought the first Gulf War over, isn't it?

I strongly believe we had the obligation to share this decision with the other nations of the world.

After all, wouldn't we expect as much from other countries?

If Mexico, for example, were to depose a murderous tyrant in Nicaragua, wouldn't we expect to be consulted?

Of course we would (if for no other reason than we once supported a murderous tyrant in Nicaragua).

And if we, the mighty United States, expect that of other countries, how much more is our responsibility to give the other nations of the world the same courtesy?

After all, is there any nation on Earth more secure then ours? Aren't the other nations of the world, by comparison, in precarious national security situations? Shouldn't we at least check with them -- build a consensus -- before going forward with a decision as momentus as invading a country with no plans to attack us. Shouldn't we respect international law when the substance of our grievance is rooted in international law in the first place?

Of course. It is simply the right thing to do -- ethically and from a foreign policy perspective.

Quote:and basically "Give up" what we have fought so hard to achieve...moral authority...

We lost moral authority in our invasion, make no mistake. We squandered untold good will. The nations of the world think less of the United States now. That's a huge cost to our moral authority -- and a bad foreign policy decision.

Quote:wealth,

How have I suggested we give up our wealth? You suggest spending billions in Iraq. I suggest that we should not have done so -- or, at least shared the cost with more participants.

Quote:and freedom.

I don't see where you get off suggesting I support an America that's less free.

Quote:You blame US for the economic and political woes of the rest of the world. ...and it never even friggin' occurs to you that WE are the ones that have it right.

Often, we do have it right. Your problem is you assume we always do. I'm open to the possibility that America isn't perfect. And that's what pisses you off.

Quote:Get this through your head, we are NOT Rome. Rome came into power by force.

The War of 1812 was a war of conquest that didn't turn out so well. The Mexican-American War was one that did turn out pretty well -- as did the Spanish-American War.

I'm no expert, but I suspect an American Indian might have a conflict or two to stir into this discussion.

Quote:We are the freeest country on Earth.

That may be a matter for debate. I'm not sure how one goes about measuring whether the United States is freer than Canada, or the United Kingdom or the Cayman Islands.

Maybe someone has.

Quote:This is not by accident, it is by design. In my lifetime, I will NEVER allow this country to be forced to bow down to other counties that you might worship.

Who said "bow down?" Who said "worship?"

I didn't.

Quote:I have done it before and WILL again join the military to see that that never happens.

I have a feeling we have a diferent interpretation of what it means to "bow down."

Quote:Delta is ready when you are. Get the hell out if you don't like how we are as a nation.

I much prefer JetBlue and British Airways -- and Northwest is sort of a hometown carrier for me.

In any case, feel free to buy a ticket and move away yourself -- if true blue Americans like me bother you so.

Quote:Yes. I said it and usually never do because I usually can't argue that there is always room for improvement. However, you don't WANT to improve it. You want to tear us down.

I want a better foreign policy.

Quote:You see our position as a threat. To what, I have no clue.

Neither do I. You aren't making a lot of sense here. Who said "threat?"

Quote:Not going to happen sport. When the bullets start flying, I will not separate our enemies, foreign OR domestic.

Congratulations. You just threatened to shoot me.

Does that make you feel more like a man?

Does that make you feel more like an American?

Does that make you feel more like you have America's democratic values at heart?

If that's your America, I support something a little better.

[quote][quote]Ya know how many people never thought Rome would ever fall? Britain? China?

RebelKev Wrote:I also don't view us as an "empire". The only way we would fall would be from within. That, I can see, but I honestly think Shad is in the minority. If Clinton had done the same thing with Iraq, i'd have put my differences aside and support his decision.

If we give the government over to the Democrats, they will do all thats in their power to change from the principals this country was founded on, to a socialistic country. This will be the downfall.

Quote:If we give the government over to the Democrats, they will do all thats in their power to change from the principals this country was founded on, to a socialistic country. This will be the downfall.

Outside of the Eisenhower era, Democrats ran this country from 1932-68.

It didn't happen then.

Stop fear mongering.

In any case, I have my doubts that the Federalist Papers contain an extensive discussion of socialism.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Every empire falls... we will too... it won't be for a very long time, but America will fall... if you don't think so you're simply delusional...

Ya know how many people never thought Rome would ever fall? Britain? China?

Notice what they all had in common when they fell. All of them changed from a government that doesn't work and will eventually fail. China became communist, Britain became a constitutional monarchy, and Rome... I'm not sure what Rome became, but they were a dictatorship.

America will not fall.

Actually, England has pretty much always been a Constitutional Monarchy, although the Monarchs have been pretty much marginalized to receiving a "paltry" 50 Million a year and have pretty much no say so as to how the country is ran. England, as a power, still hasn't failed, they have been dethroned by us, but are still a viable world power. The REASON they have been dethroned by us is because we don't have a class system and we are based on a Capitalist economic model, viewed by many in the world as bad because it's a meritocracy.

China has really never been a major empire and still aren't. The US can't match their numbers in a military right now, but we can raise a military in two years that would match theirs. They also have limited resources and many in the country have nothing to fight for.

Rome, well, there are many theories on that. Some say that the nobility drank from lead-lined steins that eventually drove them crazy. From events we read about, this really doesn't sound far-fetched, but like England, it was based on classism. It was a Republic, but not at ALL like ours. Bet you can't get Shad to admit we aren't a Democracy, but a Republic.

The reason we won't fail is because no one is born into power, unless you consider money power. The richest man in the world, Gates, was almost ruined by the Clinton Admin, so you can see how much power he has and what power comes with money. This country is trully a meritocracy. There are to many people that are born in the ghettos and become millionaires and too many people that inherit millions only to sqaunder it. Anyone can become anything they want here, and it's binded by the U.S. Constitution, a document so many people on the Left AND the Right take for granted.

.....the only thing that can destroy us is a fight from within. ..and the only way that will happen will be to instill animosity towards a different group. My opinion? Well, who is it that is starting class warfare? Who is it that is instilling the sense of, "They got it and it ain't fair", rather than trying to open up other doors and lanes for people to achieve. Think about it, the Constitution NEVER guarantees happiness or welfare. It most certainly guarantees the right to the PURSUIT of happiness and promote the general welfare. This means clearing ALL barricades for the constituents....not holding their hands along the way.

Does all this seem blown out of proportion? If so, I will remind you that my 401K has risen about 20% and unemployment is on the decline. And what do you hear from Democrats? That our economy is in shambles. It sucks, etc. Well, for 9/11 to occur, scandals in corporate America, etc., I think our economy is doing DAMN well. But, of course, if you say something long enough, people will start believing it. ...and that's what they are banking on. Deceit.

I am also a BIG supporter of the Fair Tax, a national sales tax, because it will eliminate corporate taxes and ONLY tax the consumer. Most corp. owners said they would DAMN well move their companies back here if that happened.