Jump to content

Al-Zarqawi Dead


GRDadof3

Recommended Posts

You don't think that people in Iraq were happy to see Sadaam go?

A question such as this demonstrates that most Americans who support the war don't have a good idea of what is going on in Iraq. Certainly the Kurds are happy he is gone as are the crapes. But the Suni's are not as they made up the bulk of the Baath party that controlled Iraq. Saddam did not control a country as big as Iraq with just a few people. The Suni's are still fighting the war for Saddam.

On top of that, the crapes are now also fighting Americans because the occupation has gone on for 3+ years and the daily lives of their people are decending into pure hell. There comes a point when the "liberator" becomes the "opressor" and we are well past that point now. Many crapes feel that life in Iraq was better under Saddam than under GW Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A question such as this demonstrates that most Americans who support the war don't have a good idea of what is going on in Iraq. Certainly the Kurds are happy he is gone as are the crapes. But the Suni's are not as they made up the bulk of the Baath party that controlled Iraq. Saddam did not control a country as big as Iraq with just a few people. The Suni's are still fighting the war for Saddam.

On top of that, the crapes are now also fighting Americans because the occupation has gone on for 3+ years and the daily lives of their people are decending into pure hell. There comes a point when the "liberator" becomes the "opressor" and we are well past that point now. Many crapes feel that life in Iraq was better under Saddam than under GW Bush.

The sunnis are also concerned about being under rule of a religious government that favors the shiites, who might be bitter over the minority rule over the past years. I'm sure you know that most americans couldn't find iraq on a map of the middle east, much less the world. Given that, I take that first sentence as a comment pointed towards people who support the war who have posted in this thread. It's funny you say the Sunnis are still fighting the war for Sadaam. Nazi loyalists fought the "good fight" til the bitter end in Germany.

It's a shame that Iraq has become what it has, and that's no fault of our soldiers who are the best equipped in the world, it's the tactics they are forced to use. GW Bush is the commander in chief and deserves a great deal of blame along with Rumsfeld and other architects of the war, but keep in mind the electorate in the US and the political pressure of our allies and the UN help to keep our troops from fighting like this is a war.

on edit: stupid crapties

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter what the reasons beyond the fact that our President has caused the failure? Vietnam was a failure and Iraq is too.

Only when Ford decided to pull out in '75 after watergate and an oil embargo crippled us, Iraq hasn't failed like that until at least 2009. You couldn't be more correct though metro on Vietnam being a failure, especially after 1975 when the REAL horror in Cambodia and Vietnam began its years long horror story. I don't recall Jane Fonda heading over there for that bloodbath in the late 70's, good thing she got her trip into VC country in early.

Biggest difference between the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq is also the biggest similarity between Iraq and WWII, you have people signing up to go fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all so ridiculous.

It seems the Republicans in this country just love to make up stories about how our country's wars have gone in order to make Iraq seem like less of a mistake than it already was.

Then they pull sh*t in the senate and house like holding votes on whether to pull all troops out by the end of the year so that they can smear anybody that might vote against them.

You want to see a party that thrives on smearing the opponent and playing on the fears of Americans while pitting one side against the other... just look to the Republican Party. The party of angry, disgruntled white men that are afraid of change while happily dumping off our nations children, sick, and elderly in preference of burning money up on a war against a human emotion. It's laughable... ridiculous.

The republican party of today is basically just a more politically correct fascist party. I think Al Franken had it right when he said that the strategy of the party is "Fear, smear, and queers"... play on fear, smear enemy, and distract the people with social issues.

Let me put it this way with the argument for the election this fall:

"Yeah, republicans are bad but the democrats have no solid plan. They're too wishy-washy"

When you need meat for your supper and all you have left is rotten, stinky, maggot covered meat... do you make sure you have more, better meat before throwing the bad stuff out?

We're to the point where a change is necessary no matter what it is.

And as far as the war in Iraq goes.. I'll go first to my friends that have been over there fighting and ask what their opinion is. A friend of mine came home in April after his 2nd 7 month deployment in 20 months. Several of his very good friends were killed, including one person he trusted very much that was killed right next to him. He was injured by a roadside bomb and one of his best friends was injured and will have serious burn scars on his face and chest for the rest of his life. My friend has suffered from fractured ankles and 3rd degree burns to his arms.

The military didn't do any X-rays because they told him that it was just tendon problems. Finally after a month of not really being able to walk, but still being expected to report for duty, he demanded X-rays and got them. he may have permanent walking problems now because of this ignorance by the higher up military officials.

This is the kind of crap that goes on every day in Iraq and with our military. These people are providing an amazing and courageous service to our country for what I believe are moot and corrupt causes.. and they are treated like crap for it. From things like having to buy your own uniforms to malnourishment to ignorance in the medical wing.. it just pisses me off and it doesn't get better! It gets worse. My friend wants out of the military. He believed in the cause for democracy in iraq for the first few months, but he now sees this war for what it is: A means of making a few people rich at the expense of thousands of lives.. and paying lip service to an entire population by promising great things and delivering it a day late for double the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazi loyalists fought the "good fight" til the bitter end in Germany.

But when the war was declared over they stopped. It is as simple as that. The German people were not killing each other by the 100s/month after the war and they were not killing American soldiers journalist, or anyone else stupid enough not to travel around in a armored vehicle. Germany did not become the hellish place that Iraq has become. Its been 3 years since Bush made his showboating appearance on the USS Lincoln and declared "Mission Accomplished". The reality of the situation, is that except for the American Fortress called the Green Zone, Iraq has become a compeltly lawless place where death is a real possibility. It's a complete failure of planning by the Bush Administration. Post war Germany was not even close to this situation and certainly not 3 years after the war ended.

There are no parallels to post war Germany to present day Iraq and you have not provided any proof that would indicate otherwise. Like several other posts you have made here, there is no basis in reality and to continue to debate based on incorrect facts is frankly a waste of time. I suggest that you go read up on WWII if you think it has any relevance to Iraq, which it doesn't before making any further posts that attempt to justify todays conditions in Iraq based on what happened in WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only when Ford decided to pull out in '75 after watergate and an oil embargo crippled us, Iraq hasn't failed like that until at least 2009.
LOL! Vietnam ended for the USA in 1973 by Nixon when he pulled all the troops out of there. It had nothing to do with Watergate and the Arab oil embargo occured AFTER the Vietnam war had ended.
Biggest difference between the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq is also the biggest similarity between Iraq and WWII, you have people signing up to go fight.
Uhhh. You can't be serious. There is no draft now. 100% of our military "signed up" for service
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! Vietnam ended for the USA in 1973 by Nixon when he pulled all the troops out of there. It had nothing to do with Watergate and the Arab oil embargo occured AFTER the Vietnam war had ended.

~~

Uhhh. You can't be serious. There is no draft now. 100% of our military "signed up" for service

Ask a Vietnamese what day they made for the Pacific fleet, by boat, plane, or embassy helio, they won't mention much about 1973.

~~

I am serious, and it sounds like you agree with it. In WWII and in the war in Iraq you have citizens signing up for service, nothing like the wanning years of Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am serious, and it sounds like you agree with it. In WWII and in the war in Iraq you have citizens signing up for service, nothing like the wanning years of Vietnam.

Well that's not true either. I was alive at the time and living in a military town and there were plenty of new recruits that were not drafted. The USA has made the military a mechanism for the poor to move into the middle class and many take that route. Maybe you have some statistics that disprove it, but I don't see any signs that Iraq is causing a boost in signups for the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is something that I feel I must throw my 2 cents worth in.

First of all, it is a tremendous step toward success w/ the death of Al-Zarqawi, one that should absolutely be celebrated, but not dwelled upon.

I want to start this post out by saying that the first mistake people make in "self-analyzing" this war is that they insist in putting flags on it. By that, I mean USA v. Iraq, etc. This is much deeper than that. Its Christianity v. Islam, Democracy v. Militant Islam. Until people realize this, they will not have a true understanding of this war.

I will quickly touch on comparing this war to Hitler and Nazism. From the Quaran in Sura 9:5, you will find "Slay the unbelievers, wherever you find them." Islam is a peaceful religion only for those who follow it. You can subsitute words to fit Nazism. "Slay the non-aryan's, wherever you find them." You can see the similarities, although names and exact philosophies differ. Same principle.

Now, the question presented is if they war is justitified or not? I will ask you this question. Do you believe the Civil War was justified? There were over 600,000 American lives lost in that war. Four million african-americans were freed from slavery. But was the war justified? I guess that depends on how you look at it. President Lincoln went to war with the Confederate South in order to preserve the Union, not to elminate slavery. Slavery was really not an issue, as a majority of the North were slave holders as well. However, as a result, slavery was eliminated, even though it was never a direct reason for going to war, according to Lincoln. Yet, we look at the Civil War as justified because of that result.

So you say that Bush lied (even though the war was authorized by the US Congress, who had the EXACT same intel as Bush, yes, even Kerry. Whether he read it or not is his problem). First, I would turn you to the news within the last week, when the US has found hundreds of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. You will have to search hard for this, b/c the media will not want positive news for Bush such as this to be found easily.

Anyway, I will give you that Bush lied for arguments sake. Liberals are all about humanitarian rights. Under Saddam, between 300,000 and one million Iraqi's were executed. Rape, torture and murder were everyday occasions under his rule, and this is well documented worldwide, including by lefty groups such as Amnesty International. Saddam used poisonous gas to kill in the ball park of 1.5 million Iranians, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention. You also know he used poisonous gas on the Kurdish population. Saddam would offer $25,000 incentives to families of suicide bombers who would strike in Israel. So, I ask you if that in itself, according to liberal ideals, does not justify the war?

George Tenet, Clinton appointed CIA director, told President Bush that the case for WMD's in Iraq was, and I quote, "a Slam Dunk!" Now I ask you what you would believe if the director of the highest intelligence in the world tells you something is "slam dunk?" No one else knows more about foreign intel than him. If Bush had not acted on this assertion, and another attack happened on American soil, the left would have attacked Bush for that as well.

History has proven many times that democratic nations can infact be created from non democracies. See Japan, Italy, India, Germany, and numerous Latin American countries. I believe President Clinton said it quite well..."Democracies dont go to war with each other, and by and large, dont sponsor terrorism. Theyre more likely to respect the environment and human rights and social justice. Its no accident that most of the terrorists come from nondemocatic countries."

I will leave you with a list of accomplishments since the war began, before Im sure I will be labeled as a mindless Bush follower.

1. Saddam has been caught.

2. the number of college students enrolled has jumped by 50 PERCENT!

3. Approx. 85% of Iraqi children have received immunization.

4. A new constitution has been adopted protecting basic fundamental rights by a 4 to 1 margin.

5. Iraq has free press, elections, and open political campaigns.

6. Iraqi women now have access to educational and professional opportunities unheard of under Saddam's regime.

7. In a Dec. 2005 poll by ABC News, 70% of Iraqi's thought their lives were going well, and 2/3 of them expected it to improve in 2006.

Goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Iraq is entering into Civil War. This past weekend was the most violent ever there and the prognosis is that it is going to get worse. A former USA General said yesterday that an unprotected westerner would not last a day in Bagdad. He would be killed. This is an Iraq that is much more unsafe for the population than it was under Saddam. A sorry and sad truth no matter how much one tries to put icing over it.

I find the comparisons to WWII and the USA Civil War completely irrelevant as the neither were fought under false pretenses. I am amazed that when these comparisons are brought up, the Vietnam war always seems to be forgotten even though it is the most modern war that most closely resembles the situation in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course an unprotected anybody probably wouldnt last long in a war zone, sure.

Again, I ask you, since the hundreds of stockpiles of chem and bio weapons have been found in the past 2 weeks, is it still false pretenses?

Yes, Iraq may enter into a Civil War. They have a tendency to define nations. It seems that I recall another great country that had a Civil War

Can you honestly tell yourself that it is safer there and that the people would prefer Saddam as their leader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I ask you, since the hundreds of stockpiles of chem and bio weapons have been found in the past 2 weeks, is it still false pretenses?

Even our president has dismissed these as obsolete weapons left over from the Iraq/Iran war and this is just a red herring to justify a war that should have never have happened. In fact, most of these weapons were sold to Iraq by the USA by Bush Sr.

Yes the people were safer under Saddam. Maybe you forgot the war with Iraq was over with in 2003. We are now a poorly equipped occupation force that doesn't know what it is doing that is supporting a government that can't support itself. It's just like South Vietnam and it will end the same way. The beheading of two American soldiers yesterday and subsequent video being posted on the internet is now different from the Viet Cong showing movies of American soldiers in bamboo cages while submerged in water.

It's even a sorrier and sad situation there are still Americans that believe what we are doing over there is "just" and that in end the "American Way" will prevail. Sorry but recent history is not on our side with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just dont see how you can honestly sit there and tell yourself that Iraqis are better under Saddam than today. If you were a woman in Iraq, you had a very good chance day in and day out of being raped for no reason. And this rape is not comparable to being raped in the United States. They would drag you into rooms, where you would be their "girl" all day, sometime multiple days. This does not happen as nearly as much, if at all. What about the hundereds of thousands of Iraqis that were EXECUTED under Saddam? Were they safer? How about the Kurds in their farming villages, tending to their own business, and being sprayed with mustard gas. But I guess that may make some people sleep better at night.

Yes, the war was over in 2003. Yes, we are still in an occupation. I dont know if Vietnam is a good comparison. I suppose the only argument you could make about it is the length, but that is about it. Vietnam was a finger of the cold war, the spread of communism, which really doesnt relate to anything in Iraq. I will remind you too, that Vietnam was began by a beloved Democrat.

As far as being there long after the war, I will point you back to WWII. After the war was over, we still occupied Germany, for a long time. It was necessary, in order to ensure that what had been done was not overturned. We still have a strong presence in Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check your history. Our military involvement with Vietnam began with Eisenhower, a republican. However most of the horrible carnage that took place occured under LBJ and Nixon, so both parties share responsibility on that one.

In regards to the rape rooms that Bush spoke about in his justification for the war, no proof as ever been provided that it was as bad as claimed. He lied about the WMDs, he will lie about anything to justify this horrible tragedy. 600 people have been killed in Iraq over the last week. It was never this bad under Saddam and its women and children that are paying the horrible price for this.

Yes Saddam gassed 5000 kurds. Since Bush began his war on Iraq over 100,000 civilians have died. Should we put him on trial too? Doe the fact that Saddam killed people make it justifiable that we do so to in our attempts at nation building? I don't think so.

Here we go with the WWII parallels again which is a sure sign there is no real reason for justifying the destrucion and subsequent of Iraq. We were there to protect the West Germany from the Soviets. There is no analogy to Iraq and the point is irrelevant.

There is now reason to advocate for what is going on in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you may need to check your history on this. Liberal group Amnesty International has documented and testified before Congress about how bad these rape rooms and crimes against humanity are, committed by Hussein.

Again, re-check your history on Germany. We occupied GERMANY, after Nazism fell, to ensure that Nazi Germany did not rise again, and to make sure that Germany was complying with there orders to disarm. Protecting West Germany was a different deal. This again makes my point relevant.

100,000 people died since Bush began the war. True. How many are from Allied forces? How many are from terrorists? Saddam has executed between 300,000 and one million since 1990. Those are documented. There is no telling how many deaths took place that were never heard of.

I wonder why it is that the left had no problem launching a pre-emptive strike on Yugoslavia and Milosevic when they posed no threat to the U.S. Milosevic had commited no where near the violence nor murder that Saddam did. Milosevic never had nor possesed WMD's. The UN did not approve of the pre-emtive strikes. Yet the left backed the strikes due to crimes against humanity. What gives?

I suppose we can just agree to disagree. If it was so good in Iraq, I dont understand why we didnt lose a great deal of the democratic population to Iraq. Sure sounds like a tempting place to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you have decided to quote Amnesty International, I invite you to read what they have said about and to George Bush and his war on Iraq.

This Letter documents a number of war crimes committed a the hands of the Bush, remember he is the commander in chief, during the occupation of Iraq. And of couse in typical fashion it is Bush's policy to attack Amnesty International through the use of sycophants instead of addressing the points made.

Then there is this:

Amnesty International described the years of 2001 and 2002 as having "scores" of killings by Saddam Hussein's government, and "hundreds" in 2000. They found instances of killings, but not of mass killings.

Therefore the most reasonable expectation for the number of killings that would have been carried out under Saddam's state apparatus in the years 2003-06, had there been no invasion, and if we restrict ourselves to evidence rather than glib assurances, would have been in the "scores" or perhaps "hundreds".

Applying figures from mass killings in the 1980s as if the events of those days were still ongoing in 2003 bears no resemblance to reality. As brutal as his government had been in the past, and even continued to be to the last, by 2003 Saddam's government was no longer engaged in killings anywhere near the magnitude Iraqis are now seeing each and every day. In sum, the deaths being recorded by IBC are of people who would almost certainly be alive today but for the decisions taken by Blair and Bush.

Since you have used Amnesty International as a source, I assume that you are in agreement with me they are a reputable organization. They certainly think the war was a disaster. I am glad that you at least have considered them as a source to determine the legitimacy of this war. (which there is none)

It's simply outrageous that we have President which has completely let the USA and the world down. America used to be a place the rest of the world admired for its morals. Now it is scorned when it isn't being laughed at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, can you address my Yugoslavia points?

We may be getting laughed at for morals, but it is not only because of this war.

If you want to start a thread on what Clinton did in the Yugoslavia war and what was wrong or right about it, then please do so. Again it is irrelevant to what is going on in Iraq and this topic in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, its not irrelevant, I mean if it is, then so is Vietnam. But I wont start a new thread, we'll just leave it be I suppose. I was looking forward to your response though, although it tends to be the conversation stopper. Oh well, thanks for the civil debate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to debate that war in this thread, but I will point out the United States did not invade nor occupy the former Yugoslavia under false pretenses the place poised an immediate and clear danger to the United States. There were no lies made up about a nuclear/chemical weapon equipped Milosovich. (sp) We went in there as we are obliged to do by treaty because NATO made the decision to force his hand and nobody is after the fact having to change the reasons for bombing Yugoslavia because the original statements turned out to be false.

It is apples and oranges just like the Civil War and WWII and Clinton did not have to create any lies to justify it.

And for the record, like Clinton in Yugoslavia, the world supported what Bush did in Afghanistan. That is a clear case of eliminating a regime that had attacked and supported an attack on the USA. Neither war is any justification for what happened in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN is reporting that more than 6000 Iraqis have been killed in just the last 2 months. This during the Bush occupation of Iraq and this number exceeds the numbers gassed by Saddam in Kurdistan. 59 Iraqis were killed just today. Iraq under Bush is much worse for the common person than Iraq under Saddam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. There are still people that think we did a good thing and are continuing to do so in Iraq? Ugh.

Calling the area "safer" or "less safe" doesn't make sense. Claiming that people in Iraq were better off or not under Saddam is irrelevant. Saddam did terrible things, we are doing terrible things. Pick your poisen.

You bring up "rape rooms". Looks like a few of our soldiers created one of these themselves and added fire, literally, to the mix. We have slaughtered housefuls of people for revenge when our soldiers die. How will this "win the hearts and minds...". We have also caused, directly and indirectly, tens of thousands of deaths. We are now no better than terrible old Saddam -- but we wrap democracy around us to justify it. Of course that isn't why we went there, but it is our reason now.

Bottom line -- they don't want us there and we want to be there. Sure there are some that want us there, many that don't -- we simply inflame the civil war that has begun. We claim to only be there until they get their government set up. Why are we building a MASSIVE "embassy" in Baghdad? Complete with an airstrip. We don't have these in other countries except ones we have military bases. When Condi was asked if we planned on having permanent bases in Iraq she would not answer the question. Why do we want permanent bases in Iraq?

We are in Iraq for oil. Not to steal it in the traditional sense, but to protect it. If we didn't suck oil like a crack-whore, no country in the middle east would have money -- if they didn't have money we would ignore them like we did for centuries. Actually just like we ignore Darfur...they are being killed, they have been killed by the hundreds of thousands and are real close to Iraq -- why are we not liberating them and giving them democracy? Oh, thats right, they don't have oil. Before oil no one cared about the middle east except religious fanatics, crusaders, and those that wanted spices and rugs.

As for WMD -- we *thought* Iraq had them and invaded but we KNOW Iran and North Korea have nukes but try to work out negotiations with them. Truth is we didn't really think Saddam had much of anything other than some nasty gas, so he was easy to invade, the people we really think have them are too hard to fight so we leave them isolated internationally.

I support our soldiers wholeheartedly, just not the idiot that sent them there. Screaming the "support our troops" and claiming anyone that doesn't follow the president is un-american is simply insulting.

This has spun so out of control I just can't believe people still go for the newly created justifications for being there. Democracy? Women can vote? Immunizing kids? What the hell is all that? Great stuff if you can live through bombs and gunfire to get it -- and they didn't ask for these things. They probably would prefer water and power, but 3 years later we still have not restored those necessities to pre-Saddam levels -- and he wasn't doing too great. If we are to spread democracy and immunization around the world then why are we ignoring the places and countries that actually ASK FOR IT?

Regardless of the reasons for being there, we are not succeeding. The country is in a civil war (according to their politicians, our media still downplays it). For every "insurgent" we kill, their relatives line up for revenge therefore creating more "terrorists". The history of this region, especially Iran and Iraq, has endless wars as far back as history was written.

The Iraqi's will not wake up one day and decide they are OK with Americans telling them how to live. Ever. Cowboy justice won't work -- these are not Indians and this is not a movie. Our president is not John Wayne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone sent this to me the other day:

Did You Know?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the reestablished Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?! They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq 's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools ar! e under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

Have any of you even bothered to notice that a report uncovered recently (by Rick Santorum) highlighted that 500 WMD have been found in Iraq since 2003 as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.