Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/26/2005 12:30:47 PM EDT
I know this kind of thread comes up once in a while... but these insane assholes are involved with the problems in Iraq, are developing nuclear weapons, and are the biggest terrorist state in the world. Why do they continue to exist??? Our foreign policy should dictate that we bomb them around the clock and indefinitely.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:32:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 12:33:50 PM EDT by olyarms]
You have the extra cash and man power? If so go for it. But at the time we are involved in 3 wars right now as it is.

ETA: I would be more worried about china/russia and the Mexicans
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:32:24 PM EDT
We love our moslum nations so much, thats why. Now lets do the hands around the world thing again.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:33:41 PM EDT
Not in our interest to do so, at this time.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:35:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By olyarms:
You have the extra cash and man power? If so go for it. But at the time we are involved in 3 wars right now as it is.

ETA: I would be more worried about china/russia and the Mexicans



I am pretty sure we can come up with a 300,000 man army if we wanted to.

The problem is political will power.

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:36:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 12:36:47 PM EDT by ar15bubba]

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:
I know this kind of thread comes up once in a while... but these insane assholes are involved with the problems in Iraq, are developing nuclear weapons, and are the biggest terrorist state in the world. Why do they continue to exist??? Our foreign policy should dictate that we bomb them around the clock and indefinitely.



I have been wondering the same thing.

I think W is going the multilateral UN route to show it doesnt work. Then we will drop some serious deep penetrating bombs on their nuke sites all in good time.

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:41:16 PM EDT
Nuke'm we have plenty.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:19:23 PM EDT
Patience grasshopper, patience.

One by one these criminal clerics will fall.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:34:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:49:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spyda:
Patience grasshopper, patience.

One by one these criminal clerics will fall.



The clerics are Arabic and, generally, over the age of 65.

The population is predominantly Persion and, due to the purges, are under 35 years of age.

Can you say, "Generation Gap"?? The younger generation has a lot of Western influence and want the goodies that the West has to offer like, not living in a 600AD shithole, TV, cars, and jobs. I am willing to wager a tidy little sum that there are more spook ops going on in Iran than Tom Clancey could write about in the next 10 years.

A war would inflict casualties on the younger generation that is becoming increasing disenchanted with living in the 7th century hell of fundamental Islam. Patience and let the special ops folks do their jobs.

My 2¢,

wganz

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:52:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 1:52:17 PM EDT by myitinaw]
G.W.B. = L.B.J. enough said...

myit
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 1:57:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
G.W.B. = L.B.J. enough said...

myit



not really enough said, please explain.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:03:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:

Why haven't we destroyed Iran?




Um, because they haven't really DONE anything yet.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:04:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:


I am pretty sure we can come up with a 300,000 man army if we wanted to.

The problem is political will power.

Sgatr15



We have about 490,000 in the Army and 178,000 in the USMC right now. It takes about 3 soldiers to put 1 forward, allowing for rotation and support. 138K in Iraq now according to news reports/Pentagon spokesmen.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:06:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:

Why haven't we destroyed Iran?




Um, because they haven't really DONE anything yet.



They are the prime sponsor of In'tl terrorism.

They are actively aiding the insurgency that is killing our soldiers in Iraq.

They are preaching hate and training and sponsoring terrorists.

They are very likely aiding and hiding high level Al Qaeda.

They are developing a nuke program.

Other than that they are not doing anything.

so go ahead and put your head back in the sand.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:07:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:

Why haven't we destroyed Iran?




Um, because they haven't really DONE anything yet.



They are the prime sponsor of In'tl terrorism.

They are actively aiding the insurgency that is killing our soldiers in Iraq.

They are preaching hate and training and sponsoring terrorists.

They are very likely aiding and hiding high level Al Qaeda.

They are developing a nuke program.

Other than that they are not doing anything.

so go ahead and put your head back in the sand.




Got PROOF of any of that? Or are we going to repeat the "He's got WMD's" thing again?
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:09:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wganz:

Originally Posted By Spyda:
Patience grasshopper, patience.

One by one these criminal clerics will fall.



The clerics are Arabic and, generally, over the age of 65.

The population is predominantly Persion and, due to the purges, are under 35 years of age.

Can you say, "Generation Gap"?? The younger generation has a lot of Western influence and want the goodies that the West has to offer like, not living in a 600AD shithole, TV, cars, and jobs. I am willing to wager a tidy little sum that there are more spook ops going on in Iran than Tom Clancey could write about in the next 10 years.

A war would inflict casualties on the younger generation that is becoming increasing disenchanted with living in the 7th century hell of fundamental Islam. Patience and let the special ops folks do their jobs.

My 2¢,

wganz




I agree with you, but I don't think that we should let the SPECOPS do the job. We need to wait for a get-together of the senior Iranian leaders, and then shove a JDAM up the Allatoyah's ass.

IMHO, of course.

It wouldn't be bad to knock out some military command and control functions at the same time. Destroy military units effectiveness (but spare as many of the younger lives as possible - cut off the head) so that any of the surviving clerics can't stop the popular revolution.

And we should deny we had anything to do with it. JDAM's don't leave much evidence, and with the right (read: stealth) equipment, noone will see any USAF assets to prove it was us.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:14:17 PM EDT
Because Iran has developed the technology to launch an EMP attack on the U.S. from freighters off the coast of America. Also, North Korea said they will attack the South, and launch their measly little missles at the Western Seaboard. Oh yeah, and the mes'kins will attack from the south, everybody will die. I am down with Kali getting nuked, but the loss of the internet would be unbearable, as would be the loss of satellite TV. Personally, I think we should just get the whole thing over with, and proceed with the planned development of the Great Iranian Glass Sea, and it's attendant glow in the dark light show, but hey, I'm just a civilian...

Where the hell is my tin foil hat smilie!!!

I can't post anymore without my tin foil hat smilie!!

Please bring it back

Bob
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:16:45 PM EDT
i think we already have a 300,000 man army, dont we?

iran? bad mistake i think...theres 2 or 3 times as many of them as iraqis, plus they're a shitload more fanatical. anyone ever see pictures/clips of the iranians running full bore into iraqi machine guns and artillery during the 80's war? talk about the potential for suicide bombers.......screw that
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:30:16 PM EDT
To be fair to the sarge, I think he's talking about another 300,000 combat troops, not the total size of the army.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:41:05 PM EDT
Well....we HAVE been kind of busy....!



HH
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:48:18 PM EDT
Since they have already sworn to use nukes on Israel, I have a feeling that Israel would take care of the problem eventually anyway, before it has a chance to become too big. Just like they squashed Saddam's nuke ambitions a number of years back.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 2:54:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:

Why haven't we destroyed Iran?




Um, because they haven't really DONE anything yet.



They are the prime sponsor of In'tl terrorism.

They are actively aiding the insurgency that is killing our soldiers in Iraq.

They are preaching hate and training and sponsoring terrorists.

They are very likely aiding and hiding high level Al Qaeda.

They are developing a nuke program.

Other than that they are not doing anything.

so go ahead and put your head back in the sand.




Got PROOF of any of that? Or are we going to repeat the "He's got WMD's" thing again?



Well, we can prove that they're financing terrorist organizations, both in Isreal and Iraq.

We can prove that, under the auspices of 'civilian research', they are developing technology that has use only in the manufacture of Nuclear weapons...

Iran's a country that we have to deal with BEFORE they get nukes. Otherwise, they'll be a problem like North Korea is now. Best to avoid that.

I don't advocate invading them, though. Just blow up their Nuclear Facilities, and knock out their government. Then, let the pieces fall where they may.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:00:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
To be fair to the sarge, I think he's talking about another 300,000 combat troops, not the total size of the army.



That still isn't anywhere near enough. Iran in three times as large geographically with terrain that is nowhere near as favorable to the American way of war. In Iraq we have 138K troops and 20% of the population are more or less allies (Kurds). To match the same force level/sq KM (not saying that is the best metric, but it is a start) would take 400K on the ground. 2 back for every 1 up means 1.2 million more troops or tripiling the size of the Army and USMC.

If you based numbers on a troops to population ratio, Iran has more people than Iraq and we are stressing the force as it is. You would have to better than double the size of the Army and Marine Corps. The real number of troops required is probably somewhere between these two numbers, at least until Pakistan gets into the mix.

I don't think that we will be invading any large countries for at least another 5 years or so.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:07:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

I don't think that we will be invading any large countries for at least another 5 years or so.



Well, your facts sounds correct.

Which means we need a MUCH bigger military.

Or at least send some cruise missles ovver, but then we would have to worry about their response.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:08:24 PM EDT
Too pussy to murder to preserve sanity in the world.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:16:12 PM EDT
The Bush Admin is making the exact same mistakes that were made during our Conflict w/ Vietnam as led by the Johnson Admin. Our enemies [insurgents] are pouring in from Iran and Syria, etc. I know for a fact over 400+ UNIFORMED Syrians were fighting against the U.S. in Iraq's "green zone". Johnson wouldnt actively pursue public and massive direct action against Cambodia and Laos during Vietnam. And Bush will not do the same with Iran nor Syria nor Yemen nor Jordan.
War is Politics!
enough said...

myit
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 3:30:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
I know for a fact over 400+ UNIFORMED Syrians were fighting against the U.S. in Iraq's "green zone"... myit



I would absolutely love to hear your source for this information.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:40:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 5:46:41 PM EDT by myitinaw]
I was briefed face to face by an operative, whom was in-country, that recently returned from Iraq.
He and his reputation and credentials impeccable.
If you have a State Dept. source whom disputes this please have him PM me.

myit
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:44:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
I was briefed face to face by an operative, whom was in-country, that recently returned from Iraq.
If you have a State Dept. source whom disputes this please have him PM me.

myit




Right.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:49:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 5:51:21 PM EDT by myitinaw]
DOW,
And you have better info? If so please do tell.
And you disagree with my assesment? Do
explain my inaccuracies. I always wish to learn more
about our Nations enemies.

myit
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:52:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 5:53:19 PM EDT by HKS]
Is it that farfetched to beleive Syria would send 400 troops to fight in Baghdad?

I doubt it is that farfetched. But im not an intelligence analyst on Syria.

-or-

Iraqis dressed up as Syrians for a psy ops.

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:53:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
I was briefed face to face by an operative, whom was in-country, that recently returned from Iraq.
He and his reputation and credentials impeccable.
If you have a State Dept. source whom disputes this please have him PM me.

myit


How about my source in the MIB?
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:54:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
DOW,
And you have better info? If so please do tell.
And you disagree with my assesment? Do
explain my inaccuracies. I always wish to learn more
about our Nations enemies.

myit



Tell me about this "Operative". Did you meet him at a gun show?
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:02:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 6:14:10 PM EDT by myitinaw]
DOW,
Insult me at your will.
I simply added to the topic what
information I had been exposed to.
Time, and information will slowly
make it's way to the public
domain thru other sources.
And when it occurs, I'll PM
you for your opinion.

myit

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:03:33 PM EDT
Operatives don't really "chat" about that sort of stuff.

People in-the-know don't really set up briefings for their neighbors.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:07:53 PM EDT
Back on topic:

We don't need to invade Iran. We already a tried and proven method to bring the Iranians to their knees.

A naval blockade.

It doesn't required deployment of one more Soldier or Marine. The Straits of Hormuz are a natural chokepoint in the Persian Gulf. Once you eliminate the Iranian's ability to market their oil and to import refined petroleum products, you can bring them down to their economic knees.

Of course, the world would have to be able to adjust to the decrease in oil on the world market.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:11:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 6:12:28 PM EDT by HKS]
But what is stopping them from shipping it straight to Russia. Bomb their pipelines and truck convoys? STart sinking ships in the Caspian with long range missiles?
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:22:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HKS:
But what is stopping them from shipping it straight to Russia. Bomb their pipelines and truck convoys? STart sinking ships in the Caspian with long range missiles?




Pipelines are easily destroyed.

Easily.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:26:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Back on topic:

We don't need to invade Iran. We already a tried and proven method to bring the Iranians to their knees.

A naval blockade.

It doesn't required deployment of one more Soldier or Marine. The Straits of Hormuz are a natural chokepoint in the Persian Gulf. Once you eliminate the Iranian's ability to market their oil and to import refined petroleum products, you can bring them down to their economic knees.

Of course, the world would have to be able to adjust to the decrease in oil on the world market.


Umm. No.

As someone already pointed out they could still export their oil north. I'm thinking through Turkey; although, the Caspian Sea is a definite possibility.

As for the Naval portion, Iran isn't confined to the SOH. They have a large coastline outside the straights. Actually, they have a large coastline. Are we going to Blockade the entire thing? How many ships will that occupy? How many markets inside the PG will readily accept Iranian oil to sell? All of them, if the arabs are one thing they are opprotunists. Anyone who has bargained in a souq knows that.

Now think about the economic repercussions. If we somehow managed to stop the flow of Iranian oil that means the Chinese need a new source. Which means they will then be in direct competition for our suppliers. Countries like Venezula would love to stick it to us by sending their exports somewhere else.

Oil embargo against Iran? Not practical right now.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:27:40 PM EDT
You also have to think about the economic side to this problem. Iran is one of the worlds top 5 oil producers. Forget about going as far as invading Iran. If the U.S. was to impose economic sanctions against Iran for their continued nuclear development program they could just say F.U.! to us and sieze their oil production. Imagine what that would do to our already rising fuel prices! People's perception of today's Iran seems off target. They are not just another Iraq. They are a much larger and sophisticated country with a growing economy.

I'm certainly not an expert on all aspects of their economy but from the industry that I work in I've heard some surprising stats from a contact I have in the region. Just hearing the numbers from how many new highline European cars that are being imported and how much people are paying for them blew me away! Its a real tough issue for how to properly deal with those people with no easy answer or quick fix.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:28:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Operatives don't really "chat" about that sort of stuff.

People in-the-know don't really set up briefings for their neighbors.


Agreed. Even if Syria was supporting the insurgency with troops they wouldn't be dumb enough to send them in in uniform.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:32:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Back on topic:

We don't need to invade Iran. We already a tried and proven method to bring the Iranians to their knees.

A naval blockade.

It doesn't required deployment of one more Soldier or Marine. The Straits of Hormuz are a natural chokepoint in the Persian Gulf. Once you eliminate the Iranian's ability to market their oil and to import refined petroleum products, you can bring them down to their economic knees.

Of course, the world would have to be able to adjust to the decrease in oil on the world market.


Umm. No.

As someone already pointed out they could still export their oil north. I'm thinking through Turkey; although, the Caspian Sea is a definite possibility.

As for the Naval portion, Iran isn't confined to the SOH. They have a large coastline outside the straights. Actually, they have a large coastline. Are we going to Blockade the entire thing? How many ships will that occupy? How many markets inside the PG will readily accept Iranian oil to sell? All of them, if the arabs are one thing they are opprotunists. Anyone who has bargained in a souq knows that.

Now think about the economic repercussions. If we somehow managed to stop the flow of Iranian oil that means the Chinese need a new source. Which means they will then be in direct competition for our suppliers. Countries like Venezula would love to stick it to us by sending their exports somewhere else.

Oil embargo against Iran? Not practical right now.



Um, yes.

Check where the majority of Iranian oil is transported.

If you plug up their ports (not that difficult either), they cannot ship the difference via the other means that they have available....even assuming that we wouldn't take action to diminish their effectiveness as well.

Even if you manage to cut off 50% of Iran's exports (which is an easily doable event), that effects would be catastrophic to the Iranian economy.

However, it would diminish the supply to the world which would increase the price per barrel of oil.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:33:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:

Why haven't we destroyed Iran?




Um, because they haven't really DONE anything yet.



They are the prime sponsor of In'tl terrorism.

They are actively aiding the insurgency that is killing our soldiers in Iraq.

They are preaching hate and training and sponsoring terrorists.

They are very likely aiding and hiding high level Al Qaeda.

They are developing a nuke program.

Other than that they are not doing anything.

so go ahead and put your head back in the sand.




Got PROOF of any of that? Or are we going to repeat the "He's got WMD's" thing again?



Thanks for saying it! It needed to be said!
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:38:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Um, yes.

Check where the majority of Iranian oil is transported.


Funny thing about embargoes. They tend to move the oil to other places than with an open market. Iraq has something like 36 miles of coastline and only two deep water channels for export. Yet, they managed to keep exporting oil at a fantastic clip.



If you plug up their ports (not that difficult either), they cannot ship the difference via the other means that they have available....even assuming that we wouldn't take action to diminish their effectiveness as well.


Not that difficult huh? Then why was Iraq able to export oil via two deep water channels for 13 years?


Even if you manage to cut off 50% of Iran's exports (which is an easily doable event), that effects would be catastrophic to the Iranian economy.


Easily doable, nice words, but not necessarily true.
Ask yourself this, what real effect would it have on Iran? Not much. Just like NK no matter how much the economy suffers the ruling class will be fine. They'll find a way to pay their trusted military units and any rebellion will be crushed.


However, it would diminish the supply to the world which would increase the price per barrel of oil.


And destroy the US economy.

Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:49:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Um, yes.

Check where the majority of Iranian oil is transported.


Funny thing about embargoes. They tend to move the oil to other places than with an open market. Iraq has something like 36 miles of coastline and only two deep water channels for export. Yet, they managed to keep exporting oil at a fantastic clip.



If you plug up their ports (not that difficult either), they cannot ship the difference via the other means that they have available....even assuming that we wouldn't take action to diminish their effectiveness as well.


Not that difficult huh? Then why was Iraq able to export oil via two deep water channels for 13 years?


Even if you manage to cut off 50% of Iran's exports (which is an easily doable event), that effects would be catastrophic to the Iranian economy.


Easily doable, nice words, but not necessarily true.
Ask yourself this, what real effect would it have on Iran? Not much. Just like NK no matter how much the economy suffers the ruling class will be fine. They'll find a way to pay their trusted military units and any rebellion will be crushed.


However, it would diminish the supply to the world which would increase the price per barrel of oil.


And destroy the US economy.





Oil-for-Food does not equal a blockade.

Look - blockades are effective when implemented correctly (and without the UN). Just ask Fidel.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:57:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 6:58:35 PM EDT by dport]

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Oil-for-Food does not equal a blockade.


Oil-for-Food was only a small part of Iraq's oil exports pre-war. There was much more oil being moved, illicitly. That illicit oil is a seperate issue than Oil-for-Food. Oil-for-Food did not need to try and bypass the Coalition Naval Forces. Those shipments had UN authorization that got them past the blockade.
You know, only recently has Iraqi oil exports met or exceeded oil production during the embargo.



Look - blockades are effective when implemented correctly (and without the UN). Just ask Fidel.


Thank you for making my point. Old Fidel is still in power. Of course, we haven't been blockading him for the past 45 years. We blockaded him once. And you can argue the effectiveness of that "blockade" as Khruzchev was more worried about not having control of the tactical nukes already in theater and JFK negotiated the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey. It was the latter move, more than the threat of the blockade that turned the Soviet ships around.

If you really look at the history of blockades very few were effective. The most effective was against Japan, and that was total war, not a blockade in and of itself.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:58:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 6:58:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 6:59:48 PM EDT by HKS]

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By HKS:
But what is stopping them from shipping it straight to Russia. Bomb their pipelines and truck convoys? STart sinking ships in the Caspian with long range missiles?




Pipelines are easily destroyed.

Easily.



What if they use 10,000 trucks.

Lets say each truck can carry 10000 gallons.

10,000 gallons X 10,000 trucks = 100 million gallons of oil. There are 42 gallons of oil per gallon. A country like Iran supposedly only exports 1 million barrels a day.

They woudlnt even need 10,000 trucks.

And 10,000 trucks is NOT alot.

Are we going to bomb all 10,000 oil trucks? I dont even want to think about how much of a waste of natural resource that would be on just precision strikes alone. We would probably just be better off full out invading.

Unless their anti air system is weak.



Link Posted: 8/27/2005 5:22:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VLODPG:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By NevadaARshooter:

Why haven't we destroyed Iran?




Um, because they haven't really DONE anything yet.



They are the prime sponsor of In'tl terrorism.

They are actively aiding the insurgency that is killing our soldiers in Iraq.

They are preaching hate and training and sponsoring terrorists.

They are very likely aiding and hiding high level Al Qaeda.

They are developing a nuke program.

Other than that they are not doing anything.

so go ahead and put your head back in the sand.




Got PROOF of any of that? Or are we going to repeat the "He's got WMD's" thing again?



Thanks for saying it! It needed to be said!





Well I think Saddam did have WMD's, or at least we were ALL reasonably convinced he did.

I believe Iran IS probably guilty of some of the accusations.


But, we've already seen where this path leads if you don't have the proof.


North Korea is guilty of most of the crimes listed above, yet who is calling on us to bomb them?
Top Top