User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:01:32 PM EDT
[#1]
An interesting thought, that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:05:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:05:31 PM EDT
[#3]
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:08:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20? Read the article. It talks about it in the article at the link. Due to board rules, I can't copy and paste the whole article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:09:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders. Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:13:07 PM EDT
[#6]
So.... "War for Oil"?
I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:13:33 PM EDT
[#7]
This has never been a secret. Things were definitely more convenient when Iran was in our orbit. The whole reason we sold them all that hardware before 79 was to counter Russia/the USSR. The discussion now is just about cost and whether we can keep our other regional allies in our orbit while re-engaging with Iran.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:13:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders. Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:15:09 PM EDT
[#9]
If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest. It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them. The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:15:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So.... "War for Oil"? I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil." What war? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:15:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20? Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:16:55 PM EDT
[#12]
That's the plan. Iraq will broken up in to 3 regions. One Saudi controlled, one Iranian controlled, and the area around Baghdad U.S. controlled. Everyone wins.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:17:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders. Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example. They aren't insane either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:21:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest. It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them. The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States. It's not wrong. The Russians and Chinese aren't making moves against the agreement because they feel they can out maneuver the West and prevent this from happening, while benefiting from opening the Iranian market to their goods. However, the West has more money and technology to exploit the Stans' resources, and therefore has more to offer them. So the West has an advantage over both Russia and China in competing in Central Asia. Who will win out is anyone's guess. Yet, attempting to bring Iran into the West's orbit again is central to enacting a strategy to compete with Russia and China there. We'll see who is correct. ETA: You're correct in one sense though. A nuclear Iran doesn't particularly threaten Russia and China. It does greatly constrain US interests. But since the deal we are making with Iran doesn't allow for them to become a nuclear weapons state, your point is moot. You are conflating an Iran deal to allow them to enrich Uranium at 5% with allowing them to get nuclear weapons, which isn't the case. No one is saying Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:21:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So.... "War for Oil"? I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil." What war? According to a bunch of libs: ALL OF THEM!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:22:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20? Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion. Nah... you've just have closed off your mind to the possibility of a deal with Iran, no matter the potential costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:24:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders. It also assumes Obama has any sense or strategy or forethought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:24:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They aren't insane either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders. Iran's Leaders are Not Suicidal You can be insane and not be suicidal. Nazi party for example. They aren't insane either. But they do get a lot of hand-wringing in the US and Israel. 20 years ago Iran was going to get nukes any day. Now, Iran is going to get nukes any day. It's a complicated issue, but made more complicated by calling the idiots in Iran the biggest villain of the century and keeping the hype turned to 11. For decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:26:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So.... "War for Oil"? I'm still waiting on all the oil we won in the last "war for oil." You think you'll see it? Hell they won't even let us use our own oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:44:45 PM EDT
[#20]
A decent post on Iran and nuclear weapons:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/12/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:51:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Obama’s soft approach to world affairs hasn’t righted things. But the proposed nuclear framework agreement with Iran may be his first big venture to do just that. Budapest, the NNPT, none of those things seem to interfere with Obama's "soft approach". Obama's "soft approach" has worked so swimmingly everywhere else, why not give it a whirl in Iran? For an article published on a finance site, it's remarkably naïve in its cause-effect conclusions. Iran doubles down on financial lunacy in commercial reactor procurement, a venture where Russian interests sustain/profit handsomely ... and Kaylan sees this as a sign of Russian weakness/insecurity? Industries in the West would kill for deals like this. The commercial nuclear agreements described in that article make no financial sense ... outside the context of overwhelming international monitoring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:59:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: What No One Tells You: The Real Reason For Nuke Deal With Iran 4/28/2015 by Melik Kaylan Contributor [snip] Iran as a bridge for the great surge of trade reaps a windfall of multiple benefits. In fact, Tehran might even prefer affluent mercantile stability to the nightmare struggle for military hegemony in the Middle East, something no one has achieved since the Ottomans two centuries ago....  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:12:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iran is building nuclear weapons while chanting "Death to America" and seizing cargo ships. So we can trust them, right?
Unless it's only the minority leadership doing those things, at the beck and call of Russia/China, in return for continued local power/wealth to keep up appearances to enable pretext for the sanctions (which benefit Russia, China, and Iran's leadership). So there's two ways to break that feedback loop: 1) Popular uprising or otherwise replace the leadership (we blew that opportunity). 2) Offer them a better deal than they have now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:15:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not wrong. The Russians and Chinese aren't making moves against the agreement because they feel they can out maneuver the West and prevent this from happening, while benefiting from opening the Iranian market to their goods. However, the West has more money and technology to exploit the Stans' resources, and therefore has more to offer them. So the West has an advantage over both Russia and China in competing in Central Asia. Who will win out is anyone's guess. Yet, attempting to bring Iran into the West's orbit again is central to enacting a strategy to compete with Russia and China there. We'll see who is correct. ETA: You're correct in one sense though. A nuclear Iran doesn't particularly threaten Russia and China. It does greatly constrain US interests. But since the deal we are making with Iran doesn't allow for them to become a nuclear weapons state, your point is moot. You are conflating an Iran deal to allow them to enrich Uranium at 5% with allow them to get a nuclear weapons, which isn't the case. No one is saying Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest. It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them. The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States. It's not wrong. The Russians and Chinese aren't making moves against the agreement because they feel they can out maneuver the West and prevent this from happening, while benefiting from opening the Iranian market to their goods. However, the West has more money and technology to exploit the Stans' resources, and therefore has more to offer them. So the West has an advantage over both Russia and China in competing in Central Asia. Who will win out is anyone's guess. Yet, attempting to bring Iran into the West's orbit again is central to enacting a strategy to compete with Russia and China there. We'll see who is correct. ETA: You're correct in one sense though. A nuclear Iran doesn't particularly threaten Russia and China. It does greatly constrain US interests. But since the deal we are making with Iran doesn't allow for them to become a nuclear weapons state, your point is moot. You are conflating an Iran deal to allow them to enrich Uranium at 5% with allow them to get a nuclear weapons, which isn't the case. No one is saying Iran will be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Of course there is good reason for connecting Iran's enrichment with their pursuit of HEU weapons. It is pure financially insanity to pursue enrichment in view of the deals offered by Rosatom. And, if the Rosatom deals ever sour, the Iranians can get competitive deals from the French vendor - deals that have zero risk of physical proliferation. Their enrichment program defies economic sanity - especially when adding up all of the penalties accrued through existing sanctions. Maintain LEU enrichment as a means of sustaining technical expertise for clandestine HEU enrichment. Make financially idiotic commercial power investments as a way to bring more Iranian nationals into the field. To ensure victory in a shell game, increase the number of shells. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:22:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
What No One Tells You: The Real Reason For Nuke Deal With Iran
4/28/2015 by Melik Kaylan Contributor [snip] Why is it such a threat to them [Russia and China]? And if it is, surely Obama knows. Perhaps he even intends it. Here’s the thesis: It’s not about Iran’s nukes, or Iran per se, so much as Iran as a gateway to Central Asia. Look at the map. Iran acts as a geographical plug that bottles up all of Central Asia’s raw materials (Turkmen gas, Kazakh oil). Unplug Iran, turn it into a conduit for the Westward flow of Silk Road trade from the ‘Stans, and suddenly you’ve created a huge new headache for both Russia and China. Suddenly their own private backyard of supine satellite states might get rich and powerful and even, mirabile dictu, start acting all independent. Right now, their pipelines only go west via Russia or east to China at prices dictated by both. Their economies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Beijing and Moscow. Generate growth, autonomy and confidence in the Central Asian countries and you’ve created a whole new geostrategic equation. The entire sleepy backwater comes alive and poses a potential threat to the nether regions of the West’s superpower rivals. It’s the Great Game all over again. But it’s more than that even–because with those flanks becoming unpredictable, Moscow’s focus on Europe instantly eases while Beijing’s push against India and Japan and the Pacific gets distracted. Iran under sanctions is just another Central Asian hostage to the Russo-Chinese. Iran as a bridge for the great surge of trade reaps a windfall of multiple benefits. In fact, Tehran might even prefer affluent mercantile stability to the nightmare struggle for military hegemony in the Middle East, something no one has achieved since the Ottomans two centuries ago. Now you see why President Obama won’t bang the drum on the chief attraction of his nuclear demarche to Iran. [snip] http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2015/04/28/what-no-one-tells-you-the-real-reason-for-nuke-deal-with-iran/ if this deal was in any way, shape or form good for us, then obama would be running away from it as fast as he could. he fucking hates us and that is evident in every decision he makes/has made for him |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:23:40 PM EDT
[#26]
blah blah blah... the fact is, Iran isnt going to hold to the agreement. anyone that believes they will is fucking retarded.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430 the 'agreement' isnt even binding. this whole thing is making Neville Chamberlain look good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:27:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20? Because the article is wrong in it's analysis and conclusion. look who posted it |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:28:25 PM EDT
[#28]
Why does much of this entire thread stink of propaganda and misinformation?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:37:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Thanks to Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:41:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Will we be moving our nations capitol there or did I miss something while fishing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 2:53:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That all assumes that we are dealing with a Iranian nation of sane leaders. They've changed the narrative, and this is no longer part of it. The press, and the pols, want this whole thing to sound like a strategic business deal, not that we're negotiating with the largest state sponsor of terrorism since their current government structure was put in to place. We're not allowed to talk about the religious zealots who want to hasten in the return of their prophet. We're supposed to believe that they want money and to, basically, be like us, only with a twinge of religion. We're also supposed to forget all of the terrorist acts committed against the US and the West, both directly and indirectly, as well as all of the lives that have been lost because of Iran. Didn't you get the memo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 3:09:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless it's only the minority leadership doing those things, at the beck and call of Russia/China, in return for continued local power/wealth to keep up appearances to enable pretext for the sanctions (which benefit Russia, China, and Iran's leadership). So there's two ways to break that feedback loop: 1) Popular uprising or otherwise replace the leadership (we blew that opportunity). 2) Offer them a better deal than they have now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Iran is building nuclear weapons while chanting "Death to America" and seizing cargo ships. So we can trust them, right? Unless it's only the minority leadership doing those things, at the beck and call of Russia/China, in return for continued local power/wealth to keep up appearances to enable pretext for the sanctions (which benefit Russia, China, and Iran's leadership). So there's two ways to break that feedback loop: 1) Popular uprising or otherwise replace the leadership (we blew that opportunity). 2) Offer them a better deal than they have now. 3) Keep/reinstate the sanctions. Toss the deal that's currently on the table. Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 3:17:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran. They did? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 3:44:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They did? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran. They did? Yes. They had to start over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 3:51:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Not gonna lie. Its a pretty interesting idea, and a game changer if implemented. Iv always thought we needed to open up to Iran, if only because alienating them puts us on the Sunni side of the Sunni/Shia conflict, and thus alienates half the middle east. But looking at it from this perspective puts an entirely different situation into play. I dont think Obama is looking at it from this perspective, as his foreign policy ideas so far have been about as deep as a puddle in the Texas summer, but if a more competent leader spearheaded it.......
Lets say hypothetically (ignoring the foolish nuke deal and the coming mid east arms race) we opened up dealings with Iran. Geographically they could then directly influence some of the problem parties in both Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing us to get more favorable outcomes in both conflicts. Simultaneously we could have significant influence in the neighboring states of both our international competitors? An interesting concept worthy of pursuit. On top of that the sunnies and shias could continue to kill each other, however instead of taking defacto sides like we have, we are immediately positioned to act as an impartial middle man to stop shit before it boils over as we would be able to influence both sides instead of just propping up the Saudis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 3:53:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why is Russia willing to sell advanced SAMs like the S-400/ SA-20? Because they are buying influence with them. Iran is currently our enemy. Russia is currently our enemy. Following the old adage of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it makes sense. That being said, we have far more to offer Iran than Russia does, and Iran has far more to gain from us than from Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 4:05:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
blah blah blah... the fact is, Iran isnt going to hold to the agreement. anyone that believes they will is fucking retarded. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430 the 'agreement' isnt even binding. this whole thing is making Neville Chamberlain look good. Probably true. Thats why this agreement is a shitty way to open up dealings with Iran. We need to start working with them for the above mentioned reasons, but this isnt the way to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:13:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. They had to start over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran. They did? Yes. They had to start over. Cool. So, it should show an effect on Iran in, what 70-80 years? After all, worked so well to cause regime change in Cuba. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:24:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:33:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a nuclear Iran was bad for China and Russia, they would have already made moves against it. They haven't so it is in their best interest. It may simply be that they know it hurts the U.S. more than it hurts them. The article is a lame excuse for why Obama is committing treason against the United States. That's my guess. Russia and China would be doing what we should be doing, so I'm guessing they don't have a problem with it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:51:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand? No. Not even close. http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:56:03 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. They had to start over. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran. They did? Yes. They had to start over. LOL. Sounds like some people don't know that the Soviet Union no longer exists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:56:56 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand? No. Not even close. http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 5:58:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand? No. Not even close. http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/ Actually... Russia now owns around 20% of our Uranium production, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama's State Department. Not much of a stretch to think that some of it would wind up in Iranian hands, through Russia. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 6:23:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
blah blah blah... the fact is, Iran isnt going to hold to the agreement. anyone that believes they will is fucking retarded. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430 the 'agreement' isnt even binding. this whole thing is making Neville Chamberlain look good. +1 Glad I'm not the only one that looks at it this way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 6:35:21 PM EDT
[#46]
I've been saying for years that this is just the continuing Great Game, though the US has replaced the UK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 8:19:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually... Russia now owns around 20% of our Uranium production, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama's State Department. Not much of a stretch to think that some of it would wind up in Iranian hands, through Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iran buy uranium from Russian. Russia buys uranium from USA. What's not to understand? No. Not even close. http://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/ Actually... Russia now owns around 20% of our Uranium production, thanks to Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama's State Department. Not much of a stretch to think that some of it would wind up in Iranian hands, through Russia. It's something like 5% of domestic reserves, 10% of 2014 domestic production, and an operation that was sold to the French during Reagan, sold to another French company during GHW Bush, and then sold to the Canadians and then Russians under Obama. Russia has no shortage of uranium, 4th largest reserves in the world and 2x the reserves of the US, and doesn't need US sources to funnel uranium to Iran. In fact, the US purchases more Russian-mined uranium than uranium mined here in the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 10:04:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does much of this entire thread stink of propaganda and misinformation? You act like Forbes magazine is Pravada or Fars News.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 10:09:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool. So, it should show an effect on Iran in, what 70-80 years? After all, worked so well to cause regime change in Cuba. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Economic sanctions worked well against the old Soviet Union, and they'll work against the current regime in Iran. They did? Yes. They had to start over. Cool. So, it should show an effect on Iran in, what 70-80 years? After all, worked so well to cause regime change in Cuba. the fall of the soviet empire didn't change their regime at all, what are you talking about? It flatlined their expansion, crushed their economy and destabilized every nation state in the former bloc making them easier for use to control and harder for them to take back over. It will take them at least another 2-4 decades to regain their old footprint. Cuba is a fucking island. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 10:11:24 PM EDT
[#50]
No.
Obama refuses to believe the Mullahs are crazy and expects a nuclear Iran to be a counter-balance to Israel, which has had nukes for decades. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
