Why is Chavez offering no-strings-attached

[Cheung Mo]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FBB...F01B23FCBF9.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FBBF5028-87F2-4FD5-A411-BF01B23FCBF9.htm)

Shouldn't Chavez require that the Islamist regime stop persecuting Marxists, women, and queers before he spends a cent on Iran?

[Fawkes]

Ahmadinejad, who is on a tour of Latin America, said that Tehran and Caracas had the task of "promoting revolutionary thought in the world".

This guy needs to die.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:01 am

Ahmadinejad, who is on a tour of Latin America, said that Tehran and Caracas had the task of "promoting revolutionary thought in the world".

This guy needs to die.
Venezuela has made important strides towards gender equality and towards recognising the rights of sexual and gender minorities. Tehran -- in contrast -- had used Islam as a pretext for the persecution and outright murder of those perceived by the regime as being sexual, ideological, and religious deviants. including secularists, homosexuals, feminists, and communists. Ask the leftists and Mossadeghists what Khomeini and his cronies did to them following the revolution: When the left realised that they were merely replacing Washington's tyrany with the Quran's tyrany, leftists were butchered by goonish religious lunatics, much as they had been by the Shah's secret police. Comrades, if you are blind by the fact that both pro and anti-American Islamists are united by the suffering they inflict on our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, you are a true reactionary.

Chavez should give Iran 2 choices: Burn the Qu'ran and become our puppet or be burned by the American War Machine.

[RGacky3]

The reason Chavez is is so close to Iran is a strategic desicions rather than a principled one. They are both Anti-American, they both resist imperialism. Kind of like the Aliance the USSR had with the US and Britain during WW2.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+January 16, 2007 10:03 am--> (Cheung Mo @ January 16, 2007 10:03 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 12:01 am

Ahmadinejad, who is on a tour of Latin America, said that Tehran and Caracas had the task of "promoting revolutionary thought in the world".

This guy needs to die.
Venezuela has made important strides towards gender equality and towards recognising the rights of sexual and gender minorities. Tehran -- in contrast -- had used Islam as a pretext for the persecution and outright murder of those perceived by the regime as being sexual, ideological, and religious deviants. including secularists, homosexuals, feminists, and communists. Ask the leftists and Mossadeghists what Khomeini and his cronies did to them following the revolution: When the left realised that they were merely replacing Washington's tyrany with the Quran's tyrany, leftists were butchered by goonish religious lunatics, much as they had been by the Shah's secret police. Comrades, if you are blind by the fact that both pro and anti-American Islamists are united by the suffering they inflict on our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, you are a true reactionary.

Chavez should give Iran 2 choices: Burn the Qu'ran and become our puppet or be burned by the American War Machine. [/b]
Number one you should recognise that all those issues are not Either this or That.There are many strategic considerations in this issue. So it seems like Chavez is not going to isolate in the International affairs.


Chavez should give Iran 2 choices: Burn the Qu'ran and become our puppet or be burned by the American War Machine.

This shows your arrogant attitude. Quoran means more to every individual Muslim so you better STFU.

[red_flag]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

...thats why!

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Ask the leftists and Mossadeghists what Khomeini and his cronies did to them following the revolution: When the left realised that they were merely replacing Washington's tyrany with the Quran's tyrany, leftists were butchered by goonish religious lunatics, much as they had been by the Shah's secret police.


That is true. Comrade, as communists we represent the most advanced and progressive section of the working-class and the revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie.
It is obvious that communists will be the first targets of any movement which seizes state power. The Iranian ayatollahs are no exception.

But having said that, their role has changed now. Whatever the inadequacies and mistakes of the Iranian regime, the fact is that they represent a potent anti-imperialist force, and therefore, we may have to work with them...as Chavez has shown.

This doesn't imply a complete endorsement of the repressive Islamist regimes. But it does mean that we must stand with them in the fight against imperialism.

Remember, comrade, the Islamists on their own are a paper tiger. Neither they nor their idiotic religion is a real threat for us. I say this in view of the experience of the working-class movement in my own country, which is predominantly Muslim.
The Islamists who play a reactionary role today have no real roots, they were propped up by our reactionary military, with full assistance from US imperialism.

If the Islamists are a threat to us, it is because the imperialists made them a potent reactionary force during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

When we've dealt imperialism a death-blow, we WILL turn on the Islamists, and boy is it going to be hot for them. :P

But with imperialism defeated, the Islamists will have no foreign assistance. Deprived of their true source of power (i.e. imperialism), the Islamists will stand no chance against working-class movements.

This has been proven again and again, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere.


Comrades, if you are blind by the fact that both pro and anti-American Islamists are united by the suffering they inflict on our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, you are a true reactionary.

Chavez should give Iran 2 choices: Burn the Qu'ran and become our puppet or be burned by the American War Machine.


Ideally, I too would have wished Chavez to make such demands.

But we must take into account the current world situation. First-world imperialism, led by the U$A is launching one vicious attack after another against the workers of the Third World.

Progressive working-class movements literally have their backs to the wall, and if we are to survive the ferocious onslaught of U$ imperialism, we must work in a united front with ALL their opponents.

We must continue the struggle against the Islamists, while at the same time upholding their anti-imperialist position.

It is a delicate balancing-act, but the aim is clear. Imperialism MUST be smashed, and then we'll see what is to be done about the Islamists and other representatives of the national bourgeoisie in the Third world.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:35 am
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

...thats why!
Yep.

It's politics.

For one, we don't simply support ALL Islamists where ever they may be.

We only support those who play a progressive role.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 15, 2007 11:49 pm
Shouldn't Chavez require that the Islamist regime stop persecuting Marxists, women, and queers before he spends a cent on Iran?
No, he shouldn't, and if he does, he must do it in a discrete way, that does not put Ahmmadinejahd into the position of submitting to foreign demands.

Luís Henrique

[ComradeR]

It's simple actually, it's a strategic alliance to use oil as a weapon to deter US aggression against ether country.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+January 16, 2007 11:42 am--> (Luís Henrique @ January 16, 2007 11:42 am)
Cheung [email protected] 15, 2007 11:49 pm
Shouldn't Chavez require that the Islamist regime stop persecuting Marxists, women, and queers before he spends a cent on Iran?
No, he shouldn't, and if he does, he must do it in a discrete way, that does not put Ahmmadinejahd into the position of submitting to foreign demands.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Precisely, if Chavez openly confronted Ahmmadinejahd like that it would in the end, weaken both nations.

[Severian]

Strings-attached aid is more characteristic of imperialism.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:25 pm
Strings-attached aid is more characteristic of imperialism.
There are worse things than Venezuelan imperialism: Like Iran's human rights record.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

yeah,

if chavez describes himself as a marxist, hes probably aware of each country's right to national self determination.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:36 pm
yeah,

if chavez describes himself as a marxist, hes probably aware of each country's right to national self determination.
I wonder how Chavez's support for Iran is playing among his anarchist and other anti-authoritarian supporters?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 16, 2007 03:39 pm
I wonder how Chavez's support for Iran is playing among his anarchist and other anti-authoritarian supporters?
I doubt he has many anarchist supporters.

I doubt there are many anarchists in Venezuela, whether they support Chávez or not.

Also, he is not "supporting" Iran; he is trying to make an alliance to figth togheter against a common (and stronger, and more important) enemy.

It is common sence, not ideology!

Luís Henrique

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+January 16, 2007 09:05 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ January 16, 2007 09:05 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 03:25 pm
Strings-attached aid is more characteristic of imperialism.
There are worse things than Venezuelan imperialism: Like Iran's human rights record. [/b]
" In politics there there can be no permanent enemies or friends only there will be permanent intrests"

I dont know who said it but it fits to Chavez as he is just a politician. We can't expect too much from him.

[Edelweiss]

if chavez describes himself as a marxist, hes probably aware of each country's right to national self determination.

Is there actually any Marx quote which supports this? Where does Marx ever support the bourgeois idea of a card blanche for every crime as long it is done in the name of fucking "national self-determination"? Ever read Luxemburg's "The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/ch01.htm)"? Or are you just talking out of your ass, as all the "anti-imperialists" in this thread, who are waging "national self-determination" before class struggle? Ahmmadinejahd IS the class enemy, and allying with him to fight a supposed greater evil is like fighting fire with petrol.

On the actual topic: I'm advocating critical solidarity with Chavez, but him trying to be good friend with thugs and criminals like Ahmmadinejahd or Saddam when he was still in power makes it pretty hard for ever leftist to maintain this solidarity. I mean he isn't even slightly criticizing the conditions in Iran, which he would do if he would be any serious about his big words about socialism.

But admittedly his alliance with Iran is more driven by "realpolitik" than by anything else, it's an alliance only for strategical reasons, and not for any ideological ones. Chavez really hasn't much choices when it's about choosing his allies, but it's a shame that he is ending up with a bastard like Ahmmadinejahd, an anti-semitic, clerical fascist. I guess this guy even would have chosen Hitler as his ally in the name of "anti-imperialism".

[Reuben]

Malte is right. The only allies upon whom chavez can truly depend are the international working class, and anyone at all farmiliar with the trade union situation in Iran should be aware that allying with ahmidinijad is the opposite of allying with the working class.

[Kez]

To be honest, if Chavez wants to play RealPolitik, then he should do it in Latin America, and not the other side of the world. It not like the issue of Socialism in Latin America is done and dusted.

I understand the oil politics, and general alliegences internationally, but no need to go overboard and suck upto Iran so much. Of ALL countries, Iran.

I'm a firm believer that people change, however, this does not apply to nutjob fundamentalists in Iran, who murder marxists and unionists for fun. If the Iranian working class is actively fighting the state (which it, read news concerning trade unionists) then the state should not be being propped up by Chavez. If Chavez wants to help the Iranian state for strategic means, then simply suggesting that if it gets attacked then it would help would be enough.

[BreadBros]

Hes not the only one.


MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has delivered new anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran and will consider further requests by Tehran for defensive weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....&src=rss&rpc=22 (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-16T121314Z_01_L16260588_RTRUKOC_0_US-RUSSIA-IRAN-MISSILES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

[Guerrilla22]

I agree, if Chavez wants to build up a network of support, the last country he should ally himself with is Iran. Not only is the regime in Iran highly oppressive and the antisthesis of what Chavez is trying to work for, it provides the American media and government with another opprotunity to try to delegitimize Chavez in the eyes of the public.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am
If the Iranian working class is actively fighting the state (which it, read news concerning trade unionists) then the state should not be being propped up by Chavez.
This makes somewhat more sense than suggesting string-attached aid: either send aid to a country, or don't.

But what a strange criterion: if there is class struggle in a country, don't send aid? Might as well say, if a country's capitalist, don't send aid. Probably there's no more strikes, etc., in Iran than in many countries.

I gotta disagree. Country-to-country aid doesn't necessarily imply political endorsement. If it helps counter imperialism, it'll probably strengthen the working class in that country too.

Will the Iranian working class be in a stronger situation if the US and UN economic sanctions damage the Iranian economy? I don't think so. One, you have less leverage with strikes, etc., if you're already unemployed. Two, imperialism and the working class are pushing in opposite directions on the regime.

One could make a historical analogy to Cuban aid to Angola: also a capitalist regime that suppressed working people in Angola. But would working people in Angola and elsewhere be in a stronger situation if Cuba hadn't helped that regime against imperialism? No. On the contrary, the anti-apartheid fight benefited tremendously.


If Chavez wants to help the Iranian state for strategic means, then simply suggesting that if it gets attacked then it would help would be enough.

So it's OK to aid Iran verbally, but not otherwise? An unintentionally appropriate expression of armchair super-radicalism....

There's little military aid Venezuela could send to Iran, especially if it waits for a full-scale invasion when Iran will be under naval blockade. But Iran is under economic attack now, and it's correct to help counter that.

[Luís Henrique]

Iran and Venezuela absolutely need to be in good terms with each other, since their main (and, practically, only) insertion into the international capitalist market is the same commodity, oil.

If they do not talk to each other in good terms, the logic of competition will drive oil prices lower for both.

Plus, there is the issue of weaponry. Neither Iran or Venezuela produce their own weapons, so they must buy them in the international market. Buying them in the international market means not being isolated, and not being isolated means stablishing commercial networks that circumvent the quasi-monopoly on weapon production by pro-US imperialist countries. Which means, maintaining good ties with Russia and China. And since both Caracas and Teheran are going to do exactly this, it makes sence that they cooperate in order to maintain such position, even to make possible triangular trades.

Venezuela is a country deeply and totally dependent on international capitalist market; until this changes (which I don't see happening any soon, and certainly not under the current trend of Chávez's administration), it needs to hold political positions compatible with its economical interests.

Luís Henrique

[Vladimir]

Luís Henrique made a good contribution by mentioning oil. This is a very important matter in Chavez and Ahmadinejads growing relationship. As two major oil exporters, both want oil prices to remain high, certainly not to go down. Revenue from oil exports funds Chavez's social spending at the end of the day...

[Comrade J]

Both have realised that if they want any control over American foreign policy and safety from American imperialism they have to stand together on this issue; as has been said already, they are both major oil suppliers and if they can unite with other oil nations, they could have the US on its knees.
I'm not sure if that's some ultimate objective of theirs or not, but it would definetly be an option to control imperialist agression in Latin America and Asia - the unification of the world's major oil suppliers. However, I don't see America ever allowing that to happen, so it's unlikely they have some hidden motive.

I think Chavez' solidarity with Iran can benefit Venezuela to a degree, but he has certainly wasted an opportunity to call on Iran to change their stance on homosexuals, women, communists etc. Some people would argue that it would be a waste of time, Iran is very unlikely to bow to such demands, but that's besides the point - at least Chavez would have been seen to denounce these policies, something the right-wing bourgeois media are definetly going to use against him, which would probably be ample justification for any future military action against Venezuela or Hugo Chavez.

I fear he's made a grave mistake allying with a "terrorist state" - if the American government ever needed an excuse to assasinate or kidnap him, this is it.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 18, 2007 04:30 pm
Both have realised that if they want any control over American foreign policy and safety from American imperialism they have to stand together on this issue; as has been said already, they are both major oil suppliers and if they can unite with other oil nations, they could have the US on its knees.
I'm not sure if that's some ultimate objective of theirs or not, but it would definetly be an option to control imperialist agression in Latin America and Asia - the unification of the world's major oil suppliers. However, I don't see America ever allowing that to happen, so it's unlikely they have some hidden motive.

I think Chavez' solidarity with Iran can benefit Venezuela to a degree, but he has certainly wasted an opportunity to call on Iran to change their stance on homosexuals, women, communists etc. Some people would argue that it would be a waste of time, Iran is very unlikely to bow to such demands, but that's besides the point - at least Chavez would have been seen to denounce these policies, something the right-wing bourgeois media are definetly going to use against him, which would probably be ample justification for any future military action against Venezuela or Hugo Chavez.

I fear he's made a grave mistake allying with a "terrorist state" - if the American government ever needed an excuse to assasinate or kidnap him, this is it.
I agree. However, I don't think Chavez has exposed himself.

America doesn't need a real excuse to topple Chavez; they tried it in 2002. The US can't make a move on Chavez because of his control of oil, as well as the failure of the first attempt. If the US wanted to assassinate Chavez, they would, connection with Iran or not.

Also, it's not like he cares (or should care) what the capitalist media says about him, it's basically a given that they're going to slime him at this point.

[Red October]

its true that allying venezuela with iran could be a good economic choice, but i think it really sends the wrong message. it looks like venezuela is willing to ignore human rights abuses and deal with fascists for economic benefits, just like the US ignores human rights abuses in its business dealings.

[Phalanx]

Allying with a downright reactionary regime is anything but progressive. Iran isn't the 'anti-imperialist power' as it's touted by some. It's goal in the region is to gain more influence, not to build an anti-imperialist front. Essentially, Iran is trying to replace American imperialism with its own brand. Chavez should distance himself from Iran, not get closer.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:53 am
[QUOTE=Kez,January 16, 2007 11:29 am]

I gotta disagree. Country-to-country aid doesn't necessarily imply political endorsement. If it helps counter imperialism, it'll probably strengthen the working class in that country too.

Will the Iranian working class be in a stronger situation if the US and UN economic sanctions damage the Iranian economy? I don't think so. One, you have less leverage with strikes, etc., if you're already unemployed. Two, imperialism and the working class are pushing in opposite directions on the regime.




So it's OK to aid Iran verbally, but not otherwise? An unintentionally appropriate expression of armchair super-radicalism....
Well, its not like Chavez is sending food parcels, but rather making sure more money is gained by the Iranian government, which in turn uses it to keep down the workers.

We all know that in an economic collapse, the class consiousness of workers increases, and would only help topple such a vile govt as in the Iranian state.

As for more employment being a good thing as it could mean more strikes, im quite amazed you've said this, as i beleive, that your one of the more intelligent members of this board. How can they organise strikes at a time when the state clamps down on any union activity with whippings and imprisonment? We are not talking about a free state in which union activity can be organised. Correct me if im wrong.


And as for verbal support when theyre attacked, i dont think i said verbal. There are a lot of things Chavez can do if Iran was attacked, including cuttin oil supplies, and getting OPEC to cut supplies. If it became friendly with more nations then it could persuade them to cut supplies to the US.

Your views?

[Mikhail Frunze]

Iran's anti-imperialist policies in that the revolutionaries have thrown off domination by Washington are more than satisfactory to render the Tehran government as a legitimate anti-imperialist resistance. The claim that there is persecution against women in Iran is unfounded because women are the majority of students in higher education.

Iran's domestic issues are exclusively the problems of the Iranian people. There should not be any outright interference under the guise of "human rights" demanding Iran to conform to the standards of imperialism and globalization. If Tudeh and other communists truly represent the proletariat, then they should lead mass action against the theocratic regime.

But to oppose Iran's government on its foreign policies is essentially complicit with imperialism. Even Tudeh has condemned the arbitrary, illegal sanctions against Iran by the UN Security Council.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:20 am
We all know that in an economic collapse, the class consiousness of workers increases,
No, that's not necessarily the case. If that was all it took, there'd be a lot more revolutions. If that were all it took, there woulda been a revolution in Iraq under the US/UN blockade, euphemistically called "sanctions".

Washington certainly wouldn't be trying to ruin the Iranian economy with sactions if it necessarily led to higher class consciousness.

If any economic situation is likely to lead to workers' revolt - it's uncertainty and volatility, ups and downs, not simply economic deprivation and collapse.


As for more employment being a good thing as it could mean more strikes, im quite amazed you've said this, as i beleive, that your one of the more intelligent members of this board. How can they organise strikes at a time when the state clamps down on any union activity with whippings and imprisonment?

There are, in fact, strikes at times in Iran, you just said yourself your argument was based on " If the Iranian working class is actively fighting the state (which it, read news concerning trade unionists)". Workers can fight back despite repression, repression is not a magic wand that can always save the ruling class - or we might as well give up now, because the capitalists will always be able to crush us. Besides, repression in Iran is currently less intense than under most capitalist regimes in the Middle East.

So first your argument is based on the Iranian working class actively fighting the state and now it's based on the Iranian working class having no possibility of fighting the state due to "whippings and imprisionment."

(And don't try to quibble that strikes are not the only way to fight the state, that's obvious in general, but strikes are the main form of struggle that's actually been going on in Iran lately.)

So when you make opposite arguments so close together, I gotta ask: what's your real reason? I'd suggest it's bending to imperialist demonization of the Iranian regime, that leads people to treat it as not just another capitalist regime but somehow some uniquely evil thing.

Why else would anyone be shocked at ties between the Iranian and Venezuelan capitalist states?


And as for verbal support when theyre attacked, i dont think i said verbal. There are a lot of things Chavez can do if Iran was attacked, including cuttin oil supplies, and getting OPEC to cut supplies.

No, an oil boycott is not going to happen in any way that hurts the U.S. economy. Most oil producing countries are heavily dependent on that one export and cannot stop exporting it; they'd hurt themselves more than anyone. Nor can anyone hope to get all oil exporting countries to act together. Especially when Iraq is occupied by the U.S. and the Saudi monarchy is hostile to Iran and dependent on the U.S.

So that leaves: a few oil-exporting countries selling to someone else rather than the U.S. This won't effect world market prices so the U.S. can just buy their oil elsewhere.

In general, the idea of economic sanctions against the world's largest economy is impractical.

No, if you wait until the shooting starts, there's no chance of military aid to Iran.

And why wait? There's no difference in principle between economic warfare and direct military assault. Those are just two different stages of the same war drive.

[Kez]

Firstly mate, chill out, were trying to have a discussion here. I'm not really that arsed about points being scored against me on some forum full of spotty teenagers.

"No, that's not necessarily the case. If that was all it took, there'd be a lot more revolutions. If that were all it took, there woulda been a revolution in Iraq under the US/UN blockade, euphemistically called "sanctions"."

- Clearly, what is also needed is the need for a Mass Revolutionary Party, which there isnt in Iran.


"So first your argument is based on the Iranian working class actively fighting the state and now it's based on the Iranian working class having no possibility of fighting the state due to "whippings and imprisionment."

- I didnt say there is no possibility, maybe you misread that bit. I clearly stated that there was SOME union activity going on. and it is being absolutely crushed, with leaders getting imprisoned and threatened. This does not mean that they should give up, but have to be more flexible and ingenius to get their strikes.

Maybe you have read about the Russian State Unions before the 1917 revolution, how genuine unionists worked inside these secret police unions to get strikes going? this shows that it is never impossible. But both you and i know that in the current state of the regime in Iran, its not like if employment is increased, union activity will also increase due to increased leverage.

Iran now is vastly different to 1970's Britain where there was near full employment and very high union activity. Namely there wasnt such union repression or Islamic Militias who murder left wing activists.

"So when you make opposite arguments so close together, I gotta ask: what's your real reason? I'd suggest it's bending to imperialist demonization of the Iranian regime, that leads people to treat it as not just another capitalist regime but somehow some uniquely evil thing."

- Dont patronize me comrade. My parents are from Iran, i've been to Iran, i've seen family being arrested for activities, and i couldnt give two fucks about the Wests comments concerning Iran.

your views?

[Spike]

Shouldn't Chavez require that the Islamist regime stop persecuting Marxists, women, and queers before he spends a cent on Iran?
It is not the duty of Chavez to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. That is called imperialism. The Islamic Republic of Iran is progressive relative to the neo-colonial oppressive monarchy. It is one of the most effective of anti-imperialist forces active today.

Most oil producing countries are heavily dependent on that one export and cannot stop exporting it; they'd hurt themselves more than anyone.
Actually, the 1970s resulted in unprecendented prosperity for OPEC countries because of soaring oil prices. What Iran should do is quadruple its oil prices.

[Janus]

That is called imperialism.
By that definition then just about every country in the world has been imperialist at some point or another.

[Vargha Poralli]

The Islamic Republic of Iran is progressive relative to the neo-colonial oppressive monarchy.

And Neo Colonial oppressive monarchy is not the only thing that is an alternative to Islamic Theocrats. You know there are workers in Iran.


What Iran should do is quadruple its oil prices.

And they would never do that since they are bourgeoisie government which is controlled by theocrats.They would do it one to make the whole bourgeoisie economic system to collapse but you have to keep on sleeping for that to happen.