Help an ignorant capitalist out - How does the no blood for

[HankMorgan]

I see signs that say "No blood for oil" and there's a website nobloodforoil.org. People say it all the time like everyone's supposed to know what it means. Here in the anonymity of che-lives (long may it exist), I going to admit I don't understand what this means. Please help a poor cappie out and tell me how the argument works.

There looks like two cases to me and neither makes any sense.

1. Iraq wants to sell oil but the US doesn't want Iraq to sell oil.

2. Iraq doesn't want to sell oil but the US wants Iraq to sell oil.

Currently the US buys oil from countries all over the globe including even Iraq. Having Iraqi oil in the market increases the supply of oil and reduces the price for all buyers. Presumably Iraq sells the oil at a profit. If Iraq couldn't make a profit, they wouldn't sell the oil.

Since Iraq benefits from the sale of its oil by receiving profits and the US buys oil at a lower price when the supply is increased, it seems to my simple mind that Iraq and the US are in agreement when it comes to oil.

Perhaps oil itself is not the issue. The only problem with Iraqi oil being on the market that I can see, is Saddam Hussein gets the profits. Maybe that's not a problem to the lefties on this site.

Will one of you smart guys give me an overview of how the no blood for oil argument works, please.

[Liberty Lover]

The 'no blood for oil' fuckheads basically believe that the US want Iraq to ensure a greater supply of oil into their country. Whether it makes sense or not dosen't really enter their minds.

[HankMorgan]

I mean no disrespect, Liberty Lover, but I don't follow what you said.

[synthesis]

Liberty Lover: What is your opinion of:

-U.S.-funded Israel state apartheid/racialism
-U.S. torture/murder of innocents in Vietnam/Cambodia
-U.S. Installation of a fascist regime in Greece
-U.S. funding of East Timorese genocide
-U.S. fire-bombing of Tokyo intended to kill innocent civilians
-U.S. overthrowal of democracy in Chile, Zaire, et cetera
-U.S. installation of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, et cetera

Just curious. It seems that any self-proclaimed "liberty lover" would by nature be a very staunch opponent of U.S. foreign policy.

[IHP]

I will answer your question with my interpretation in a second Hank. Firstly, I can't believe that SN has been replaced by an poltroon like Liberty Lover. Your argument doesn't make any sense. Let me get this straight, your saying that the US requests (wants) Iraq ensure (or guarentee) a greater amount of oil for America. How will this take place, and through what? diplomacy? What stance do you think Iraq/US trade relations are? We will ignore (like the US government does) the huge amounts of smuggling through the Kurds on to Turkey, where America buys the oil cheaper. Profits are still going to Saddam Hussein. If the US seriously wants to cripple him, why do they more than condone, but encourage this? and continue to buy 13% of their total oil from Iraq?

Ok Hank (someone I have little more respect for). I believe it breaks down like this. The no blood for oil "fuckheads" also known as human rights activists interpret this war as as a war for oil. The no blood for oil disputes the need for war thus spilling of blood, for the US who desire control over the oil in Iraq.

You are correct, America does buy oil from other nations, but consider the wealth under the Iraqi desert. One oil station, which is near the Kuwaiti border contains 24% of the worlds oil. NOw that is absolutely astounding. If the public knows this, then so do the US government. You couldn't even place a dollar value upon that much oil, it is simply too valuable to calculate.

Consider adding this warmongering by a nation with hollow arguments to say the least as to why this is justified, together with such valuable natural resources, and most people who think critically will come to some kind of assumption.

Then again, I could be wrong, but that is how I interpret that argument which is promoted by the "fuckheads"

Does that clear some things up?

--IHP

[Liberty Lover]

"I mean no disrespect, Liberty Lover, but I don't follow what you said."

Nor do I. Im just repeating what i've been told by people from the no blood for oil campaign.

"U.S.-funded Israel state apartheid/racialism"

To you think the arabs rejection (bar Egypt) of Israels right to exist is not racist?

"U.S. installation of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, et cetera "

They dind't "install" thes people, they supported them. I'ts seemed the best way to combat the Soviet threat at the time but the U.S. gov has since admitted they were wrong.

The U.S. intervened in the places you indicated because they were at war with the communism. While I don't entirley agree with their conduct in these countries, the intervention itself was pivital in containing totalitarian Russia. If they hadn't intervened the Soviets would have certainly won the cold war.

"Firstly, I can't believe that SN has been replaced by an poltroon like Liberty Lover"

what do you mean by this?

"We will ignore (like the US government does) the huge amounts of smuggling through the Kurds on to Turkey, where America buys the oil cheaper. Profits are still going to Saddam Hussein. If the US seriously wants to cripple him, why do they more than condone, but encourage this? and continue to buy 13% of their total oil from Iraq? "

Do you have any evidence to support this?

[synthesis]

To you think the arabs rejection (bar Egypt) of Israels right to exist is not racist?

I think it's perfectly justified. Would you like to see how Israel uses American-supplied weapons on their brethren?

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...rismPhotos.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/palestine/IsraeliTerrorismPhotos.html)

I think the Palestinians have a much greater claim to Israel than the Jews do, considering the Jews have been gone for nearly two thousand years.

BTW, how would the rejection of said right to existence be 'racist'? Wouldn't it be anti-semitic at best, and reactionary at worst?

(Edited by DyerMaker at 9:04 am on Feb. 17, 2003)

[Liberty Lover]

"I think the Palestinians have a much greater claim to Israel than the Jews do, considering the Jews have been gone for nearly two thousand years."

I believe the Palestinians have a right to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Jews have a right to the rest

"Wouldn't it be anti-semitic at best"

Anti-Semitism is racist

[synthesis]

The Jews have a right to the rest

You can't just say they have a right to it. I can't claim I have a right to your girlfriend's breasts, hair, and feet, and then you have a right to the rest, you'd think I was crazy or full of shit.

In other words... The Palestinians were invaded.

Anti-Semitism is racist

Jews aren't a race of their own, but even so... how is refusing the right to exist of a nations that murders babies such as in the link I provided anti-Semitic?

[Liberty Lover]

"You can't just say they have a right to it. I can't claim I have a right to your girlfriend's breasts, hair, and feet, and then you have a right to the rest, you'd think I was crazy or full of shit."

This contradicts this:

"I think the Palestinians have a much greater claim to Israel than the Jews do"

"how is refusing the right to exist of a nations that murders babies such as in the link I provided anti-Semitic?"

That's not why they don't recognise Israel's right to exist. They hated the Jews has soon as they arrived. Long before the "Baby killing" began.

[synthesis]

This contradicts this:

No, it doesn't. The Palestinians have the right to Palestine because they're been there for many hundreds of years.

The Jews, for the most part, aren't even the same Jews that got kicked out nearly two thousand years ago, and they just showed up fifty years ago and demanded a slice.

Where's the justice there?

They hated the Jews has soon as they arrived. Long before the "Baby killing" began.

The two came hand in hand.

[Liberty Lover]

Let's stop talking about right to the land. The best solution is the solution that stops the bloodshed.

"they just showed up fifty years ago and demanded a slice."

Fair go!!! 6 million of them had just been masacred by Hitler.

[Pete]

"Fair go!!! 6 million of them had just been masacred by Hitler. "

Hitler has nothing to do with what Dyermaker is talking about.

I'll leave the rest to Dyermaker...I'm fairly ignorant in this sense. Leave Anti-setimism out of it. Rascism is often brewed by the people who are the targets holding them selves seperate (meaning stuff like the black mayor of toronto or something)

[synthesis]

6 million of them had just been masacred by Hitler.

I don't see what that has to do with their claim to Israel. If your neighbor comes and cuts off my arm, that doesn't give me the right to the house of your uncle that I happened to have lived in when I was a baby.

[HankMorgan]

Thanks for the response, IHP. There is a lot of noise on this channel but I'll continue since I really want to know.

Let me restate what I think you said and you can correct me if I get it wrong.

Your interpretation of the what the human rights activists are saying is that the US seeks to insure a secure supply of oil through force of arms.

Since Iraqi oil, even if it's 24% (I'll take your word on this for now and look it up later), doesn't constitute a secure supply by itself, the US would have to continue taking over oil producing nations to reach a secure level.
There's no way that's going to happen.

After Desert Storm, Kuwait and Iraq were both allowed to keep control of their oil fields. The US and its allies defended Saudi Arabia against invasion by Hussein's army. The recent history of the US in the Persian Gulf doesn't show any evidence of the US wanting to take control of the oil fields. The history shows just the opposite.

IHP, if your interpretation is correct, then I think the human rights activists are overly paranoid. Obtaining a secure supply of oil by force of arms doesn't seem to be practical and I don't see any historical evidence supporting that a motivation. The US has always paid for its oil. That's the easier and cheaper thing to do.

I'm not saying you're wrong, IHP. I just don't buy it.

Does anyone else want to offer an explaination of what is meant by "no blood for oil"?

[abstractmentality]

ill take a crack at it...

if the US were to put up a puppet government in Iraq, this government would most likely be a relatively secure government for a time being. in this time being, the US would have a constant supply of oil from a "stable" government, something that is unlike the current situation in Venezuela and, from what i hear, Saudi Arabia. in this, we can see the good ol' supply of oil. the US needs this oil because of its consumption. in my international relations text book for college, it has a table from the US dept. of energy, in which it shows the per capita consumption of energy and the total net energy exports. in this, North America uses 360 million BTU, and exports -20 quadrillion BTU. then you look to the export of the middle east, and you see it at +45 quadrillion BTU. we need some more of that energy source.

The blood comes into it by saying that we are going to spill blood for that oil. no Blood (the blood shed when fighting) for oil (the oil that we will have more control over afterwards).

[Palmares]

No Iraqis to be killed for Iraqi oil.

Simple.

[IHP]

""Firstly, I can't believe that SN has been replaced by an poltroon like Liberty Lover"

what do you mean by this? "

Exactly what I said. A capitalist of intelligence aka SN, left this sight, he has been replaced by a person who's argument in incoherent, and with a potty mouth to boot. I just find it disappointing, that's all. I see you didn't dispute my interepretation of your lunacy, and that speaks volumes.

and here is you evidence: http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtymi...6/story_764.asp (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_02_16/story_764.asp)


Hank, in regards to your interpretation of my...interpretation:).

"Since Iraqi oil, even if it's 24% (I'll take your word on this for now and look it up later), doesn't constitute a secure supply by itself, the US would have to continue taking over oil producing nations to reach a secure level.
There's no way that's going to happen."

The figure 24% was stated on 60 minutes, by a journalist called Richard Carlton. Unfortunately I cannot give you more evidence than that. But I do disagree with you on one point. Slightly under 1/4 of the worlds oil is under Iraqi soil. Control over such wealth would ensure a secure supply for a long time. This is a question, not and argument, but how much oil is used by the US when compared to other nations? Im sure its huge, but that much oil would sustain the US for a long time, as well as the amount of money they would save.

Im getting kicked out the door so I will have to end this post. I will finish this as soon as i can.

--IHP

[Liberty Lover]

I meant, who IS SN?

"with a potty mouth to boot"

Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity Fuck!!! What's the pig deal ya Fucking pussy!?

[HankMorgan]

Thanks IHP, abstractmentality and Cthenthar. Between what you have written and peacenicked's thread on "Analysis of the reasons behind invading Iraq ", I understand what's going on here.

It seems to be a question of fear on everyone's part.

The US has a huge economy. An economy so large that we can afford the luxury of a 400 billion dollar defense budget without giving up butter. Now some fools have knocked down the World Trade Center. The US is mad as hell and on the move. I had no idea how much fear that is generating and I still don't get the idea that world believes the US is just going to smash and grab resources like oil.

I too have fear. I don't want to die at the hands of a madmen. There are madmen and I've seen them fly jets into skyscrapers.

How do I say it without it sounding hollow in your ears? If you knock down a skyscraper, you're dead. If you have oil, we can do business.

Maybe I can convince you guys but that would leave me about 5.5 biliion people to go.

[abstractmentality]

HM:
Im not sure where you are going with this fear factor.

I was not writing that the US is going to go in their and "grab resources," but rather have a grasp on resources. the government that they will install will be a relativly stable one, in which the oil supply will also be relatively stable. i dont see any place for fear in what i wrote and write.

[IHP]

Hank,

Well...you seem to have come to a decision on your own. I disagree with it baing a notion of fear, but I can see how you and other pro-war people could see it as that.

The fact is we will disagree on this matter. Whether it happens or not is out of our hands, we'll have to let the future pan out to see exactly what US plans for the worlds second largest oil deposit are.

"I meant, who IS SN?"

Stormin Norman, an old foe.

"Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity Fuck!!! What's the pig deal ya Fucking pussy!?"

I don't need to comment. This says more than I ever could about your integrity. Perhaps you should go and find another chat forum that will suffer fools more gladly than I do.

--IHP

[pastradamus]

Quote: from HankMorgan on 7:17 am on Feb. 18, 2003

I too have fear. I don't want to die at the hands of a madmen. There are madmen and I've seen them fly jets into skyscrapers.

How do I say it without it sounding hollow in your ears? If you knock down a skyscraper, you're dead. If you have oil, we can do business.

Maybe I can convince you guys but that would leave me about 5.5 biliion people to go.

September 11,wasn't done because those people like seeing dead bodies.It was a psycoligical blow.Im sure bin laden didnt do it for the sake of killing people,he has his reasons.Now I was appaled by the attacks & dont support them,so dont take it the wrong way.

As for the oil comment; the US is capitalist,and the highest form of capitalism is Imperalism.Global bullying,SELL US YOUR OIL AT A NICE PRICE----------OR ELSE.Its time we stand up to those pricks.Saddam should be overthrown by a popular peoples uprising.Not by foreign armies.I think its a disgrace that the US never supported the 3 uprisings in IRAQ,they would have done a much better job of beating saddam then B-52's ever could,much of the mass civilian slaughter would be avoided.

[praxis1966]

Let me see if I've got this right: Hank honestly believes that U.S. policy has something to do with 9/11, despite the fact that President Shrub has provided absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Iraq has ties to Al Queda. Not that I would believe him if he did. That dumb son of a fascist was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

The administration abandoned all attempts to convince the American public that Hussein might have had something to do with jetliners and World Trade Centers because they saw it wasn't working. Hell, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations said just last week that the claim that Iraq had something to do with Al Queda was absurd because they would admit if they did. I honestly think that whole regime is insane enough to do so.

Also, Hank seems to think that Iraq is a threat to the security of the United States, and this is why we're going into Iraq. Do you also believe that when we went into Kuwait that we gave two shits about the freedom of little brown people? I know George the I didn't. Neither did his party. The only time George I showed any concern for anything other than his first pocket book was Rwanda, and his own party had a conniption.

By the way, does anybody else find it odd that the Bin Laden family was among the biggest shareholders in George II's first oil company? Or that only two airplanes were allowed to remain in the air on the afternoon of 9/11 and that of those two one was Air Force One and the other was a jetliner which was allowed to pick up several members of the Bin Laden family and get them out of the country? This at least according to the New York times and the Los Angeles Times.

[HankMorgan]

IHP, pastradamus, as always I appreciate the insight.

The highest form of capitalism is not imperialism. The highest form is you do your thing, I'll do mine and we'll grow old watching our kids play soccer together. I hope your enterprises are profitable. That's the highest form.
Really, that is what most Americans want.

Americans aren't capable of empire let alone desire empire. Look at us. The country is splitting over whether or not to take out a dictator who slaughters his own people. How could we have an empire?

I agree, pastradamus, it would have made more sense to support the Iraqi uprisings. Bush senior never was a ball of fire in my book. The next president (you know the one that was president between the father and son Bushes...what was his name?) didn't do anything, not even have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky. Bad presidents. We may disagree on what should be done, but the younger Bush does not shy away from history.

The current Bush and I have the same nightmare. Here's where I'm going with the fear idea. It scares the hell out of me to have a man with Hussein's history spending the revenue from the world's second largest reserve of oil on weapons. Al-Qaida with far less resources brought down skyscrapers full of innocents. What havoc can Hussein accomplish? How about Hussein and Al-Qaida together? I have only to look in my wallet to see the link. Everything is available for a price.

I'm going to speak for myself, not for the hawks or the Bush administration. I'll get a better nights sleep when Hussein is out of business. It's not about the oil but instead about what the oil revenue can do. Its my voice and it doesn't sound hollow in my ears. Maybe it doesn't sound hollow in yours?

[Show me the Money]

Quote: from i hate pinochet on 4:28 am on Feb. 19, 2003
Hank,

(...)

"Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity Fuck!!! What's the pig deal ya Fucking pussy!?"

I don't need to comment. This says more than I ever could about your integrity. Perhaps you should go and find another chat forum that will suffer fools more gladly than I do.

--IHP






try to keep it rational ppl!!! Please:o!!! We love teaching cappies, so give us a change!

[HankMorgan]

Praxis1966, there seems to be a communication breakdown between what I wrote and what you read. For now I'll assume it's your humble correspondent that is inadequate.

Just to be sure, I'll write slowly so you can understand.

I'm not saying Hussein bears any responsibility for the jets flying into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. What I'm saying is I'll feel more secure when there is no possibility for Hussein to directly or indirectly participate in another attack on the United States.

Please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify if you aren't understanding what I write.

[abstractmentality]

Hank:
I see what you are saying, about feeling safer if Suddam was not in power, but at the same time cant this be said by the Iraqi civilians of Baghdad about Bush and his team?

[Palmares]

If the US gets Iraq's oil, it would also prevent France and Russia from getting the Iraqi oil they have.

Selfish bastards!

[HankMorgan]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:09 pm on Feb. 19, 2003
Hank:
I see what you are saying, about feeling safer if Suddam was not in power, but at the same time cant this be said by the Iraqi civilians of Baghdad about Bush and his team?


Yes, I'm certain the Iraqi civilians are losing sleep. I would be.

A short bit on civilian casualties. Maybe the demagogue, peaccenicked will read this too. The attitude toward civilian casualties is a cultural one and I'll only speak for myself, my nation and my culture.

There are somethings I take comfort in. I take comfort in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars that have spent on making American munitions the most accurate that have ever existed. I take comfort in the generous amount of training given to American pilots and gunners so that their aim is the best it can be. I take the most comfort in knowing that American pilots and gunners do not aim at civilians. This would not be tolerated in my country or in my culture.

Other countries try to take advantage of the American attitude toward civilian casualties by stationing human shields around potential targets. Human shields would be of no value if the American people didn't find the idea of civilian casualties abhorent.

When non-combatant, innocent civilians are killed by Americans, it is a great tragedy and I personally abhor it.

Other peoples find the wholesale slaughter of non-combatant innocents to be a time of great joy, to be celebrated with the distribution of candy.

This is a time of sensitivity, diversity and correctness. I would not pretend to judge these people by my own standards.

[IHP]

"It scares the hell out of me to have a man with Hussein's history spending the revenue from the world's second largest reserve of oil on weapons. Al-Qaida with far less resources brought down skyscrapers full of innocents."

Well, I have to disagree with this in practice. Under the current sanctions Iraq couldn't raise enough revenue to pose any kind of threat. Further, if this was a concern why does the US allow smuggling? I think that equals non-concern on the part of the US. Also, with the Food-for-Oil program, Iraq spends a portion of the revenue gained from oil sales on medicines etc which are chosen and monitored by the UN. This further reduces the available capital for arms spending. I can only conclude that if your sinister predictions prove correct, in the end it will make little difference.

--IHP

[concious]

Hello,
first of all I would kind of like to clarify what you mean by the culture of this country, I just don't understand too well which one u mean... cowboys? mountain people? or the real culture of the natives-native americans. I'm sorry but I just don't see this "culture" From the point of view of real culture, I just don't see it, since this country has been built by immigrants that came from true past cultures but now is just a mess of complete indifference and lots of ignorance of social issues and others for example nutrition...
personally I have spoken to people of this country "culture" and they have repeatedly told me that they would like to see the Iraqi people simply wiped out,some have gone as far as saying that they would do anything their country asks them to(keep in mind this is a girl with lots of exposure-to means of info.)...she went on to telling me that if this "empire" falls it's ok since all great empires have fallen in the past... another contradiction to your point is that I've heard many, many people drive by small group demonstrations yelling out how we should "fuck ourselves" and that Irak should be bombed to the ground, and have also heard comments from cops.
... and about what you point out on such perfect weapons well remember that even these "perfect"or close to perfection military generals & others of the gov't. have spoken about unfortunate civilian casualties that war causes.
wouldn't a better & safer weapon be the world community working together ,not unilateraltly ,to tumble down the regime since most of the coherent world does agree that Saddam needs to go...
and last but not least don't you think you should also start being afraid of North Korea...
and don't forget that well behaved Ossama, remember him? well I guess he doesn't have oil where he is...
anyways I'm just trying to make you think of the so many issues which are involved in conflicts were there are more then one interest, and they're not of true justice, diplomacy and patriotism.
thank you.

[abstractmentality]

Hank:
This is what the invasion of Panama by the US did:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/burnt_buildings.jpg
Eyewitnesses have stated that they saw US military personel throw objetcs into or onto houses, one by one.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/elchorrillo2.jpg

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/Juantxu_Rodriguez.jpg
This is a camera man named Juantxu Rodriguez. Below is what is thought to be Juantxu after he tried to get to much on film

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/Juantxu_Rodriguez_dead.jpg

Then of course you have mass graves...
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/massgrave.jpg

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/massgrave2.jpg

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/massgrave3.jpg

People have also said that they saw weapons nothing like they have ever seen in their life being used. Perhaps testing out new weapons? People have also said that they witnessed US soldiers to execute people, one by one. In the above graves, some of the corpses came out with hands tied behind their backs.

I somehow doubt that an invasion of Iraq will be too different.

[antieverything]

Well, here (http://www.theonion.com/onion3906/point_the_iraq_invasion.html) is a pretty good summary of both viewpoints which I think will clear things up for all of us.

[timbaly]

That was a good article. Why does it have to be in a joke paper? That worries me, it makes it seem as if the reasons against war are merely jokes. If only they didn't make France and Germany seem like peace lover it would have been damn near perfect.

As for the second article, I wouldn't be surprised if thats what some people think, but they'd never say it in public. :smile:

(Edited by timbaly at 10:33 pm on Feb. 21, 2003)

[lifetrnal]

Liberty Lover,

I don't understand. What you are saying is that to defend the world from authoritarianism, The United States had to overthrow popularly elected democracies? This seems to defy logic. What you really mean I think is that U.S. interests are more important than the ideology of democracy ans Liberty. That the mass murder by Pinochet in Chile and the death of democracy in our sphere of influence is justified because at the end of the day the United States maintained supremacy.

[antieverything]

You didn't have to ruin it for everyone, tim. The Onion always does their point-counter-point like that--starting with the serious and then instead of giving the expected opposing viewpoint they give you something crazy.

[Liberty Lover]

"That the mass murder by Pinochet in Chile and the death of democracy in our sphere of influence is justified because at the end of the day the United States maintained supremacy."

Not so much that the U.S. maintained supremacy, than that the USSR didn't gain it.

[praxis1966]

Quote: from HankMorgan on 9:34 pm on Feb. 19, 2003
Praxis1966, there seems to be a communication breakdown between what I wrote and what you read. For now I'll assume it's your humble correspondent that is inadequate.

Just to be sure, I'll write slowly so you can understand.

I'm not saying Hussein bears any responsibility for the jets flying into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. What I'm saying is I'll feel more secure when there is no possibility for Hussein to directly or indirectly participate in another attack on the United States.

Please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify if you aren't understanding what I write.


Don't you EVEN condescend to me. My reading comprehension is more than adequate. Apparently, yours is not since you have obviously missed the entire point of what I wrote.

Please re-read the third paragraph of my post. In it you will find that I draw comparisons between Bush I and Bush II. I directly adressed your argument about the so-called security threat of Iraq. I then proceeded to point out via analalogy that all of the premises for invasion were a total sham. I'm sure you were being facetious in blaming yourself for the mix up, but you should have stopped there. It's the only time you've been right so far.