Cold War

[walkerguy]

Censored

Edited February 20, 2008 by Gorth
Trolling

[Llyranor]

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/JB12Ad01.html (the article deals with US vs. China, but it's not that particular comparison that I want to focus on)

 

Think about it from the perspective of someone living in another country, one perhaps not on the best of terms with the US. The US has enough nuclear weapons - and conventional weapons, for that matter - to destroy any country or set of countries in the world. The only thing holding back the US is American democracy, which in recent years have produced such great presidents as George W. Bush and candidates like John McCain. Now, the Americans don't seem like a serious people (at least not from our popular culture), and they don't seem like they want to take over the world - but are you really going to risk your life, and potentially the life of your people on the notion that Americans, ignorant and content as they currently are, will never fall under the sway of someone who did have ambition? What's to prevent, in other words, an American Adolf Hitler, who might ride in on the coattails of an economic depression?

 

It only takes one mistake of the US political system to send the entire world spiraling into chaos. It only takes one real threat to the untested, pampered, and sheltered Americans for a demagogue to rally the masses. There would be no shortage of scapegoats - the Pentagon invents them as a matter of course, to justify our inflated military spendings - and while the Americans are horrible at occupation, there is no reason why they must occupy. The Americans have been known to shoot first and ask questions later, after all. They don't seem like people you can reason with, once the fighting's started.

 

So, what would you do, rationally, in this situation? Well, in the short term, you know that you must pamper the Americans. Ally with them. Lower their sense of distrust, their reason to fear you. But in the long term? You don't want to sacrifice yourself for the Americans forever, and no amount of pampering will appease a truly belligerent leader, anyhow. In the long term you have no choice but to try and equal the Americans - for as long as they have an overwhelming military advantage, to the point where they can destroy you without you being able to touch them, you can never sleep easy. It's like living next doors to an alcoholic gun collector in Detroit. He might bid you good morning everyday and invite you to his house, but those nights when he holds them NRA parties... You're never quite sure whether those loud noises you hear are from his boom box or ... Or something else.

 

I believe that Americans are better than most when it comes to internalizing what we fear. Our political culture is based, in some sense, on threat politics, so we're quite familiar with it. So, I surmise, it should not be difficult to understand what fear does to a people. The fear of Islamic terrorists, however small of a threat they are to us, sent us into two wars in the Middle-East. We continuously play up the notion of a worldwide Islamic Revolution, wherein Islam would conquer all of Europe and send the world back to the twelth century. We belabor ceaselessly the point that the "liberal West" is "blind" to the threat of foreign immigrants, and that it will be too late before we have the guts to respond - another apocalyptic war, we tell ourselves, is inevitable. Such an active doomsday imagination we have, such a negative notion of other people... That it almost begs the question,

 

How would we act, if we were in their shoes? If Islam, or China, or Russia, were in control of the world, and not us? What if they had the power to annihilate us without us being able to do a thing about it, and the only thing we could do is hope that they will not, despite the fact that their politicians and media sources are continuously playing up the "threat" that we pose?

 

Such a scenario, I argue, is inconceivable to the modern American mind. We do not know fear as the rest of the world knows it. Thus, we do not understand why they would ever feel the need to militarize. In the eternal words of Donald Rumsfeld, "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment [in the military]?" I can just imagine what the Chinese equivalent to the Secretary of Defense must have thought when he heard those words: "Indeed, what do we have to fear, but fear itself?"

[walkerguy]

Yay! Thank you for the intellegent response.

[Nick_i_am]

Llyranor's commentary tries to describe something that is slightly off the perspective in which we normally consider these things; so, though not for the lack of eloquence, it might well draw the familiar response cycles of "but at least America is democratic and free" and "Bush is nothing compared to Kim Jong Il". I hope it doesn't devolve into another aimless round of such lone bombshells; the argument at stake, as I understand it, is not that America is going to destroy the world and we have to fight it, or that Islamic suicide bombers are justified, of course. We don't even need to go there.

 

The point is that we have seen the way in which the citizens of America can be mobilised, or at least shepherded, into wars based not on concrete evidence of devastating threat, but concrete evidence of minor potential threat, the memory of 9/11 and a lot of rhetoric. This does not give any sort of evidence that America is ready to embark on Hitler-like invasions at the drop of the next demagogue + terrorist attack combo: I don't think that's what Azarkon means, either. What it does tell us is that there is a presence of a sociopolitical and epistemological mechanism that could in the future produce such a situation. Sorry, that's a lot of waffletalk. What do I mean? I mean that nobody is saying America is ready to gung ho bomb the world; simply that America has demonstrated a mechanism by which divisive and fearful rhetoric, shallow stereotypes of the Other that do not seek to understand why they are so opposed to America, a strong tradition of the discourse of patriotism, freedom and policing of the world, and the current American dominance in the field of ready, effected violence (as opposed to, say, China - see the article) all combine to wage war on almost any nation without a strong history of Western-style democracy. This mechanism has so far operated in relatively small scales compared to a world war, and even then has met a *lot* of resistance (though, it must be noted, lots of Americans saying "oh hell no" didn't stop America as a country from doing it anyway). Thus, there is no evidence at the moment to suggest the impending threat or capability of America Gung Ho

[Llyranor]

I was hesitant to come in and post but I think we can all agree that America becoming the next Nazi Germany is pretty laughable. The statements in op are horribly misguided and skewed. America would never attack someone like China because we are just itching for them to open the flood gates of democracy so we can invade with our businesses of mass profitability. While wars are highly profitable to a lot of people we can't constantly be in them becuase it puts a lot of strain on our economy and socio political system so another war, unless openly provoked, is highly unlikely while we finish up in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not so much that we want to control the world, thats stupid, we just want to make as much money as possible. It's as simple as that and as much as you think you're righteous words about these poor oppressed people around the world are true, they want the exact same thing. You say whats to stop America from rising up and militarizing to control the world but whats to stop any other country? I mean Germany is a small country and after World War 1 they were absolutely and thoroughly destroyed yet they came back to be one of the biggest powerhouses in the world. It's clear that any country with the might and will can do that, you only choose America becuase of some sick delusion.

 

Fighting the entire world through military conflict isn't profitable, it's much easier through diplomacy and business. Not much more than that.

 

If the next Adolf Hitler ended up getting elected president of the US, it wouldn't suddenly create a Nazi regime. That type of jump in logic fails to account for all the checks and balances we have in our government. The president really isn't as powerful as people seem to think he is. You have an extremely complex political system at work here, and it's amazing that it keeps on functioning as well as it does, but the reality is that it is extremely resistant to corruption (or some may say there is so much corruption that it all cancels out tongue.gif )

[Nick_i_am]

I should chime in and say that my post is not that America "will become the next Nazi Germany," and if you read my post as that, then you've missed the point.

 

The point is not about America, per say, but about the fear that America must certainly generate in everyone else. Once again I point out the analogy of the alcoholic gun collector living next door - it might be that he's totally harmless, but I'd probably think twice before deciding that I'm going to be "gun-free," especially if I think he doesn't think straight, sometimes.

 

America, to the rest of the world, is like the alcoholic gun collector. We tout enough firepower to blow up every country in the world, and more importantly, first strike capability against all the nuclear-wielding nations. So, essentially, we can decide tomorrow that we don't like the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Europeans anymore, and blow them all to hell. They wouldn't be able to do a thing about it, because we have the ability to preemptively destroy their entire defensive array. Why would we do it? I don't know - we certainly wouldn't do it now. But in history, nothing is certain; nobody in 19th century Europe thought that their civilization would collapse under two World Wars, either.

 

And that's just the big nations. A small nation like North Korea wouldn't stand a chance. Yes, we're not very good at occupation, but that doesn't mean a thing to the leaders, who're going to be the first to go in any invasion (ie Saddam in Iraq). I mean, if it's not like we haven't overthrown a dozen governments in the past, elected and otherwise.

 

So, in essence, the post was an attempt to look at the world from other people's eyes, particularly those parts of the world that do not really "trust" us, for whatever reason (be it colonialism, Cold War interventionism, or w/e). It's from that perspective that you really begin to understand and - yes, sympathize - with nations developing their militaries and nuclear arsenals. They're only doing what's rational, given the threat that the US could potentially pose.

 

But keep the thoughts coming, everyone.

[Llyranor]

In this respect, I think Nick is right to fear that this argument would fall back to the standard "but America will never be fascist, that's ridiculous! We have checks and balances! We have democracy!", which is of course the standard, easy way to think about all this, and something that I want to avoid. Thus, I'm going to preempt it by making sure everyone understands what I mean.

 

It's not:

 

America is the greatest threat to the modern world. We're the next Nazi Germany. GWB = Hitler 2.0!"

 

But:

 

America's military supremacy scares the crap out of everyone else, and our recent actions do not serve to placate their fears. It's only natural, then, that the world would re-militarize - because nobody would want their lives to be in our hands.

[Nick_i_am]

I should also commend Llyranor on a well-thought out post that captures much of what I wanted to say. I should add, though, that world opinion is not necessarily mass opinion. Most people in the world, I think, have positive impressions of Americans, or at least America. But their governments - that is to say, their political elite - must necessarily fear us, because we have demonstrated that we are perfectly willing to intervene and undermine their interests. The Orange Revolution, for example, ingrained a deep distrust into the heart of a Moscow thawing from the Cold War, that has now empowered Putin and his supporters into forming an anti-US league. Our pledge to defend Taiwan and encirclement (with Japan, S. Korea, and Australia) of mainland China (along with a long history of tensions) did something similar to Beijing. The fact that we overthrew a popularly elected government in Iran no doubt left scars, there, and the War against Terrorism has only further cemented the Muslim community against us.

 

All of these nations have reasons, and good reasons, to fear us. And it's not just the abstract fear that Europeans or Canadians or the rest of the West feels, sometimes, about not being in control of world affairs. It is a tangible, real, and existential fear far greater than anything we feel towards the Islamists, who, I think, we still basically aren't taking seriously (because, understandably, the thought that a handful of extremists could take down the US is a bit ludicrous, even with the scare mongering). And until we understand - and recognize - that fear, I don't think we're prepared to deal with it. It being, of course, why countries do what they do, aside from the rather ignorant and dehumanizing notion that "they're evil."

[Llyranor]

It is precisely opinions like these that reinforce, I think, what I said with regards to why the rest of the world feels the need to defend against the US. Yes, you fear them, but how much do they fear you? After all, China is about as much of a military threat as a man with a harpoon (if you read the article) trying to up against an Aegis battlecruiser. Yet, our political opinion is that they are a major threat that we should "probably" act preemptively against. Now imagine that you're Chinese (or in particular, a part of the Chinese political elite). What do you think your country should do, given American hints at belligerence?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you supported someone who pledged to defend China against the "imperial threat" of the US, to ensure that China is never again threatened by any foreign power. That's how Mao took power, and how wars begin.

[Nick_i_am]

The difference here China has proven itself to be a threat.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Squ...rotests_of_1989

 

I will never forgive nor will I ever forget. Until the Chinese government is casted down and replaced with a democracy that gives basic freedoms and rights to all of its citizens I will always see China as a threat. If I had any say in it I would sever all ties to that nation. And you know what the US Republican president did? Give those bastards favored trade status. Bush Sr. awarded the Chinese government for massacreing their own people.

[Llyranor]

How is repressing democracy a threat to the US, unless the goal of the US was to impose democracy on the rest of the world?

 

Do you see the way this argument flows? If China is a threat for being a dictatorship, then the US is certainly a threat for every dictatorship in the world. That being the case, the authoritarian world must necessarily unite against the US. There are no ifs or buts, in that case - the two cannot coexist. Thus, we sew the seeds of our own apocalypse.

 

But is a democratic nation, then, not a threat to the US - and therefore does not feel threatened in turn? I think quite a few countries in the world would argue against that. Starting with Russia.

[Nick_i_am]

The threat is this: If China is willing to do that to their own people just think what they would be willing to do to those who aren't Chinese citizens if given the chance. Also, I would rather have a good ol' apocalypse than live under a dictatorship. It is better to die free than live in a cage.

[Llyranor]

And that's the sort of thinking that, ultimately, leads the world into fearing us, and which perpetuates the cycle of violence. Think about it, Sand - if the US presented itself as an existential threat to China (or Russia, or Iran, or w/e) by cutting off all relations, do you really think they would respond by becoming democratic? History has proven the opposite - in times of fear and isolation, people gravitate towards dictatorship, fascism, and tyranny, because those are the forces that guarantee security (at the price of freedom). That is not to say, and I think many economists make this mistake, that doing the opposite (befriending China & giving it FTN status) will produce democracy. But positioning yourself as a threat certainly worsens the situation unless you're willing to act on your threat, to overthrow the government by military intervention and then to occupy, rebuild, and reshape the country under your rule. Since the US is not prepared to do that for the vast majority of the world, would you not agree that threatening to do so can only encourage the sort of paranoid thinking that leads countries and peoples in the direction of authoritarianism? Aren't we working against our own interests, in that case?

 

Something to think about.

[Nick_i_am]

I don't care if they become democratic or not. I am for perserving our democracy and doing what is right. They are a threat to the US. Unless they change, which I doubt they will, we should prepare ourselves to face that threat.

[Llyranor]

By casting others as threats, you necessarily make yourself a threat to them. Mutual threat, which leads to war, then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, if you do not threaten them, would they threaten you? Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

[Nick_i_am]

That is a rather naive view of the world, Llyranor. Being all nicey nicey to other countries will not change them either. The strong will always prey on the weak and if we appear weak we will be attacked and invaded.

[Llyranor]

Certainly. But so is the view that other forms of government are inherently evil and therefore threatening to the American way of life. If the Chinese are indeed a threat to American security, they have not yet acted directly on that threat. On the other hand, we have acted on our threat to Beijing many times, and directly. If we were to enter into a contest of "who started it," I think the Chinese would win handidly, Sand. And it's in that context wherein my question makes sense.

 

Don't get me wrong - the world doesn't operate on the principle of sympathy. But mutual advantage, now - that's something nations can stand by, and a critical step to achieving mutual advantage is to understand what the other side want from you, and what they fear from you, because those are the two fundamental questions between groups of people.

[Nick_i_am]

You do realise that a large motivator for the protests were the feelings that reforms undertaken by the party (under the guidance of chicago school economists) went too far casuing big infaltion and threathened livelyhoods? An irony of chineese tanks defending elements of pure capitalsim (some seem to be of an impression every1 would embrace hehe)? You need to broaden your horizon to include all aspects of stories... Take off the tinted glasses so to speak...

 

 

Sand, dont take this the wrong way, but you`re partly the prototype of what ppl all over the world fear when it comes to america... a selfcentered, selfrighteous, paranoid person thinking "his way" should be the only way (and that way he "exports" via any and *all* means) and fearing everyone else is out to get him, just cos hes out to get anyone else on account of some selfpreservation fobia; with the finger on a nuclear button... And with the affinity to prefer to "keep things simple" aka us good them bad we bomb bad...

That and the fact you evoke "your maker" on the highest level of decision making only about 10% less of the time than the ppl blowing themselves up on markets...

Its freaking frightening.

You blame ppl for raising their eyebrows when you put up missle defence shields on their borders and/or parade aircraft carriers in front of their shores backing it up with rethorics remeniscent to the Iraq modus operandi?

 

The sooner strategic balance gets restored the better...

[Llyranor]

Nick would have us bury our heads in the sand and hope China sees that peace is the answer after all. And maybe they will one day - when they starts treating their own citizens with dignity, I'll believe there's hope for China.

 

I mean, why don't you go and tell Taiwan that the constant political threats, alterations to their policies to authorise violence against Taiwan if they opt for independence, scheduled 'test' flights of fighter jets over the skies of Taiwan, etc have nothing to do with war and that China only wants peace?

 

It is a basic human right to be allowed to defend oneself. And the only countries people in the Western world perceive as a threat are those which treat their own citizens poorly. The onus is not on us to change.

[Nick_i_am]

Whatever happened to the Indians that declared their own state last years in the US in response to every treaty being breched?

 

Oh right... Those are jokes to be laughed off hehe... I forgot we`re only looking at china russia and the likes of serbia when it comes to ignoring sovereignty and upholding "rights" hehe... And genocides are only applicable in certain cases too *wink*

 

 

 

My point being only that one must be pritty thick if he believes to be living in the world where his side is inheritly "good" and the other side is inheritly "evil/bad" cos its not 100% like his side and is of belief he must force others to comply...

 

One should fear such people weather they fly the hammer&sickle, the crescent moon of Islam OR stars`n`stripes...

[Llyranor]

I was all happy that this thread reached second page, because I thought while I was at work we had got a lot of good arguments. I won't say whether I was disappointed in that regard or not. aiee.gif

 

Nick perhaps was lured (and I don't use that verb with any malice against Sand) into making his argument seem more apologetic than it is. It's not about "burying our head in the sand and hoping China becomes peaceful and nice all by itself". It's not about, necessarily, right and wrong - is democracy right? Is it the best way to go? Is our version of freedom and representative government so good that we must impose it on everyone? Maybe, maybe not. Not the point.

 

The point, very concisely, is: because our very conception of the 'proper' nation is founded on our ideas of what human rights, what good government, what freedom, is; anything that contravenes those ideas, or any nation that is founded on ideas and perspectives different to ours, is seen as at best ineffective, at worst criminal; and a threat to the ideas of our own nation. It is indeed naive to say in this day and age, that it doesn't matter how many people China kill in their own Tiananmen Squares, as long as its not American. That's not the point here. The point is just as we feel China's alternative logics of government are both morally offensive and politically dangerous, so do China feel that America's obsessions with self-expression and individual flagrance, its trade for what it might see as political stability for a Hollywood election fiasco that sees people with less than 50% vote get presidency and candidates dance, sing, cry and sell stickers for votes - morally offensive and politically dangerous. And if they do, you can say its wrong because your values are right and theirs is not; that's perfectly fine. But don't expect them to nod their head and say, oh, right, we should de-militarise, we should cooperate with US every step of the way, what we are doing is unreasonable.

 

And - this is what Azarkon wants to say, too, I think - because America is a lot more outspoken, effective and active about imposing its own beliefs on others than any other country, other countries have much more reason to fear America than America needs fear other countries. The fear is much more immediate within the radicals of Iran than for the Americans that 'fear' China or North Korea. Which makes perfect sense. It may not be 'right', but it makes sense. That's the distinction here. There's no use replying to such an argument by saying "Yeah, but they're [evil/anti-free/not doing it right/breaching fundamental ideas about government]". Of course they are, in our epistemology, in our worldview! But just marching forward with our worldview and kicking everything else aside in its path, while righteous and brave, is not the best solution. Evidence: terrorism of this decade.

 

Edit: finally, when we are confronted with evidence of US being the 'bad boy' in things like freedom or human rights, it is all too easy to say "we're still the best at being free" and point to Tiananmen Square or whatnot. But just like getting an A in your maths test doesn't excuse you for blowing up the parents' car engine the night before, those pieces of evidence must be recognised (without letting them get to us in some big US=SUPERBAD conspiracy theory). We have to understand that, while, in our view, we recognise no country can be perfect and US is damn good in some respects, in others' view, where the US is forcing a worldview and logic of government they don't agree with on them by force and discourse, those pieces of evidence fuel the fire very well - and understandably so. It's about understanding, Sand. It's not about "keeping things simple" for yourself and charging on until there are no more enemies left; that is an endless, unwinnable battle where other methods might do a little better.

[Nick_i_am]

I am not into forcing other countries to our view, but against other countries trying to force theirs on us. I am very much against us openly attacking another nation, like what we did in Iraq, but we need to be ready when other nations decide to attack us. I doubt that China will one day be nicey to everyone within and out of their borders. That is just naive. As Krezy said, to hope so surmounts to burying one's head in the sand. Appeasement never works. If a country is a threat to us, attacks us, then we need to face that threat head on and remove it.

[Llyranor]

I don't think any claims have been made to the effect. In truth, the thread probably veered off a bit more in the prescriptive direction than I intended. I am not so interested in saying what the US should do, as I am interested in explaining an aspect of modern international relations that I think undermines much of what certain politicians and think tanks in the US claim that they are trying to achieve. In short, I am suggesting that the idea that you can pacify the world through force is a politically flawed concept - because just as Americans refuse to have their guns taken away (because they don't trust the government), other countries will refuse to persist in a state of permanent military insecurity (because they don't trust the US). It is not unreasonable that other countries continue to militarize; they'd be foolish not to, and we are misguided in thinking that this means they must be ruled by belligerent regimes that seek to destabilize the world order.

 

The truth is that even if they are ruled by completely benevolent regimes seeking only to mind their own businesses, US military lopsidedness and our history of interventionism will still conjure the spectre of fear in all but the most naive and "buddy-buddy" of governments. It is not so much that the US is seen as a ruthless expansionist aggressor (except by, perhaps, a few rogue regimes), but that the potential is there for the US to do enormous asymmetrical damage and there are no checks or balances in place - at the international level - that prevent us from doing so. Yes, Europe protests, but their protests have never stopped us. The truth is as stated in the article - we can annihilate any country in the world and have more than enough weapons to hold the rest of the world at bay. There are no balancing repercussions in place that would ensure the MAD that previously brought rival governments some degree of security; the modern American arsenal is possessed of no-retaliation first-strike capabilities.

 

When the biggest guy on the block is sporting a set of bazookas, you will undoubtedly feel threatened and the need to possess counter-weapons of your own. This, I think, will be the defining trait of the 21st century. US military hegemony has brought an era of uneasy peace to the international scene, but it cannot last (some would say it never existed), because while having the US as the sole possessor of peerless military power is almost certainly better for stability than having multiple powers with equal militaries (which got us into the World Wars, as you will recall), the latter is the only state of the world that would satisfy people's psychological need for security. Roughly speaking, as our comparative technological advantage erodes, and our moral image falters, people in other parts of the world will increasingly realize that they no longer desire to be at the mercy of our military power, particularly as it is guided by leaders who, to the rest of the world, appear to be trigger-happy maniacs. And so we return to the age-old paradox: if you want peace, prepare for war.

 

That, it seems to me, is set to become the modus operandi of the new millenium.

[Nick_i_am]

Anyway, I for one support Llyranor's view ( at least I think I do). this is an interesting article. It is saying armament is reciprocal. We need to expect others to arm up as a safeguard against the future. This is immeasurably more important now than it was 100 years ago, when an army could be put together by sewing together some old sacks for uniform and giving everyone a bolt-action rifle. Training, equipping, and supporting a premier league armed force takes nigh on twenty years. It would be quite literally impossible to just sound alarms and take a disarmed nation to war in the time needed to belt them senseless.

 

I have no problem with China being armed. Fair's fair, after all. But I completely disagree that they are a paper tiger. Not only do they have the numbers, but they have the morale, organisation, training, and increasingly the equpment to pose a significant threat.

[Llyranor]

I think that's definitely an arguable point. The article certainly stresses the fact that, right now, the Chinese do not pose a significant threat to us unless we invade, because their power projection capabilities are rather limited. But, as you say, they have all the prerequisites of being a military superpower - they're just not quite there, yet. In this respect, I think we have to accept the fact that China will become a major military power, and to look at this not from the perspective of an inevitable clash that fundamentally threatens American security (in which case the best strategy would be to, as some hawks suggest, preemptively bomb them back to the stone age), but from the more balanced principle that China has to militarize in response to its feelings of insecurity over US dominance and that this process does not necessarily have to result in war if we can adopt a position of mutual advantage. By reducing our threat to them, we can also reduce their threat to us. This is not the same as saying we should de-militarize (because, as I stated earlier, those who want peace must always prepare for war) or appease, but that there are decisions we can make that would provide assurances to the Chinese leadership regarding our intentions, which would then reduce their need to militarize against us, and in turn reduce their overall threat to us.

 

Through the course of history, there have indeed been enemies between whom there can be no rapprochement, in which war is inevitable. However, it seems to me that in most cases, wars occur only for the lack of trying in preventing them. To understand the wants and fears of the other is the first step towards diplomacy. It is easy to label another nation as "evil" due to their unsavory activities and our own culture of fear, but when you get down to it, nearly every major country can be construed as a threat, especially the US. In which case, there are only two ways by which peace can exist: either one nation, through force of arms, pacifies every other nation and prevents them from ever developing their own militaries (which essentially establishes a superior-subordinate relationship that can easily lead to exploitation), or nations learn to reduce their threat level towards one another. The key point of my post was to show how much of a threat the US must necessarily pose to everyone else on the globe by virtue of our military superiority and power projection capabilities, which I think is a fact that most Amreicans do not even think of when they consider international relations and, in particular, the question of why other countries are always gearing up for war.

 

After all, why do we?