An open letter to the left on Libya

by Juan Cole, today 3/27/11

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html


Cole logically addresses every objection to the Libyan intervention that I've see on DU thus far. If you have objections, here's the response point by point. You may or may not agree with it, but posting the same objection over and over after it's addressed is only repeating the same discussion. If you're pro-Libya intervention and you agree with Cole's points, as I do, then you may want to indicate that below and we can use this as a "convenience tool" to refer back to should the same objections be raised again. (I'm sure they will, and probably before the day is out.) Taking the time to read Cole's open letter could save us all a lot of HEAT, aggravation, energy, and time.

(I'm not saying that it's impossible that there could be "pro" and "anti" points other than those Cole addresses, but that's a different subject of course.)

It's really necessary to read the whole thing, so this excerpt below includes none of the points he addresses, only his bottom-line position on the issue. I'd expect that if anti-intervention objections are deeply held, then it shouldn't be too much to ask to read the whole article. If objections aren't deeply held, then bringing them up constantly is negativity for its own sake.




He said it all perfectly, as far as I'm concerned.

"If we just don’t care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression..." That's just bullshit. We do cre and for him to suggest that is ridiculous. Still and all, we don't war on every repressive and murderous dictatorship, and there are a lot of them, many considered by our government to be friends. It's the uneven application of moral certitude that I have a problem with. Am I glad that we may be able to choke out Gaddafi and bring his reign to an end? Absolutely. But then we have to determine whether or not the standards will be applied universally, and if not why not.

That's why he wrote it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because the problem could have been solved peacefully if the dons who control the empire were actually interested in the well-being of the Libyan people, or any people but themselves for that matter.

I don't believe in cheering the mob when it decides to whack a former associate that had it coming.

"Mob"?

"Mob" as in organized crime.

I'm sure that it didn't involve violence though...

:hi: :yourock:

May be the USA should send you to Libya to reason with Qaddafi. Post when you get back.

than to rely on the peaceful to make peace. The pirates who own their government have other ideas.

instead of listening and reconciliation.

His government now has a choice. They should ask him to step aside.

NATO must continue to decimate Qaddafi's forces and make it possible for the rebels to get to Qaddafi. NATO's action is just.

We have our work cut out for us, don't we?

to an ethical progressive position... "

Last paragraph of excerpt, second sentence. Case by case basis, no formulaic policies that don't fit real situations.

to choose one "intervention" over another based on the expendability of the tyrant, and the doability of the deed.

just like the Repubs.

If we disregard what is doable, then everything we do will fail or at best be a "clusterfuck". Conclusion, do nothing.

If the government actually belonged to "we the people", the concept of what is possible would be transformed. As it is, "we" weren't consulted.

popular vote, the whole city of Benghazi... a city of a million people... would have been wiped off the map?

Is there any part of you that is bothered by that? Any part at all?

It gets sadder almost by the day.

I don't buy the empire's urgency to save anyone.

that everyone but the uber rich & their corporations should pay for the chicanery of the uber rich & their corporations while marching in orderly fashion to permanent disenfranchisement--is not ideology. It is the chatter of criminals.

Conversely, not wanting to kill other people or have them killed in one's name is more than mere ideology.

Not that logic is exactly paramount here.

watched television when they got home and saw the woman that had been ganged raped begging for justice. Many likely smirked and dismissed the woman as a corporatist media pawn. Where ever that woman is today, her brave effort stands as an iconic milestone for humanity and proves why NATO intervention was and continues to be an absolute moral necessity. Qaddafi can continue to put the bloodied corpses of soldiers that were killing civilians before NATO got to them on display, but only the ideologically blind will be swayed by Qaddafi's grotesque charade.

Otherwise your opinion is inconsistent.

Hell - I remember watching the invasion and cheering on the Iraqi army. Because invading another country just because you feel like it is horribly morally wrong.

You aren't going to listen to the other side at all, are you? It's all ideology and rhetorical arguments, no seeing the Libyans as actual humans.

I don't usually announce this, but yeah - welcome to my ignore list, troll.

How Long Will U.S. Forces be Involved in Libya?


The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for almost ten years, at war in Iraq for almost eight years and at war in Libya for nine days.

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that."

"Do you think we'll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don't think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/how-lon...


-------------------

WAR WAR WAR!

KILL KILL KILL!

I know! I should be on the back porch shootin' my AK up in the air in celebration, eh?

Who is next? There must be a hundred repressive regimes like Gaddafi's.

On the one hand the action by Obama to save people is admirable, but on the other we see wikileaks being obstructed, gitmo still open, drones in AfPak, etc.

In the big picture more of the same violence that the US is well known for does not give one a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Please, quit asking me to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about more of the same military intervention. That's all I ask. Well, that and that we begin, yesterday, to work diplomatically on foreseeable problems like Gaddafi.

For instance, he doesn't address the issue of blowback, a significant danger in any such action we've taken. He says that this isn't Iraq of 2003, no, it isn't, not yet. But it could very well turn out to be Iraq 1992, an area where we continue to bomb and kill innocent civilians.

Nor does he address the cost we're paying to intervene in this war, and how we're going to pay for it. We've reached a point where we can no longer afford to be the policeman, or hired muscle, for the world. While we're blowing off 2.5 billion dollars worth of Cruise missiles, here at home we're cutting heating assistance for the poor next winter by 2.5 billion dollars. Don't you, and he, see the problem with this?

This isn't the be all, end all shield from criticism that you make it out to be. It is, quite simply, another opinion, just like yours, just like mine. Sadly, another pro-war opinion.

Blowback, that's future tense - what may or may not happen. This is now, and not Iraq/Afganistan.

Cole is addressing the first issue - should we be doing it or not? That's the subject.

There's no "shield from criticism", that's a phrase somebody upthread made up. None's needed that I can see - a legitimate objection hasn't been brought up YET. What's a waste of time is criticism for its own sake WIHTOUT a reason.

If that's what you guys want, an echo chamber, then I won't bother with future threads on this subject. Not a problem.

And that's the whole problem, nobody in this country really considers what the consequences of such actions are. Instead, the US barges in, does its thing, and ten, twenty years later we get to deal with the huge mess that is a result. For instance, in Afghanistan, during the eighties, we helped out the freedom fighters there against the Soviets. All well and good, right? Helping out the underdogs fight back against the evil empire, all that.

And after the Soviets withdrew, what did we do? Oh, yeah, we pulled up stakes and left the Afghan people high and dry. No money for rebuilding, getting back on their feet. That led to a lot of resentment, which led to Al Qaeda and bin Laden becoming our enemies, and eventually dropping the Twin Towers. Gee, nice blowback for what was supposed to be a good thing we were doing. And that is but one example. Go educate yourself on our history since WWII, you will find countless others.

Cost is secondary? Really? Sorry pal, but in the age of a fourteen trillion dollar debt load, cost is quickly becoming a huge issue. We simply cannot continue to spend all our money on the military. Half, over half, of our annual budget is spent on the military, yet once again, when politicians are calling for spending cuts, the military is sancrosanct. It is perfectly fine to deprive millions of heat, plunge millions into poverty and despair, but we can't touch the military.

This is a recipe for disaster. The Soviets pursued this path, spending an ever increasing amount of money on their military, to the point where they bankrupted their country, and sent their people and society into a tailspin that they have yet to recover from.

Yes, cost does matter. The members of the Arab League want Ghaddafi out, fine, why don't they do it? After all, it isn't like they don't have the weapon systems to do so, they've been a prime customer of ours for decades now. Why is it that we have to be the muscle of the world? Sorry, but it is past time for some of these countries to be taking care of the problems in their own back yard, not us.

Should we be taking this action? On the surface, yes, it seems like the right and noble thing to do. Just as establishing the NFZ to protect the Kurds seemed like the right and noble thing to do. Except that it wasn't, it led to the death of 500,000 innocents.

Frankly, all this war is really doing is opening another opportunity for the MIC to make money off the backs of the American people. Our twenty year conflict with Iraq is winding down, after it has been milked for all the money it's worth. Time to get cracking on ginning up another nascent conflict to keep in reserve, ready to spring forth and make more obscene profits for the merchants of death when Iraq and Afghanistan are finished. This is the pattern that the US has followed since the end of WWII, and all we have accomplished with this is to become the bully of the world, and impoverish our own country in the process.

Don't like that I'm not cheerleading for this war, oh well, deal with it.

...want quadaffi out?"
The rebel replied "We want education. We want healthcare. We want communication."

There's demonstrations in just about every blue state right now demanding the same things.
Heck, they're protesting in london for healthcare and they already got it!

The rebel didn't say anything about not killing innocents.

So my objection to the war, as an extreme leftist (I'm a commie), is we cannot afford to help the rebels oust their leader when our leadership tells us that we don't have the money to provide these very essentials to our own people.
If there is a massacre taking place, and I don't mean just crazy talk from a crazy man but actual non-armed people getting killed then we should look at intervening but clearly this was not happening. The countries that stand to gain the most from protecting the oil supply and distribution in libya may want to intervene but we shouldn't do it for them and go further into debt in the process. We have our own very serious problems to deal with.

I propose that the scandinavian countries which all have top notch universal healthcare and universal education and plenty of communication step up to the plate for once in their lives. We can't afford it.

I don't consider myself a democrat. In the state I used to live, on your voter registration you could select political party, communist was one of them. Democrat was another. I more closely identify with communist ideals than I do with those of the elected American democratic politicians and I'm not afraid or ashamed to say that. Nor do I wuss out and say I'm a socialist. I'm confident if most people understood communism and it wasn't given such a bad rap by politicians, movies, crazy dictators and ding dongs like jim jones, most people would be communists. There's a lot to be gained when the public sector is strong and successful.

Obviously I align closely most of the time with democrats on many issues. But not all. Immigration is one example.

Video of the convoy sent to take Benghazi, taken from a dead soliders cell phone (shows how massive the operation was):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwWwOeZqz6M

This convoy of Gaddafi forces was hours away from the city of Benghazi, when the NFZ airstrikes began and took out almost the entire column of vehicles. Some escaped to Ajdabiya, which has been seiged and shelled since then for the past week. Somewhere in the Libya Blog threads a day or two ago, there is video of Ajdabiya which shows it like a "ghost town" and pretty well destroyed. What do you think a much greater number of tanks etc., as the column originally had, would've done to Benghazi?

If that kind of column in the video was on its way to where you live, would that be a real massacre coming or hot air? What would you do about it? What would you hope the world would do?


Here's another shocking incident which just happened yesterday. This woman was detained by the police in Tripoli simply because she came from Benghazi. Nothing more than that - it's an indication of how Gaddafi feels about Benghazi:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/26/robertson.libya.woman.cnn?hpt=C2

This, in front of numerous international reporters in a downtown hotel. That's on their GOOD behavior.

process. It's not clear to me what quadaffi's intentions are. Nevertheless, we can't afford to get involved.
There are a few countries who haven't dusted off their warplanes in decades that are in a better position to war with quadaffi. This is just a pissing contest and we already have a big enough image problem in the middle east.

to do nothing - as Cole said, in the last paragraph.

Well fortunately, the objections side don't get to make the decision this time. Fortunately for those whose lives were saved.

Well that's all the time I have to spend on objections. I put Cole's piece here for those who want to, to read it. And those who don't want to, that's up to them.

WFE

I mean. We have a big deficit. Our elected officials remind us of this constantly.
It's why we can no longer have basic services let alone healthcare and education so it doesn't seem like excuse-making when sweden and norway and sure- the netherlands, can take care of this for us while we try to recover from more than a decade of poor decisions.

Tax the rich.

We know what to do. Our commonality is with "Everyman" in the countries trying to get rid of their dictators, just as our disguised dictators are the problem here. Our PTB are strengthened by all the puppet dictators that remain in place. We have an opportunity now - taking out some of those regimes in the ME as were being asked to do, will HELP us here to weaken our PTB. Sometimes you just have to "make a run for it" and this is our moment, to have a little faith one time in our fellow man.

We have everything in common with the man in the street there. And our PTB have everything in common with their dictators. That's how it is. This is a rare moment, when the Arab world has pushed the PTB into a checkmate. Our "overlords" have no choice, but to use our firepower to take out their own friend. Far be it from us to get in their way!

Yes it isn't so simple, people there and here don't all agree on everything; but the truth is, it is that simple, in the fact of it. And there are no guarantees in life. Never.

Money isn't our problem. The System is our problem. The brainwashed population is our problem. Etc., you know the rest, it's on these boards all the time. But let's get real, now, while we have a moment to seize, and not get in our own way for no reason - except attitude. Who does that remind you of?

How will we pay for this new war?

I guess I would test out on the left side of DU as well, with maybe more of a multi-economic system outlook (sans capitalism, servitude, et. al.), but that's an aside.

I favor the intervention, so just let me get that statement out front and out of the way.

A couple of things first about the narratives we tell ourselves, and how I think they've been false and misleading.

The first one is easy, a favorite of the right, that democracy is somehow just voting, and of American origin, and can be installed at the point of a gun. I doubt anyone here buys that, and if so the Arabs have proven it a lie.

The second one, more difficult, is that peace is somehow the absence of war, and that it occurs if we just don't fight, and somehow don't fund the military. It's the idea that if we could all just stand in front of tanks with shopping bags in our hands or chain ourselves to military gates it would all go away. Or maybe we need to clench a fist once in a while or get rid of neocons, maybe then...but it just hasn't worked, the narrative isn't working.

There is another narrative that is working, a more activist one seen in Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and hidden away in the UN, that sees peace as a manifestation of health, security, social justice, protection of rights, - all of the good progressive lefty causes. The most recent idea from this quarter is RtoP, an idea that's difficult for many to accept because, I think, they see it as too easily corrupted.

The last narrative we know is a lie, but it just won't go away.

For two generations now we've all been caught in this Arabs are angry war machine that benefits a wide range of people who are fucking things up for everyone, Arabs and Americans alike.

The ones who benefit, from Arab dictators to neocons to blackwater-haliburton to the MIC, Arab monarchs, AQ, Israeli conservatives, Iranian clerics, neocons, Gaddafi, republicans, local radical clerics, oil companies(burn your car) and consumerist hacks with their road-paving you can have it all at anytime allies, you name it, one thing they all share in common is the conflict itself. From the Atlantic to Pakistan, the conflict itself has become it's own self-perpetuating industry.

That part you might also agree with, except the burn your car bit.

So here's the trick. Arabs who are not angry kill the game. Arabs are not inherently angry and violent, they're just pissed off about the same things you are. The game robs from them as much, or probably more, than it robs from you. They just want a peaceful life, some music and WiFi, a job and an education, just like you. The want modest health care, food, a little house or apartment, just like you. They have friends they want to be with. They want to live. To be free to speak, to publish, to not be held in prisons without trial, or spied on, or grabbed off the street by government thugs.

You said it yourself "There's demonstrations in just about every blue state right now demanding the same things."

Suppose we could speed the clock up, and today there was a swath of Arab democracies from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf, all but the hard cases. Suddenly you'd see Palestine-Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran with contented semi-prosperous states all around them. How long to you think it would take before someone thought "Why the fuck are we living like this? why can't we live like our neighbors? Big change, no invasions, just the appeal of real democracy.

And what happens to the Big Arabs Are Angry game. It's gone. If the game ends, the former big winners all loose power, all of them, and most will have no further reason for being. And those who are making a living out of have no reason for existence. None of them. Downsize and disappear. Sell off your dictator support stock. Downsize the MIC, upsize the schools. Who would want to hang out with those glum AQ guys? End the game, end the patriot act. End the game, get on with building trams.

Make no mistake though, they'll still sell oil to the market; they aren't too stupid to sell it if you're stupid enough to buy it (burn your car, build a tram).

I'm not so much of an optimist to think that half of that narrative will come true. But I'm not so much of a cynic to think that it will all fail. The ending equation of this narrative is really pretty simple: Democracies are healthier than dictatorships, more health equals more peace.

Regardless of any sort of wished for(but not entirely unfounded) outcome, the problem at hand is Libya. They're asking only one thing that you seem to be withholding: Don't let us get massacred.

That's it, just don't let them get massacred.

and middle class. Austerity for the American people while bombing 3 countries. Makes sense to me :crazy:

It costs money to warehouse them when we're not using them - what about that? So the "cost" is the differential between those two things - what we pay to warehouse all the time and what we pay to replace them - IF we do that. And why are these missiles costing so much anyway? Isn't that a "tad" inflated? When you pay a bill, do you just pay whatever's written or do you make sure it's right first? Do we do that? Ever? What about personnel, we pay them anyway. So is that extra cost for Libya? Or ongoing cost? We can put it in one column or another in a bookkeeping sense, but how much differnce is there from what we're already paying? What's the actual additional unpadded cost? Those two numbers would be quite different. But no less valid. It depends on the "givens" we accept when discussing it. A lot of these dire problems we have are "smoke and mirrors", remember that? A lot of it is accounting tricks, and simply "the way we do things".

I'm not saying we SHOULD forego replacing the missiles (etc.) necessarily, but we COULD. I'm trying to open up the thinking a little bit. In a legal case, whoever frames the argument wins it. It's all about what's outside the frame (and excluded) and what's inside the frame. Politics is the same. We keep sticking to what the Repubs want to put in the frame. But what if we widen it, then how big are the problems? How real are they actually?

Yes we have problems, but they're mostly not the ones we think we have.

especially in instances where my own knowledge of a place or a group is thin.

But this is about the weakest stuff I've ever seen from him, scattering buckshot and badly reasoned. For example, not all the arguments against the intervention assume it would be just fine if Gaddafi rolled tanks over his own people, that's just false.

Then, just because the NeoCons hate the UN doesn't mean they aren't salivating. We have seen that they are. And Libya is like Iraq in one way: the rush, the lack of planning and the garbling of the mission. Pointing that out is not to hand over "humanitarian intervention" to the NeoCons. That's a red herring.

The whole piece is like that. To tick off a few more:

- We don't know if the intervention in Libya has been done legally because it's not over yet.

- He says the peace option was trumped by the opportunity to stop a major war crime, which begs the question that this was the only way to stop it.

- He says arguing that the Libyans should settle this themselves ignores the repressive advantage Gaddafi has (and I would add, brutal disregard for the people) but there's no reason to believe that an intervention will not result in greater repression and brutality on the targets most available to Gaddafi.

- Even if you buy the proposition that the Libyan situation is unique in all the world's uprisings right now, Cole's failure to "understand" the concern with setting a precedent is sort of baffling. The Western powers have created, manipulated and exploited rebellions all over the world for hundreds of years. There is already a precedent for this concern. This isn't some legalistic argument about the UN and reducing it to one is absurd.

- Similarly, discounting the war for oil argument is absurd. He completely overlooks the fact that taking control of an unstable Libya is more important than existing contracts or the current state of the market.

I can chew gum and walk just fine. Arguing that if I don't support this military intervention, I don't care about the people of Libya is just appalling. It's like some first year debater has hijacked John Cole's blog.

Oh, and Gaddafi is not Hitler and the Western powers are not Churchill.

Geezus.

But I don't have time to go through them now, so I'll leave it as my opinion. Except to say that precedent is in law, not politics. We have zero obligation to do any given thing, and in fact that wouldn't make any sense except so we could merely say that we're consistent - which would be useless and meaningless. Who says we have to be consistent? Why should we want to be? And what's the advantage in that? It's weird. It's a child's game, that's what they do... "you gave Billy more than me". Policies are what get us in trouble. Maybe we should do something different, and do without a "doctrine". Maybe that will unemploy some think-tankers anyway - added benefit.

I'm out of time, but think it over. Is he really so wrong?

is a reduction. As I said.

If Cole has an argument to make, he doesn't do it here.

I've asked this a dozen or so times now on DU, and never get an answer. Do you really think Qadaffi would listen to reason? That he would give a damn about economic sanctions and their effect on Libyans? He has hundreds of millions in cash in country right now to pay his military and mercenaries, so even freezing assets (which nearly everyone has done) has little effect.

I am honestly curious. What peaceful methods do people think might have actually worked here?

"Marchin' On in Libya", brand new tribute to Mohammed Nabbous by a fellow street photog, many clips from the BBC Panorama series below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx_B38678


BBC Panorama on Libya Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyaPnMnpCAA

BBC Panorama on Libya Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMzwQvcx62s

The Battle of Benghazi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0vChMDuNd0

We wiped out Indian tribes to "save" the settlers. We "saved" the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians, from the Communists by killing a few million of them. We're still "saving" Afghans and Pakistanis from the Taliban by killing them.

Gadhaffi is "saving" the Libyans from Al Queda and western colonialism.

And, now, we're "saving" the Libyans from other Libyans by bombing Libyans.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

lol

All that "saving" and Cole still sees no need for concern that some precedent will be set up.

6 dead strikers. It didn't say what Winnie was "protecting" but he left for his country estate to avoid the outcry. He was Home Secretary at the time. 1911.

I've found that if you leave the DU ideologue echo chamber and go out to other places on the internet, there are actually plenty of Americans who recognize their common humanity with the Libyans. Helped restore some of my faith in the species, to see that there are people who have souls and not just ideals, who see the Libyans as real and not just pawns on an ideological chess board.

And it cuts across party lines and philosophies too - on some of the YouTube videos I've seen comments from people who probably wouldn't fit in too well here ideologically who are supportive of the Libyans and what we're doing to help them.

The barriers are coming down here too. It's just slower, is all, because we have the illusion of safety and freedom and so we're not pushed to the point of overcoming our fear and false divisions yet.

Endlessly repeated false premise.

It certainly isn't the "progressives" in this country who have welcomed me and made me feel included.

With the Libyans, I definitely feel that solidarity.

I've told you my deepest human feelings, so go ahead and shoot it down with snark.

Because that is exactly what I am talking about.

Or why you'd expose your "deepest human feelings" when you obviously feel that isn't a safe thing to do.

in "feuding".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Trying to stifle objections by suggesting that once they have been responded to, they no longer "count" is despicable.

In my opinion.

That argument flies both ways. I assume that the author of this response, or at least the poster, will longer respond to objections, right?

I don't chew gum; I find gum in any form disgusting, and watching others chew it nauseates me. I can think and walk at the same time, though. I manage to direct the attention and behavior of large groups of 12-14 yos every day, achieve positive outcomes, and deal with constant interruptions while I do so. I'm confidant that I can manage to discern nuances and make up my own mind about any particular current event.

did he say anything that was untrue?

What kind of crap is that?

"I would like to urge" him to STFU, in this case.

by people on the "left" which attack other people on the "left" such as 'war-mongers' 'corporate sell outs' are what? terms of endearment?

I can't tell you how to feel or respond. That's your business. If you choose to write off Juan Cole because of this - it's up to you.

It's sad that we can't disagree without having to see each other as enemies.

:shrug:

:sarcasm:

Cuts both ways-

But if we do bomb them, then we are

Seems pretty cut and dried to me, but the Corporate Overlords think differently

There's OIL in Libya so we must invade

Let me put it this way -

$50 says this time next year we will have troops on the ground, and being shot at, in Libya

Deal?

were pleading to the world for help, aren't we contributing to killing them when we turn away?

If this time next year we have troops on the ground being shot at in Libya, I'll post an OP admitting that Taverner was prescient- and I was quite wrong.

would that be ok? :hi:

If you really wanted to show people who are clamoring for us to 'liberate' them, don't you think they'd show more than just one or two protestors?

Thinking of this:

but a moving photo of the people isn't necessary for me.

I don't need a picture to make their lives worth my concern.

How many people saw the pictures of suffering in Katrina remained unmoved, and uninvolved? too many- far too many.

It's nice to have a face to put to the voices- but not essential. I believe we'll see them.

perfectly.

Even if people aren't willing to listen.

:hi:

Hoo rah and all that shit

:eyes:

you don't know me at all-

nor would you care to.

peace~