The "vote for war"
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I have read the resolution, but really, you don't even have to read it to know and understand it is an authorization to use military force, it says so in the title. The actual text of the resolution goes on further to grant the president specific authority to determine when to do this. Nothing is ambiguous about that. What people were "saying" really doesn't matter, the resolution is what we are discussing here, and it clearly authorized the use of military force, and clearly gave the authority to the president to pull the trigger on it.
I honestly don't know what could have been done to make it clearer... Maybe it should have been called the Hey Idiots, We Are Going To War In Iraq Resolution of 2002! I think the resolution writers assumed you knew what "use of military force" meant, and it was clear it "authorized" this, because it was all in the title of the resolution. To now claim that somehow you were duped, is essentially saying you are too stupid to tie your own shoes. We certainly don't need 'leadership' that utterly clueless.
Here's the deal, the resolution passed because it was politically popular at the time, an overwhelming majority of people favored the use of force to deal with Saddam Hussein, democrats made speech after speech, and they have been posted here, telling us what a threat Saddam was, and how we needed to do this. Once we got into it, and things weren't going swimmingly, democrats started bailing and basically lying about what they did. The lie continues to this day, and it's unfortunate, because I think most objective Americans know full well, democrats indeed supported military action in Iraq. It is YOU who is trying to rewrite history, the problem is, you can't rewrite the resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, it's public record forever.
Good Luck
New member
And I've noticed the apologists are blind partisan twits who will make any assumption they can to make themselves feel better.
I was a registered democrat at the time of the vote for Bush's resolution. I was dead set against invading Iraq, and was HIGHLY pissed at the fucks who pandered to popular opinion on that vote. EVERYONE fucking knew Bush was going to use the resolution to stage a ground war against Iraq. We all talked about it and talked about it. Many of us wrote our congressmen about it. The news and blog sites were FULL of strong anti-resolution statements. So yes, we knew it would mean war if the resolution passed.
I would be willing to bet YOU talked about it: that if the resolution passed it would mean war. And NOW you are all "we trusted Bush" crap? Are you TRULY that big a fucking moron? Or, (more likely) is your head so far up the donkey's ass you no longer give a shit about truth?
Who did you vote for in 2000, and in 2004?
Good Luck
New member
I voted Gore in 2K. I was also an active volunteer in the local democratic campaign office.
I left the president slot blank in 04 because I could not bring myself to vote for Kerry no matter how I feel about Bush. '04 was also the year I was told I could just stay home (I again had volunteered at the local campaign office) because I did not 100% agree with the dem platform. I re-registered as independent before the '04 election.
But unlike blind partisan koolaid drinking braindead twits, I actually THINK about what the people supposedly representing us are doing, or did do, and the implications of their rhetoric vs. their actions, since actions speak FAR louder than words when it comes down to it. And when democrats fuck up by voting for a fucked up bill, be it the war resolution or the recent bail out bill plus candy, I will fucking take the useless assholes to task for it by withdrawing my support for them.
uscitizen
Villified User
he did promote the 1 trillion bailout...
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
only after he railed against it. flipflopper.
uscitizen
Villified User
I stiall have the same stance on the war voters. Most of them were too wussy to stand up after 911 and all the "either for us or against us" , antiamerican traitors, etc
If you were not with bush you were for the terrorists was the spin and most of america bought it.
The republicans now should just burn for eternity for creating that atmosphere.
If you were not with bush you were for the terrorists was the spin and most of america bought it.
The republicans now should just burn for eternity for creating that atmosphere.
oh shut the fuck up. . . . all the 17 year olds in my high school government class were talking about how we were getting ready to go to war. Give me a FUCKING BREAK that the senate didn't know what the resolution was about.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay, so can you pinheads have an intervention with Oncie, and inform him that no one is trying to "rewrite history" regarding the vote to go to war? He seems to think that is the case, and it clearly wasn't ever the case. I hate for him to just go through life believing something that isn't true. I have tried to tell him, and he doesn't want to listen to me, but perhaps he might listen to you guys.
Good Luck
New member
Right. The atmosphere at the time was such that both sides were plugging the idea that Iraq was just too dangerous to let be. Anyone who believes with absolute certainty that a democratic president at the time would have avoided a ground war in Iraq is as delusional as those who claim voting for the resolution was not a vote for war.
Maybe Gore would not have instigated a ground war. But I think he would have. People were thirsty for blood and Saddam Hussein had been too much in the foreground in recent years for people to ignore him. And considering Gore's tendency to grab onto popular notions, I believe it is very likely he, too, would have grabbed onto the idea of being a popular war president given the public demand for vengeance. It did not matter that Hussein's only involvement was anti-U.S. rhetoric. The public wanted blood and the politicos grabbed onto it to make themselves popular - and therefore more electable. And when push comes to shove, Gore was as bad a vote slut as any of them.
Also, you take a good hard look at Obama's political past, you'll see another big time vote slut. He can make all the rhetoric he wants about always being against the war. Considering his political past, there is very little doubt IMO that Obama would have been in the "yea" column on the roll call had he been there.
You can delude yourself about having no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils. But all that distinction is, is delusion. Both parties fucked us with regards to Iraq. Both parties fucked us with regards to the sub prime mess. And now both parties are yet again fucking us with a massive corporate giveaway, sweetened with and additional 300B in pork to make it pass the House. And BOTH presidential candidates put their stamp of approval on the plan. FUCK them both. I, among many, will be either voting 3rd party or leaving the presidential slot blank on my ballet. Neither of those fucks deserve my vote.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is my problem with your viewpoint GL. You're like someone's Grandmother, lecturing them after they return from Vegas and have gambled away all their money. ...I tried to tell you that wasn't wise... You should have listened to me.... I knew you would lose everything.... blah blah blah... It is EASY to cast judgment in retrospect, after the fact. It's EASY to play armchair quarterback, and criticize when you have the benefit of hindsight. Here are some things you seem to be missing completely...
Let me start by giving you a hypothetical to consider. Seriously think about this, okay? You are the President.... Your #1 Spy has just informed your CIA director, that he has uncovered a plot by the Russians, to launch nuclear missiles from subs in the Pacific, targeting US cities. He believes this plan will unfold within the next week. Your Naval Commander confirms there are a presence of Russian subs in the Pacific, which do indeed have this capacity. The clock is ticking... what do you do? Perhaps you decide to contact Putin, and let him know you are on to his plan, and you threaten to annihilate the subs if they are not removed immediately? What if Putin says he has no idea of what you are talking about, and any attack on his subs will be considered an act of war? What do you do then? The clock is ticking, American lives could hang in the balance. Do you take the chance that your #1 Spy may be wrong? Do you sit idly by and wait for something to happen first? What if he is right, and they launch nukes? If we somehow survive the attack, do you think the American public would forgive your indecisiveness and failure to take action to prevent the attack?
This hypothetical might sound absurd, but it is precisely what we were facing with regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Our intelligence had "slam dunk" information regarding his WMD's program... Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions to come clean... His previous connection to the '93 WTC Bombing... Presence of alQaeda in Iraq... Terrorist training camps... and a phone call from Vladamir Putin to Bush, informing him that Saddam was planning an attack on US interests. This was NOT just a matter of "we wanted blood" and Saddam was convenient. We had tenable reason to believe our intelligence, and act upon what we had. If Bush had not taken action, and God forbid, Saddam had managed to cause US deaths after the tragedy of 9/11, with all of the information we had in our hands, the public would have had Bush executed for gross negligence, and would have been well justified in doing so.
Now.... After the invasion, we found no stockpiles of WMD's... however, our intelligence was dead on with regard to his capacity to make them, the infrastructure was there, the equipment was there, the starter strains for the biological weapons were there, the materials for producing the chemical weapons were there, the empty warheads were there, waiting to be filled. Iraq is a fairly large place, with lots of sand, everywhere. Saddam buried F-14's in the desert before Gulf War I, so there is the slight possibility he could have done the same with any stockpiles of WMD's, prior to US invasion. In the 14 months Bush and Powell dicked around with the UN, it is also possible he transported them out of his country, perhaps to Syria. Many possibilities remain, to explain why the WMD's were not there when we arrived. The issue was never these "stockpiles" of WMD's! It was the growing and gathering THREAT posed by Saddam Hussein.
Like I said, it is EASY to criticize in retrospect. Hell, I could do that too! I could say that it just wasn't worth the blood and treasure we've expended in Iraq, to bring democracy to the 30 million Iraqi citizens. It just wasn't worth it to free them from the bondage of tyranny and torture. The thing is, what we have started there, is a fundamental seed of an ideology which can and will counter the ideology of Radical Islam. Again, it is just slightly possible, in 10-20 years, the people of Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, may look at the Muslim brand of Democracy in Iraq and think... hey, we can do that too! Hey, that's not so bad, we want to give it a shot as well! Through this, we can effectively change the hearts and minds of that region of the world forever. We can ultimately defeat the ideology of hate and radical extremism, and create a domino effect. It is effectively how we go about changing the ideology of that region, because we simply CAN'T fight it with guns and bombs. The alternative, is to give up on it, throw in the towel, and allow this radial Islamic craziness to continue flourishing and growing, becoming impossible to ever defeat.
Let me start by giving you a hypothetical to consider. Seriously think about this, okay? You are the President.... Your #1 Spy has just informed your CIA director, that he has uncovered a plot by the Russians, to launch nuclear missiles from subs in the Pacific, targeting US cities. He believes this plan will unfold within the next week. Your Naval Commander confirms there are a presence of Russian subs in the Pacific, which do indeed have this capacity. The clock is ticking... what do you do? Perhaps you decide to contact Putin, and let him know you are on to his plan, and you threaten to annihilate the subs if they are not removed immediately? What if Putin says he has no idea of what you are talking about, and any attack on his subs will be considered an act of war? What do you do then? The clock is ticking, American lives could hang in the balance. Do you take the chance that your #1 Spy may be wrong? Do you sit idly by and wait for something to happen first? What if he is right, and they launch nukes? If we somehow survive the attack, do you think the American public would forgive your indecisiveness and failure to take action to prevent the attack?
This hypothetical might sound absurd, but it is precisely what we were facing with regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Our intelligence had "slam dunk" information regarding his WMD's program... Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions to come clean... His previous connection to the '93 WTC Bombing... Presence of alQaeda in Iraq... Terrorist training camps... and a phone call from Vladamir Putin to Bush, informing him that Saddam was planning an attack on US interests. This was NOT just a matter of "we wanted blood" and Saddam was convenient. We had tenable reason to believe our intelligence, and act upon what we had. If Bush had not taken action, and God forbid, Saddam had managed to cause US deaths after the tragedy of 9/11, with all of the information we had in our hands, the public would have had Bush executed for gross negligence, and would have been well justified in doing so.
Now.... After the invasion, we found no stockpiles of WMD's... however, our intelligence was dead on with regard to his capacity to make them, the infrastructure was there, the equipment was there, the starter strains for the biological weapons were there, the materials for producing the chemical weapons were there, the empty warheads were there, waiting to be filled. Iraq is a fairly large place, with lots of sand, everywhere. Saddam buried F-14's in the desert before Gulf War I, so there is the slight possibility he could have done the same with any stockpiles of WMD's, prior to US invasion. In the 14 months Bush and Powell dicked around with the UN, it is also possible he transported them out of his country, perhaps to Syria. Many possibilities remain, to explain why the WMD's were not there when we arrived. The issue was never these "stockpiles" of WMD's! It was the growing and gathering THREAT posed by Saddam Hussein.
Like I said, it is EASY to criticize in retrospect. Hell, I could do that too! I could say that it just wasn't worth the blood and treasure we've expended in Iraq, to bring democracy to the 30 million Iraqi citizens. It just wasn't worth it to free them from the bondage of tyranny and torture. The thing is, what we have started there, is a fundamental seed of an ideology which can and will counter the ideology of Radical Islam. Again, it is just slightly possible, in 10-20 years, the people of Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, may look at the Muslim brand of Democracy in Iraq and think... hey, we can do that too! Hey, that's not so bad, we want to give it a shot as well! Through this, we can effectively change the hearts and minds of that region of the world forever. We can ultimately defeat the ideology of hate and radical extremism, and create a domino effect. It is effectively how we go about changing the ideology of that region, because we simply CAN'T fight it with guns and bombs. The alternative, is to give up on it, throw in the towel, and allow this radial Islamic craziness to continue flourishing and growing, becoming impossible to ever defeat.
"Maybe Gore would not have instigated a ground war. But I think he would have. People were thirsty for blood and Saddam Hussein had been too much in the foreground in recent years for people to ignore him"
Well, what can I tell you; you don't understand the history of this war. This war was a 3-hour lunch with Wolfowicz & the agenda of PNAC. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, in anyone's wildest dreams or nightmares.
History has been so completely rewritten on the origins of this war that reality is completed distorted for most people at this point. I remember what really happened, and it's not like I'm the only one. It all plays like a massive conspiracy to absolve Bush of responsibility, but I realize that many have just heard "vote for war" so much that they forget what the circumstances & reality of October, 2002 was.
Well, what can I tell you; you don't understand the history of this war. This war was a 3-hour lunch with Wolfowicz & the agenda of PNAC. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, in anyone's wildest dreams or nightmares.
History has been so completely rewritten on the origins of this war that reality is completed distorted for most people at this point. I remember what really happened, and it's not like I'm the only one. It all plays like a massive conspiracy to absolve Bush of responsibility, but I realize that many have just heard "vote for war" so much that they forget what the circumstances & reality of October, 2002 was.
Good Luck
New member
In the first place, I criticized an invasion of Iraq in advance. That is not using retrospect. As did many of us. As did the grandmother who warned against going out and gambling with the rent money. As such we have every right to say "I told you so" when the measure blows up in your face.
Yes, it is easy to criticize in hindsight, and those who supported the war UNTIL it went bad and then started to criticize, you have a point. But many, many of us criticized the idea in advance. Politicians like Biden who voted for the resolution, but now claim they were against the war are hypocrits, and I have pointed that out. Apologists who excuse Biden's and other democrats' vote based on the "it wasn't a war resolution" argument are partisan idiots.
But those who opposed the war from the start, who predicted the idea of occupying an Islamic nation would have far reaching negative consequences, and refuse to excuse anyone who supported the war before they opposed it have every right to be saying "I told you so." The "I told you so" is not based on hindsight - it is based on foresight.
Second, many of the politicians who voted for the war resolution did so because they are vote sluts. Whatever is popular at the time is how they speak and vote. I do not and never will agree with or support the issue of sending our military into harms way because it is the popular thing to do at the time. War is a little too serious an issue to be using popularity polls.
Third, we have gone over this many times. A ground war was NOT essential in reacting to the conditions in Iraq. Nor am I saying it should have been handled through diplomacy only as some do. I am probably a hell of a lot more aware than most of the intelligence available at the time. We had plenty of military options that did not include invasion and occupation. It was possible to react to - and take out - Saddam's suspected caches of WMDs and any and all WMD infrastructure.
How long do you think Saddam would have played his games with the UN inspection team if we'd sent in a half dozen wings of attack bombers to bomb the shit out of any area denied the inspectors - and done so within hours of his having refused the inspectors access? We could very easily have told Saddam - through actions rather than threats - that he had the choice of allowing open inspections, or having the places he wanted kept secret bombed to rubble. If he DID have WMDs, the result would have been he would lose them through inspections, or lose them through bombings. Ditto the infrastructure found that could have been used to renew his WMD programs. Ditto the infrastructure found indicating research in bioweapons. And it all could have been accomplished without the obvious drawbacks of a war of occupation.
As far as "bringing democracy" - that is a boogie. Democracy and freedom cannot be "brought" to a people who are unwilling to fight for it themselves. The idea of bringing a people to democracy through military force is an oxymoron. If the Iraqi people were a democratic people who had been subjugated, then the idea of a war of liberation would be a plausible claim - and the people would be fighting along side us instead of half or more fighting against us.
But that is not the case, and never was. The very fact that we are having so much difficulty passing the torch to the Iraqis so we can make a planned withdrawal indicates they are NOT willing to fight for their own freedom. And that makes the entire concept of "bringing democracy" to Iraq a plain assed stupid idea.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well see, the thing is, if that is your honest pre-war viewpoint, you are a dangerous person with a dangerous and reckless way of thinking. Go back to my hypothetical about Russian nukes... you are saying you would oppose taking action, let's just wait and see if they launch first. You can't view Iraq through the prism of what transpired, you have to view it from the perspective that was reality at the time, and at the time, we didn't know what the guy was working on in secret, we had no idea how far his deception was going. Was he developing a nuke? A dirty bomb? Did he have enough Anthrax and Sarin to wipe out America? We simply didn't know the answer! And what if that had been the case and you chose to wait? What if we woke up one morning to hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, then discovered that our government had all this intelligence pointing to Saddam's WMD program beforehand? Would you be able to step up to the plate and take responsibility for that? No, I suspect you would be questioning why the hell we didn't act, why the hell our government sat by and let it happen! That is the perspective you have to look at this with, not the 'after-the-fact' perspective you seem to want to take. If you come rolling into Granny's driveway in a new Cadillac, with money falling out of your pockets, she is not going to 'lecture' you about the Vegas trip, she's not going to say one word about her pre-Vegas protests, she is probably going to ask for a loan! That's what I meant when I said it's EASY to take your position AFTER THE FACT! Had our worst fears been confirmed in Iraq, your pre-war protests would have looked pretty stupid.
Saddam was clearly going to play the rope-a-dope game as long as it was allowed! It had gone on for 12 years, through 17 UN resolutions, there was no sign it was going to change. And yes, we could have dropped indiscriminate bombs all over the place and killed countless thousands of innocent Iraqi people, including women and children he intentionally sent to strategic locations for the sole purpose of dying, so he could broadcast those images all across the Muslim world! How long do you think we could have done that, before the entire Muslim world turned against us and killed any possible chance of EVER working with us to clean up radicalism? Instead of having hundreds of thousands of dead innocent Iraqi's, we have a few hundred dead innocents, and mostly dead bad guys, in a country with a functioning democratic government, where the vast majority of Iraqi's now have a chance at freedom, liberty and prosperity.
The argument has been made many times, we CAN'T bring democracy to people at the end of a gun. WE can't do a goddamn thing, most of them hate us! This is why it is essential to 'plant the seeds' and let Iraqi's do it themselves. You can clearly understand, there is no way to combat an ideology with a military solution, it takes a counter-ideology to do that. But again, WE can't do a goddamn thing, WE have no leverage whatsoever, and nothing WE try to do to counter radical Islamic ideology, is ever going to be accepted. So how do you go about doing what is necessary? You 'plant the seeds' ...enable the Iraqi's to do this for themselves, and in the end, it is something THEY did, not US, we just 'planted the seeds.' Those in opposition, are the ENEMY! They are the ones who either support radicalism, the ideology we are trying to counter, or tyranny, which fosters the ideology we are trying to counter. The vast majority (something like 70%) of Iraqi's, have participated in Democracy, and support the ideological seeds we've planted. That being the case, there is a very real possibility the idea can and will work. In any event, it is the best possible solution available to counter the ideology of radicalism. You can criticize it all you like, there is simply not another viable alternative, especially not at this point in the game.
I agree, which is why we didn't 'plant the seeds' in an "Islamic nation" but rather, in a "Secular" nation. This idea probably wouldn't have worked in any other nation in that region, with the exception of Iran. Being that Iraq was largely secular, and not an "Islamic nation" we didn't have the resistance and difficulty in 'planting the seeds' and we have a much better chance of the idea actually taking hold and working. These people are smart and resourceful, and have shown a strong desire for a better life. We've given them the tools for that, we've 'planted the seeds' and now it's up to them. Will it work? I have no idea, but it's better than the alternative plan... there is none!
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq !
If you insist on re-writing history you gotta get the wack-job Dimocrats to have the WAR RESOLUTION name changed....how about
Authorization to Maybe Use of Military Force Against Iraq !
or
Authorization for Use Harsh Words Against Iraq !
If you insist on re-writing history you gotta get the wack-job Dimocrats to have the WAR RESOLUTION name changed....how about
Authorization to Maybe Use of Military Force Against Iraq !
or
Authorization for Use Harsh Words Against Iraq !
Good Luck
New member
I spent 40 years defending this nation. I have been to a double handful of advanced courses in military tactics and strategy as well as international relations. I guarantee you, the only one in this debate who is a danger to our society if the philosophy is widely accepted is the one you see when looking in a mirror.
Your hypothetical of Russian nukes may play a nice war game for the Pentagon suits to have fun with. But you speculation on Iraqi nuclear capabilities is completely devoid of substance. We knew full well that Iraq had no nuclear capability and were years away from developing any. Even if they had openly announced the intent to pursue such a program we had years to respond.
The concern was over Iraq's chemical weapons, not nucs and not bios. And there we had the upper hand because Saddam could not deploy them in any manner traceable back to him. All he could do was play hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors while trying to build a facade of innocent victim to show to the rest of the world.
Not to mention your argument sill rests on the assumption that the only options available against Saddam was ground war or nothing. That is definitively not the case, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. And no, with a concentrated effort on our part Saddam could NOT have played rope-a-dope indefinitely. It was only because we were, at the time, only using diplomatic/economic pressure that he was able to rope-a-dope as long as he did. He would have either capitulated, or we would have eventually run out of targets had we simply bombed the places he kept the inspectors out of. Lack of a ground war does not mean, nor has it ever meant no military force.
And while the government of Iraq may have been secular, the people most certainly were not and are not. In case you didn't notice, it was not the former, secular government of Iraq to whom we are "bringing" democracy. It was/is the Islamic peoples (of three different factions) to whom we "brought" democracy. And that just plain will not work.
You mention that we gave the people of Iraq the opportunity. But you ignore the fact that they are REFUSING that opportunity. We have a minority group who give lip service to the idea while letting us do the fighting for them; and a majority group who are against us. Not exactly what one expects when a people is "given the opportunity" to embrace democracy. Again, the only way a people will bring about democracy is when they are willing to fight - and die - for it themselves. As a nation Iraq iss most certainly not in that frame of mind. If they are not ready to put themselves in harms way to demand democracy, then all the "planted seeds" in the world is going to make them ready for it. The Iraqi people have repeatedly demonstrated they are not willing to fight for their freedom. As such, they are not ready for it even when handed to them on a silver platter.
Your hypothetical of Russian nukes may play a nice war game for the Pentagon suits to have fun with. But you speculation on Iraqi nuclear capabilities is completely devoid of substance. We knew full well that Iraq had no nuclear capability and were years away from developing any. Even if they had openly announced the intent to pursue such a program we had years to respond.
The concern was over Iraq's chemical weapons, not nucs and not bios. And there we had the upper hand because Saddam could not deploy them in any manner traceable back to him. All he could do was play hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors while trying to build a facade of innocent victim to show to the rest of the world.
Not to mention your argument sill rests on the assumption that the only options available against Saddam was ground war or nothing. That is definitively not the case, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. And no, with a concentrated effort on our part Saddam could NOT have played rope-a-dope indefinitely. It was only because we were, at the time, only using diplomatic/economic pressure that he was able to rope-a-dope as long as he did. He would have either capitulated, or we would have eventually run out of targets had we simply bombed the places he kept the inspectors out of. Lack of a ground war does not mean, nor has it ever meant no military force.
And while the government of Iraq may have been secular, the people most certainly were not and are not. In case you didn't notice, it was not the former, secular government of Iraq to whom we are "bringing" democracy. It was/is the Islamic peoples (of three different factions) to whom we "brought" democracy. And that just plain will not work.
You mention that we gave the people of Iraq the opportunity. But you ignore the fact that they are REFUSING that opportunity. We have a minority group who give lip service to the idea while letting us do the fighting for them; and a majority group who are against us. Not exactly what one expects when a people is "given the opportunity" to embrace democracy. Again, the only way a people will bring about democracy is when they are willing to fight - and die - for it themselves. As a nation Iraq iss most certainly not in that frame of mind. If they are not ready to put themselves in harms way to demand democracy, then all the "planted seeds" in the world is going to make them ready for it. The Iraqi people have repeatedly demonstrated they are not willing to fight for their freedom. As such, they are not ready for it even when handed to them on a silver platter.