Support the Troops

[Anonymous]

I received the following link from Walt and Paula (locomut & Cherokee Women)recently. It is a good link to check out.

Many of you know that I whole-heartedly support the troop. Each service serves an important role in helping to keep our country, and other countries, safe.

Our British and Canadians friends, many times, serve right along with our own troops. I am very thankful for their support in helping keep the world a better place to live. It takes everyone working together to keep the world a safe place.

Let us not forget their sacrifices. Remember our troops, and the nations who support our troops. Remember the British and Canadians serving their country and working with our nation for freedom.

GOD BLESS THE TROOPS

GOD BLESS THE TROOPS PROTECTING FREEDOM AROUND THE WORLD.


My sound is out, so I don't know if there is audio to the presentation or not. Please watch the presentation and remember the troops. It may take a few minutes to download, but it is worth it.



http://www.pressaprint.com/som/WeSupportU2.htm

[Anonymous]

Jim, I don't know how old you are but , by god, I wish you were in congress. I have no idea why such a great country such as ours gets saddled with the kind of clowns we do. Why is it that people who have never heard a shot fired in anger get to be President and get to put others in harms way. I wish we could pass a law that 'If you would lead, Then first you must serve'. Then maybe we would not get into a stupid war like Iraq because somebody tried to kill the President's father.

[ironhorseman]

You can't support the troops unless you support the mission.

[Anonymous]

Wow Jim, AWESOME link.

I'm always impressed by the patriotism and pride Americans show for their Country. In Canada we are more subdued. We are no less proud of our Country, but not always as vocal or expressive.

The link is doubly meaningful because along with the American casualties in Iraq this week, Canada lost another soldier in Afganistan.

Thanks for always having a positive attitude Jim.

Jeff

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by valleytenderfoot

Wow Jim, AWESOME link.

The link is doubly meaningful because along with the American casualties in Iraq this week, Canada lost another soldier in Afganistan.

Jeff

I am always saddened to hear of the loss of a soldier fighting for freedom. God keep his soul. God comfort his family and friends as only He can.

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by valleytenderfoot

Wow Jim, AWESOME link.

The link is doubly meaningful because along with the American casualties in Iraq this week, Canada lost another soldier in Afganistan.

Jeff

I am always saddened to hear of the loss of a soldier fighting for freedom. God keep his soul. God comfort his family and friends as only He can.

Thank you, Jim, very much for posting this one. I just found out in today's paper that
I had lost a person (that I didn't know), but I know his family quite well, who died in
Afghanistan.

I only wi***hat I were younger and able to be there.

locomutt

[Anonymous]

My friends dad is in the mideast.


USA Rules!!!

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ironhorseman

You can't support the troops unless you support the mission.

I have to say I don't entirely agree with that. You don't have to believe in or agree with the mission or war, but you can still support the troops. The troops are our sons and daughters, they don't get to pick the fight or the events leading up to it.

A prime example of this would be George McGovern. I whole heartedly suggest you read Stephen Ambrose's "Wild Blue" , writer of "Band of Brothers" among other great books. George McGovern was known primarily for his run against Nixon and trying to get the troops out of Vietnam. He was regarded as a dove and Anti-American by alot of people. In reality he was a B24 pilot in WWII......he saw the great pain and destruction that war brought about and didn't want to have our boys dying for a cause that didn't physically threaten the shores of the US. He supported the troops, not the mission.

Another example of this would be the thousands of spouses and children that watch their loved ones head out to go fight the Taliban or Saddam. Most of them could give a rats behind about the mission..they just want them home in one piece.

I don't want you to think this is negative. I,as one of the troops, just personally don't agree with that statement. I don't want everyone to agree that the emperors new clothes are beautiful....sometimes supporting the troops means going against the grain.

I do support the troops, ours and our allies.

[daveklepper]

Of course I pray daily for the health and safety of USA and allied troops. I feel fortunate to have had the HONOR to serve in the US Army and to have had the LUCK to serve between Korea and Viet Nam under a great President EISENHOWER who managed to keep the country safe and at peace at the same time. True he started the ball rolling on the Interstate Highway System, but possibly today he would know that a strong America demands a strong railroad system and would do something CONSTRUCTIVE about it . Dave Klepper

[cherokee woman]

I am not FOR war, but I support our president and our troops, the Allied troups, everyone who is over there trying their hardest to win freedom and democracy for ALL individuals in the world.

My brother served in the Viet Nam war at the end of it. He was in the Air Force, and was in Thailand. He will not talk about it at all. No one but him (and the ones over there with him) knows what they saw and had to live with over there.

I pray daily (sometimes all day long) for everyone over there: our guys and the coalition
troops. I pray that God will end the mess soon and send them all home to their loved ones!

[edblysard]

My dad was a Chief Petty Officer in the US Navy for 33 years.
He saw duty in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

One of the things he stressed to us kids was the fact that the US Armed Services report to, and are commanded by a elected civilan President.

In fact, our constitution expressly forbids active military personal from holding the office, and for good reason.

The armed services are there to defend the population, and to follow and enforce the decisions of the civilans who lead our country.

They serve us, the John and Jane Does of America.

The framers of the constitution understood that having a serving military officer as president could lead to a military dictatorship, and they knew then, as we know now, what that can lead to.

Remember, its a goverment "of the people, for the people, by the people"

The constitution is full of safeguards, the president cant declare war, he, or she, must ask congress to do so.

That said, I stated in a post quite a while back that I doubted we would find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I stated that, in my opinion, the American people had been sold a false bill of goods, and we were going to war for the wrong reason.

Iraq didnt directly attack the Unites States, and going to war with them because they might be a future threat, or migh have aided some radical group was wrong.

I still feel that way today.

If we, as a nation, can justify waging war because of supposistions, mights and maybes, if we are willing to attack and kill because we deem them to be a future threat, because they might, later on, become a danger to us, then we, as a nation and a people, have become as base and low as those we proclaim our enemies.

Whats the difference between the Nazi blitzkrieg in Poland, and the colalition forces deployment in Iraq?

We blitzed a country that hadent directly attacked us, and did so with tremendously superior military might, to gain control of a nation that furthers our political position in the middle east, and gives us, in essence, a "new territory" from which we can exert our influence with military threat and economic might.

Hitler overan Poland, to give the third riech a new territory from which to wage war on France, and the rest of Europe, and to give them a country and people to exploit and exert their military influnce from.

One of the major differences between this country and every other country on the face of the planet was, untill now, the fact that our armed services were intended to be tools of defense, to protect our nation and our allies when attacked, a wepon to be used only when all other options had been exhausted.

Our was a defensive military, designed and formed to protect us, not an offensive tool designed to expand our borders or effect political change in other countries.

From the rest of the worlds perspective, there wouldnt appear much difference between this war on terror, and the *** blitzkrieg, except for the flags flown by the winners.

I didnt agree, and to this date, still dont agree with why we are there, but in one matter I stand proud...

The service men and women of the American Armed Services are without equal.
They did exactly what they were supposed to do.
When the order arrived, they picked up their kits, got in line, and went.
No questions asked.

They did what one would expect a professional military to do, follow orders and do you duty, and they did it in the manner we expected them to, with pride, honor and duty and sacrifice.

The men and women of the United States Armed Services deserve our respect and our gratitude for their service, even if you dont agree with why the commander in chief sent them there.

One of the other things my dad taught me was, we, the American people, have something almost no other country in the world has, the ability to completly change our goverment every four years.

That power rest with us, the civilians, not with the military, and rightly so.

We, the citizens, get to decide who leads us, and if we dont like the current leaders, we can change them, without worry of military oppression or influence, because the military reports to us, the civilian citizen, through our civilian president, we dont report to them.

America posseses without doubt the finest military force in the world, because it is composed of volunteers, those few who willing give their life in defense of a concept written over 200 years ago, but which holds as true today as it did then.

The preamble to the Constitution says it all.

"We, the people of the United States of America, hold these truths to be self evident..."

We, the people...

Its your goverment, not theirs.

Its your Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, they work for, and serve you.

If all of this distrubes you as much as it has me, then excerise the one tool you, as an American citizen, have total control over, one which, so far, cant be taken away from you.

Next time, vote!

You, me, Kevin, Mookie, all of us live in a exceptionally unique country, with the mightiest military and economic forces in the world under the control of us, the citizen.

We, and we alone, can affect real change in the way our goverment acts and runs, and we should be very careful who we give what powers to, and why.

Should we be looking for payback for 9/11?
You bet.

But we should have gone after the people who did the crime, not their next door neighbors.

Those who served in the past had clear cut goals, to end oppression and agression, to defend those who couldnt defend themselves, to free people so they too, could make choices, even if we didnt agree with the choices they made afterwards.

Those who serve now should have the same goals, and have done their upmost in service to their country.

We should salute them, honor them, and welcome them home.

We should bury the fallen with all the honors they earned and deserve, but remind their boss they died as a result of political incompentence, not dereliction of duty or the might of a enemy.

We are at a perilous point in the history of our country, out of fear, or apathy, we are slowly handing control of it over to a select few, who dont always act in the interest of all of us, the citizens.

This country was created by rebellion, built by hard work and honest reguard for the rights of the indivdual, not the power of a king, or the power of a general.

The only reason it even exsist is because you, the American Citizen, says it does.

Its your country, its my country, my Dad spent 33 years defending the concepts it was created from, and we shouldnt sit by and let any one "party" run it for us.

Its ours, not "the goverments"

Remember,

"We, the people..."

Ed

[JoeKoh]

Dad uncles cousins and brothers all served in the military.support our troops always.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

At first main reason we came to Iraq was to get Saddam. Finding the weapons was a secondary thing we did that turn into the primary reason.

Just wanted to remined people that we dfidn't go to Iraq just to find the weapons.

USA rules!!!

[tree68]

Hear, Hear, Ed. You have stated my sentiments exactly.

And what's more, we haven't touched terrorism. If anything, we live in more fear than when we got started in this whole mess.

The politics of war is a complex thing. There are those who believe, though, that virtually every war we've been involved with in this century has been our own doing. William Randolph Hearst famously took credit for starting the Spanish-American War. It is thought by some that people on this side of the pond had sufficient knowledge to prevent, or at least minimize, the events that got us into WWI & II. Someone's ideological hatred of "communism" (all of the folks we hated then were actually socialists) got us into Korea and Viet Nam. In 'Nam we were fighting a guy who was a staunch ally during WWII! We got out of 'Nam and thirty years later it's a vacation destination. We still hate Castro, but I heard a contest announcement on a Canadian radio station for a honeymoon in Cuba.

We may never convince those in the Arab world that we are not the great devils - any more than you will convince any missionary today that anyone not a Christian is not a heathen. But trying to beat them into submission will only prove their belief and make them mad. Far better to let them do their thing and look for ways to win their trust. Right now we have a long ways to go to reach that goal.

As long as Party A believes they are entitled to what Party B has, there will be a problem. Note that that is different from Party A wanting what Party B has...

My opinion. Standard disclaimers apply.

[edblysard]

Ok, so remind me why we went there?
Because if it wasnt to find and destroy the wepons of mass destruction, then it must have been because...?
Other than the WMDs, what did Saddam have that presented a threat to us?
Ok, I agree, that mustach was pretty ugly, but going to war over facial hair?

If we are now willing to wage war because we dont agree with a poitical system, or because some one might, at a future date, present a threat, then we might as well blow up France, Columbia, and Korea.

Our military should not be a political or economic tool, it should be a defensive force, to protect us from clear and present danger, not from murky, maybe threats made by despots, or possible future threats.

Was Saddam a evil man, who needed to be removed?
Sure, but so are many world leaders.
Is it now Americas job to decide who is, and isnt allowed to rule other countries?

We acted like a policeman who lies to get a search warrant, then kicks in the door, knowing full well what the warrant states is false, and then beats the stuffing out of the person behind the door, because the cop dosnt like them or their views.

If we are the worlds policemen, then we just screwed the pooch real bad.

So really, if we wernt looking for WMDs, then why did we do this?

And if having weapons of mass destruction qualifies you as a target for invaision by the worlds policemen, then France, England, Germany, Korea, China, and India better watch their backs.

We should just go ahead and nuke whats left of the Soviet Union, they have misplaced so much of this stuff they still dont know who has what.

Seriously, I am looking for the criteria that justifies being attacked by the United States of America.

Because the only real threat I ever saw from the Iraq goverment was about .03 cents at the pump.

Although, war is good for the economy, it does increase the GNP, and quite a lot of companies, you know, like Colt and Winchester, along with all the companies that supply the products needed to wage war, did and still are making a nice profit from all of this.

But I am still looking for a valid reason for invading another country, a reason that dosn't include the words might, maybe or could, but does include the words, "on this date, did declare war on, and did attack the United States of America".

Justify invading another country just because we dont like their politics,,
Please?

Ed

[techguy57]

Ed- If you won't run for president can we at least get you your own radio or TV show? I mean it, you say what I and so many others feel and with great eloquence. More people need to hear the words you say. You tell it how it is, truthfully, and our society has worried so much about being politically correct that many of us have forgotten to be honest and forthcoming. I will vote again in November and hopefully so will most of the people my age.

Jim-A excellent find. Truly a great presentation that reminds us that bad drivers and cell phones are petty things compared to what those brave members of the Armed Forces are dealing with. Thank you so much.

Mike

[Anonymous]

None on this forum can say they are more supportive of the troops than me, I just happen to be the father of a few of these troops. Alright Saddam is a despot but was he a threat to us? Absolutely not. We had him contained by the no fly zones. Would he have allowed Bin Laden bases in Iraq? Again, absolutely not. Bin Laden's mob are shiites, these were the people Saddam was keeping under his thumb. There is no way he would have allowed armed shiites in his country. This is a bad war that is getting good kids killed because Bush wanted revenge for the attempt on his father's life.
I understand that our form of government puts our armed forces under a civilian President as Commander-inChief, but would it be so bad to demand that anyone running for that position should have in his resume, a tour with a full time part of our military so that they could know what a soldier, sailor or airman's life is really like and think twice before commiting them in harms way. Remember, these boys and girls are volunteers, they weren't dragged in with a draft. That is why so many National Guard units are being activated today to fill the manpower shortage. Not like the Vietnam war that was fought mainly by draftees and joining the National Guard was just another way of draft dodging.

[edblysard]

Pop,
Couldnt agree with you more, an tour of duty is a great way to season a leader.
I note that most of the really good leaders have had military service under their belt.

More surprised that some how, GW hasnt gotten the NSA, or the CIA to produce a bunch of "throw down" WMDs.

And what scares me most is we, the people, seem to be quite content to let this go on, wether out of fear that 9/11 will happen again, (it will, more surprised it took so long the first time) or plain apathy.

Now, I am pretty much a conservative person, but from my perspective, before we go off being the worlds policeman, we ought to try being the worlds peacemakers first.

And, just to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, how much of the 87 billion dollars we are projected to pump into their economy is going to be spent taking care of the widow/widowers and children of the KIA American servicemen and women?

If we can scrape up 87 billion to rebuild Iraq, one would think we could pay our troops just a little better.

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

Ok well Ed covered everyhting I wanted to say, And i won't say a word more, because i'll end up starting an argument.

Whoever said that You cant support the troops unless you support the mission... BULL!! I suport the troops 378%, But i do not support the mission, I havn't from day one, And i'm sorry, but thats the way it is, No one ever sold me on Saddams WMD's, If Hans Blix couldn't have proved any weapons, BUSH or BLAIR sure could not have.


I REALLY appreciate Jim above reconizing the Canadian troops and the efforts they do, We might only be a small country (25.3 million) And for the history books, The last time the popultaion of the USA was 25 million was just before the Civil war broke out. I firmly believe that we are doing what we can.

God bless the troops.

[Anonymous]

Ed, you have put down on the previous posts just what the American people should be thinking about in this election year. If Afghanistan had been the main objective, I would have been wholeheartedly behind this President. After September 11, we needed to go after the bastards who initiated the attack and Afghanistan were where they were. This was right and proper but Iraq, this was personal for G.W. and not for the rest of us.
I would go after anyone who attacks this country but I resent losing any of my children in any action that is not in defense of our homeland.
Having said that, I also resent this damned Patriot Act that singles out good Americans of Arab descent for discrimination. The trouble is, I don't know how we can go about it any differently.
What happened to the Jews under Hitler was an abomination, but why are the Palestinians the ones who are paying for it?
I wi***o God we had never got involved with the Middle East in the first place. Maybe I would still have my oldest boy.

[daveklepper]

There is a huge difference between a Nazi Blitzkrieg (into Poland) and anything a democracy like the USA, Canada, Britain, even Turkey (today) and Israel do, yes and the USA in Korea and Viet Nam, and what *** and their modern counterparts do. The difference is that democracies do try and spare civilian lives as much as possible. The *** tried to kill as many Jews as possible and put as many "Slavs" as possible into slave labor. A huge difference.

With respect to the current situation: Even a Jewish partizan, emerging into forest via sewers to escape certain death in a Ghetto, would not have gone into a German schoolyard to kill children. Saddam Hussein payed lots of money to have Palestinians and other Arabs do just exactly that! That is a proven fact. A big difference. Dave Klepper

[edblysard]

Hi Dave,

In WWII, there was no organized Jewish state or goverment, had there been, the entire war would have taken a totally different tack.

Your correct, no Jewish sucide bomber blew up German schoolyards.

Had the jews been organized, and had a state or goverment to guide them, would they have gone to that extreme?

Dont know, but when faced with racial extermination, people and goverments go to extremes.

I am of jewish decent, grandpa was a German Jew who came to America just before WWI.
Dad was first generation American.
Religion has played no major part in our lives, gramps didnt leave germany because of religious issues, he felt the reasons leading up to WWI were wrong, and didnt aggree with the German goverments action.
Because he was a merchant marine, he knew he would be conscripted into the german navy.

Blunty put, he didnt want to fight a war he didnt belive in, on the side he knew would lose.
Instead, he spent WWI in a prisioner of war camp outside of Alvin, Texas.

As far as I am concerned, the Isralies and Palestinies are fighting over a stupid issue, on and over a piece of land that from a comerical point of view is totally useless.
The fact that both religions hold the same city as the holiest of holy should encourage their cooperation, but it never works that way.

And thats exactally why our constitution requires the seperation of church and state, so we dont participate in a religious war as a matter of national policy.

As for the sucide bombers, when one blows up a American schoolyard, or a Metro bus, then lets go kick butt.

But better, should't we be there trying to make peace?

After all, we did help the jews form and hold their country, and its not like the palestinies are asking for a really rich, valuable piece of the world.
About the only place more desolate would be North Dakota, and I am not real sure tey would want it.

In no way is this condoning their actions, but its just about the only weapon they have.

And as long as they feel that they have no choice, and no allies, or a world court that can and will enforce policies designed to provide them a secure state, then they will continue this course.

And this is what happens when goverments and countries are formed around a religious base, you either belong to the major faith, or you dont, and if you dont, your a second class citizen.

We have seen how well that second class thing worked here, yes?

As for comparing the invasion of Iraq to the Nazi blitz or poland, well, Hitler sold it to his people, and tried to sell it to the world as germany only accquiring a buffer state to keep all of the rest of the world out.
No on bought it then, either.

Our goverment is selling this as the US freeing an oppressed people under the rule of a despot.
Isnt there a few other evil dictators we need to remove?
Quite a few come to mind, but oddly, those countires dont sit on a huge oil field.
So, if we went to Iraq to "free" the people, when, exactlly, did they ask us for help?

Which American schoolyard did Saddam have blown up?

And I am quite sure that when all of this is over, BP Petro, Dutch Royal Shell, Exxon Mobil and Phillips will gladly pack up all their bags and exit the country, giving the Iraq goverment all the facilities and production.

Of course, i am still waiting for pigs to get pilot liscenses, too.


Stay Frosty,
Ed

[rrnut282]

I think we can show our support for the soldiers by not treating them as the Vietnam veterans were. By this I mean vilifiying them personally for imagined or accidental incidents just because we don't agree with the reasons given by our government for going there.

What do you call a leader who uses poison gas on his own people? What kind of leader uses the terror of torture and death squads against faimly members to stay in power? (Even the mob doesn't target someone's family, just the person.) How many mass graves do we have to dig up before everyone starts to agree that this wasn't such a bad idea? I supported the liberation of Iraq for those reasons, not oil,or the threat Saddam may have posed with or without weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. working with the U.N. worked for YEARS diplomatically with Iraq, to no avail. When words finally failed, it was time to act. I also believe that had we done nothing, our future as a shaper of the world would slowly come to an end as people around the world would view us as a "toothless tiger". Look at Libya. Kadafi came out and voluntarily turned over his weapons program. What have you heard from N Korea lately? I think G.W. had a good idea, "get in, get it done, and get out." It may not have been popular or right, but enough good has come out of this situation to outweigh the bad.

[Anonymous]

ALL I can say is that Ed, I'm VERY impressed with what you've said.

[Anonymous]

There is nobody who disagrees that Saddam was a very bad man, but was it up to us to get rid of him? I don't think so. The Iraqis themselves should have taken care of that. Bad as he was, he was no threat to the U.S. and the loss of over 500 young Americans, and climbing, to remove him is just not worth the price.

[edblysard]

Lets see if this adds a little perspective to it...
I have friends who lived in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

We Americans for some reason still seem to want to apply American culture and American values to these people.

Which is a big mistake when trying to understand them.

They have never lived under any real goverment, not in the sense we view a goverment as.

They have, do and will follow a strong leader, no matter who he is.

As long as he projects the image of strength and power, they will follow him.

If he wipes out an entire tribe in the process, so what, victory goes to the strongest.

And they are a tribal people, headed by religious leaders, who for centuries have held absolute power of life and death over their peoples.

This is what they are used to, know and understand.

They have never had a real, centralized goverment that established policy or governed everyone equally.

In fact, as nations, most of the countires in the middle east are new, by our standards.

So what you end up with in Iraq, and all the other countries over there, are a bunch of losely bound tribes and religious groups, collected under the strongest leader, who decides which tribe gets what, and which tribe gets nothing.

Look at Saddams still impressive popular support!

This, from people who, by our standards, were oppressed and terrorized.

I fear we are walking into the same problem we faced in Vietnam, where you cant tell the good guys from the bad guys.

And, at the very first chance, a strong, powerful leader will appear, and proclaim himself leader, and they will follow.

They never have, and most likely never will, live under any form of goverment faintly resembling ours.

They truly have no concept of how we live, vote, work or play, and most likely wouldnt want to know.

To them, we are the backward, unclutured alien people.

They like living in tribes, they have done so for thousands of years, else they would have changed by now.

I am still unclear what empowers us to decide who leads what country, and why?

Isnt that their choice?

In fact, isnt that one of the reasons our country was formed, because we didnt want a king on the other side of the ocean deciding who leads us, and what laws we lived under?

Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



In fact, isnt that one of the reasons our country was formed, because we didnt want a king on the other side of the ocean deciding who leads us, and what laws we lived under?

Ed

Indeed it is, And even I know that.

[Anonymous]

Dammit Ed, your latest post has hit the nail right on the head. I lived in Jordan for two years and I saw the way the Jordanians were about King Hussein. If arabs have a strong figurehead, they are happy. We can not force anyone to accept our form of government nor should we.

[rrnut282]

You're probably right that we will not be able to undo their culture in this single act. But I will ask, how has their culture grown or improved in all those years? It hasn't. They still operate the same way they did back then as they do now. I will conceed that this isn't a justification for an attack.

I will say this, how many of you can stand idly by while one indiviual who is strong and powerful bullies everyone else on the schoolyard? Isn't that what the other kids want, since all they have to do is standup and say so. That is why a government structure like ours is superior. If we don't like it, and enough people vote, change happens. Why would the bully let his victims, i mean people, have a vote, just so he can see how much they love him?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

Dammit Ed, your latest post has hit the nail right on the head. I lived in Jordan for two years and I saw the way the Jordanians were about King Hussein. If arabs have a strong figurehead, they are happy. We can not force anyone to accept our form of government nor should we.

Scottydog - I agree. I spent 2.5 years in Iran from 76 - 78. My dad worked for Grumman. Nixon sold Iran the F-14 and my family shipped out, along with half of Long Island. I was on the first official evacuation plane out before the fall of the Shah.

The people as individuals were very friendly. In a mass very different. Religion played a huge role in their lives. The more us Americans/Canadiens/Germans/Brits spend our influence/presence the less friendly they got (as a mass).