JayB

I wish I knew somthing that might help the families of the missing climbers - I can only imagine how terrible it is to be in that situation. I'll keep them in my thoughts and my fingers crossed. If anyone knew what route the climbers were intending to climb, and other information of this sort, someone could perhaps offer useful information concerning conditions, any sections of the climb that looked especially hazardous or that might significantly slow down a party, sites where they would have hunkered down if caught in a storm, etc - as I know that a few fellows who post here have climbed the common winter routes lately.

After sizing up the conditions and dispensing with any delusions we had about getting any climbing done yesterday, a buddy and I did the circuit from Bridge Creek C.G. to Colchuck Lake yesterday to get a feel for how much pain a one day round trip to one of the climbs in the area would involve. Round trip from Bridge Creek C.C. to Colchuck Lake took about 6:45 in mostly hard-packed conditions. Conditions on the approach/restatement of the obvious... - Raining at Bridge Creek C.G. and up to about 500 feet above the valley floor. - Snow intensifying at higher elevations, with roughly 8" of new at Colchuck Lake by 2:00PM. -Packed out but rapidly dissappearing track until the junction between the Stewart Lake trail and the trail to Colchuck. Used snowshoes after this point as there was about 6" of new snow on the ground and I kept punching through the crust underneath the new stuff. - If you bring skis, stash them at the Stewart Lake Trailhead as the trail would be a nightmare on skis, with lots of convolutions, crust, and a track that's too narrow to accomodate skis easily.

Nolan: What kind of pro did the conditions on the NF permit? Thanks?

Klar - good idea. I'll post some of the photos without routes in the next couple of days or so that anyone who's so inclined can add their own routes - maybe in a separate thread so that folks without a fast connection can load the thread in less than 10 minutes...

Couldn't edit the post above for some reason, so here's the same post with brighter photos....

Good idea chucK - I'll see if I can lighten them up this weekend so that everyone can actually see the rocks....

Other folks are out there putting up new routes these days and I, well, I am hitting UW rock every so often and not much more. So while I can't add anything like a cool photo-essay on a killer alpine route, I can contribute...some photos of some upright slabs of concrete with rocks stuck in them, which I have adorned with colored blobs and lines. So here they are, some of my favorite problems at UW. The photos are a bit dark as it was just about dusk by the time I got there, and by the time I got around to taking photos of the wall with the highest concentration of cool problems is was too dark back there to get much of a picture tonight. The only problem that I am responsible for out of these is "Right Cross," although I only say that I am responsible for it because I've never seen anyone else do it or describe it - but it's hard to imagine that there's anything new under the sun at the UW rock. I picked up the other problems by hearsay, or read them in a book put out by Erik Wolfe and Scott Hopkins in March of '94. If either of you guys are out there, I hope that it's cool to put some of the info on the web. I used my own photos rather than scans of the book to try to steer clear of any copyright issues. Anyow, if you live close to UW, are too poor to afford gym dues like myself, or just hang-out there every now and then - add some routes of your own. If there's any interest I'll borrow the roommates camera again, take shots of the the walls, and you can use your own photosuite stuff to add other problems to those I've posted tonight. Red: "Right Cross" My own creation. All rocks for feet except for the big block on the far right. Green: "GropeMaster" From Wolfe & Hopkins. "Hollow" circles with F in the middle indicates holds that are on for feet, off for hands. Pink: "Good Traverse" Wolfe & Hopkins. All rocks for feet. Easiest of the problems listed here. Light Blue: "Heave To" Wo lfe & Hopkins. All rocks for feet. Red: "Gorilla Traverse" Wolfe & Hopkins. All rocks for feet, traverse out and back for extra credit. Pink: "Beer & Loafing" Wolfe & Hopkins. Bottom side of the big block for the first hold, seam between the roof and wall for the third hold. All rocks for feet. Green: "8th Dwarf" Wolfe & Hopkins. All rocks for feet, slopers all the way... Blue: "MLF Overhang," Wolfe & Hopkins. All rocks for feet, use the hole in the crack for the third hold. Red: "Four Rock Classic" Wolfe & Hopkins. No rocks for feet. Classic. Green: "Can't Truss It" Wolfe & Hopkins. No rocks for the feet. Still working on this one - Red, "Rainbow Coalition Traverse," Wolfe & Hopkins. No rocks for the feet, texture only. My personal nemesis, and the hardest problem in this list by far. Have at it...

Maybe I'll borrow my room-mate's digital camera and take photos of a couple of walls, highlight problems, and post them here so all can share in the fun. There's a bunch of problems out there that have been absolutely kicking my ass out there that I'd love to get some beta on...

After my momentary triumph I've been shut down while trying to move from the fourth to the fifth hold. Argh! Anyway, grab onto the top of the third hold with your right hand, then cross your left hand underneath your right arm to gain the fourth hold. It's easier if you keep your weight low and your chest facing the wall. I matched on the fourth hold, gained a nubbin right of the crack with my right foot, then lunged for the last hold when I got it. I'm heading over there tonight at about 6:30 or so to get a bit o' bouldering in before the rain rolls in tomorrow.... Make that 5:30 - introduce yourself if you're heading over there. I'll the one flailing in a blue shirt...

Dawyner and I might never agree on sport-climbing, but his take on many other things is right on, especially when it comes to the utterly innefectual and nauseatingly self-rightous grandstanding that masquerades as constructive political action at such rallies these days. Anyone who really expected the populace to take their message seriously would do well to formulate serious policy alternatives to war in Iraq, articulate them forcefully, avoid ludicrous oversimplifications "No Blood for Oil" and summon up the discipline necessary keep their movement focused and on message. Jesus *&$#ing Christ, what's next "Twister for Peace?" Please.

You may be right about this, but let's see your sources. I certainly don't know everything about the current situation in Afghanistan, but I have not read anything about Al-Queda regrouping on a large scale and re-establishing anything like the presence that they had prior to the demolition of the Taliban regime. There may well be quite a few Al Queda members hunkering down in isolated villages throughout Afghanistan, but I can't imagine them intentionally concentrating in camps that can be taken out with a single precision guided bomb. It would be impossible, not to mention silly, to embark on a mission to detain or kill every member of Al Queada holed up in Afghanistan. The mission was to dismantle the regime which allowed them to operate with impunity in the country, destroy their camps, and limit their operational efficiency within the country - all of which we accomplished. While there may be a few of them left, we have a base of operations to strike them from, vastly improved local intelligence, and a regime in place which, in addition to administering the country in a manner more consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards, will likely prove much more cooperative than the Taliban. How much aid was promised? How far short of the total are they? You realize of course that dispensing aid requires an infrastructure. You've got to hold the money somewhere (banks), you've got to have people on hand who can dispense the money in a manner that's consistent with the intent of the donors (government and the associated institutions), you have to dispense the aid (roads), etc. etc. etc. All of these things take time. What were you expecting? Instant Utopia? Please. You could have said the same things about Europe in 1946. It'll take at least a decade, if not longer for life in Afghanistan to return to anything that even bears a faint resemblance to normalcy. That's not a "failure," it's called reality, and the conditions there roughly one year into rebuilding after 30 years of unceasing warfare can hardly serve as grounds for calling our efforts there pointless. Anyhow, we can help, but the burden of restoring Afghanistan to such a state will ultimately fall on the Afghanis. Actually, I agree that our failure to condemn the attacks on the Kurds and/or take any meaningful action to stay Saddam's hand once they were underway is one of the more shameful episodes in our history. Right up there with inciting the Shiites in the Marshes and the Kurds to rebel by suggesting that we'd asssist them, then essentially abandoning them to certain death at the hands of the Republican guard. In the case of the gassing, Saddam calculated that the western powers (this includes just about all of Western Europe) would let him get away with murder rather than see the Iranians triumph. Unfortunately, he was right. I suspect that had we suggested to Saddam that his continued use of such weapons would mean the end of our military assistance to him he would have paid attention. While it may be necessary to ally ourselves with unsavory regimes in order to counter greater threats, there are limits. I have never argued that the US, or our policies, have been perfect, but perfection is a standard that no nation in history has ever met, or will ever meet. Dig deeply enough into the affairs of any nation that has ever had power to abuse and you will find abuses. I will maintain that on balance our interventions throughout the world have made it a better place than it would have been otherwise. You may disagree, and that is your perogative. Link to comprehensive account of the Anfal campaign against the Kurds. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/.

SC: You missed my point. I was not claiming that Iraq constituted anything like the threat that the Nazis or the Soviet Union posed to humanity, which would indeed be ludicrous. I was using the case of Russia to make the argument that "when we are dealing with the very worst of thugs around the world we are probably always doing so in the pursuit of policy goals quite apart from the crimes those thugs may commit." I was also using the case of Russia (allies during the war, enemies after) to address the folks who believe that the fact that we assisted Iraq in their war against Iran makes us hypocrites or should paralyze our efforts to get rid of Saddam. What did we accomplish in Pakistan? Did we wave a magic wand and make the legacy of two and a half decades of inveterate warfare go away? No? Did we create a utopia? No? Restore a decimated economy with the wave of a hand? No. We did, for reasons that had everything to do with our strategic interest and nothing to do with relieving the suffering of the Afghanis, overthrow the Taliban and dismantle Al Queda's organization in the country. After we got there and did these things we've also attempted to assist the Afghanis in their efforts to develop a means of governing themselves, and also provided schooling, food-aid, and medical aid, in an effort to promote conditions that will hopefully be less congenial to murderous fanatics than it was before. There is no disputing the fact that the country is still dirt poor, beset by lawlessness, warring clans and warlords, and may yet descend into anarchy yet again. Whatever you think of our reasons for getting involved in Afghanistan, I do not see how it is possible to dispute the fact that we are making an effort to help the Afghanis, and tens of thousands have seen the efforts as substantial and promising enough to return to their home country after many years abroad in an effort to rebuild. I hope that they are right.

Matt: No history lesson intended (for you), just using an example to advance my argument. It just happened to be a long one. Maybe I misunderstood your post. When I read it I got the idea that you were not simply listing instances in which the US acted in certain ways, but going further and claiming that these actions rendered the US a "rogue state," irrespective of the goals or ends that we were pursuing at the time. If that's not what you were doing, my bad. It's not uncommon for those criticizing the US to cite a litany of actions which, if performed in a historical vacumm, would be legitimize claims that the US is a "rogue state." As easy as that is to do "The US intentionally firebombed Dresden and killed 100,000 German civilians!" citing such facts without acknowledging the historical circumstances which lead the US to do so can only be called intellectually dishonest. Sorry if I misread you.

Matt: What you state here isn't necessarily inaccurate, but it omits quite a bit of important information that is necessary in order to come to a fair and sober judgement concerning the US's involvement with these governments or radical groups within them. Much in the same way that the bare facts of a case such as "This man stabbed someone to death" are not sufficient to render a verdict in court, the omission of any information whatsoever concerning the reasons why the US allied itself with unsavory regimes or the characters within them is insufficient grounds for labelling the US a "Rogue State." It's difficult to conceive of very many regimes more murderous, despotic, and hostile to the values of the United States than the Soviet Union in the 1920's and 1930's. Some of the highlights of that period in Soviet history include the wholesale slaughter of the intellectuals and the bourgoise and/or anyone else who posed a threat to Lenin and Stalin's ambitions for the country, the mass imprisonment of millions in the Siberian Gulags, and the state orchestrated starvation of nearly 10 million Ukranians who dared oppose the regime, and who happened to be in posession of the grain that the Bolsheviks needed to feed their power base when agriculture tanked throughout the Worker's Paradise after the adoption of absolutely disastrous collectivization schemes across the country. We knew the nature of this regime quite well, and yet we counted them amongst our most valuable allies for several years. Why? Well, you know of course that the Russians were also fighting the Nazis who, in our estimation, represented a greater threat to mankind at the time. After the Nazi's were defeated it didn't take very long at all before they assumed their rightful place as our foremost enemy, a status which they maintained for the better part of this century and your lifetime. We allied ourselves with the Russians when we knew full well the monstrous nature of their regime? After they'd murdered millions of their own citizens in the cruelest fashion possible? We can't claim to be friends of liberty then! What hypocrites we are! Look how we spend millions arming and aiding the Russian one minute and then claim they're our "enemies" the next! Look how we let naked self interest dictate the true nature of our foreign policies and still delude ourselves into believing that we care about the rest of the world when our alliance with the Russians clearly shows that we'll join forces with any regime in order to eliminate any and all threats to our power! It should be clear to anyone with even a passing aquaintance with the history of the latter half of the 20th century that the primary object of our foreign policy was to counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and their satellite states. The stakes for humanity were high, and just as we made alliances with evil regimes in order to neutralize the threat the Nazis posed to humanity, we worked with quite a few less than savory dictators, opposition groups, and who knows who else in our efforts to contain the totalitarians in Russia. In a perfect world such measures would not be necessary, but that's not the world we live in. Our foreign policy these days is driven by a response to a different kind of threat, but the strategic considerations remain the same. We needed Pakistani cooperation during our attack on the Taliban and Al Queda, so we aligned ourselves with them on that basis, even though the current Pakistani leadership came to power by means of a coup and is currently run by a strongman pursuing policies that are inconsistent with our stated beliefs and fundamentally at odds with the Pakistani population's. It'd be nice if Pakistan were a textbook democracy that we could allign ourselves with without any reservations, but that, again, is not reality. The unfortunate reality is that for the forseable future a number of countries across the globe, but in the Middle East in particular will either be run by brutal tyrants who oppose our interests or...brutal tyrants who will work to futher our interests, as the case of Iran demonstrates quite clearly. We are, at the moment, in the midst of an effort to remove one of the nastier dicators present in the region, who happens to oppose our interests, by force. As with the Russians, we sided with him in order to counter the greater threat, and...as with the Russians we are working (with the help of some less than savory nations) to remove him now that it is he who represents the greater threat. Thankfully doing so at this time is consistent both with our interests and with the ideals that we've been responsible for advancing, however imperfectly, since this nation's inception. So while you may be right that the US has "maintain[ed] ties to all kinds of zealous groups all over the world and even arm them when they are on our side of any particular issue." your failure to address the strategic imperatives that brought about those ties is represents a standard of intellectual honestly well below what one would expect of the Effortlessly Cool One. P.S. There was no UN mandate authorizing the use of force in Yugoslavia, as Russia and China would not vote in favor of any such maneuver. The Europeans resisted the use fo force for years and counseled "further dialogue to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution." Did you oppose the use of force against Serbia on the basis of the same arguments that you are using to oppose attacking Iraq?

There's a reason for that. It's called the law. The respective courts handling these cases have yet to reach a verdict, ergo no one is in jail.

Just bringing this one up to the top again. Anyone have any information about seasonal closures of the gates out there? Links? Contacts? Anyone? Anyone.....

However, I am actually LL Cool J. Word.

Well, as long as we're playing devils advocate for each other here... While it's not certainly not inconceivable (to say the least) that a politician would use his office to benefit those who supported his bid to win the election, going to war for their sole benefit would entail risks to the politician and his supporters that would far outweigh the benefits. If a President ever attempted such a thing and word got out it would result in his immediate impeachment (at best), and the eternal ruin of his party. For the oil companies involved in such a plot it would mean criminal prosecution for the executives on top of a corporate implosion that would make the fall of Enron look like a taco stand closing. Beyond the implausibility of any corporation or politician taking such a risk is the improbability of their being able to implement such a plan without the public ever learning about it. Both the government and oil companies are massive institutions and carrying out such a plot would involve the wholesale complicity of not just the President and a few executives, but the majority of the executive branch, key members of the House and Senate, as well as scores of high level and not-so-high level employees within the oil companies. Even if such a large number of people wanted to keep a secret, they'd have a mighty hard time doing so, and I think that anyone who believes that such a group could pull this off is dramatically overestimating the secrecy with which it is possible for large organizations to operate. The Iran Contra operation was a genuinely clandestine operation, far from the mass mobilization of our armed forces occuring before the eyes of the entire nation and the world that is occuring now, and eventually the truth came out. Ditto for our nuclear secrets, various CIA snafus like the Castro cigar incident, and the like. And, does anyone remember something called Watergate? From what I call the sitting president was unable to conceal a minor botched theft of some documents, the discovery of which got him booted out of office and onto the political slag heap. Besides, if the president wanted to reward the oil companies for their support the easiest way for him to do so would be by means of targeted tax breaks, subsidies, or other market distortions, all of which would boost profits much more directly than securing access to oilfields by force of arms.

I'm glad that people in this country, and on this message board are asking tough questions about the rationale for attacking Iraq. Any matter as grave as committing our troops to war, and very likely killing Iraqi civilians demands serious analysis. Which is why it aggravates me to no end when opponents of attacking Iraq rest their case upon the bald assertion that the only reason that we are preparing to wage war on Iraq is to get our hands on their oil. If this is the basis of your opposition to the war, please, at least, support your claim with an argument and/or facts. If all that we wanted out of Iraq and was it's oil and we didn't believe that the current regime would funnel the oil profits into weapons programs that could potentially be used against us, our allies, or for purposes of nuclear blackmail as North Korea has done, why wouldn't we just buy their oil? Even if we bought it at 50% above the market price for several years it would still be a bargain compared to the costs of an invasion and occupation. All we have ever needed, or will ever need to insure a continuous supply of oil is the money to pay for it. None, let me repeat - none of the OPEC nations can afford to sit on their oil supply, as they are now uniformly saddled with inneficient state bureaucracies that serve primarily as a means of keeping a lid on domestic upheaval, population growth that has well exceeded economic growth for the better part of two decades, a moribund private sector, and an almost complete dependence on oil revenues. Bottom line: they need to keep the pumps turned on to stay afloat, and if Iraq's oil stays in the ground forever all that means is that their share of the world market increases, and it gets a whole lot easier for them to do so. Even if Iraq's oil, which constituted 4% of the world's production at it's peak, dissapeared completely, the rest of the world could easily make that up. There might be a brief spike in prices (read "demand") which would in turn encourage increased exploration and production ("supply") and eventually the price would return to a level which served both consumers and producer's interests. That is, enough volume to keep the petrostates afloat, and a low enough price to fend off a major economic slowdown, as the producers have learned from experience that this kills demand and ultimately lowers the price to levels well below the levels they would have reached had they furnished an adequate supply. And futher, let's pretend that the US was atatcking Iraq to get our hands on their oil supply. Does the present legal framework which our government is bound to operate in permit the US to own oil companies? No? So if the government is not going to own the companies, where is the oil money going to come from? Taxes on oil companies? Assuming that US companies were able to secure a monopoly on Iraqi oilfields (won't happen), they'd have to move an awful lot of oil and pay many, many, many years worth of taxes to come even close to reimbursing the government for the cost of an invasion and occupation. Factor in the effects of inflation on the return that the US would make on such an "investment" and it makes even less sense from an economic perspective. Again, we could buy quite a bit of Iraq's oil for well above the market price and we'd ultimately end up shelling out a lot less money to get our hands on it. Same result, much lower expense required both in terms of money and geopolitical capital. If those of you who claim that "it's all about the oil" have an argument hiding behind this assertion, I'd love to hear it. If not, at least find an objection to attacking Iraq that does justice to the seriousness of this issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that such a tale, if true, proves that all of such testimony given by Kuwaitis prior to the US invasion was a wholesale fraud orchestrated by the US in an effort to manufacture a rationale sufficent to justify an attack? Nothing happened to Kuwaiti civilians while they were occupied by Iraqi forces? Those Kuwaitis who imagined that they were suffering at the hands of the Iraqi troops sure were a gullible bunch, alright.

This sounds pretty right on to me. I have a question about the French system. Does this system include separate ratings for technical difficulty and overall commitment, or do they try to compress both aspects of the climb into a single system? If so, I think that is a major shortcoming. Also, does anyone seriously believe that it is even possible to devise a system to rate the difficulty of alpine routes that will be perfectly consistent across all regions and disciplines? Does anyone believe that if we were to change to this system tomorrow that we wouldn't be having this same discussion a year from now, but instead of debating whether a given climb is a IV or a V, we'd be arguing about whether or not is was really a TD+ or a TD? It could well be that I am missing something, however, as I am really not familiar with the French system, and know little about it other than it uses letters instead of numbers. If anyone can explain why the French system is objectively superior to the one currently in use I'd certainly be willing to listen, but change for the sake of change is both confusing and silly.

Given the fact that the nature of the rock has changed a bit, so must the nature of the challenge you'll have to surmount in order to get those free beers. Tie in at the base of the talus pile in plain view of the weekend crowds, clip each and every bolt on your journey through the debris pile (while on belay) and a pitcher of your choice is on the way.

?

Why we should go to war Julie Burchill Saturday February 1, 2003 The Guardian (UK) In the mode of Basil Fawlty, I've tried not to mention the war. I know that Guardian readers are massively opposed to any action against Saddam Hussein, as are 90% of the people I love and respect both personally and professionally. But I am in favour of war against Iraq - or, rather, I am in favour of a smaller war now rather than a far worse war later. I speak as someone who was born and raised to be anti-American; I know that, even in my lifetime, America has behaved monstrously in Latin America, Indo-China and its own southern states. I was against the US because, whenever people sought autonomy, freedom and justice, it was against them. But that narrative is ended now and a new configuration has emerged. The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice. They are the opposite of socialism even more than they are the opposite of capitalism. They are against light, love, life - and to attempt to pass them the baton of enlightenment borne by the likes of Mandela and Guevara is woefully to misunderstand the nature and desires of what Christopher Hitchens (a life-long man of the left) described as "Islamo-fascism". When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists: 1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it! 2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him. 3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look. 5) "Ooo, your friends smell!" Well, so do yours. We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world, probably because of its large number of feudal kingdoms and hardline attitude to uppity women), the Catholic church (taking a brief break from buggering babies to condemn any western attack as "morally unacceptable") and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Damon Albarn. Oh, and we've also got Condoleezza Rice, the coolest, cleverest, most powerful black woman since Cleopatra, and you've got the Mothers' Union, with their risible prayer for Iraq's people, a prime piece of prissy, pacifist twaddle that even Hallmark "Forever Friends" would reject as not intellectually or aesthetically rigorous enough. So, all in all, and at the risk of being extremely babyish myself, I'd go so far as to say that my argument's bigger than yours. Of course, you think the same about your side. And we won't change our minds. Ever. So let's do each other a favour and agree not to rattle each other's cages (playpens?) until the whole thing's over. Free speech and diversity - let's enjoy it! Even though our brothers and sisters, the suffering, tortured slaves of Saddam, can't. Yet. Still, soon.