Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.

Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).

quote:

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

quote:

quote:


And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

quote:

quote:

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

quote:

quote:


So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

War is a whole series of bad options, and only some of them work.

Taking Japanese civilians hostage. If you don't surrender, we will kill them (Japanese civilians, hostages).

quote:

Yes, and in so doing, the lives of many many more humans (including Japanese, Chinese and other CIVILIANS) were saved.

I don't accept the idea that its okay to kill civilians to save others, even if more. I am sure there are a half a dozen people whose lives could be saved from the use of your organs.

In WWI civilian casualties were avoided with some exceptions when the Germans were marching through Holland and Belgium. It could be argued that it wasn't worse for civilians than it was because it served little purpose in that war.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

quote:

quote:

quote:


And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

Hiroshima, August 6. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, August 9.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

quote:

quote:

quote:


So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

"Disease" comes from your analogy of organ transplants, which typically are needed due to disease. Nothing personal was meant! The matter of 'a' government versus one or more individuals (your organ harvesting analogy) is very different than the matter of warfare, where even individuals who disagree with their government get (tragically) caught up in it even without war crimes being involved. I was not making a straw-man argument, I was pointing out that your analogy does not pertain. Your analogy is pretty much a straw man argument in that sense.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

What is nonsensical is your insistence that there is not (and actually was not at the time) sufficient knowledge to reach a reasonable estimate of the likely outcomes. There certainly was. Disagreeing with the course of action chosen is a different matter.

Sufficient knowledge is extremely subjective. You cannot answer pertinent questions with knowledge, as in, how long the war would have lasted had the bomb not been dropped. A good knowledge of that would certainly be required in my view for murdering hundreds and thousands. That you call such a call for knowledge as nonsensical is, odd. I don't get it.

quote:

quote:


And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

quote:



I only have it one way. They planned to invade and they adjusted their timetable because the bomb was dropped. You completely ignored the importance of Japan hoping for a negotiated peace through the USSR, and the relevance of that hope being extinguished.

quote:

quote:

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

quote:



I have grappled with it. I fully understand why it was done and I understand the reasons it was done. I happen not to agree with it. The commanders are not above reproach and when many people are killed or die, actions will be examined and criticized.

quote:

quote:


So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

"Disease" comes from your analogy of organ transplants, which typically are needed due to disease. Nothing personal was meant! The matter of 'a' government versus one or more individuals (your organ harvesting analogy) is very different than the matter of warfare, where even individuals who disagree with their government get (tragically) caught up in it even without war crimes being involved. I was not making a straw-man argument, I was pointing out that your analogy does not pertain. Your analogy is pretty much a straw man argument in that sense.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

This is quite nonsensical. There is ample reason based upon experience in that very war against that very opponent behind the various very high estimates of Japanese civilian casualties. There is the additional evidence of the preparation of the Japanese population, and it is quite clear that the official position of the Japanese government was for there to be massive sacrifice of civilians.

You don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. I agree they would sacrifice many people charging towards American GIs, given the opportunity. The opportunity does not need to be given. Fundamentally you don't know how long they would be prepared to starve. And there is nothing nonsensical about pointing that out.

What is nonsensical is your insistence that there is not (and actually was not at the time) sufficient knowledge to reach a reasonable estimate of the likely outcomes. There certainly was. Disagreeing with the course of action chosen is a different matter.

quote:

And the USSR only invaded China after the bomb was dropped, because the bomb was dropped. And the USSR certainly didn't stop its shenanigans in Europe because Japan accepted peace, at which time the war was already officially concluded.

The USSR at this time was playing serious shenanigans with Japan and the peace process. She was rapidly transporting troops from the West to the East to occupy as much territory in the far east as possible before the conclusion of the war. And was promising to mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the Allies. Of course she had no intention of doing so but had a strong interest in keeping Japan in the war for as long as possible so she could take possession in the far east. Going so far as to warn Japan of impending air strikes on Formosa, by the USA.

quote:

The Soviets did have to actually invade to occupy territory. They did not wake up the day the first bomb was dropped and decide that they better invade.

quote:

Hiroshima, August 6. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, August 9.

quote:

You can't have it both ways. You state that the Soviets were going to occupy territory, and you state that the only reason they invaded was that the A-bomb was dropped. I maintain that they were going to invade. Whether they adjusted the date after the A-bomb is not relevant.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Japan had hope of a negotiated peace mediated by the USSR. Dropping the bomb made the USSR realise that the war was rapidly drawing to a close, invaded, shattering Japans hope of a negotiated peace.

Was Japan holding out, because it had hope of a negotiated peace? Where there other ways of destroying that hope?

The main point of that was to highlight that there was a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. And while murdering (that is what it was) Japanese civilians might have saved many others elsewhere, the converse might also have been true, even if unlikely. We cannot know. But if we are going to drop a bomb on a civilian population we really ought to know.

Your basic point is that without total certainty of the future, a decision can not be taken. But you neglect to apply that same principle to your own criticism of what was done.

You misunderstand the basic point(s). One of the points was that if you are going to do something as extreme as killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you better be very confident with knowledge, about what you are doing and the consequence of that action or inaction are. Such levels of assurity just don't apply to buying milk that might expire tomorrow and you might not be sure if you will be able to use it in time...

I understand the basic point fully. You seem both unwilling to grapple with making such a decision and unable to grapple with the fact that others are willing to make such a decision. Those in charge at the time were both willing and able to make the decisions involved. If they had made the decision another way and millions of Japanese - plus many thousands or more of Allies had died as a result then they would be criticized for that. Had they chosen a third course and millions of Japanese had died as a result of both starvation and a Soviet invasion, and on and on to other choices they might have made.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:


So it is a difficult situation, murder some , save some others, probably. But I do hold that murder is wrong. And in the absence of certainty that is what I hold to, that murder is wrong and we should not do it. Not today, not then.

And if one holds, perhaps not entirely unreasonably, that it is a good idea to murder some to save others, then it raises the question. Are you okay with the State murdering you or your loved ones so that their organs can be used to save others?

It is not disease being discussed, it is war. Applying your reasoning means total pacifism. Good luck with that.

I certainly lean to the pacifism side but not to the strawman you are constructing. I am very much drawing a very strong distinction between murder and lawful killings.

EDIT: And I don't know where that disease comment was coming from. The idea of murdering someone to save others is the concept that is being explored. It applies equally to bombing civilians and involuntary organ harvesting.

"Disease" comes from your analogy of organ transplants, which typically are needed due to disease. Nothing personal was meant! The matter of 'a' government versus one or more individuals (your organ harvesting analogy) is very different than the matter of warfare, where even individuals who disagree with their government get (tragically) caught up in it even without war crimes being involved. I was not making a straw-man argument, I was pointing out that your analogy does not pertain. Your analogy is pretty much a straw man argument in that sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quixote

Gentlemen, this debate is now five pages long. It's also pointless. It's pointless in the same way that debates on religion are pointless. This is not a debate based on fact, it's a debate based on feelings and ethics. There can be no winner or loser, since it's a matter is personal opinion. A Christian, a Muslim, and an atheist could go at it for 20 pages on this forum (if it were allowed) and at the end of that debate, exactly no one here would change their minds about their own religious beliefs. The topic being discussed here amounts to the same thing. If you enjoy this type of thing, and know that whatever you write will change almost no one's opinion, then have fun with the discussion for as long as Bill allows it to continue, or until it peters out in another few pages, but please stop believing that you'll actually change anyone's mind, regardless of how well structured you think your arguments are...

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reaper

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1660845#sthash.lZWDv5Kk.dpuf

Interesting Russian move against the U.S.

What is the opinion of the board here ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
In no war before or since has the USA demanded unconditional surrender. WWII was different for us in ways I don't think Europeans understand. The war in the PTO was a war of fury, begun by deceit and a sneak attack that struck at deeply-held American notions of how nations should behave. There was also a very significant racial factor not present in the ETO. These are two reasons for my previous comments concerning HST's thoughts about use of the Bomb at Potsdam, documented in many places but very well in the Pulitzer-winning biography by David McCullough. It simply did not occur to him not to use it given the 2.5 year extant policy of unconditional surrender, that Japan had started the war, and that he had a potential means to bring about surrender without expending any more American lives. The US public simply did not equate Japanese civilian lives with US servicemen's. Japanese lives were worth less. Period.

It's a well-written and argued book if one is interested in the sweep of the policy. If you have an extensive WWII library it's worth the minimal price to include it, even if you disagree with its conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron



Judging a historical event - as monstrous and society-shaping as WWII - using 21st century western peacetime culture ethics inevitably leads to failure to understand. As does any debate using those standards as a baseline. As does any debate involving 20/20 historical hindsight as a baseline.

quote:

Now, try to apply the same logic to the bombings of London, to the anti-partisan warfare in Italy, the bombing of Warsaw or to the Kamikaze attacks.

...neutral glasses

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Its true that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which primarily protects civilians was only agreed to in 1949, after the war. Its not exactly using modern standards to judge historical events. Only four years after the war there was an international agreement to properly protect civilians. The ethics and morals at the time were well placed for people then to know that murdering civilians was wrong.

quote:

Now, try to apply the same logic to the bombings of London, to the anti-partisan warfare in Italy, the bombing of Warsaw or to the Kamikaze attacks.

...neutral glasses

I can only think that that comment was directed at me. I have been extremely consistent in the issue that murdering civilians is wrong. I have not been specific to the A-bombs. I hold that murdering civilians is wrong, from London, to Italy to Warsaw et cetera. If there is an inconsistency here, a non-neutrality, feel free to point it out. Although the kamikaze comment is odd, no civilians were involved. I don't see an issue with it.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose



I can only think that that comment was directed at me. I have been extremely consistent in the issue that murdering civilians is wrong. I have not been specific to the A-bombs. I hold that murdering civilians is wrong, from London, to Italy to Warsaw et cetera. If there is an inconsistency here, a non-neutrality, feel free to point it out. Although the kamikaze comment is odd, no civilians were involved. I don't see an issue with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria was long planned and discussed by the Allied leadership. At Yalta? the Soviets promised they would enter the Pacific War 3 months after the surrender of Germany. They started to withdraw forces from the Eastern Front in April for refit and movement to the Far East. The Soviet's hold 9 May as VE day. The invasion on Manchuria was on 9 Aug. Exactly 9 months to the day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

About the only innocent civilian these days is a newborn http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/world/middleeast/syria-isis-recruits-teenagers-as-suicide-bombers.html?_r=0

Civilians are not 'innocent'. Regardless if they hold a gun or not, they have to take responsibility for their society. If that society does not reflect the majority, then they need to take actions to change it. Even if it causes harm and upheaval. If they do not take actions to correct their society, then the only assumption that can be made is the majority of the civilians of that nation support their actions. Which means they have responsibility for their nation's actions. Ignorance of these actions is not a defense to avoid consequences just like ignorance of the law does not protect you from prosecution.

quote:

Just like the driver of a car of criminals that commit the actual act of the crime, knowingly or unknowingly, is still responsible for those actions, just like they directly participated in the deed. So to me, Japan was not full of 'innocent' civilians, just people that were not holding guns. After all did they not go to work to produce those guns, and planes, etc. that would kill American lives? Even those in the fields were responsible for feeding the people with the guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ormbane

When we talk about "murdering innocent" people is there something behind those words other than manipulative emotional slogans? For me to benefit from a discussion like this we have to get past the stage of waving placards with manipulative slogans.

quote:

Regardless if they hold a gun or not, they have to take responsibility for their society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
No.
It's quite a clear line - if you're not in the military and not actively engaging in combat, then you're a civilian. The distinction is quite clear.

Yes, civilians can contribute to a war effort, but at the end of the day, combat is conducted by combatants, not by someone working in a factory far away from the frontline.

quote:

Lawyers who are much smarter than you or I have cleared up this issue long ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No.

It's quite a clear line - if you're not in the military and not actively engaging in combat, then you're a civilian. The distinction is quite clear.

quote:


Lawyers who are much smarter than you or I have cleared up this issue long ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Murder, to distinguish from a lawful killing, it is an unlawful killing, and that is the correct word to be using. Innocent, to distinguish form a lawful target, perhaps innocent isn't quite correct but is much easier to say than, "lawful target".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ormbane
Whose laws? Laws are political statements (ignoring the question of religious laws) and can be changed at will by governments. Simply changing a law can change the act from "legal" to "illegal". Do we have something more substantial to base our arguments on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ormbane

So in my example (real life) of the barber who was not in uniform and not a member of any recognized national military force, was he a civilian? Or was he only a combatant at the point in time(s) when he was sneaking through the concertina wires attempting to slit throats? Would it have been ok to shoot him in his village, or only when he was caught in the wires?

quote:

No, it’s not clear at all.. “Civilian” is a matter of status. “Innocence” is a matter of condition. Even the Third Geneva Convention recognizes the distinction. A “civilian” who contributes to national sectors that are military in nature or purpose is considered a quasi-combatant (lawyer crap) under the terms of the Convention. “Civilians” that contribute to the “Needs of the Military”, particularly its “strategic or tactical requirements” are considered legitimate combatants under the terms of the Convention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

This distinction about civilians was made AFTER the war simply due to what happened during total war. So during WWII civilians were legitimate targets by all combatants. Whether we of today like it or not. Civilians had to be targets at some point because after you have bombed/destroyed pretty much all production and the nation still refuses to quit, what else is there to bomb? The US did not start bombing civilians right away either. They bombed everything else first.

The gas station attendant is not guilty. But the law is pretty clear that people associated with a crime, even if they did not take direct action of that crime can be charged and convicted just as if they were directly involved. The legal term is 'accessory'. So in WWII, since the entire civilian population of the nations at war were involved in supporting the war effort, they were 'accessories' in the propagation of that war.

quote:

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.