Cyprus Cyprus & EU
jo...@jyu.fi
Dionysos Pilarinos wrote:
> JK wrote:
> :> Are you confusing Cyprus with Cuba? There are no "Russian" missi-
les in
> : You obviously have not yet read the original articles. The ques-
tion was if
> I think I know just a tad bit more about the S-300 procurement that
you.
You are working for the army?
> : Cyprus will become "Cuba" after the Russian missiles are assemb-
led.
> Define "Cuba" (since you have it in quotes).
I suggest you define it as you represented Cuba as an example.
With "" I did mean "Cuba defined by you".
> And please don't be as naive
> as comparing the Soviet installation of nuclear-tipped ballistic
missiles
> in Cuba (under direct Soviet control), with the procurement of
> Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles by Cyprus!
In case Cyprus can be a starting point for a large war I don't
see any naive in this comparison.
> : The latest information told it would happen in the end of this
year.
> The latest information suggests that the missiles will be in place
by the
> end of summer. Nothing about "Cuba"-like scenarios.
Once more: you started to talk about Cuba. But your metaphora
was not bad.
> : The Finnish air forse has both American planes (Hornets) and Rus-
sian
> : planes (Migs).
> Please use proper English, and stop avoiding the point. These are
FINNISH
> planes, manufactured in the USA or fUSSR.
And what is the point I do avoid?
> : In case of Cyprus you must make a question: *why*
> First: Because they have the RIGHT.
GREAT! This how the wars start. You have the "RIGHT".....
> Second: Because they have a limited capability (lack) in protecting
> against Turkish planes (six of them landed in the occupied terri-
tories
So you admit, that the missiles are AGAINST Turkey? Good, we have
now taken one step.
And why Cyprus must defend against the Turkish planes? Is there
a great THREAT? What has this to deal with the efforts to get
Cyprus in EU.......?
> yesterday). Perhaps if they had an Air Force (like Slovakia),
then they
> wouldn't need the missiles!
The Air Force of Slovakia exist because Slovakia was once part
of Czechoslovakia, which was part of Warzav Union and the planes
were against NATO. Now the Russian troops have left these countries
and the planes will be soon NATO planes. The difference with Cyprus
is, that Slovakia has not bought during its independence missiles
or aircraft *because of her neighbours and their threat*.
That's why Slovakia is a "safe case" for EU unlike Cyprus, who is
a huge risk.
> : small Cyprus needs Russian missiles and against whom?
Actually you already said above, that the enemy is Turkey, let's
take a look if you are able to tell it straight?
> What if they were French missiles? A "missile" is not simply a "mis-
sile".
> You cannot compare say a anti-tank missile to say an ICBM, a cruise
> missile, an anti-aircraft missile, an anti-ship missile
> (surface-to-surface included), etc. Against WHOM? Against anyone
that
> takes aggressive action against that state! Why, who does Finland
intend
> to use those F/A-18's against?
No you were not able to tell it. Just "hamlet playing"...:)
> : The answer tells what kind of risk Cyprus might be for EU.
> I gave you the answers. None present a risk to the EU. Unless you
have
> other "answers". Feel free to present them and defend them.
Cyprus is a risk because the hot and still unsolved problem of
Turkish and Greek Cypriots on micro level, a hot and still
tender problem between Turkey and Greece on macro level.
> : That is exactly one paradox, what I was talking about. Small Slo-
vakia
> : is not at all such an economic risk for EU like eg. Poland and
> : Hungary with their huge agriculture. And as told earlier, Slovakia
also
> : passes these two on several economical fields.
> So what? It is almost like bragging about who is the leader amongst
> countries that clearly do NOT qualify (yet) for membership (nor will
they
> for some time)!
I do not understand? What do you mean by saying "do not qualify for
membership"? That is exactly what we are discussing here! I am
claiming, that Cyprus do not qualify for membership any better than
eg. Slovakia.
> : The reason why Slovakia is not yet (this will be aproximated next
on
> : same month when Cyprus get her missiles:) on 1st stage is *only*
> : political. This is also what EU has said.
> Perhaps it is also economic. Try comparing the potential market size
of
> Poland vs. Slovakia. You can't have the EU burdened with supporting
too
> many underdeveloped markets.
In that case Poland shouldn't be on 1st stage.
> Thus, one needs to choose which ones can easily intergrate into the
> EU, or which ones would offer the greatest
This was just what I was saying. Poland and Hungary cause large
problems for EU because of their agriculture (which is a major
part of EU budget). These problems will touch strongly also
Greek farmers. Probably Mediterranian countries will loose
even one third of their EU support in agriculture.
Small Slovakia would not be such a problem.
> : *That's why* I wanted to compare these 2 political risks. IMHO,
Cyprus
> : i a lot greater political risk than eg. Slovakia can be.
> Where is the POLITICAL risk in Cyprus? Do you perhaps mean a MILITA-
RY
Yes.
> risk (like further aggression by Turkey)? If that is the case, then
focus
> should be pointed on the one aggressing, not the one making defensi-
ve
> preparations.
Naive comment indeed. That really do *not* matter.
> : Take your geography book and read: Cyprus is *not* in Europe.
> : Also Australia is not in Europe, not even though most of the Aust-
ralians
> : are as "European" people as Greeks.
> Quite a difference between Australia and Cyprus. Why not look at
your
> geography book and tell me how many (other) Mediterranean islands
are
> considered "non-European"? And please compare say Rhodes (which lies
closer to Asia Minor) with Cyprus. I won't even mention where most
> organizations/companies/governments place (geographically) Cyprus
under.
But Rhodes is part of Greece and a great major part of Greece is
in Europe. That is a difference between Cyprus.
Of course if you suggest, that Cyprus will later on join in
Greece the situation is same...:)
But you got my point: Cyprus is NOT in Europe.
JK
Laukaa
Finland
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Frantisek Hudec
>The Air Force of Slovakia exist because Slovakia was once part
>of Czechoslovakia, which was part of Warzav Union and the planes
>were against NATO. Now the Russian troops have left these countries
>and the planes will be soon NATO planes.
Well, let's hope so.
>That's why Slovakia is a "safe case" for EU unlike Cyprus, who is
>a huge risk.
As long as a gov. disregards const. court decisions as did the Slovak it
cannot be regarded as a "safe case"; so if you're looking for comparisons
think about Czechia or Poland.
f.h
George Frajkor
jkyppo writes:
> >That's why Slovakia is a "safe case" for EU unlike Cyprus, who is
> >a huge risk.
> As long as a gov. disregards const. court decisions as did the Slovak it
> cannot be regarded as a "safe case"; so if you're looking for comparisons
> think about Czechia or Poland.
> f.h
Frantisek, your naivete about politics is amazing. If you
think a small thing like Meciar's disregard of the constitution means
anything to NATO, I am afraid you need some basic lessons in poli sci
and international relations.
Both Turkey and Greece are members of NATO. Greece was once a
practically military dictatorship. Turkey to this day hovers on
dictatorship and its violations of human rights and its
anti-constitutionality are well known. Especialy its treatment of
minorities such as the Kurds. None of this made a darn difference to
NATO. What was important was defensive positions against the former
Soviet Union and possible missile bases.
The United States supported (and still supports) some of the most
dictatorial regimes in the world in Asia and in Latin America. Britain
and France supported brutal regimes in Africa. When it is in their
economic or security interests, they will make deals with
anybody. That is real life politics. When they cannot defeat the
dictators, as they could not in Indonesia, South Korea, Chile, Kenya,
Pakistan, etc., they join them.
The most famous statement about America's pragmatic approach was
by the late president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when someone
protested to him that a certain Latin American dictator supported by
America was "a real son-of-a-bitch".
The reply: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he is OUR son of a
bitch."
I like to quote this one all the time.
Jan George Frajkor _!_
School of Journalism, Carleton Univ. --!--
1125 Colonel By Drive |
Ottawa, Ontario /^\
Canada K1S 5B6 /^\ /^\
gfra...@ccs.carleton.ca / aa...@freenet.carleton.ca
o: 613 520-7404 fax: 613 520-6690 h: 613 563-4534
Frantisek Hudec
constitution and other misunderstandings. A little intro first.
Jorma Kyppo and I wrote about *EU*, and "safe case" etc; but G.F. continued
with *NATO* - two quite different organisations. I actually wrote -
logically - about why Slovakia is/was not a "safe case" for EU, but then
G.F made a BIG jump, and by mistake attributed my words to NATO. (So please
get better glasses or a bigger screeen.)
Howsoever I don't agree with his assessement of the NATO-matter. Since I
don't know his point about the EU-matter - in fact the subject, I'll make
some statements about the NATO-stuff only.
>Frantisek Hudec wrote:
>> >That's why Slovakia is a "safe case" for EU unlike Cyprus, who is
>> >a huge risk. [j.kyppo]
>
>> As long as a gov. disregards const. court decisions as did the Slovak it
>> cannot be regarded as a "safe case"; so if you're looking for comparisons
>> think about Czechia or Poland.
>
> Frantisek, your naivete about politics is amazing. If you
>think a small thing like Meciar's disregard of the constitution means
>anything to NATO, I am afraid you need some basic lessons in poli sci
>and international relations.
Don't be afraid about me, but about yourself; because obviously you're in
desperat need of a lesson in poli sci and int'l relations. Okay the first
one will be for free.
In advance try to get the paramenters correct. Meciar openly disregarded
the decisions of the const. court; anybody doing that would get under grave
pressure in Europe. And now here's the lesson.
a) we're living in the 1990s, (not 1898, nor 1948, nor Cold War times);
b) we live in Europe;
c) a US congress had to be convinced, and for now they don't like to hear
about having to accept some little unconstitutional cowboy-dictator;
d) Slovakias strategic dimension for NATO is not so important (btw BIG
miscalculation by HZDS), we live in missile-age;
e) for now no urgent conflict underway in the region;
f) prediction must be expected from a prime minister; if he disregards
const. court decisions the others can't be sure what else he will disregard
...
...
That's enough for the first lesson; so take the first 5 "cards" (a-e) and
put the f) in the middle of them. And learn. If you need more "cards" you
may ask for them next time.
Militarily Slovakia was quite prepared, but on the political level the very
wrong signals were sent. As the country presented itself (i.e. the way the
Meciar-gov. acted) it became more and more unacceptable. But as Solana
said, the key (still) is in Slovakia.
And now a short look what mistakes were made so far.
> Both Turkey and Greece are members of NATO. Greece was once a
>practically military dictatorship. Turkey to this day hovers on
>dictatorship and its violations of human rights and its
>anti-constitutionality are well known. Especialy its treatment of
>minorities such as the Kurds. None of this made a darn difference to
>NATO. What was important was defensive positions against the former
>Soviet Union and possible missile bases.
Do you see what you wrote? "position agains ... SU", bit of a difference to SR.
(And guess why Turky didn't get the invitation to EU, and was
recently put on the Euro Council watch-list? Yes, because of all the above
reasons.)
> The United States supported (and still supports) some of the most
>dictatorial regimes in the world in Asia and in Latin America. Britain
>and France supported brutal regimes in Africa.
Can you spot the difference? (hint: look at the names of the continents,
none of them starts with E.)
>When it is in their
>economic or security interests, they will make deals with
>anybody. That is real life politics. When they cannot defeat the
>dictators, as they could not in Indonesia, South Korea, Chile, Kenya,
>Pakistan, etc., they join them.
Look closer, none of the above countries are in the NATO ...
(btw- not relevant to the subject, nonetheless - in South Korea
former dictator(s) have got their sentence allready, and also Chile is on
the road back to democracy; and look at Suharto)
> The most famous statement about America's pragmatic approach was
>by the late president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when someone
>protested to him that a certain Latin American dictator supported by
>America was "a real son-of-a-bitch".
> The reply: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he is OUR son of a
>bitch."
> I like to quote this one all the time.
I guess you do, but to make it understandable to your standards: Meciar is
not US's son of a bitch, they can for now well live without him and have
him to f*ck up his own buisness.
f.h
-----
a ? btw - somehow Canada allways has an image of "innocence" in these kind
of discussions. Are they really such nice guys without any international
black marks at all? Considering the size of the country it's hard to
believe it would be so.
George Frajkor
> George "the techer" Frajkor on "small things" like the disregard of the
> constitution and other misunderstandings. A little intro first.
Please let the list know when I advocated any disregard of the
constitution. A simple straight quotation will do.
> > Frantisek, your naivete about politics is amazing. If you
> >think a small thing like Meciar's disregard of the constitution means
> >anything to NATO, I am afraid you need some basic lessons in poli sci
> >and international relations.
Substitute EU for NATO and the sense is the same. Business is
business. Neither the US nor Canada had any problems admitting
Russia to the world's economic organizations while Yeltsin was
democratically storming Parliament with tanks. Nor extending
'most-favored-nation' tariff status to China while China was
slaughtering and jailing dissidents (in a democratic way, of course --
like they used to do in Czechoslovakia after it was restored in 1945).
> In advance try to get the paramenters correct. Meciar openly disregarded
> the decisions of the const. court; anybody doing that would get under grave
> pressure in Europe. And now here's the lesson.
Strike oil in the Tatra mountains and see if the EU still cares
who is in power or what they are doing. How's the EU doing in
Hungary, by the way, which openly defies an INTERNATIONAL Court? Have
they said anything about it? If so, please post it.
As I said, get some lessons in poli sci and international
relations.
> a) we're living in the 1990s, (not 1898, nor 1948, nor Cold War times);
Realism and pragmatism have been the foundation of
international relations since the dawn of civilization.
> b) we live in Europe;
Europe, as in Clausewitz, Talleyrand, Metternich, Machiavelli,
Churchill, Lenin, Adenauer, etc.?
> c) a US congress had to be convinced, and for now they don't like to
> hear about having to accept some little unconstitutional
> cowboy-dictator;
That's why they reject Jelcin and Ziang Zemin so fiercely, I
guess. And why they give free nuclear reactors to North Korea.
> d) Slovakias strategic dimension for NATO is not so important (btw
> BIG miscalculation by HZDS), we live in missile-age;
If that were true, all of Europe is not important for NATO. There
are enough long-range missiles based in the US to wipe out any part of
the world the US chooses to wipe out.
> e) for now no urgent conflict underway in the region;
Bosnia. Kosova.
> f) prediction must be expected from a prime minister; if he disregards
> const. court decisions the others can't be sure what else he will disregard
Right. You can never again trust the Hungarians. If they
repudiate an international agreement they have signed with Slovakia;
and openly disregard a judgment of a court much higher than the
Constitutional court of Slovakia, it is no wonder the EU does not
trust them to live up to any obligations and is, no doubt, not even
considering Hungary for the first round. The EU is a principled
organization.
(It is also, apparently again standing on principle seriously
considering Cyprus as a member -- are you familiar with Cyprus' record
on the rights of its Turkish minorities?)
> That's enough for the first lesson; so take the first 5 "cards" (a-e) and
> put the f) in the middle of them. And learn. If you need more "cards" you
> may ask for them next time.
As far as I can see, you have played a losing hand.
> > Both Turkey and Greece are members of NATO. Greece was once a
> >practically military dictatorship. Turkey to this day hovers on
> >dictatorship and its violations of human rights and its
... text deleted...
> Do you see what you wrote? "position agains ... SU", bit of a
> difference to SR.
The principle is the same. I am saying that it is illusory to
take the official reasons for the real reasons. When it is to the
advantage of a country or organization to do something, it will.
It will then find a good clean reason (democracy, liberty, freedom,
etc) to justify what it is doing.
> Can you spot the difference? (hint: look at the names of the
> continents, none of them starts with E.)
If you think that makes a difference, you must really be naive or
have an inflated opinion of the worth of Europe. Europe is worth quite
a bit less to America than Saudi Arabia is. And a LOT less than Japan.
> (btw- not relevant to the subject, nonetheless - in South
> Korea former dictator(s) have got their sentence allready, and also
> Chile is on the road back to democracy; and look at Suharto)
Excellent example in Suharto. America supported him despite his
record of thuggery and incompetence because it was in America's
interests to do so. They did not turn their back on him. In fact,
they engineered massive loans from American taxpayers to prop up his
failing regime. Thanks for bringing it up. If Meciar had been a
little smarter, like Suharto was, he would have borrowed billions of
dollars from the US.. so much that a default would bankrupt US banks.
At that point America would have backed him to the hilt, no matter
what he did.
> I guess you do, but to make it understandable to your standards:
> Meciar is not US's son of a bitch, they can for now well live
> without him and have him to f*ck up his own buisness.
Precisely.
> a ? btw - somehow Canada allways has an image of "innocence" in
> these kind of discussions. Are they really such nice guys without
> any international black marks at all? Considering the size of the
> country it's hard to believe it would be so.
Yes, we are always nice guys. The nicest in the world. Be good to
us.
Frantisek Hudec
>Frantisek Hudec wrote:
>> > Frantisek, your naivete about politics is amazing. If you
>> >think a small thing like Meciar's disregard of the constitution means
>> >anything to NATO, I am afraid you need some basic lessons in poli sci
>> >and international relations. [G.F.]
>
> Substitute EU for NATO and the sense is the same.
(Info for first time readers. In a discussion about EU, G.F. spoke about
NATO instead. Now he can't admit he missed that entirely)
>Business is business
Really? Very thoughtful ;-)
>Neither the US nor Canada had any problems admitting
>Russia to the world's economic organizations while Yeltsin was
>democratically storming Parliament with tanks. Nor extending
>'most-favored-nation' tariff status to China while China was
>slaughtering and jailing dissidents (in a democratic way, of course --
>like they used to do in Czechoslovakia after it was restored in 1945).
(If you - once more - consider "slaughtering and jailing dissidents" as
"democratic" that's your idiotic way to define democracy, certainly not
mine. As I have written several times.)
>> In advance try to get the paramenters correct. Meciar openly disregarded
>> the decisions of the const. court; anybody doing that would get under grave
>> pressure in Europe. And now here's the lesson.
>
> Strike oil in the Tatra mountains and see if the EU still cares
>who is in power or what they are doing. How's the EU doing in
>Hungary, by the way, which openly defies an INTERNATIONAL Court? Have
>they said anything about it? If so, please post it.
Maybe, but I leave the searching to you. You're obviously soo interested in
Hungarian affairs. Just FYI, there's a big difference between the national
const. and the int'l. court - get some reader in pol science, you'll find
out. - BUT are we talking EU or NATO? Make up your mind.
> As I said, get some lessons in poli sci and international
>relations.
To somebody who makes an entire mess with EU, NATO, WTO, US
'most-favored-nation' tariff status to China putting it all into to some
"Business is business" I would suggest to get some basic reader in that
field and look up the differences of all of this before asking others to
"get some lessons".
So at the end of his posting you - once the matter has been 'adapted' a
rather low 'level' - seem to have agreed
>> I guess you do, but to make it understandable to your standards:
>> Meciar is not US's son of a bitch, they can for now well live
>> without him and have him to f*ck up his own buisness. [f.h]
>
> Precisely.
So if you so well understand once the statements gets down to such 'level',
what then is you problem with the other arguments?
In expressis: US-member didn't invite the Meciar-gov. to (first wave) NATO
expansion because of a) in the 1990s, in b) Europe, c) the US congress
would be reluctant to accept Meciar-gov. behavior, because
considering/calculating d) the present strategic value of Slovakia was less
important - less - than having to accept a non-trustworthy partner.
Especially when e) there is for the moment there was no conflict which
necesarily requires NATO-troops in or from Slovakia.
-
And now a look on how George Frajkor handled the a)-f) so far; last but not
least because he himself is soo eager to tell others to get some lessons in
that field.
>> a) we're living in the 1990s, (not 1898, nor 1948, nor Cold War times);
>
> Realism and pragmatism have been the foundation of
>international relations since the dawn of civilization.
Get a reader, you'll see that different time and space require different
approaches.
>> b) we live in Europe;
>
> Europe, as in Clausewitz, Talleyrand, Metternich, Machiavelli,
>Churchill, Lenin, Adenauer, etc.?
Yes, good boy you know some names and now? Hint: the "space" Europe has
other strategic implications than other "spaces"; and in 1990s other
"standards" as well than back in older times.
>> c) a US congress had to be convinced, and for now they don't like to
>> hear about having to accept some little unconstitutional
>> cowboy-dictator;
>
> That's why they reject Jelcin and Ziang Zemin so fiercely, I
>guess. And why they give free nuclear reactors to North Korea.
No, they are aware of the difference of little and big, and about danger of
possible nucs.
>> d) Slovakias strategic dimension for NATO is not so important (btw
>> BIG miscalculation by HZDS), we live in missile-age;
>
> If that were true, all of Europe is not important for NATO. There
>are enough long-range missiles based in the US to wipe out any part of
>the world the US chooses to wipe out.
Respell for you: "so" = important, but not so important that Slovakia had
to be accepted at any price. (and informat. for free: mid-range missiles,
and quite 'hilly' topogr. of Slovakia.)
>> e) for now no urgent conflict underway in the region;
>
> Bosnia. Kosova.
EU-ropa and US can perfectly (mis-)behave there without having a need to
have NATO-forces in or from Slovakia.
>> f) prediction must be expected from a prime minister; if he disregards
>> const. court decisions the others can't be sure what else he will disregard
>
> Right. You can never again trust the Hungarians. If they
>repudiate an international agreement they have signed with Slovakia;
>and openly disregard a judgment of a court much higher than the
>Constitutional court of Slovakia, it is no wonder the EU does not
>trust them to live up to any obligations and is, no doubt, not even
>considering Hungary for the first round. The EU is a principled
>organization.
Try to concentrate a bit - EU or NATO.
> (It is also, apparently again standing on principle seriously
>considering Cyprus as a member -- are you familiar with Cyprus' record
>on the rights of its Turkish minorities?)
(EU or NATO ... and as written: Turkey was left out because lack of
democratic standards.)
>> That's enough for the first lesson; so take the first 5 "cards" (a-e) and
>> put the f) in the middle of them. And learn. If you need more "cards" you
>> may ask for them next time.
>
> As far as I can see, you have played a losing hand.
As far as I can see you didn't really look at the cards yet.
>> > Both Turkey and Greece are members of NATO. Greece was once a
>> >practically military dictatorship. Turkey to this day hovers on
>> >dictatorship and its violations of human rights and its
>... text deleted...
>
>> Do you see what you wrote? "position agains ... SU", bit of a
>> difference to SR.
>
> The principle is the same. I am saying that it is illusory to
>take the official reasons for the real reasons. When it is to the
>advantage of a country or organization to do something, it will.
>It will then find a good clean reason (democracy, liberty, freedom,
>etc) to justify what it is doing.
Bravo, some understanding underway. But maybe you didn't know - one of the
reasons why NATO (and even more EU) exists is because of democracy,
liberty, freedom, etc.
>> Can you spot the difference? (hint: look at the names of the
>> continents, none of them starts with E.)
>
> If you think that makes a difference, you must really be naive or
>have an inflated opinion of the worth of Europe. Europe is worth quite
>a bit less to America than Saudi Arabia is. And a LOT less than Japan.
Sure, that's way Americans came in I WW, IIWW and still has troops here and
is in NATO.;-)
But dear George Frajkor originally I just pointed out that difference of
the continents exist, i.e. different "strategic value" of different
"spaces". You just proved that with your own - little bit strange - words.
>> (btw- not relevant to the subject, nonetheless - in South
>> Korea former dictator(s) have got their sentence allready, and also
>> Chile is on the road back to democracy; and look at Suharto)
>
> Excellent example in Suharto. America supported him despite his
>record of thuggery and incompetence because it was in America's
>interests to do so. They did not turn their back on him. In fact,
>they engineered massive loans from American taxpayers to prop up his
>failing regime. Thanks for bringing it up. If Meciar had been a
>little smarter, like Suharto was, he would have borrowed billions of
>dollars from the US.. so much that a default would bankrupt US banks.
Sure, he would have gotten the money, billions, just because of his
"smartness". ,-)))
f.h
-----
P.S.
>> George "the techer" Frajkor on "small things" like the disregard of the
>> constitution and other misunderstandings. A little intro first.
>
> Please let the list know when I advocated any disregard of the
>constitution. A simple straight quotation will do.
In the posting I replied to what you wrote: " ... _small thing_ like
Meciar's disregard of the constitution means anything to NATO ...". (And I
didn't write you "advocate" anything, please read what I actually wrote.)
P.P.S.
>> a ? btw - somehow Canada allways has an image of "innocence" in
>> these kind of discussions. Are they really such nice guys without
>> any international black marks at all? Considering the size of the
>> country it's hard to believe it would be so.
>
> Yes, we are always nice guys. The nicest in the world. Be good to
>us.
Do I hear a _please_, be good (otherwise we're in trouble)? ...