Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Aralyn]

We aren't invading them to get it! That was my point overall!

[Elf Girl]

And my point is that your defense is faulty. You want to say that we don't NEED to get our oil from Iraq, not that we don't. *pops out once and for all*

[Elfhelm]

What we need to do is convert away from an oil based economy. That will hit them where it really hurts.

Iraq was allowed to export oil during the sanctions. It's that Bechtel wasn't allowed to build a new pipeline. Now they have a big juicy contract for reconstruction, and you know that means they get to buikld that pipeline after all. And how does Bechtel tie in to the fortunes of the Bush family? Stay tuned, all will be revealed in due time.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
This is what our democracy is about:

"in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

So don't tell me it's not about living together in peace with people despite our disagreements. Jefferson knew about Degonaweda and modeled the US on the Seneca. You can spout an opinion or you can go read Jefferson's Letters as I have.

And the Constitution ends at our borders. Since when does Iraq or any other country get included in the RIGHTS of our government? The Constitution is not stating "to form a more perfect world" it is talking about forming a more perfect government for the UNITED STATES.

Also - as Leif said - you can't negotiate with every evil regime. I will add that the terrorist problem is originating FROM the Middle East. The only way for the US to solve the terrorist problem is to fix the problems of that region. The US had to make a strong stand against Iraq. You may not recall the tapes of Osama bin Ladin - he was saying we were weak. Well this sort of proved that we weren't. The Middle East had better do somerhing about their sponsorship of terror in the world - or else Iraq isn't going to be the only one facing problems from America. We're not going to invade everyone of course - but the Middle East is now on notice - clean up your act and give freedom to your people. That is the only way to combat Middle Eastern terrorism.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I realise Saddam was paying money to the families of suicide attackers. I realise that he had torture prisons, that he practised genocide on the Kurds, etc. But what about Turkey? They practise genocide on the Kurds but they are in NATO so that's OK? What about Israel? They broke peace accords to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and built settlements there. What about England? They were genocidal towards Ireland. Why didn't we invade Chile or China?

I guess you choose to forget that the US lead the charge into Bosnia to put an end the the genocide that Meloshivic was carrying out. Also - you might want to learn some things about Israeli/Palestinian history. Israel was attacked by multiple Arab countries because they wanted Israeli's land. Israel then after almost losing - gained back their land and extended beyond what was initially given to them by the UN. Now the Palestinians are crying about "occupied terroritories" The thing is - if the Arab countries didn't start the war in the first place - Israel would never have taken over that land. The Arab countries were the aggressors.

OK, so it all comes down to if they sponsor terrorism - but not just any terrorism, only the terror directed at us? So let the Russians deal with the Chechnyans? Let England deal with Ireland? Let Japan deal with Korea?

Why not? The US government is required to protect OUR interests first. I don't elect my representatives to worry about England or France or Japan or Australia before worrying about me.

Or maybe we should - I know - form a UN to deal with it all together?! Hey what a good idea! Too bad some people insist on breaking ranks.

Breaking ranks how? You mean like France? Or do you actually support that the UN voted Iraq to Chair the Disarmament Committee or Libya to Chair the Human Rights Committee?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I agree.

But I would also add that we shouldn't be trying to go it alone. We have to work with other countries on this, otherwise they'll just move from the country we attack to the one we don't. And that means having to put up with slow movement in the UN.

I didn't elect the UN to protect our national interestes. I elected our representatives in Washington. The UN doesn't have the US interests in mind when they do things. So why should we put our faith in the UN?

Why didn't Bush, Sr. finish the job vs. Saddam the first time when we were clearly right for defending an ally? Sanctions only hurt the poor people.

Becuase taht wasn't agreement with the coalition that was put together before. The UN mandate was only to remove Iraq from Kuwait and reestablishe the Kuwaiti government. The US and it's allies succeeded with that. Bush wanted to continue on - but the world was against it - particularly the Arab countries. Was it the right decision? No it wasn't. But if you're blaming Bush senior for that - then you're blaming the wrong person - you should be blaming your beloved UN.

Again, the reason these people are terrorists is because they don't believe they have any other recourse. Maybe if we supported the UN and let more people in they wouldn't feel that way.

What are you talking about? All those countries in the Middle East ARE members of the UN. :rollleyes: The reason why their are terrorist is because theuy're countries have no freedom. They have huge poverty levels. They have fundamentalist clerics who brainwash them to believe all their problems are becuase of the west and Israel.

The Israel issue is obvious, isn't it? It goes back to the 10th century, and even earlier. We don't want the sacred places in the hands of infidels.

I don't really think you know what your talking about when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian situation - ro even the situation in the Middle East.

The way I see it is this. There are half a dozen creepo nations out there we could have attacked. Why only go for the one with oil? And why call on God? I am just too suspicious to let that sit. Oil because we drive cars and God because it doesn't have to be proven.

No - it has to do with the fact that terrorist who attack the US are from the ENTIRE region of the Middle East. Oh yeah - there were no Iraqis who flew the planes on 9/11 - that's because Bin Ladin wanted to make sure he chose the people from a country who we are "allies" with. Although I don't really trust Saudi Arabia.

We don't really need the Iraqi oil - the same old line was used when we liberated Kuwait too. it's time to put it to rest. if the US wanted the Middle Eastern oil - we could disemated the entire region and just take all of it and eliminate OPEC.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Well, there's also the testing of our advance weaponry in a real world situation. That's why Poland decided to buy jets from us instead of France. And it doesn't have to balance for America, it only has to profit the family of the current president for me to get suspicious.

Oh - you mean that Poland would actually rather buy ADVANCED weaponry from the strongest country in history of the world than from a country who has hardly ever won a war? That is amazing and highly suspect.

But for the record, we certainly CAN recoup 80 billion. It would take more than that to switch to fuel cells, so now we can postpone that. But it will have to happen someday.

How can we recoup the 80 billion dollars? And do you know anything about fuel cells? Where do you think they get their power from? The only commercially viable technology right now on the road is hyrbrid cars - and many people in New Jersey drive them.

Of course, when the baby boomers realise that we've thrown our social security rescue out the window so the Bush family can stay rich, our budgetary priorities will change.

And your proof of this is where? Also - I question if you know how social security actually works.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Aralyn
I would just like to point out that the majority of our oil comes from Venezuela and we don't need Iraq's oil. We (usa) don't even buy our oil directly from countries. We buy from an international oil company that collects oil from all around. This seams to be a big misconception.

Wow - someone who finally understands how the US gets it's oil and from where. I'm tired of all these people who use the "It's the oil" slogan because it's simpler than actually digging into the truth. If people actually looked at the fact - they'd find out that the US gets less than 25% of it's oil from the Middle East. The majority of it is domestic, Venezuela and Canadian.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
And on that note, I am leaving this thread. It is, as I said, more malicious than Entmoot as I know it, and I definately do not want to pull a jerseydevil and become so wrapped up in this debate that I bring it up elsewhere on Entmoot, and even won't discuss anything Tolkien with those that disagree on Iraq.

oh - wow I feel honored - I have a whole MOOD named after me.

Oh and if the last two statements were slights towards me - then you really don't know what your talking about there either.

I may pop in occasionally, but I'll try not to.

You're choice. I don't believe anyone forced you to post anyway.

My goodwill to all, Iraqis and warmongers alike!

Thank you and a goodwill to all the peaceniks, do nothings and appeasers of terror.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't really think you know what your talking about when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian situation - ro even the situation in the Middle East.

My fault- I brought that subject up multiple times.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Israel was attacked but multiple Arab countries because they wanted Israeli's land. Israel then after almost losing - gained back their land and extended beyond what was initially given to them by the UN. Now the Palestinians are crying about "occupied terroritories" The thing is - if the Arab countries didn't start the war in the first place - Israel would never have taken over that land. The Arab countries were the aggressors.

That doesn't mean that the Palestinians were the aggressors, though. They had very little part in the war; they were the victims caught in the crossfire. And they were taken advantage of by Israel and the Arab nations. The Arab nations tried to get them to rise up against Israel and only succeeded in scaring large numbers of them out of their lands. The Israelies forced out many others, and some fled of their own free will. The land the Israelies occupied wasn't land that belonged to the Arab nations, taken in conquest. It was land taken from the Palestinians, taken during conquest. There is a distinction that must be made between the Arab nations and the Palestinians, and if that distinction is made, you'll see that they have been unjustly treated.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
What we need to do is convert away from an oil based economy. That will hit them where it really hurts.

Oh yeah. One of the main causes of terrorism is actually the level of povery in those countries. Or in all actuality the lopsided distribution of wealth. The leaders of Al Qaeda are wealthy - but the 'soldiers" are mostly poor with no future. Except for israel the Middle East has about 50% unemployment rate.

Oh also - in order to do away with a "oil based" economy. You better stop using your computer, buying garbage bags, I hope you have no carpet in your house or get any magazines.

Iraq was allowed to export oil during the sanctions. It's that Bechtel wasn't allowed to build a new pipeline. Now they have a big juicy contract for reconstruction, and you know that means they get to buikld that pipeline after all. And how does Bechtel tie in to the fortunes of the Bush family? Stay tuned, all will be revealed in due time.

Iraq was only supposed to be exporting oil in excahnge for money for food - which Hussein was syphoning off and putting it into outside accounts and not using it for the Iraqi like it was meant to be. Also -Bechtel isn't building a pipeline. The Iraqi oil wells are in deplorable shape - they have to be refurbished and fixed in order for iraq to produce the amount of oil they were 30 years ago. There are already pipelines extending to Turkey and Syria (not sure about Kuwait) from Iraq. Bechtel's responsibility is to get the wells into working order, which is the only thing that will build up Iraq's economy right now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That doesn't mean that the Palestinians were the aggressors, though. They had very little part in the war; they were the victims caught in the crossfire. And they were taken advantage of by Israel and the Arab nations. The Arab nations tried to get them to rise up against Israel and only succeeded in scaring large numbers of them out of their lands. The Israelies forced out many others, and some fled of their own free will. The land the Israelies occupied wasn't land that belonged to the Arab nations, taken in conquest. It was land taken from the Palestinians, taken during conquest. There is a distinction that must be made between the Arab nations and the Palestinians, and if that distinction is made, you'll see that they have been unjustly treated.

The Arab nations rose up in support of the Palestinians. Do you think that if the Arab nations had destroyed israel as was the plan that the Palestinians would be giving the "conquered" lands back to Israel? I don't think so. There are Palestinians who want peace and hopefully with the new palestinian "government" peace will be Possible. Before peace was pretty much impossible. All Israel has really wanted to do was live on the lands it had been given by the UN (until they were attacked by MANY nations and forced to defend themselves). There are many many Arabs and Palestinians though who would not be happy as long as Israel still exists. It is questionable if these people will ever accept Israel and stop the homicide bombings. (If Al jazeera can call these fanatics "martyrs" - then I can call them what they actually are - which are killers)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Arab nations rose up in support of the Palestinians. Do you think that if the Arab nations had destroyed israel as was the plan that the Palestinians would be giving the "conquered" lands back to Israel? I don't think so.

The Arab nations wanted those territories to remain all Muslim. They tried to exterminate the Israelies completely, but there was peaceful life between the Palestinians and Israelies before the wars. The Palestinians weren't the instigators or the combatants in that struggle, and they hadn't asked for the Israelies to be wiped out either.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
All Israel has really wanted to do was live on the lands it had been given by the UN (until they were attacked by MANY nations and forced to defend themselves). There are many many Arabs and Palestinians though who would not be happy as long as Israel still exists.

That's turning a blind eye to the forced expulsions of Palestinians from their homes that took place. Frequently that was done, and Jewish terrorists also tried to scare the Palestinians out. The UN stated that the Palestinians should be allowed back to their homes, but Israel has ignored those requirements. A lot of land was bought from the Palestinians, a lot of land they were scared out of, but the Israelies have been occupying Palestinian territories by force. They've been sending Jewish settlers in and expelling Palestinians. Israel's government really has no place for the Palestinians in its plans. The original reason for this tactic of removing the Palestinians was that Israel had a democracy, and the Palestinians were the majority in the land. They brought in huge amounts of Jews from Europe and other places to Israel, but they had to kick a lot of Palestinians out. Or give them money to go. But one way or another, they couldn't remain in an Israelite nation with it remaining an Israelite nation.

The Jewish expulsions of the Palestinians and occupying and settling of Palestinian lands has been well documented, and it's not made up.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There are many many Arabs and Palestinians though who would not be happy as long as Israel still exists. It is questionable if these people will ever accept Israel and stop the homicide bombings. (If Al jazeera can call these fanatics "martyrs" - then I can call them what they actually are - which are killers)

I'm afraid that here you're ignoring a good point Elfhelm made. The terrorists are often terrorists because they have a reason to be. These people are in a state of abject poverty and despair. The Israeli army is occupying their lands and even their refugee camps. And these people weren't at war with Israel during these wars.

Is it any wonder Israel has made itself a source of hatred and anger throughout the Islamic world? And the Muslim religion, you might be interested to know, emphasizes justice and protection of your Muslim brothers. That's one reason why all those Syrians and Iranians were coming into Iraq to help fight the coalition forces.

So is it any wonder that they are distrustful and angry also at Israel's allies? Just about all of Israel's military equipment was U.S. made and its personell U.S. trained.

I can continue on present day evidence for the existence of Israel's continued policy of aggression if you wish. Have you really studied this issue very much? I don't mean to be rude, jerseydevil, and I know you're usually very strongly backed up by historical evidence in what you say. But it seems like you're not fully aware of a large aspect of the conflict and a strong reason for the current situation with Israel.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The Arab nations wanted those territories to remain all Muslim. They tried to exterminate the Israelies completely, but there was peaceful life between the Palestinians and Israelies before the wars. The Palestinians weren't the instigators or the combatants in that struggle, and they hadn't asked for the Israelies to be wiped out either.

So you honestly think that the Palestinians had no role in the wars against Israel?

That's turning a blind eye to the forced expulsions of Palestinians from their homes that took place. Frequently that was done, and Jewish terrorists also tried to scare the Palestinians out. The UN stated that the Palestinians should be allowed back to their homes, but Israel has ignored those requirements. A lot of land was bought from the Palestinians, a lot of land they were scared out of, but the Israelies have been occupying Palestinian territories by force. They've been sending Jewish settlers in and expelling Palestinians. Israel's government really has no place for the Palestinians in its plans. The original reason for this tactic of removing the Palestinians was that Israel had a democracy, and the Palestinians were the majority in the land. They brought in huge amounts of Jews from Europe and other places to Israel, but they had to kick a lot of Palestinians out. Or give them money to go. But one way or another, they couldn't remain in an Israelite nation with it remaining an Israelite nation.

The Israeli are occupying most lands that were captured during the wars. Currently Iarael has only been going into gaza and other Palestinians reas AFTER a terrorist attack. I do think that the settlements should be eliminated and I do think that Israel is at fault in some areas - but I do NOT feel they are the most to blame. The UN and England created israel out of some of the lands england had conquered from the Ottoman Empire. The land did not belong to the Palestinians - there has never been a "Palestine".

I would recommend these books...
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land

The Jewish expulsions of the Palestinians and occupying and settling of Palestinian lands has been well documented, and it's not made up.

I'm afraid that here you're ignoring a good point Elfhelm made. The terrorists are often terrorists because they have a reason to be. These people are in a state of abject poverty and despair.

Life for the Palestinians was a much better 3 years ago before they set their latest hmocide bombings against israel. Most Palestinians traveled into Isreal for work. These people are out of jobs now because Israel views a open border with the Palestinians as a security risk.

I also did say in one of my posts that the reason why terrorism flourishes in the Middle East is from the poverty (or actually the uneven distribution of wealth). Also - I don't see how that allows it be accwetable for people to blow up buses, restaurants, malls, etc.

The Israeli army is occupying their lands and even their refugee camps. And these people weren't at war with Israel during these wars.

Israel only goes into the refuge camps after terrorist attacks.

Is it any wonder Israel has made itself a source of hatred and anger throughout the Islamic world?

I think you look at it as more being all of Israels fault and refuse to look at the israeli side. Israel was living in peace before the Arab counties decided to attack it. So how did Israel initiate the hate there? By being formed? England had conquered pretty much all the Middle East. Israel was origninally occupied by the Jews - as you can read plainly in the Bible.

[jerseydevil]

And the Muslim religion, you might be interested to know, emphasizes justice and protection of your Muslim brothers. That's one reason why all those Syrians and Iranians were coming into Iraq to help fight the coalition forces.

I know they do. But they were also lied to by their media. They didn't realise that the Iraqi people would be celebrating our entry into Baghdad. Arab media was only broadcasting the human casualties over and over again. The citizens of the Middle East were shocked by the fall off Hussein and the resulting jubilation by the Iraqi people. I'm sure right now the Arab media is concentrating on the anti-American demonstrations going on in Iraq and ignoring the pro-American demonstrations.

So is it any wonder that they are distrustful and angry also at Israel's allies? Just about all of Israel's military equipment was U.S. made and its personell U.S. trained.

You honestly think that if the US didn't support Israel thart Israel would last a day in the region? They tried to destroy it once. Israel is the ONLY true democracy in the region - it also has the highest per capita income and it has the lowest unemployment rate. It has more to do with jealousy on the part of Arabs and the need for a scapegoat than anything else.

I can continue on present day evidence for the existence of Israel's continued policy of aggression if you wish. Have you really studied this issue very much? I don't mean to be rude, jerseydevil, and I know you're usually very strongly backed up by historical evidence in what you say. But it seems like you're not fully aware of a large aspect of the conflict and a strong reason for the current situation with Israel.

No. I do - but it's a very complicated situation. You seem to view it as Israel being the agressors andf the palestinians as the victims. I view it differently. I view it as both being at fault in some respects - but the Arab world and the Palestinians as the main agressors.

It's amazing how Palestinians before the recent conflict over the past three years were able to freely work in Israel. Even today - many Palestinians LIVE in Israel - side by side with Jews and other ethinic groups.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll hopefully respond tomorrow; it's getting to be too late for me now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'll hopefully respond tomorrow; it's getting to be too late for me now.

hey - it's later here. It's 4:00am but I got home late because I went to Great Adventure and then Seaside Heights.

[Elfhelm]

No respect for bullies.

You didn't elect the UN? I didn't elect Bush. This united we stand nonsense only flies when your guy is in office. When my guy is in office your people are spending all their time muckraking. So don't think I will ever stand united with you. The implication that people who want peace are unpatriotic is likewise a bully tactic. I won't stand with a bully. You should stand united with ME when I say we should take the moral high ground!

[Elfhelm]

One time and one time only will I waste my breath bandying words with this flag waver.

"the Constitution ends at our borders."

I was replying to someone else telling me that democracy is not about providing a forum for negotiating through problems. Your response is out of context.

"you can't negotiate with every evil regime."

Evil is an easy word to use.

"The only way for the US to solve the terrorist problem is to fix the problems of that region."

I will repeat that the problem is that people are choosing to fight rather than negotiate. Fighting them back, especially when they are so good at hiding, will not solve the problem. The problem is in their heads. They must learn to negotiate. You can't force someone to be nice.

"The US had to make a strong stand against Iraq. You may not recall the tapes of Osama bin Ladin - he was saying we were weak. Well this sort of proved that we weren't."

Sticks and stones... Shall we attack anyone who calls us weak?

"The Middle East had better do somerhing about their sponsorship of terror in the world - or else Iraq isn't going to be the only one facing problems from America. We're not going to invade everyone of course - but the Middle East is now on notice - clean up your act and give freedom to your people."

They want freedom, but their definition is different from ours. They want to be free to have Shaira law, which permits stonings for having an opinion different from your cleric.

"you might want to learn some things"

This trope is getting boring. You say it to anyone who disagrees with you. It sounds like "learning" means agreeing with you. Obviously you believe so strongly that you are right that any of us who think differently must be unlearned. In my opinion, you should learn about the misuse of the written word to manipulate public opinion.

"if the Arab countries didn't start the war in the first place"

Laying blame will not stop the conflict. We moved them there after WWII as displaced people. Who cares? Only the future holds the hope of resolution. The past is just cause for more conflict.

"I don't elect my representatives to worry about England or France or Japan or Australia before worrying about me."

I never said "before" I said work together.

"Or do you actually support that the UN voted Iraq to Chair the Disarmament Committee or Libya to Chair the Human Rights Committee?"

Degonaweda invited the snake man to the council. You can't build a nation without the snake man.

"I elected our representatives in Washington. The UN doesn't have the US interests in mind when they do things. So why should we put our faith in the UN?"

US interests above the interests of the world? So you are showing your true colors, then?

"What are you talking about? All those countries in the Middle East ARE members of the UN."

We are not at war with all the countries of the Middle East, are we?

"The reason why their are terrorist is because their countries have no freedom. They have huge poverty levels. They have fundamentalist clerics who brainwash them to believe all their problems are becuase of the west and Israel."

So now the rights of those people does matter to you? To my mind, caring about people only when it affects yourself is called hypocrisy.

"I don't really think you know what your talking about"

The Muslims almost made it to Paris. They were turned back at Poitiers. Then the Pope offered remission of sins to the King of France if he would drive the infidel from the Holy Lands, etc, etc, etc... It's all about insane religious fanatics hating each other, and the West is just as guilty as the Middle East.

"it has to do with the fact that terrorist who attack the US are from the ENTIRE region of the Middle East."

So you are saying that we are at war with all Arabs?

"Oh - you mean that Poland would actually rather buy ADVANCED weaponry from the strongest country in history of the world than from a country who has hardly ever won a war? That is amazing and highly suspect."

Funny. I never said it was suspect. I said it was a fine marketing ploy.

"And do you know anything about fuel cells? Where do you think they get their power from?"

Yes, it would take all the money we wasted on bombs to make fuel cells viable.

"And your proof of this is where?"

I made a prediction about the lashback effect of Bush throwing our money away. I believe time will prove me right. There is no other proof or disproof of a prediction.

"I question if you know how social security actually works."

It is such a tiresome little tactic. I'm sure others see that you use and use and use the same nonsensical non-argument, too.

[Elfhelm]

Then I said:
What we need to do is convert away from an oil based economy.

"One of the main causes of terrorism is actually the level of povery in those countries. Or in all actuality the lopsided distribution of wealth. The leaders of Al Qaeda are wealthy - but the 'soldiers' are mostly poor with no future. Except for israel the Middle East has about 50% unemployment rate."

So you are saying we have to keep our oil-based economy and drive our gas guzzling monstrosities in order to help those poor people in the Middle East? Because that's what it looks like you're saying.

"in order to do away with a "oil based" economy. You better stop using your computer, buying garbage bags, I hope you have no carpet in your house or get any magazines."

Yes, we're all aware that plastics come from oil. What does that have to do with converting our energy source?

"Iraq was only supposed to be exporting oil in excahnge for money for food - which Hussein was syphoning off and putting it into outside accounts and not using it for the Iraqi like it was meant to be."

My point was that the sanctions only hurt the poor people. I don't see how you disagree.

"Also -Bechtel isn't building a pipeline. The Iraqi oil wells are in deplorable shape - they have to be refurbished and fixed in order for iraq to produce the amount of oil they were 30 years ago. There are already pipelines extending to Turkey and Syria (not sure about Kuwait) from Iraq. Bechtel's responsibility is to get the wells into working order, which is the only thing that will build up Iraq's economy right now."

But the point is, why Bechtel? The answer is out there, time will tell.

So we brought them freedom? I could have supported the ousting of Saddam if the President had told us who he was going to replace him with. My biggest fear has been that he's just created a power vaccuum for the religious extremists to fill, which is nothing short of counterproductive. Oh look, there's a million Shiites in Baghdad screaming "death to America" today. Well, that really worked out backasswards!!

p.s. With all your flag waving, I would like to know if you ever backed up that flag by volunteering for service.