Iraq: Violence 70% Down Since June

[hypewaders]

Thanks for getting to my questions at the end of your last post here.

countezero: "progress on [the political] front cannot be made unless there is a sustained lull in violence so the politicians and various ethnic groups can "buy in" to future of the country."

True. But the Surge was temporary by definition, and it's officially drawing to a close now. There was little reconciliation during the surge, and noticeable consolidation of separatism.

"What is happening now should have happened years ago when the major combat operations ended. But as we all know, it did not."

The architects of this war insisted a small force was all that was needed. Here we are, still trying to salvage what we let them wreak.

"It might take a further three or four years for the political process to catch up to the military progress."

3 or 4 years of Surge? Impossible.

"And how this all fits into anyone's appreciation of the US agenda is problematic. For starters, does anyone know what the US agenda is?"

The transformation of the Mideast through building democracies. The entire agenda was clearly spelled out before it all began, by key administration officials in the Project for the New American Century.

"The Congress is somewhat divided on the issue and the Bush administration will be gone in less than a year."

The expedition is going to be abandoned. The present period is all about putting off national embarrassment.

"It would be helpful if the politicians all came together and presented a united front on what they want to do, so the policy could effectively be shaped and massaged for the next 12 months, but that is unlikely to happen..."

It is wrong to do so, if a policy is flawed. Do you place more value in being united, than in having just cause?

 

[countezero]

True. But the Surge was temporary by definition, and it's officially drawing to a close now. There was little reconciliation during the surge, and noticeable consolidation of separatism.

The surge is temporary by definition, but if it has increased security and created an environment that fosters security, one cannot automatically assume that as soon as some troops begin to withdrawal that Helter Skelter will resume. Things on the ground in Iraq appear to be different now. For one thing, large segments of the population have finally rejected the road to nowhere that foreign terrorists were constructing with their random violence. Iraqi security forces are also more adept now than they were a year or two ago.

The architects of this war insisted a small force was all that was needed. Here we are, still trying to salvage what we let them wreak.

I agree (beyond the "what we let them wreak" remark; "we" didn't let them do anything, we don't plan wars). But there's nothing we can do about that past now. The plan for war was perfect, the plan for reconciliation and reconstruction was horrendous. Bob Woodward's State of Denial accurately captures this, as does Life in the Emerald City. I'm not arguing that point. Anyone who is rationale can't argue that point...

3 or 4 years of Surge? Impossible.

I didn't say that. I said three our four years of reduced violence. Future surges might not be necessary to achieve that, given what the present one has already achieved.

The transformation of the Mideast through building democracies. The entire agenda was clearly spelled out before it all began, by key administration officials in the Project for the New American Century.

I understand that point, but what I meant is that the American political class is at a crossroads, due to the pending election. That crossroads has hampered the ability to format a unified foreign policy that can be pursued in the region, because nobody knows who will be running things in 12 months. If America made a longterm committment and took the uncertainty off the table, then perhaps the Iraqis would quit playing wait-and-see.

The expedition is going to be abandoned. The present period is all about putting off national embarrassment.

That's your opinion, and it isn't one born out by most of the major presidential candidates — all of whom say they're staying in one fashion or another.

It is wrong to do so, if a policy is flawed. Do you place more value in being united, than in having just cause?

You're assuming such a policy is flawed. And I made no claims about a united policy being supreme. I merely pointed out it would be helpful.

 

[hypewaders]

countezero: "if [the Surge] has increased security and created an environment that fosters security, one cannot automatically assume that as soon as some troops begin to withdrawal that Helter Skelter will resume."

Iraq has not been reunified by the Surge. All the previous dangers remain, and some have increased. Through the Surge, ethnic ghettos have been further coagulating. This followed a major change in US policy that allowed Sunni militias much latitude. While Sunni tribes enjoyed new legitimacy, the "Mehdi Army" laid low at Moqtada's public direction (they have certainly not been disbanding or disarming). The present Iraqi government lost significant minority participation in building a viable government during the Surge. These changes do not contribute to a climate beneficial to re-unification. These developments instead contribute to the likelihood of intensification of civil strife in Iraq.

"Things on the ground in Iraq appear to be different now."

Beyond showcase neighborhoods, the security situation is unchanged. The fear keeping millions of Iraqis from their homes remains. Poverty, shortages, pessimism, and antipathy toward the USA still grow.

"large segments of the population have finally rejected the road to nowhere that foreign terrorists were constructing with their random violence."

That's propaganda talking. Foreign terrorists did not initiate Iraqi civil strife. Iraq has indigenous sectarian divides and feuds aplenty, that erupted before the American protectorate, whenever the power-broker(s) wobbled.

"Iraqi security forces are also more adept now than they were a year or two ago."

In what specific ways?

"I said three our four years of reduced violence [without further Surges]."

The Surge was not likely a tipping point, leaving fewer US troops necessary for keeping "control" as we perceive it now, for the next 3 or 4 years.

"Future surges might not be necessary to achieve that, given what the present one has already achieved."

Wishful thinking. The hopeful signs touted by the Bush Administration are only glimpses through tiny peepholes. There is much evidence that contradicts your optimism.

"If America made a longterm committment and took the uncertainty off the table, then perhaps the Iraqis would quit playing wait-and-see..."

There are limits to discredited mandates- That's why Putin doesn't run Eastern Europe today. It isn't a question of commitment. It's about the justification for making the commitment. Lacking a bona-fide justified mandate, such a large and unpopular occupation can only be carried forward by brute force that the increasingly-isolated USA lacks the means for sustaining.

"I made no claims about a united policy being supreme. I merely pointed out it would be helpful."

Only if Iraqis had bought into it. But it's No Sale. US auspices just aren't saleable in the present Mideast market of ideas. No Surge can change that. Because the Surge was much more about American perceptions than Iraqi ones, it has left Iraqis feeling as insulted as they did from the beginning of the occupation.

The American offer to preside over their future has been fully and finally rejected by the Iraqi majority- It's the one thing most Iraqis can agree on today.

In the USA, the present period is all about putting off national embarrassment over the Iraqi rejection. Democratic and Republican strategist must be sorely tempted to sandbag the next election, for protection of their parties from the coming blowback- Let the other side take the bad medicine.

"all of [the major presidential candidates] say they're staying [committed to the occupation] in one fashion or another."

Stay The Course - Guiliani, McCain

Iraqification - Huckabee

"Phased Redeployment"- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Tancredo, Thompson

"Withdraw in 18 Months" - Edwards

"Withdraw Now" - Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson

"You're assuming such a policy is flawed."

It's more than an assumption. Unpopular occupations have a long history of failure- sometimes swift, sometimes drawn-out. The forced American administration of Iraq is running its course relatively swiftly, by historic comparison. Super-state over-reach will flop ever faster in direct proportion to the increasing speed and penetration of information throughout humanity, and the resultant sharpening of global awareness.

You'll see.

 

[iceaura]

but some people, like yourself, wouldn't even accept the violence is down,

Why do you invent shit like that? You have yet to paraphrase accurately anything I have ever posted on this forum.

I have pointed out that we have no reliable info on the violence in Iraq, and so we must not take the word of known liars for it at face value - is that what you misread somehow?

Or was it that I offered alternative explanations for some or all of the reduction in violence ? (showing how easily and obviously and repeatedly I accepted it, btw, to people who can read English prose.)

Yes, I think the surge decreased the violence, but I have no idea what Petraeus' motivations is or what philosophy is driving his strategy. Nor would I presume to make any claims that go beyond what the man says. He was given a job to reduce the violence in Iraq.

But not originally - as was one point: the original mission of the US military in Iraq - including Petreaus's original mission in 2004 - was not to reduce violence to 2005 levels. Reducing the violence was a step toward a goal - that is why the means of reducing the violence are of interest: some means interfere with progress toward some goals.

Redefining "success" and "working" in Iraq to be what has happened after it has happened is propaganda.
[quote-count] Will it last? Does it lead to larger American goals? I'm not sure this thread was started to address that, [/quote] That was the topic of the OP, and the subject of the thread: the "success" of W's strategies in Iraq. You were the one who set about asserting that the violence is down , the violence is down, period, end of story. The rest of us were trying to have a discussion.

The reduction in violence was offered as evidence of the success of W's strategies. I quote the OP

Iraq is calming down and the strategy of Bush is working. This has proved to be indeed better than the strategy of cutting and running.

See Spidergoat? I told you this would happen

 

[countezero]

Why do you invent shit like that? You have yet to paraphrase accurately anything I have ever posted on this forum.

Whatever, Ice.

You've spent significant energy here doing little more than attacking any and all sources that claim the violence is down and pontificating about about Media accuracy with statements such as: "I have pointed out that we have no reliable info on the violence in Iraq, and so we must not take the word of known liars for it at face value - is that what you misread somehow?" I don't misread it. I see it for what it is. A combination of a refusal to accept factual data and an attempt by you to parse and frame your reluctant acceptance of reality in terms more to your liking.

And if it's difficult for me to understand your position and accurately paraphrase, something I'd readily admit since you seem to say I'm wrong, then perhaps it's time you consider how well you're expressing yourself. I went back through the thread and I saw a few posts that talk about the violence being down, but most of them quickly barreled on to question numbers and posit theories about how any reduction in violence might be to numerous other factors. In other words, you were burying your thoughts within counter-questions, doubts and various other esoteric ramblings. I call this obfuscation, but that may not have been your intent here.

Regardless, a quick survey of your contributions leads me to believe the majority of your posts here are unsubstantiated theories about Media bias, which has nothing to do with the surge or with violence being down or the effects of both. So please, forgive me if I am confused and am having trouble squaring the notion that you agree the violence is down but doubt the veracity of all the sources reporting this. However, I suppose it's possible that you could know the violence is down because the Socialist Quarterly told you it was...

But not originally - as was one point: the original mission of the US military in Iraq - including Petreaus's original mission in 2004 - was not to reduce violence to 2005 levels. Reducing the violence was a step toward a goal - that is why the means of reducing the violence are of interest: some means interfere with progress toward some goals.

That's possible, but you will need to be more specific.

That was the topic of the OP, and the subject of the thread: the "success" of W's strategies in Iraq. You were the one who set about asserting that the violence is down , the violence is down, period, end of story. The rest of us were trying to have a discussion.

It's funny that someone who continually derails threads with rants about the Media or whatever pet issue of his is upsetting him that day has the gall to suggest to anyone else that they are impeding discussion. The topic of the thread is: Iraq violence 70% down since June. I've posted numerous links, laden with facts to support the notion that the violence is down. Now it's true the initial comments on the subject referenced what you say they did, but subsequent discussion shifted to focus on whether the violence is really down because several members questioned that, while others threw mud at the sources.

For the record, I said: "I'm not sure this thread was started to address that, but we can certainly talk about them if the discussion is destined to evolve that way, and if the "sidebars" are kept to a minimum," largely because this thread is months old and I couldn't remember the exact details of conversations that were just as old. But I hope you will notice, I said I was willing to talk about those issues, provided you reigned your bile in and refrained from making your usual erratic claims.

 

[iceaura]

deleted. repetition. refer previous

 

[countezero]

So is the violence down — or not?

 

[iceaura]

So is the violence down — or not?

new thread topic? Try a new thread.

 

[countezero]

The thread title is "Iraq: Violence 70% down since July."

You've written: "I have pointed out that we have no reliable info on the violence in Iraq."

You said this because you questioned my appreciation of your position. My appreciation of that position was that you are denying the violence is down, largely because you are denying the validity of the sources that are documenting the decreases. I'm trying to figure out what the hell — beyond endlessly questioning and parsing everything — you're trying to assert by establishing your position on this issue.

So do you think the violence down? It's a simple question...

 

[hypewaders]

Come on, countezero- Only 5 posts back, immediately after what you quoted from iceaura, he continued his thought with


iceaura: "is that what you misread somehow? Or was it that I offered alternative explanations for some or all of the reduction in violence ? (showing how easily and obviously and repeatedly I accepted it, btw, to people who can read English prose.)"


Let's back up a little more, and see how you have consistently filtered out iceaura's acknowledgements of a decline in violence.


Post 31 iceaura: "there could easily have been a decrease in violence, for several reasons [besides] the surge."


And here-


Post 177 iceaura: "The ace in the hole for Americans in an occupation has in the past been the individual soldier - they seem to make friends, or at least mollify enemies, better than most. We haven't had that working for us so well in Iraq, but this latest surge's tactics may have partly corrected things. If the violence is down for that reason, that's a ray of hope for the aftermath of the desurge."


And here-


Post 180 iceaura: "If the reduction in violence proves lasting..."


And here-


Post 182 iceaura: "we put a pin in the mental map, and consider what has actually happened.

We consider, for example, all of the many possible reasons violence could be down in Iraq with this surge, and which of them represent good news and progress toward something we might want. Some do - great. Others do not."


And here-


Post 186 iceaura: "But it is not getting reported as a failure of the surge, as a sign that the surge is failing, as an element in the evaluation of the drop in violence and its relevance to the surge, as evidence that the surge is not working and the drop in violence may not be significant, as [what] we are talking about here - - Christ almighty, hello in there ?"


And here-


Post 190iceaure: "To avoid making such simpleminded errors and stupid misreadings in the future, try not using your own paraphrases of what I post as the basis for your arguments and objections. You are incapable of paraphrasing accurately, for some reason, and the resulting bizarre tangents are a waste of time."


And here-


Post 193iceaura: "I restate: all major news media in the US - including the NYT - have been publishing and delivering administration propaganda about the Iraq war. No independent journalism free of military and administration influence and management has yet been done by major US news organizations in Iraq."


And here. It gets repetitive doesn't it? What do you think the cause has been of so much repetitious acknowledgement of the recent reduction in violence in Iraq, countezero? Could it be that you have been distorting iceaura's replies to you?



Post 203 hani: " 'The death squads and ethnic cleansers' those are being contained, they have been significantly contained"


iceaura: "That's one hypothesis. Another is that their surge over the past year was successful, and the drop in their attacks is due to their having largely won."


And here-


Post 215 iceaura "What my hypothesis would mean - along with the several others you find complacently unexceptional - is that the US is losing in Iraq. Actually getting beat on the ground. And that the current reported drop in violence, whatever part of it is real, is a sign of that."



Let's not get into how many times your trolling has been pointed out in this thread. It's cluttered enough already by this nonsense.



Post 235 iceaura: "Well if you want to be technical, you haven't argued any position at all except your opinions of the failings of other posters."



I apologize for the tedious review of the thread, but you seem to have a thick filter of perception, communication, or both operating here, countezero.

I'm still interested in your opinion on the meaning of the present lull, but please desist from spinning the words of other posters, and just say what you mean in your own words, without adding more unnecessary distortions and diversions.

 

[countezero]

Who's talking past anyone? And who's trolling?

I'm asking him to clarify his position, because in addition to what you've posted, he's argued (vehemently) that the Media is biased, inaccurate and incapable of reporting accurately about the effects of the surge. Logic would suggest that if he disputes the source of the claims, then he is disputing the veracity of the claim itself.

Forgive me if I'm confused when I read he "accepts" the reduction in violence on the one hand and then questions how that conclusion is reached on other. If "we have no reliable info on the violence in Iraq," how can he — or anyone else — know anyhing?

 

[hypewaders]

countezero: "Who's talking past anyone?"

Not I, at present- I've directed the above post, and this one, as directly to you as possible without PMing- which in retrospect, might have been a much better idea.

"And who's trolling?"

I am not trying to antagonize you. I am trying to bring your own offensive behavior to your attention, in as straightforward a way as I can, and hopefully without wounding your pride.

"I'm asking him to clarify his position, because in addition to what you've posted, he's argued (vehemently) that the Media is biased, inaccurate and incapable of reporting accurately about the effects of the surge."

No, you're trolling. You have ignored in an aggravated manner what iceaura has repeatedly expressed, as I have already pointed out in detail.

countezero to iceaura, Post 249: "So do you think the violence down? It's a simple question..."

That's not a simple question. It's persistent trolling, with implicit distortion of another participant's posts.

"Logic would suggest that if he disputes the source of the claims, then he is disputing the veracity of the claim itself."

You're not employing logic here. You're using spin.

"Forgive me if I'm confused when I read he "accepts" the reduction in violence on the one hand and then questions how that conclusion is reached on other."

It's hard forgive you that, when your confusion is unwarranted. It is reasonable for iceaura to accept an apparent reduction in violence in Iraq, while also pointing out that "We don't do body counts" as a departed SecDef used to say.

"If "we have no reliable info on the violence in Iraq," how can he — or anyone else — know anyhing?"

We don't need a rain-gauge to perceive when rain subsides. Similarly, we need not tally and conduct trend-analysis on the many occasions you have distorted other members' meanings. We don't need percentiles and pie-charts in order to observe that you have been trolling. Get back on topic, and the change will be immediately obvious to all.

Let's just say it was an inadvertent misunderstanding and move on, shall we? Time and new information are providing new perspective for all of us interested in the implications of the Surge, and of the recent decline (and not cessation, as you know) in violence in Iraq.

 

[countezero]

I am not trying to antagonize you.

Forgive me, if based on my past experiences with you, if I don't believe a word....

No, you're trolling. You have ignored in an aggravated manner what iceaura has repeatedly expressed, as I have already pointed out in detail.

Then you need to define trolling, because I fail to see how asking a member to clarify something counts as trolling. I also fail to see what the hell it has to do with you, but that's another topic entirely...

That's not a simple question. It's persistent trolling, with implicit distortion of another participant's posts.

It's a yes or no question, so I'd say it's pretty simple. What's the problem? He's a big boy. Let him answer it. Or he can ignore me. It's his choice.

It's hard forgive you that, when your confusion is unwarranted.

Now you're the judge of whether I'm confused? OK...

Similarly, we need not tally and conduct trend-analysis on the many occasions you have distorted other members' meanings. We don't need percentiles and pie-charts in order to observe that you have been trolling.

So now you're attacking me? OK...

Get back on topic, and the change will be immediately obvious to all.

You're the one who charged in here and started talking about this. Heck, I wasn't even speaking to you. So who's on topic? Certainly, you're not...

 

[countezero]

US general says Iraq violence levels lowest since first year of American invasion|
|By PATRICK QUINN|
|Associated Press Writer|

BAGHDAD (AP) — Violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion, finally opening a window for reconciliation among rival sects, the second-ranking U.S. general said Sunday as Iraqi forces formally took control of security across half the country.

Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the man responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq, said that the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, had seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began, Odierno said, attributing the change to an increase in both American troops and better-trained Iraqi forces.

‘‘I feel we are back in ’03 and early ’04. Frankly I was here then, and the environment is about the same in terms of security in my opinion,’’ he said. ‘‘What is different from then is that the Iraqi security forces are significantly more mature.’’

Violence killed at least 27 Iraqis on Sunday — 16 of them members of a U.S.-backed neighborhood patrol killed in clashes with al-Qaida in a volatile province neighboring Baghdad. Thirty-five al-Qaida fighters also died in that fighting, Iraqi officials said.

Odierno said Anbar province, once plagued by violence, only recorded 12 attacks in the past week, down from an average of 26 per week over the past three months.

‘‘The violence last week was the lowest ever,’’ he said of Anbar.

‘‘So that kind of defines 2007 very simply. A long hard fight and a lot of sacrifice by a lot of soldiers, Marines and airmen to get there,’’ Odierno said.

A planned reduction of troops to about 130,000 at the end of next year from a high of around 165,000 at the height of the ‘‘surge’’ should not derail that effort, but Iraq’s government must take advantage of the improved security, Odierno said. There are 154,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.

‘‘We have a window, I don’t know how long that window is, but there is a window because of the security to move forward,’’ Odierno told a small group of journalists at his headquarters in Baghdad. ‘‘We need to get policies in place by the central government to do this.’’

One of the most important, he said, was a draft bill to ease curbs implemented against former supporters of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion.

Iraqi lawmakers are debating the U.S.-backed draft law that would pave the way for the creation of a National Commission for Accountability and Justice, an independent body that would screen former Baath members in place of the de-Baathfication commission, which many Sunnis have complained has been overly zealous in purging low-ranking party members who had in many cases joined the party under pressure from Saddam and been following orders.

‘‘Reconciliation must continue,’’ Odierno said.

The U.S.-led coalition has been gradually transferring control of security to the Iraqi government and Britain’s handover of southern Basra was the latest in a series that began in July 2006. The coalition retains control over half of Iraq’s 18 provinces, including Anbar and central areas where violence has waned but not stopped.

‘‘This is a step toward resuming security responsibilities in all of Iraq’s provinces that is due in the middle of next year,’’ Iraqi National Security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said in Basra. He represented Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the handover ceremony in the capital of the oil-rich region.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, en route to Paris for a gathering of world donors to the Palestinians, said she was ‘‘heartened’’ by Britain’s handover of Basra.

‘‘We obviously recognize and the British recognize that there’s still a lot of work to do in terms of building a stable foundation in the south and there continue to be problems there,’’ Rice told reporters on the flight to Paris. ‘‘We’re very heartened that there’s a sense that security can be turned over. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t continuing problems in the south.’’

In Diyala, one of Iraq’s most dangerous regions, al-Qaida militants tried to regain control of several villages around Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, but the U.S. backed volunteers drove them away, said Abdul Karim al-Rubaie of the provincial command center.

Sunnis have been turning against al-Qaida in significant numbers and signing up for the volunteer security forces — partly in disgust at the militant group’s brutal tactics, and partly to seek American protection against what they see as government-backed Shiite militias.

‘‘It is a battle of life and death, it is a continuous fight until we cleanse all the villages on the outskirts of Khalis,’’ said Sheik Zuhair al-Obeidi, who was involved in Sunday’s fighting.

Al-Qaida’s No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri warned of ‘‘traitors’’ among insurgents in Iraq and called on Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes to purge those who help the Americans in a new videotape posted Monday on the Web.

Al-Zawahri’s comments were aimed at undermining so-called ‘‘awakening councils’’ — the groups of Iraqi Sunni tribesmen that the U.S. military has backed to help fight al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies.

Next summer is more than half a year longer than President Bush’s prediction in January that Iraq would assume control all of its provinces by November. Giving responsibility to the Iraqi army and police does not necessarily mean that violence will abate in Basra, where rival Shiite parties and militias have fought for control of the province.

‘‘This remains a violent society whose tensions need to addressed, but they need to be addressed by Iraqi political leaders,’’ British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who also attended the handover ceremony, told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, said in a joint statement with U.S. Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Patricia A. Butenis, that Iraqi forces ‘‘have demonstrated their readiness to assume responsibility for the provincial security. Today this responsibility is theirs.’’

British troops will not immediately leave southern Iraq but will instead remain at their base just outside the city. This is know by the military as ‘‘operational overwatch,’’ in which Iraqi security forces and civilian police take responsibility under a provincial governor, or other official, and coalition forces are held in reserve in bases that are spread out — intervening when necessary or when asked.

The next phase would involve a hand over at a national level — which could then set stage for a large-scale withdrawal of all foreign troops a few years later.
———
Associated Press reporters Lori Hinnant and Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report from Baghdad.

 

[Hani]

For you who want to talk politics, today al-sadr army in Basra has declared that they will hand their arms over to the Iraqi forces. Al-sadr militia is the largest militia in Iraq.

I couldn't find a link to the news, but it's sure. How about that for a political improvement?

 

[spidergoat]

The Mahdi Army will not give up their power.

Iraq's Sadr uses lull to rebuild Army They do want a place in Iraq's government because they want to be like Hezbollah.

“[The program] has done fairly well in some weapons categories; we’ve gotten the thousands of weapons that we expected to see. In other weapons categories, we have not; particularly [improvised explosive devices],” O’Malley said. “[If the militia] truly want to disarm and disband, ... they pull up all the [improvised explosive devices] … because right now, the streets of Sadr City, for all intents and purposes, are a minefield.”

 

[Hani]

This is fresh news, in Basra, southern Iraq the Mahdi Army has signed a deal with the local governor to give up their weapons.

They said that they are doing this because the British troops have left the city.

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe we should leave the rest of Iraq too.

 

[countezero]

All in good time, Spider.

 

[spidergoat]

3895 dead isn't enough?