Why I Miss the Cold War?

[»nintendo64]

I miss the Cold War.  Like a pedestrian who congratulates himself for nimbly avoiding an on-coming bicycle only to find himself in the path of a truck, the US rid itself of one enemy--the USSR--only to find itself at war with an enemy far more dangerous and far less reasonable.  Comrades Brezhnev, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev--please, come back!  All is forgiven!

 

America's new war is far colder than the Cold War ever was--cold as in September 11's  cold-blooded murder.  With the Soviets, at least we always knew who was in charge and that we couldn't be attacked without his orders.  In fact, we had a direct line to him, ins!@#$%^&*uted by President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis, to provide instant contact at the first hint of problems. By contrast, on Tuesday we lost thousands of people, and we're not even sure who did it.

 

With the Soviets, a war would only have come after an escalation of tensions.  In our new, post-September 11 era, an attack could come at any time, without warning.

 

As French leader Charles De Gaulle realized, though most Americans did not, by the 1950s the USSR's leaders weren't red firebrands -*BAD WORD*- bent on claiming a world for communism.  They were traditional, even conservative leaders who sought to resolve their country's economic problems, gain influence in the world, and protect their own precarious position. If they ever really became demanding or intransigent, they could usually be pacified or bought off with promises of American trade or technology, which served to help their economies continue to function without threatening their rule.   

 

By contrast, America's new enemies seem to have no demands.  They can't be bought, bribed, or even blackmailed.  They only want to strike a blow at any cost.  And if a suicide hijacker or bomber really believes that by dying in his jihad (Muslim holy war) he'll go straight to heaven and Allah's loving embrace, what earthly reward could the US or anybody else possibly offer as a subs!@#$%^&*ute?

 

It has been said that all generals make the mistake of preparing to fight the last war instead of preparing to fight the next one. I can't help but feel that way about some of our latest anti-terrorist preparations. Certainly airport security needs to be strengthened, and the re-ins!@#$%^&*ution of the Sky Marshal program--putting armed undercover security officer on flights--would also be a positive move.  But I have the nagging suspicion that the next attack won't be by "suicide hijackers"--it will be something even worse.  I see two principal dangers:

 

1) a nuclear weapon or device acquired from the collapsed Soviet empire used by a terrorist or terrorist group against American civilians

 

2) chemical or biological weapons

 

Though the West still fails to recognize it, in many ways the fall of the Soviet Union created far more security risks than the Soviet Union itself did.  After the Russians  embraced the free-market, their economy collapsed and their society was pitched into chaos. Since 1991, Russia has lost half of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and three-quarters of the its population now lives at the subsistence level.

 

With the collapse of their economy has come the collapse of many of their military and scientific ins!@#$%^&*utions.  Nuclear physicists who in earlier times were among the world's leaders in scientific advance have been forced to moonlight as street corner ice-cream vendors in order to feed their families.  Tens of thousands of Soviet defense industry personnel--many of whom had access to powerful and even nuclear weaponry--have been laid off or forced to go long periods without pay. Countless common soldiers have been left des!@#$%^&*ute.  Any terrorist in search of advanced weaponry and in possession of a little cash would take a keen interest in such people.

 

Also, the roughly 8,000 mafia gangs who control much of Russian economic life see arms traffic--particularly the advanced weaponry which only advanced countries like the former USSR had--as an extremely profitable business. Reportedly materials used to make nuclear weapons or even some nuclear weapons themselves are currently unaccounted for.

 

Equally vexing and a product of the same problems is the possibility of a chemical weapons attack upon the United States. There have been reports, some of them confirmed, that  Hezbollah guerillas,  Chechnyen terrorists, and international arms traders have acquired chemical weapons from Russia and other former Soviet republics.  According to Chemist Kathleen Vogel of the Monterey Ins!@#$%^&*ute of International Studies,  "once chemical weapons are in the hands of a terrorist group, carrying out an attack on an unsuspecting civilian population could prove to be simple. There are a variety of chemical munitions that are relatively small in size, making them easy to conceal and transport."

 

Large civilian targets could be devastated by chemical or biological weapons no bigger than a backpack.  Yet the post-Soviet collapse is so complete that American experts have found that Russia is apparently incapable even of fixing the holes in the fences around many chemical weapons storage facilities!

 

Who would be most likely to use nuclear or chemical weapons against the US? Apparently Osama bin Laden and his group of fanatics.  And who got them started by training them and providing them with weapons?  The United States.

 

When the Soviet army went into Afghanistan in 1979 to save its allied government from falling to the Mujahedin (Afghan rebels), the US showered the rebels with billions in aid.  US intelligence, along with the Saudis, Pakistanis, and others, recruited Muslim militants, including bin Laden, to help the Mujahedin.

 

The Soviets argued that their military intervention was justified because, in addition to its security concerns, the Soviet-backed government offered Afghans--particularly female Afghans--a better way of life.

 

In this the Soviets were right--their allied government had granted new and extensive rights to women, helped the Afghan poor, and had begun to modernize a backward society. It promoted education for girls, distributed land to the impoverished peasants, and restrained the power of the mullahs, the Muslim clergy.  But for Cold War reasons the US chose to back the Mujahedin--Muslim fundamentalist extremists, many of whose soldiers later came to form Afghanistan's current, brutal leaders,  the Taliban.

 

Under US pressure, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pulled Soviet troops out in 1989. Despite pitched battles and stiff resistance from Afghans who supported the now abandoned leftist regime, the Mujahedin won and took over Afghanistan in 1992. What followed there has been a nightmare worse than anything the Soviet-backed government ever could have brought to Afghanistan.

 

That nightmare has now been brought to our shores. America wanted to defeat the Soviet Union and wanted Osama bin Laden & Company to help us do it. Be careful what you ask for--you might get it.

 

 

 

This column first appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal and the San Francisco Daily Journal (10/2/01).

 

-nintendo64

[A Soldier]

Very good article. Brings up some interesting points.

[Yupa]

I found this article rather stupid.

This guy gets paid to give opinion -- stupid opinion.

 

I miss the Cold War.

wow, you're dumb

Like a pedestrian who congratulates himself for nimbly avoiding an on-coming bicycle only to find himself in the path of a truck, the US rid itself of one enemy--the USSR--only to find itself at war with an enemy far more dangerous and far less reasonable.

what? A bunch of people hiding in a desert are more dangerous than the largest country in the world with a -*BAD WORD*-load of ICBMs? you're dumb

Comrades Brezhnev, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev--please, come back!  All is forgiven!

you're dumb

 

America's new war is far colder than the Cold War ever was--cold as in September 11's  cold-blooded murder.  With the Soviets, at least we always knew who was in charge and that we couldn't be attacked without his orders.  In fact, we had a direct line to him, ins!@#$%^&*uted by President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis, to provide instant contact at the first hint of problems.

the key word being AFTER - before the Cuban missile crisis (which could have sent us into global nuclear war) we weren't sure who was in charge...that's why it happend - you're dumb

By contrast, on Tuesday we lost thousands of people, and we're not even sure who did it.

...? you're dumb

 

With the Soviets, a war would only have come after an escalation of tensions.  In our new, post-September 11 era, an attack could come at any time, without warning.

so "war" and "attack" are the same thing now? you're dumb

 

As French leader Charles De Gaulle realized, though most Americans did not, by the 1950s the USSR's leaders weren't red firebrands -*BAD WORD*- bent on claiming a world for communism.

oh, now you know what most people were thinking in 1950 you're dumb

They were traditional, even conservative leaders who sought to resolve their country's economic problems, gain influence in the world, and protect their own precarious position.

...with a -*BAD WORD*-load of ICBMs - you're dumb

If they ever really became demanding or intransigent, they could usually be pacified or bought off with promises of American trade or technology, which served to help their economies continue to function without threatening their rule.

heheh, now you know about all the things it took to pacify them? I suppose the Cuban missile crisis was just a glitch in this understanding? you're dumb

 

By contrast, America's new enemies seem to have no demands.  They can't be bought, bribed, or even blackmailed.

of course they have demands - you're dumb

They only want to strike a blow at any cost.

muahahha NOW you know what all American-hating Muslim radicals think? you're dumb

And if a suicide hijacker or bomber really believes that by dying in his jihad (Muslim holy war) he'll go straight to heaven and Allah's loving embrace, what earthly reward could the US or anybody else possibly offer as a subs!@#$%^&*ute?

mmm, got me there, but you're still dumb

 

It has been said

oooh, a saying - that's an automatic dumb point

that all generals make the mistake of preparing to fight the last war instead of preparing to fight the next one. I can't help but feel that way about some of our latest anti-terrorist preparations. Certainly airport security needs to be strengthened, and the re-ins!@#$%^&*ution of the Sky Marshal program--putting armed undercover security officer on flights--would also be a positive move.  But I have the nagging suspicion that the next attack won't be by "suicide hijackers"--it will be something even worse.  I see two principal dangers:

 

1) a nuclear weapon or device acquired from the collapsed Soviet empire used by a terrorist or terrorist group against American civilians

 

2) chemical or biological weapons

 

Though the West still fails to recognize it, in many ways the fall of the Soviet Union created far more security risks than the Soviet Union itself did.

different security risks, not more - the amount of weapons the USSR had didn't suddenly increase - you're dumb

After the Russians  embraced the free-market, their economy collapsed and their society was pitched into chaos. Since 1991, Russia has lost half of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and three-quarters of the its population now lives at the subsistence level.

 

With the collapse of their economy has come the collapse of many of their military and scientific ins!@#$%^&*utions.  Nuclear physicists who in earlier times were among the world's leaders in scientific advance have been forced to moonlight as street corner ice-cream vendors in order to feed their families.

ha, do you really expect me to believe that?

Tens of thousands of Soviet defense industry personnel--many of whom had access to powerful and even nuclear weaponry--have been laid off or forced to go long periods without pay. Countless common soldiers have been left des!@#$%^&*ute.  Any terrorist in search of advanced weaponry and in possession of a little cash would take a keen interest in such people.

 

Also, the roughly 8,000 mafia gangs who control much of Russian economic life see arms traffic--particularly the advanced weaponry which only advanced countries like the former USSR had--as an extremely profitable business. Reportedly materials used to make nuclear weapons or even some nuclear weapons themselves are currently unaccounted for.

 

Equally vexing and a product of the same problems is the possibility of a chemical weapons attack upon the United States. There have been reports, some of them confirmed, that  Hezbollah guerillas,  Chechnyen terrorists, and international arms traders have acquired chemical weapons from Russia and other former Soviet republics.  According to Chemist Kathleen Vogel of the Monterey Ins!@#$%^&*ute of International Studies,  "once chemical weapons are in the hands of a terrorist group, carrying out an attack on an unsuspecting civilian population could prove to be simple. There are a variety of chemical munitions that are relatively small in size, making them easy to conceal and transport."

 

Large civilian targets could be devastated by chemical or biological weapons no bigger than a backpack.  Yet the post-Soviet collapse is so complete that American experts have found that Russia is apparently incapable even of fixing the holes in the fences around many chemical weapons storage facilities!

 

Who would be most likely to use nuclear or chemical weapons against the US? Apparently Osama bin Laden and his group of fanatics.  And who got them started by training them and providing them with weapons?  The United States.

 

When the Soviet army went into Afghanistan in 1979 to save its allied government from falling to the Mujahedin (Afghan rebels), the US showered the rebels with billions in aid.  US intelligence, along with the Saudis, Pakistanis, and others, recruited Muslim militants, including bin Laden, to help the Mujahedin.

 

The Soviets argued that their military intervention was justified because, in addition to its security concerns, the Soviet-backed government offered Afghans--particularly female Afghans--a better way of life.

 

In this the Soviets were right--their allied government had granted new and extensive rights to women, helped the Afghan poor, and had begun to modernize a backward society.  It promoted education for girls, distributed land to the impoverished peasants, and restrained the power of the mullahs, the Muslim clergy.  But for Cold War reasons the US chose to back the Mujahedin--Muslim fundamentalist extremists, many of whose soldiers later came to form Afghanistan's current, brutal leaders,  the Taliban.

 

Under US pressure, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pulled Soviet troops out in 1989. Despite pitched battles and stiff resistance from Afghans who supported the now abandoned leftist regime, the Mujahedin won and took over Afghanistan in 1992. What followed there has been a nightmare worse than anything the Soviet-backed government ever could have brought to Afghanistan.

 

That nightmare has now been brought to our shores. America wanted to defeat the Soviet Union and wanted Osama bin Laden & Company to help us do it. Be careful what you ask for--you might get it.

 

wow, I bet you got paid pretty well for writing this dribble - gj

[A Soldier]

1.

I miss the Cold War.

wow, you're dumb

2.

Like a pedestrian who congratulates himself for nimbly avoiding an on-coming bicycle only to find himself in the path of a truck, the US rid itself of one enemy--the USSR--only to find itself at war with an enemy far more dangerous and far less reasonable.

what? A bunch of people hiding in a desert are more dangerous than the largest country in the world with a -*BAD WORD*-load of ICBMs? you're dumb

3.

Comrades Brezhnev, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev--please, come back!  All is forgiven!

you're dumb

 

4.

America's new war is far colder than the Cold War ever was--cold as in September 11's  cold-blooded murder.  With the Soviets, at least we always knew who was in charge and that we couldn't be attacked without his orders.  In fact, we had a direct line to him, ins!@#$%^&*uted by President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis, to provide instant contact at the first hint of problems.

the key word being AFTER - before the Cuban missile crisis (which could have sent us into global nuclear war) we weren't sure who was in charge...that's why it happend - you're dumb

5.

With the Soviets, a war would only have come after an escalation of tensions.  In our new, post-September 11 era, an attack could come at any time, without warning.

so "war" and "attack" are the same thing now? you're dumb

6.

They were traditional, even conservative leaders who sought to resolve their country's economic problems, gain influence in the world, and protect their own precarious position.

...with a -*BAD WORD*-load of ICBMs - you're dumb

7.

If they ever really became demanding or intransigent, they could usually be pacified or bought off with promises of American trade or technology, which served to help their economies continue to function without threatening their rule.

heheh, now you know about all the things it took to pacify them? I suppose the Cuban missile crisis was just a glitch in this understanding? you're dumb

8.

that all generals make the mistake of preparing to fight the last war instead of preparing to fight the next one. I can't help but feel that way about some of our latest anti-terrorist preparations. Certainly airport security needs to be strengthened, and the re-ins!@#$%^&*ution of the Sky Marshal program--putting armed undercover security officer on flights--would also be a positive move.  But I have the nagging suspicion that the next attack won't be by "suicide hijackers"--it will be something even worse.  I see two principal dangers:

 

1) a nuclear weapon or device acquired from the collapsed Soviet empire used by a terrorist or terrorist group against American civilians

 

2) chemical or biological weapons

 

Though the West still fails to recognize it, in many ways the fall of the Soviet Union created far more security risks than the Soviet Union itself did.

different security risks, not more - the amount of weapons the USSR had didn't suddenly increase - you're dumb

9.

After the Russians  embraced the free-market, their economy collapsed and their society was pitched into chaos. Since 1991, Russia has lost half of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and three-quarters of the its population now lives at the subsistence level.

 

With the collapse of their economy has come the collapse of many of their military and scientific ins!@#$%^&*utions.  Nuclear physicists who in earlier times were among the world's leaders in scientific advance have been forced to moonlight as street corner ice-cream vendors in order to feed their families.

ha, do you really expect me to believe that?

10.

Tens of thousands of Soviet defense industry personnel--many of whom had access to powerful and even nuclear weaponry--have been laid off or forced to go long periods without pay. Countless common soldiers have been left des!@#$%^&*ute.  Any terrorist in search of advanced weaponry and in possession of a little cash would take a keen interest in such people.

[...]

 

wow, I bet you got paid pretty well for writing this dribble - gj

lol suse, I disagree with you on some points

1. Read between the line, it's sarcasm.

2. Well, what is all of your weapons and army going to do against terrorists they just cannot find? Bomb the whole lot? Nah.

3. Again, sarcasm.

4. The direct line was made to increase security between both country and probably the whole word because both realised they did not want to rule over a parking lot... Not sure who was in charge? How come?

5. Weren't the attacks on the WTC a declaration of war to the United States?

6. And you are refering to..?

7. The US had to concede some things to USSR in order to have their missiles removed from Cuba

8. Where did he ever say Russia's weapons increased? He says he fears terrorists acquire dangerous weapons or missiles from the former Soviet Union.

9. Ehh.. yes?

10. Dribble? I'd rather say down-to-earth facts.

[»nintendo64]

Maybe, i should have said, before you read this article you must ignore American History books that are evaluated on standard exams nation wide. Now, that you don't have your head filled with the "evil red empire" dribble, you can read the article.

 

-nintendo64

[Tascar]

Where do they come up with this crap? Do people research what they say before they say it? Or is this just for the sake of bad publicity?

[A Soldier]

Why not give us some examples tascar?

This crap is closer to reality than you think. I thought you were the one that said in an earlier post that you were afraid terrorists get military equipement from the former the Soviet Union? Now what if they get nukes?

First off....only a handful of companies in the US benefit from this. I mean lets face it' date=' if you sell tomatoes for a living, you won't benefit from weapon sales.

 

Also, the over-stock of Russian military equipment from the cold war is what finds its way into hands of terrorists. There's your 60% my finger pointing friend.[/quote']

http://www.ssforum.net/index.php?showtopic...indpost&p=54176

[Slowking Man]

Maybe, i should have said, before you read this article you must ignore American History books that are evaluated on standard exams nation wide. Now, that you don't have your head filled with the "evil red empire" dribble, you can read the article.

 

-nintendo64

Odd, my AP U.S. History textbook is pretty unbiased. It doesn't even deal with the Soviet Union that much.

[Tascar]

You'll have to forgive some of the !@#$%^&*umptions made about the USA by foreigners. It's apparent that they know little more than what is shown on cnn besides drawing their own conclusions.

[A Soldier]

You'll have to forgive some of the !@#$%^&*umptions made about the USA by foreigners.  It's apparent that they know little more than what is shown on cnn besides drawing their own conclusions.

Nice comment coming from someone who argued about neocolonialism without knowing jack -*BAD WORD*- about it.

[Yupa]

ahahahhah neocolonialism

[»nintendo64]

I cannot argue with someone that believes the standard History books on USA Public Schools isn't unbiased, even most USA historians says so.

 

Get informed about the truth of USA History Books for their High Schools and more...

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0722/p03s01-ussc.html

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0502maier.html

http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/go/clic...c/hist_r45.html

http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/pub...tion.cfm?id=331

http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/200...25027-5592r.htm

http://www.detnews.com/2004/schools/0401/15/a09-36511.htm

 

-nintendo64

[BG]

The person who wrote that was probably reading a Tom Clancy Book, And not reading World news.

[Arianax]

It was a good arguement and the points about the Afganistan war were very intresting, its nice to see the different side of the arguement. Just because it points out things you dont like, doesnt mean its Anti-American, im sure there are plenty of counter arguements.

[»nintendo64]

It was a good arguement and the points about the Afganistan war were very intresting, its nice to see the different side of the arguement. Just because it points out things you dont like, doesnt mean its Anti-American, im sure there are plenty of counter arguements.

I agree with Feit!, POST REAL ARGUEMENTS with info to back them up. Yet i've seen even one backed with facts, only phrases like "you're ignorant on this topic", "you hate the USA", "you are dumb"....

 

-nintendo64

[BG]

Yet i've seen even one backed with facts, only phrases like "you're ignorant on this topic", "you hate the USA", "you are dumb"....

 

-nintendo64

So You count 'you're ignorant on this topic', 'you hate the USA', and 'you are dumb' as Backing something up? Because that's the way you have it worded here.

[»nintendo64]

So You count 'you're ignorant on this topic', 'you hate the USA', and 'you are dumb' as Backing something up? Because that's the way you have it worded here.

 

Reread what i said.

 

-nintendo64

[BG]

Reread what i said.

 

-nintendo64

Reread what I quoted.

[Tascar]

Now let me think - argue with a foreigner about the content of our history books in which each of the people from the US have spent nearly 10 or more years studying?

 

Dear nin, do you have bonafide research to stake such a claim? I'm !@#$%^&*uming that if our history books are filled with the evil red empire garbage, yours are filled with the evil blue empire. It has to be so. Can you find those sites that prove that your history books DON'T say that? Maybe you have been cultivated by a vile and evil dictator yourself who has always told you that the evil Americans will take your house, clothes, shelter, even the rubber ball you throw at your dog.

 

Let's face it bud -- you have a difficult time understanding the USA, which positions you in a "I hate them all" demeanor. Shall I quote your last 15 posts to prove this? I mean, just the facts maa'm.

[Yupa]

I think most of you are being rather silly.

 

@ Nintendo

POST REAL ARGUEMENTS with info to back them up

...like this journalist just saying what people in 1950 think? what terrorists think?

 

Nintendo - take a look, most of those writeups you linked look to be written BY AMERICANS

 

I have no doubt that MOST history books are biased crap - MOST PEOPLE ARE -*BAD WORD*-ING STUPID - ie, they don't -*BAD WORD*-ing count.

 

I can tell you in my personal experience - High School, Florida - our history books were very unbiased, but I took advanced courses.

[»nintendo64]

Now let me think - argue with a foreigner about the content of our history books in which each of the people from the US have spent nearly 10 or more years studying?

 

Dear nin, do you have bonafide research to stake such a claim?  I'm !@#$%^&*uming that if our history books are filled with the evil red empire garbage, yours are filled with the evil blue empire.  It has to be so.  Can you find those sites that prove that your history books DON'T say that?  Maybe you have been cultivated by a vile and evil dictator yourself who has always told you that the evil Americans will take your house, clothes, shelter, even the rubber ball you throw at your dog.

 

Let's face it bud -- you have a difficult time understanding the USA, which positions you in a "I hate them all" demeanor.  Shall I quote your last 15 posts to prove this?  I mean, just the facts maa'm.   

Quote me on 15 posts when i say i hate the USA, because TO YOU pointing out where a system is failing equal hate. I've never denied any other country has problems, but that's not what we were debating in those topics, or what i was debating in those topics.

 

Tascar labeling your opponents as haters, and then making !@#$%^&*UMPTIONS about my history books, it's what you were saying about me being ignorant to your country's affair. I never !@#$%^&*umed you were ignorant to mine, but you've yet to support your point with facts, instead of rhetoric.

 

Why don't you just accept the facts and live on? or do you expect your country to be a blue fairy tale?, if i was an USA Citizen and i knew as much as i did now, i'll try to make a difference, at least in the easiest form i can, by Voting for someone of a Party or which political career has been set to produce a fix to those problems.

 

 

For Extra Info:

Our History books are not exactly "standard books given" [Althought it has been tried] most teachers decide to use different books about 3-4 from different authors, and we get photocopies, sometimes the authors clash on opinions, i remember once, there were two that talked about the Trujillo Dictatorship, one was in favor (it made a very persuasing arguement), and one was against, you could obviously detect it by seeing the author's intention. Books bias is not exactly a problem here, our problem is Education distribution, and the quality given to most of the population, but that's another topic.

 

-nintendo64

[Yupa]

history authors shouldn't be for or against at all - your country is the one with the bias problem, apparently

[Tascar]

First off, I've made no injections about your country. I wouldn't do that. I've made the same '!@#$%^&*umption' about your history books as you have ours. Websites are not facts. People who have political websites or web propaganda are definitely stating their opinion, nothing more.

 

Just reading through several of your most recent posts, you claim the following;

 

- USA has history books filled with the Red Evil Empire. (If I'm not mistaken, a rather well known president coined that term in the mid 80's.)

- USA is imperialistic (and you found one lone supporter who would rather live in Mosambique)

- USA is supporting tyrants (and you listed every ruler known to the modern age)

- Saddam Hussien was not a threat to the USA. (I suppose we should have settled it over a few hookas and a couple shots of Jack.)

 

Is it really that much colder on that side of the moon?

[Yupa]

mmm, hookasandjack

 

I might get that domain lol

[Arianax]

My history books are quite Pro-USA. But im afraid the people that are 'Anti-American' will most likely in-definately stay that way. Its notable that bad-things overide the goodones. People might dislike the USA not for they're part in Iraq, which can be seen as a good thing, but for reinstating dictators in other country's for dubious agendas. Its kinda like news, Bad news takes precedence, so people will automatically take the bad and not weigh it against what good has been acheived.

 

PS. i throw more of a ropey type chew thing at him...