Iran and Syria - war of the future?

[Wizard of OZ]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, although many outsiders believe the opposite, Iran currently operates quite a few more than '3 or 5' F14A Tomcats, with a fairly accurate number at 60 in Inventory, with the number currently in flight not too far off from that figure. This is due to Iran fairly rapidly moving onto self-sufficeny in terms of the Military items that were sold to the nation in the Shah's time, prior to 1979. These are very much fully operational birds here, not deteriorating or without supplies as many outside sources claim (ie. places like Cia.org, and such) - some 90% of the fuselage is currently produced domestically, with the parts excluded the fairly durable but hard to manufacture Titanium structural body components. Together with this the Armed Guard devision also flies a fleet of about 35 SU25 jets, as well as the Airforce also running the Mig 29 (including the nice looking UB) force consisting of some 30-35 planes or so, as well as the fleet of F4 Phantoms and F5Es that were sold by the US previously. Oh, and there are also some 25 or so Mirage F1s, but I will not go into those now.  For further information on the 'AliCats'    do visit the ACIG Forums or IIAF (Iran Imperial Air Force) forums, with the former discussing about the current IRIAF fleet despite its name being related to the previous Air Force under the Shah. Tom Cooper of ACIG is a very knoweldgable expert on Middle East Military affairs and he has written two books on both the F14 and F4s of Iran, as well as some very informative articles that are definetly worth a read if the above sounds interesting.

Iranian domestic industries also currently manufacture a full set of set parts for at least some 100 operational AH1J Helicopters under the name of HESA, with various upgrades already undertaken, including updated display units, radar and surface to ground capabilities of up to 4km or so. It in fact looks like quite an interesting upgrade program, with the canopy changed too - further pictures can be found through google searches of the aformentioned sites.

There are also quite a few more domestic Military industry developments, including the creation of a localy designed supersonic fighter, the Shafagh, although this is at supposed prototype and testing stage. I wont bore you with any more, but these are just hints that Iran is not quite the incapable Iraq resistance that the United States defeated in their campaign.

Impressive on Paper Ali, and noone would dispute the fact the Iran and Syria both have large armies.  But they would be little match for the amount of Air Power the Colalition could bring to the table. Especially if they were able to use air bases in Iraq.


Without doubt, however, the United States is the superior force in terms of Military might, but with a young population of over 75 million, some very mountanous and difficult terrain (being much larger than Iraq included) i feel that a campaign against Iran wouldent be something beneficial to both the United State's security, finiancial deficit and domestic support as well as the Middle East's worsening instability. Nationalism ranks very high with Iranians so i feel that an attack, even a limited one on the Nuclear Instalations, would do more worse than good as I am certain it will arouse feelings against the United States and prohibit social change furthermore, especially so with the persisting campaign in our neighbors Iraq.

Cheers,

Ali Khalili

Ali we do not question the size of Irans army only its capability against a western superpower.  But i think the big questions is why would it come to this.  If it was proven like a_majoor pointed out that Iran or even Syria was sheltering, hidding, arming, or paying for insurgents and sponsering their campagin to disrupt Iraq and kill the citizens then a toll must be paid.

If it can be proven (by this i mean more then just an intellegence report) that Senior Iraqi Baathists are in Syria or Iran and have the WMD and are helping with either nation to develop arms to attack the coalition then paying the piper should not be unexpected. 

You are right no campagin would be an easy or a chosen one without futher support such as India or Pakistan.  But If it came down to it you would prob see two months of air war and then a ground assault.  As Intellegence was gathered in the Mounatins such as Special Ops teams being deployed throught the areas on shearch and destroy missions.

my thought only

I do hope it does not come down to that but with Russia now revertaing back to the old USSR ways of doing things. Supplying arms to the middle east admist a crisis with the west.  Putin solidifying his power by fixing elections or eliminating oponents. I think we in the West should prepare ourselfs for an uncomfortable 5 to 6 yrs to come.

 

[CH1]

All very good points.  Pacification worked as well in Iraq as it did in SE Asia.  The part that bothers me as the US forces are ground down, is the US still posses the neutron bomb.  This leaves infrastructure and little else.  I am concerned that if this skirmish escapes the current borders, the US will resort to using it.  It is my opinion that in about 20 years that the capability for the states to maintain military presence is going to diminish, with rogue states pulling up on nuclear power.  There is a lot of sabre rattling coming from different corners of N Africa & Asian republics on this matter.  I do not think the US wants or can afford another Vietnam.  Remember also Afghanistan was Russia's albatross.  Lately Putin has been sliding back to old ways.  Remember what he used to do for a living.  He would love to see the 'Stan's all back in the fold which probably is a short trip under the right circumstances.

 

[dutchie]

The part that bothers me as the US forces are ground down, is the US still posses the neutron bomb.   This leaves infrastructure and little else.   I am concerned that if this skirmish escapes the current borders, the US will resort to using it.  

The US will never, ever, use nuclear weapons first.

Again.

 

[Ali_Khl]

[/color]

Ali we do not question the size of Irans army only its capability against a western superpower.   But i think the big questions is why would it come to this.   If it was proven like a_majoor pointed out that Iran or even Syria was sheltering, hidding, arming, or paying for insurgents and sponsering their campagin to disrupt Iraq and kill the citizens then a toll must be paid.

If it can be proven (by this i mean more then just an intellegence report) that Senior Iraqi Baathists are in Syria or Iran and have the WMD and are helping with either nation to develop arms to attack the coalition then paying the piper should not be unexpected.  

You are right no campagin would be an easy or a chosen one without futher support such as India or Pakistan.   But If it came down to it you would prob see two months of air war and then a ground assault.   As Intellegence was gathered in the Mounatins such as Special Ops teams being deployed throught the areas on shearch and destroy missions.

my thought only

I do hope it does not come down to that but with Russia now revertaing back to the old USSR ways of doing things. Supplying arms to the middle east admist a crisis with the west.   Putin solidifying his power by fixing elections or eliminating oponents. I think we in the West should prepare ourselfs for an uncomfortable 5 to 6 yrs to come.

Thanks for the welcome A_Majoor 

I do agree that the United States can undergo a campagin in order to nuetralize almost any nation if it really desires, as you mentioned it is the world's only current Superpower. However, considering the costs involved in such a campaign and the possible consequences not only in a direct military response from Iran but also from the further heightened tensions of much of the muslim population im not too sure it would be deemed justifiable even for them. Sure, they can rally support as they did through for Afghanistan and Iraq, and sure no matter what argument about balance of payements deficits to countries like China, it is fundable, but i feel that this is only to an extent considering the fact that Iran is not Iraq. The Iraqi Air military strikes were undertaken in a matter of days initially due to the fact that the Iraqi Airforce was one that had deteriorated rapidly from sanctions imposed and many years of war beforehand. Its 'Assets', such as the few Mig 29s and numerous other planes were buried to preserve them in event of the attack. Its army was limited in arms, low in morale (hence the large defection rate) and the population largely broken on support for Saddam. Iran is not currently like this - An attack on home soil will more likely accentuate nationalistic feelings and basically unify the country against a foreign aggerssor. Iran too has broadcasting means, as with the US, in which it can use to clearly gain back public support if given an inevitable foreign threat, even in the face of changing feelings with the youths and much desire for social reform.

The difference between the costs of intiating a potential war on Iran and the persisting war in Iraq is much, much greater than it seems. A mere look at the map will show this. Sure, the United States does have the superior Military capabilities but you can ensure that this will not be an easy country for the United States to exert any sort of forced political influence onto. As mentioned previously, there will no doubt be a very large reaction from the muslim population in different regions as Iran is fundamentaly the only Islamic Republic around. Im sure this might not seem as much of an effect but it should not be underestimated in the face of the effects of the limited resistance and dismay that is present in Iraq. What is much more significant is the fact that the costs in terms of funding, public support, international stability, threats against United States positions globably will be vast to say the least.

I openly state that I do not support the current regime because of atrocities commited by the Mollahs, but one thing many have failed to understand is that although it seems otherwise from a political persepective, things are changing. No doubt however I, and the majority of those I know, would love a ousting of the forced Islamisim and the leaders currently in control right now, but I must argue that there is no credible evidence to show them interfiering in Iraqi affairs or posing a threat to anyone at the moment -

Yes, Iran does threaten Israel with extermination but this is done vice-versa to the same extent. It is a war of words associated with the pre-emptive strike threats and the mutual support for the Palestinians by the government.

Iraqi officials have consistnatly reiterated Iranian involvement in the current unrest and resistance movements in Iraq, but there really is no credible proof to be shown. It is easy to quickly jump to conclusions that because of the mere fact that Iran has a largely Shiite Muslim population that it would want to manipulate Iraq into being another Islamic Republic. Do remember that Iran has started NO wars in recent history and the only significant conflict in that it was directly involved in, the Iran-Iraq war, was caused by Saddam's expansion into Iranian terratory and Air strikes initiated by Iraq, not Iran.

I also very much disregard statments such as those stating 'links between Iran and Al-Queda' - It is a known fact that the Iranian Regime fully opposed and opposes Afganistan's previously ruling party, as evident from the execution of Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan on an official basis and the fact that throughout their campagin Iran provided assistance, whether in limited military means (Special Forces sent in cooporation with US troops, several articles documenting this) or inteligence.

Sure, its not the ideal regime. Heck, its one that i despise more than any currently in power. But we DO have to consider facts, we DO have to evaluate, on a balanced basis, the real consequences and benifitis of such a campaign against Iran. Apart from the obvious inevitable loss of life (to a much larger extent than Iraq) on both sides, I truely believe that there will be more disadvantages than advantages from attacking a country, irregardless of current or previous ruling regimes, that prides itself with centuries of nationalistic fevor.

Its true, I dont have a written answer into what should be done, but I can say that a military campaign definetly would not be one in which the United States would benifit from in the long run...

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Do remember that Iran has started NO wars in recent history and the only significant conflict in that it was directly involved in, the Iran-Iraq war, was caused by Saddam's expansion into Iranian terratory and Air strikes initiated by Iraq, not Iran.

So I assume that you are not taking into account Iran's support for Hizbollah and their de facto war against Israel in Lebanon or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard attacks on international shipping in the Persian Gulf during the 1980s?

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Did anyone catch CNN last night and how the Americans are focusing on Iran as the next target for permant Middle East Stability.

It was a good special, scary to.  You would almost think this is the start of the American media frenzy starting to whip up.

ALi

You are right Iran is extremely Nationalistic and would defend their home land to the bitter end i do not question that at all. 

Yes they are much more friendly to the West then other Persian Gulf states have been and or are. But if "Iraqi officials have consistnatly reiterated Iranian involvement in the current unrest and resistance movements in Iraq, but there really is no credible proof to be shown." If actual credible proof was found and stood up to the spotlight then what should happen?

"Do remember that Iran has started NO wars in recent history and the only significant conflict in that it was directly involved in, the Iran-Iraq war."  Unles as mentioned by fisher you don't count the government support for the Hizbollah.

If and only if it were to come down to an armed conflict i think that the Americans would have to have more then just Britain and India or Pakistan on their side.  And Ali is right this would be no cake walk, they do have signifigant forces that they could through up against the Americans.  And i bet the Russians and French have tons of arms heading that way right now just in case.

On that note though, the first Gulf War Iraq was the third largest army in the world.  They had tons of front line equipment, from planes and tanks to AFV and APC even Western tecnonolgy built into their defence network.  They had moral and they had momentem, but they were crushed no question about it. 

So Ali i don't buy that Iranian's army and airforce would do much better with front line equipment especilly with projected power the the way the Americans can.  Especially with air bases in Iraq and Say either Pakistan on India.  It would be the ocupation that would hurt just like it does now.  Maybe it would be different i don't know and hopefully we don't have to find out.

thats my spare change.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have little doubt that America could destroy, or at least blunt, Iran's ability to wage an offensive conventional war in the region.  I think they could also degrade the Iranian Armed Forces to such an extent that they could not oppose an American assault.

Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.  Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault. 

At the same time the prospects of the nation becoming more angry as a result of offensiive military action taken against them, and thus possibly taking a more active role in supporting non-conventional foreign adventures might not serve the interests of stability well. 

And Ali informs us that his government isn't intolerable.....

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.  Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault. 

Agreed with 75 million i believe for population the uprisings would be impossible to quell without added violence which would just become a vicious cycle.

At the same time the prospects of the nation becoming more angry as a result of offensiive military action taken against them, and thus possibly taking a more active role in supporting non-conventional foreign adventures might not serve the interests of stability well. 

And Ali informs us that his government isn't intolerable.....

Non of this is in dispute in fact I think that Iranian Nationalism is a good thing.  It may even help the US if it can be shown that either Syrian or Iranian officals have supported the insurgence in Iraq.  Especially if it is Syria. 

As far as the government being tolerable i think that is a matter of opinion and on this i have none i don't live there nor do i have family there so i have no factual opinion on that.

But i do agree that the average Iranian would have to be in support of any Iranian Campagain by the US or it would definetly be headed for disaster.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I have little doubt that America could destroy, or at least blunt, Iran's ability to wage an offensive conventional war in the region.   I think they could also degrade the Iranian Armed Forces to such an extent that they could not oppose an American assault.

Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.   Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault.  

At the same time the prospects of the nation becoming more angry as a result of offensiive military action taken against them, and thus possibly taking a more active role in supporting non-conventional foreign adventures might not serve the interests of stability well.  

And Ali informs us that his government isn't intolerable.....

The primary fear I have of Iran is what it will do if the people do move towards a second revolution and attempt to oust the mullahs.

1)   I think there is a good chance they would let loose with every ballistic missile they have to try to reach Israel in order to deflect the revolutionary mood.
2)   If that doesn't work, and the people still wish to oust them, I would expect a slaughter as unlike how the Shah held his fire for the most part, I don't believe the mullahs would any compassion in defending what they see as Allah's will for them to rule.

That's just me....



Matthew.    

 

[a_majoor]

Wars within wars.....

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=967

Last March, the leader of the al Qaeda cell in the Ein Hilweh Palestinian camp in Lebanon was blown up by a car bomb. Apparently they have since determined that the Fatah terrorist organization in Lebanon was responsible. Having assigned guilt, the al Qaeda statement added, â Å“We warn Fatah-Lebanon that we intend very soon to avenge the blood of our brother Al Masri. This warning is addressed to the entire Fatah command and leadership hierarchy in Lebanon - from the highest to the lowest commander. The statement is being taken as a declaration of war by the global jihadist al Qaeda on the Palestinian Fatah for control of Ein Hilweh, a strategic location commanding South Lebanon's Mediterranean coast.

Al Qaeda normally doesn't do this sort of thing, which makes me wonder about the real purpose. Al Qaeda usually gets its orders from Iran. Did Iran and Syria get together and hatch this scheme to stir up trouble in Lebanon to give Syria a valid excuse to keep their troops there? Much of the Syrian government's income comes from the heroin trade, and their poppy fields are in Lebanon, in the Bekaa Valley. They've been under a lot of diplomatic pressure to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. Naturally, they are reluctant to do that because it would leave their poppy fields unprotected by government troops, as well as the cache of Iraqi chemical weapons buried in that same valley. A little dust-up between rival terrorist groups is just the ticket.

Para two is a mixture of fact and speculation, of course.....?

 

[Infanteer]

What kind of source is this?

Al Qaeda usually gets its orders from Iran.

Since when did Shi'ite Iran begin hosting and controlling the Al Qaeda, who's Wahhabi inclination tends to put Shi'ites on the same plane as Jews?

 

[Ali_Khl]

I have little doubt that America could destroy, or at least blunt, Iran's ability to wage an offensive conventional war in the region.   I think they could also degrade the Iranian Armed Forces to such an extent that they could not oppose an American assault.

Having said that I doubt that I will see an assault.   Unless the Iranian people were truly in support of the American action and really viewed the intervention as an opportunity to get rid of a government that they considered oppressive to the point of being intolerable then there would be no way of securing the ground after the assault.  

At the same time the prospects of the nation becoming more angry as a result of offensiive military action taken against them, and thus possibly taking a more active role in supporting non-conventional foreign adventures might not serve the interests of stability well.  

And Ali informs us that his government isn't intolerable.....

Kirkhill,

I never have nor ever will claim that the Mullahs currently in power are in any way tolerable enough. It is one that has supressed those based on race, religion and actions in which in other countries would be deemed regular - I have personally witnessed those whom i know on a close level being intimidated and forced into scrapping off their coloured nail polish by the Islamic Police while I could only stand there, with nothing I could do without being thrown in prision or much worse. As ive mentioned before, it would be a most desirable situation to rid Iran of such leaders ignorent to even mere demands by its population. However I do not support a conventional war as the inevitable loss in life would negate any benifits in my opinion. And then there is the resultant notion of US-modern imperialism - I dont want Iran to face a situation as with our neighbors...
Anyways, that was just my opinion, but this thread is one not about dealing with personal consequnces of an attack, I unsterstand, but I just needed to make it clear that the wrong idea is not portrayed in any way.

In terms of their support for Hezbollah, yes, that is well known. And so is the supression daily of the Palestians by the Isrealis, but I wont go into that because in truth i cant hold support for either of those partys - Faceless killing is faceless klling in any form, and hence I will also never support the Mullahs in this way.

I was merely stating that no conventional war has been intiated by the country so far and the total war in that was the Iran-Iraq war was initated by aggressive actions of the former, and hence the large support of the population initially behind an ousting of the Iraqis. Remember, this was immedietly after the revolution and Iran was very weak militarily - Many of the higher ranking members of the Airforce and Army had been purged on the face that they were 'associates with the Shah' or that they still were Shah-loyalists, with much disorganization in military and such. Even though the US is a much greater force than Iraq, I feel that in the face of an attack by the US this will be the same in that the population will look into fighting off the aggressor to ensure national soverighty, rather than ensure the Governement's power, and hence public support for the government WILL inevitably increase, a significant disadvantage for the long-term aims of the US in the region..

I fully agree that if there is a substansial growth in discontent within the country, as was the case with Student protests against the government which gained MUCH momentum but inevitably was suppressed, there will be ample room for change and ousting of the Mollahs. I am sure that within time this will occur again, when it does itss very probable that either the local population or, if not, inevitably the United States will intervene to force them out...Its just that its really not the right time now when the Islamic Government is at a point where it can strike back with a farily large blow to stability in the region.

 

[a_majoor]

Since when did Shi'ite Iran begin hosting and controlling the Al Qaeda, who's Wahhabi inclination tends to put Shi'ites on the same plane as Jews?

Iran has fingers in lots of local pies, the Hezbollah is supported by Iran but operates in Lebanon under the sufference of nominally secular Syria (and in areas with Sunni and Druze Islamic sects as well). Supporting a group which shares some common goals (defeat of the Great Satan) is hardly a streach, and with the Coallition destroying almost 3/4 of the known Al Qaeda leadership, the Iranians may be calculating the remmnants can be easily controlled.

US action military would be a last resort, up until now, they have shown a preference for  the Iranian people's pro democracy movement to do the heavy lifting. Like I have said before, only undeniable evidence, such as capturing "Revolutionary Guard" officers or men operating in Iraq, or more likely, some sort of nuclear provocation, will cause the US military to be unleashed. Many people have said, and I agree, that a conventional invasion scenario will not be feasable, but there are lots of unconventional scenarios to choose from.

In fact, given the run down state of Iran's infrastructure (remember how an entire city collapsed and 30,000 people died in a single earthquake event a year or two ago?), it may be possible to stage some "industreal accidents" to cripple the electrical and tellecommunications grid. My own thought is if it comes down to military action, a "head shot" scenario is most likely, and after the dust settles, the Iranian people will find the Mullahs no longer have centralized control of the country, and any military formation that attempts to move out of barracks will do so in an uncoordinated fashion. Post attack, the US will most likely offer moral support to the pro democracy movement, and be prepared to recognize any provisional government and supply non military aid to stabilize the situation.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

This may be more a reality then any of us could imagine if Rice gets her way.  Did anybody watch much of that last night.  Jeez she is a Hawk alright and seems to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder when it comes to this area of the world.

My own thought is if it comes down to military action, a "head shot" scenario is most likely, and after the dust settles, the Iranian people will find the Mullahs no longer have centralized control of the country, and any military formation that attempts to move out of barracks will do so in an uncoordinated fashion.

a_majoor 

I do somewhat agree that this would be a much more favorable approach then a full scale invasion. But it would have to follow a serious propogand campaign directed at the Iranian people to have a democratic soceity or we may just get another military dictatorship in place.  In order to have the people want the change and attempt to do it on their own.  If not the disorganization it would cause would niether benefit the US or any of the stable governments in the area.

 

[Kirkhill]

Its just that its really not the right time now when the Islamic Government is at a point where it can strike back with a farily large blow to stability in the region.

Ali

I think this comment lies at the heart of the matter.  The Islamic Government has capabilities to, as you say, impact on stability in the region.  They are at risk, as you also point out, from rising levels of internal dissent that they have been able to suppress to this time but will they be able to do that indefinitely?  Especially if the outcome in Iraq is, as the Americans hope, a stable secular government with a strong democratic base approved by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.  Where the Mullahs adopt the attitude towards politics apparently championed traditionally in Najaf and Karbala, an attitude where the clerics are supportive of, but do not dominate, the political life of countries.  Unlike the prevailing attitude, as I understand it, in Qom - a more direct, interventionist model.

The question for the region at large, and for America in particular, is if the Mullahs have the capability to act effectively, if they feel under threat, if they have demonstrated a willingness to act (effectively) in the past, if they are actively involved in the politics/insurgency in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, - all disputable points I grant you - but given those possibilities is it likely that they Mullahs would fail to act if they say a more stable region developing?

Is stability in their interest?  Is it in your interest?

This is what I meant when I described the Mullahs as being "tolerable".  The level of frustration that their rule causes within your society is not sufficiently great that your society has come to the conclusion that it must remove the Government, even at the ballot box.  Your society therefore appears to be willing to accept the impositions of the Mullahs in exchange for an absence of war.  Therefore your society tolerates them.

And after the Iran/Iraq wars and the many deaths visited on your country I am in no position to blame you and your countrymen for not wanting to risk more deaths.

Cheers Ali,

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Kirkhill

I agree with some of that.  Taking the crap to stop the possible shit.

But it should not be up to the US to spread democracy, it has to be something the people want not something the US wants.  If they try and force it on people the people may just reject it and fight to change it Vietnam comes to mind.

 

[Kirkhill]

And that I agree with as well Wizard.

It SHOULD not be up to the Americans, and it has to be something the people want, not just the US.  The problems come when other circumstances impact on the decision-making process in outside countries, including America and also in trying to determine the "Will" of the people. 

Vietnam was not just an American war, it was a Civil War. Although the North won, many Vietnamese, both North and South were not supporters of Communism and suffered, left or accepted. In other countries populations have been split by Civil War. Sometimes the majority wins, sometimes a minority wins, sometimes a tiny minority will fail to accept an outcome and make life miserable for the majority for years, (decades in Ireland).

Neither Canada nor the US could come to a clear decision in our recent elections. 

If action is taken, and I hope that it isn't, then it is entirely likely that the end result in Iran would be that expected in any population, some will greet, some will oppose and most will fret in the middle wishing for a quiet life. 

 

[Wizard of OZ]

It does make me laugh when i hear that America is the defender of democracy as in the last election they relied on the courts to pick instead of the people and well Canada that is a whole different story.

 

[Kirkhill]

The thing about America is that, rightly or wrongly, they have rules to deal with just about every situation, including what happens when the people can't decide, and they follow the rules.  That adherence to the rules is what sets them, and most of the west, most of the time, apart from countries like Syria and Libya.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

I don't know if i agree with America following the rules as they tend to make them as they go along or interpret them however they need them to sound at the time.  But for the most part it does set the West apart from most other nations.  Did anyone catch his Inaugural Speech?

this could be more of a reality then any of us realize in the near future.  :-\