Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2017-07-27, 9:26 PM #3281
let us be careful to remember that it could always get worse though
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-27, 9:50 PM #3282
With all the chaos and drama at the White House, I fully expect them to bungle whatever crisis comes along.
2017-07-27, 10:17 PM #3283
Oh I was thinking of a dumber, lower functioning president, but yes, the upcoming oil, financial, and climate crises will be fantastically splattered all over our faces like the semen of a man in his 70s taking a chemical cocktail to regain erections and fluid production. It will smell like chemicals and leave a vague stain.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-27, 10:23 PM #3284
In that case I guess we'll be seeing Trump's Katrina... times 1000.
2017-07-27, 10:33 PM #3285
Ew
former entrepreneur
2017-07-27, 10:42 PM #3286
Yeeeahh!

2017-07-27, 10:51 PM #3287
Don't make fun! The establishment was trying to smear the populist anti-war candidate from Vermont by focusing on his yelping!
former entrepreneur
2017-07-27, 10:52 PM #3288
This is an amusing historical document published in the New Republic in 2004. They endorsed Joe Lieberman and slammed Howard Dean for his opposition to the Iraq War:

https://newrepublic.com/article/62924/our-choice-joe-lieberman-president-2004

Quote:
From that humiliation, the Howard Dean revolt was born. In early 2003, the former Vermont governor began captivating the Democratic base with his thunderous attacks on Washington Democrats. But, in their righteousness, Dean and his supporters have embraced an analysis potentially even more damaging than that of the party leaders they seek to depose. We are not speaking primarily about Dean’s general-election prospects (though they are grim, and their potential consequences for the House and Senate even grimmer). The problem with Dean’s vision of the Democratic Party is more than electoral; it is intellectual and moral. And the candidate who offers the clearest, bravest alternative is Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Fundamentally, the Dean campaign equates Democratic support for the Iraq war with appeasement of President Bush. But the fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkishliberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the cold war itself. Lieberman is not the only candidate who stands in that tradition--Wesley Clark promoted it courageously in Kosovo, as did Richard Gephardt when he defied the polls to vote for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. But Lieberman is its most steadfast advocate, not only in the current field but in the entire Democratic Party. In 1991, he broke with every other Northern Democrat in the Senate to support the Gulf war, then broke with George H.W. Bush when the former president allowed Saddam to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia in the war’s aftermath. In 1998, Lieberman joined with McCain to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act, which committed the United States to regime change in Baghdad. And, in the 2000 campaign, when the younger Bush was still peddling neo-isolationism, it was Gore and Lieberman who insisted that the United States be prepared to use force to stop genocide and promote democracy.

By deriding Democratic support for overthrowing Saddam as “Bush Lite,” Dean threatens to define that tradition out of the Democratic Party. Reasonable people, including reasonable hawks, can differ about the wisdom of the Iraq war, especially given the apparent absence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear program. But the nature of Dean’s opposition suggests an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power.

Dean is rightly passionate about the harm done to America’s relations with its allies. Bush, he says, continues to “rub their nose in humiliation.” But he can muster no similar passion about Iraq’s freedom from one of the great monsters of the twentieth century. Saddam’s overthrow leaves him cold; he “suppose[d]” it was a good thing. Dean and his supporters identify viscerally with the foreign governments that resent being bullied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Yet they identify barely at all with the largely voiceless people--in countries like Syria and Iran--who might consider a democracy’s projection of power into the heart of a region defined by tyranny to be progressive, even inspiring.
former entrepreneur
2017-07-27, 10:55 PM #3289
I wasn't trying to make fun! I only intended to imagine what Trump's "Katrina times 1000" would be.

Actually, I wonder who that really might be. Not Sanders, right? Elizabeth Warren? Al Franken? Vermin Supreme? Archimedes Plutonium? Cthulhu? Ted Cruz?
2017-07-28, 2:25 PM #3290
Your last two in your list are duplicates in there jonesie
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-28, 4:14 PM #3291
Cthulhu is way more attractive and charismatic
2017-07-28, 8:16 PM #3292
So, North Korea seems to have tested an ICBM that could have reached the West Coast of North America. Is the regime crazy enough to actually commit an unprovoked attack? Rational thought would say no, but can we assume this Kim Jong Un guy is a rational man?
2017-07-28, 8:48 PM #3293
North Korea tends to only ramp up missile development after they're pressured or taunted by the west (i.e., when we fly nuclear-capable bombers near their border where they can see them, or when a president talks ****).

Which, with the way Trump is handling the situation, gives us a worryingly nonzero chance of being attacked.
2017-07-28, 9:58 PM #3294
tl;dr: it's our fault, like everything else
2017-07-28, 10:18 PM #3295
Could this missile reach the textured and worthwhile parts of the country that have breathing room that are inland from California?
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-29, 12:24 AM #3296
Chicago may now be within range
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 12:50 AM #3297
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
tl;dr: it's our fault, like everything else


What's more believable, a dictator trying to get a deterrent against a country they're at war with, or a crazy person trying to build nukes to strike other countries in a suicidal gesture?
2017-07-29, 1:03 AM #3298
It doesn't matter which of those two options is easier to believe. The truth can be difficult to believe.
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 1:04 AM #3299
You have to dig because it's not headline news, but North Korea is willing to freeze nuclear armament. All they ask is for the U.S. to stop performing military exercises on their border. Both Obama and Trump have said no.
2017-07-29, 1:05 AM #3300
I think North Korea pursues nuclear weapons for the same reasons other diplomatically isolated regimes do: to cling to power, despite their entire propaganda matrix being a total sham and a house of cards.

I think a better question is, what have they got to lose in initiating an attack? On the one hand, nothing, because they are already a pariah, but on the other hand, everything, for the exact same reason. I like to think the second possibility is more likely, but who knows?
2017-07-29, 1:08 AM #3301
Yeah, well, I'd say there are probably good reasons for those exercises, and good parenting says not to feed your child's bad behavior by rewarding promises to stop. But then again, I'm a total novice when it comes to this topic.
2017-07-29, 1:09 AM #3302
Originally posted by Eversor:
It doesn't matter which of those two options is easier to believe. The truth can be difficult to believe.


That can be true but I do not think it applies here.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I think North Korea pursues nuclear weapons for the same reasons other diplomatically isolated regimes do: to cling to power, despite their entire propaganda matrix being a total sham and a house of cards.


Uh huh. That's true, Kim Jong Un wants to keep power. And he's one of the worst dictators alive today. And that's the primary reason he keeps the nuclear program. All true.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I think a better question is, what have they got to lose in initiating an attack? On the one hand, nothing, because they are already a pariah, but on the other hand, everything, for the exact same reason. I like to think the second possibility is more likely, but who knows?


Their lives and country. All of it. Gone.
2017-07-29, 1:09 AM #3303
Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructive choices based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.

But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American agression.

Edit: fixed typos
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 1:13 AM #3304
Reid: to be fair, there is a bit of history here I should be paying attention to. I'll try not to forget about the fact that the US participated in the Korean war (which never formally ended, IIRC).
2017-07-29, 1:16 AM #3305
I am interested to know WTF president Bush did in response when the nuclear program got started. Nothing? A peaceful resolution would be nice.
2017-07-29, 1:19 AM #3306
Originally posted by Reid:
You have to dig because it's not headline news, but North Korea is willing to freeze nuclear armament. All they ask is for the U.S. to stop performing military exercises on their border. Both Obama and Trump have said no.


So let me ask: what do you think is significant about this? What do you think it reveals that the US has turned this down?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 1:21 AM #3307
Originally posted by Eversor:
Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructives based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.


Well I guess I completely wasted an hour and a half watching Team America: World Police, then.


Quote:
But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American regression.


That's kind of it. I'm not sure we should be looking to the North as a paragon of diplomacy. I think everybody would be happier if the regime collapsed.

Well, everyone except South Korea, which would have to take a serious economic hit in absorbing an entire population of malnourished refugees. :-/
2017-07-29, 3:30 AM #3308
Originally posted by Eversor:
Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructive choices based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.

But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American agression.

Edit: fixed typos
Drug dealers shooting cops is a completely rational defensive response to police aggression. Saying that does not mean the drug dealers are good people, and saying that does not mean the police actions provoking the response are appropriate, either. It's quite possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong.

North Korea is one of the worlds largest heroin dealers so this isn't even a bad analogy.

And the War on Drugs, black-and-white, shoot first, pretends to be about ethics but really about profits, is a pretty good analogy for US foreign policy in general, too.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Reid: to be fair, there is a bit of history here I should be paying attention to. I'll try not to forget about the fact that the US participated in the Korean war (which never formally ended, IIRC).
The US didn't just participate in the Korean War. US troops massacred refugees, intentionally targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure, and, well, there were some rapes, too. North Koreans do not like the US and given their only recent interaction with the US they have very good reason not to.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I am interested to know WTF president Bush did in response when the nuclear program got started. Nothing? A peaceful resolution would be nice.
The only way to stop North Korea would be to invade North Korea, and the US doesn't have enough money or forces to do that without compromising US national defence.

The last Korean War spread the US so thin it was almost a disaster, despite the WW2 + Cold War buildup and conscription. With US forces already occupying two hostile countries under Bush there was really nothing he could do about it.

I do not think the Kim's are sophisticated strategists by any stretch, but it still wouldn't surprise me if I heard that they intentionally delayed their nuclear weapons program until the US got themselves snarled in another stupid, expensive Forever War.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Well I guess I completely wasted an hour and a half watching Team America: World Police, then.




That's kind of it. I'm not sure we should be looking to the North as a paragon of diplomacy. I think everybody would be happier if the regime collapsed.

Well, everyone except South Korea, which would have to take a serious economic hit in absorbing an entire population of malnourished refugees. :-/
Good news, then: North Korea has approximately a trillion conventional and chemical artillery shells pointed into South Korea, so if the regime collapsed South Korea wouldn't need to worry about supporting any refugees, because there wouldn't be a South Korea anymore.

China, though, for sure. Also the North Koreans would prefer their current government to the idea of US boots on their soil. Probably a bunch of Swiss bankers want to keep the Kim's around, too. idk.
2017-07-29, 4:08 AM #3309
Originally posted by Jon`C:
It's quite possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong.


That's basically where I fall on this, except I'd go a step further. I don't think right and wrong ("blame") are very useful categories for understanding the reasons why countries go to war. Sure, its useful to cast blame as a way of castigating opponents in political debates. But when it comes to tensions between NK and US, both sides have reasons to see the other as aggressors and to increase their defenses or display their readiness, which the other side interprets as aggression. There isn't much point in figuring out based on past events whether one side has some kind of moral edge over the other, because neither side is innately the good guy and neither side is innately the bad guy. Yet still, history isn't irrelevant either, because past atrocities influence how the leadership in each country perceives the other.
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 9:49 AM #3310
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Drug dealers shooting cops is a completely rational defensive response to police aggression. Saying that does not mean the drug dealers are good people, and saying that does not mean the police actions provoking the response are appropriate, either. It's quite possible for both sides of a conflict to be in the wrong.


No it isn't. You trade a possible conviction on lesser charges, to almost certain convection on even worse charges and a vastly elevated chance of getting shot before you are even taken in.

Quote:
Good news, then: North Korea has approximately a trillion conventional and chemical artillery shells pointed into South Korea, so if the regime collapsed South Korea wouldn't need to worry about supporting any refugees, because there wouldn't be a South Korea anymore.


Meh. Counter artillery fire and air strikes would silence NK batteries in about 24 hours. The northern outskirts of Soul would have a bad day, but it wouldn't be all that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:
The last Korean War spread the US so thin it was almost a disaster, despite the WW2 + Cold War buildup and conscription.[/quote]

Um, no. The US had just finished massively scaling down their forces from the second world war. US leadership had underestimated the degree to which they had lost their world war II capability. If anything, the Korean War was what motivated the Cold War buildup.
2017-07-29, 10:23 AM #3311
Originally posted by Eversor:
Regardless, word on the street is that the regime in North Korea is rational, in the sense that it's committed to its own survival and wouldn't make self-destructive choices based on a commitment to some other factor (i.e., ideological hatred of the US). And from the North Korean perspective, its the US that appears to be an irrational actor.

But I think what Jones might've been taking issue with (and I don't want to speak for him: if he doesn't, I'll say that I do) is the implication found in many of your arguments that apparent North Korean agression is actually a defensive response to American agression.

Edit: fixed typos

Depends what you mean by American aggression. As has been said, North Korea is a pariah country. And they're mostly isolated. They're well aware how easily they could get devastated by another military if left to themselves. Their only recourse is to deter intervention. They have tons of artillery pointed at Seoul, missiles which can reach Japan and short range nuclear weapons. The only thing guaranteeing their continued existence are these things. So, can you find instances of America, say, taunting North Korea? The answer is yes. Exercises like these are done frequently, and are at least part what North Korea is referring to when they ask the U.S. to stop military exercises on their border.
2017-07-29, 10:32 AM #3312
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Yeah, well, I'd say there are probably good reasons for those exercises, and good parenting says not to feed your child's bad behavior by rewarding promises to stop. But then again, I'm a total novice when it comes to this topic.


Some of them at least are just shows of strength. There are news articles on this, so it's not crazy to claim this is the purpose of these exercises.

Originally posted by Eversor:
So let me ask: what do you think is significant about this?


If both sides agreed to a two-sided freeze deal, with the assistance of China, and the U.S. plays its part, then if North Korea continued missile development it pushes China away from North Korea. Separating China and North Korea would only help us. If they didn't continue missile development, then woohoo, we are now one step closer to a more peaceful existence, and not putting long-range nuclear weapons in the hands of a dangerous, hostile state.

Originally posted by Eversor:
What do you think it reveals that the US has turned this down?


I think it reveals that the United States is rarely willing to engage in diplomacy when it already has its teeth sunk into something militarily. It reveals that our leaders value military conquest above the long-term safety of the American people. As can be quoted from the CNN article:

"There is no amount of military pressure alone that will compel Kim Jong Un to volunteer to eliminate his nuclear and missile programs," Adam Mount, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said after B-1 flights in late May.

I would argue even further, that the military pressure is one of the major causes of Kim Jong Un developing his nuclear and missile program. At any rate, if military pressure isn't helping the situation, then why are we still doing it?
2017-07-29, 10:35 AM #3313
Quote:
then why are we still doing it?


Spoiler: probably because diplomatic solutions aren't manly and tough.
2017-07-29, 10:54 AM #3314
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
No it isn't. You trade a possible conviction on lesser charges, to almost certain convection on even worse charges and a vastly elevated chance of getting shot before you are even taken in.
This is terribly off topic. (Someone already facing a mandatory minimum life sentence has no rational reason not to kill the police officers who are trying to capture him.)

Quote:
Meh. Counter artillery fire and air strikes would silence NK batteries in about 24 hours. The northern outskirts of Soul would have a bad day, but it wouldn't be all that bad in the grand scheme of things.
The most optimistic estimate I've seen is that a million civilians in Seoul would die, and it'd only be that low because of bomb shelters, not because of any effective response. It also assumed the payload is conventional and delivered only from their largest bore HARTS and newer missile launchers, rather than an all-out strike including chemical and nuclear weapons.

Seoul would be devastated by all accounts, losing at least a fifth of its population and basically all of the productive capital that keeps their economy running. It may have some effect on international semiconductor prices.

Quote:
Um, no. The US had just finished massively scaling down their forces from the second world war. US leadership had underestimated the degree to which they had lost their world war II capability. If anything, the Korean War was what motivated the Cold War buildup.
~Um, actually~

The problem was the number of planes and the new strategic and tactical importance of the Air Force. The US was still operating planes from WW2. In terms of raw aircraft numbers, the US peaked during the Korean War, not before or after it.
2017-07-29, 11:02 AM #3315
Originally posted by Reid:
I think it reveals that the United States is rarely willing to engage in diplomacy when it already has its teeth sunk into something militarily. It reveals that our leaders value military conquest above the long-term safety of the American people. As can be quoted from the CNN article:



That's a simplistic look at the situation. For NK, having a nuclear deterrent is the end game. You can "diplomacy" all you want, but that's what they will work towards, because that's by far the best card that they can possibly get a this point. You might slow it down, but eventually they'll make it happen. We don't have a lot of leverage here. It's not like we can hurt their economy by slapping on sanctions. NK is run by very, very selfish, cruel people who have repeated proven that they are willing to starve their own citizens if that's what it takes to keep their stranglehold on their country.

On one hand the US can keep the status quo, and let China deal with their nuclear weapons program. That avoids a costly and deadly war that will probably kickstart a global recession. On the other hand, there's no telling how stable the Kim's regime will be in the long term. A nuclear armed dictatorship with an internal power struggle could be a lot worse than dealing with the problem up front.

Ideally China would step up their game, but I think they are still in denial because they don't want to deal with refugees and they don't want a US friendly country on their boarder.
2017-07-29, 11:05 AM #3316
Originally posted by Reid:
Depends what you mean by American aggression.


I didn't find in what you wrote an explanation of what you meant by American aggression. Except maybe, for this, which seemed only to confirm my interpretation of your view that America is the perpetual antagonist, and other countries merely take defensive postures in response to American aggression, which the US media describes to the American public as aggression.

Originally posted by Reid:
So, can you find instances of America, say, taunting North Korea? The answer is yes. Exercises like these are done frequently, and are at least part what North Korea is referring to when they ask the U.S. to stop military exercises on their border.


This is an especially strange thing to cite, because the headline of the CNN article is: "US bombers fly over Korean Peninsula in response to N. Korea's ICBM test" (italics mine). That is, the US bomber fly over wasn't an unprovoked act of aggression. It was part of a reciprocal cycle of proportionate call and response engagement.

So I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that, if the US backed down and stopped carrying out actions that are its deterrent against NK changing the status quo, that the broader situation would improve, and therefore the US is somehow at fault for perpetuating the problem?
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 11:11 AM #3317
I am out of my depth here and can't add much to this thread, but I will say one thing: it strikes me as incredibly naive to assume that North Korean artillery could reliably be wiped out in 24 hours. Anybody who's played an RTS knows how much destruction a single out of range artillery unit can wreck on a population center that can't mobilize fast enough to engage the higher ground attackers. I guess we'd have air strikes and satellite Intel, but who knows how things would play out amid the fog of war?
2017-07-29, 11:12 AM #3318
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The most optimistic estimate I've seen is that a million civilians in Seoul would die, and it'd only be that low because of bomb shelters, not because of any effective response. It also assumed the payload is conventional and delivered only from their largest bore HARTS and newer missile launchers, rather than an all-out strike including chemical and nuclear weapons.

Seoul would be devastated by all accounts, losing at least a fifth of its population and basically all of the productive capital that keeps their economy running. It may have some effect on international semiconductor prices.


Yeah. Projectile-intercepting technology like Israel's Iron Dome would be almost completely ineffective against the barrage of missiles that would be fired at Seoul because of the sheer quantity of missiles. I've seen estimates that 60k Seoul residents would be dead within only two or three hours of conflict.
former entrepreneur
2017-07-29, 11:17 AM #3319
Originally posted by Reid:
Some of them at least are just shows of strength. There are news articles on this, so it's not crazy to claim this is the purpose of these exercises


The exercises are meant to inure North Korea to US military staging and operating near them. North Korea will not be able to anticipate or respond to an impending attack as long as they are unwilling to risk starting the war themselves.

Training exercises near North Korea are absolutely 100% US aggression, not just intimidation or grandstanding.
2017-07-29, 11:35 AM #3320
Originally posted by Reid:
I think it reveals that the United States is rarely willing to engage in diplomacy when it already has its teeth sunk into something militarily. It reveals that our leaders value military conquest above the long-term safety of the American people.


Yeah, I guess I'm not quite so cynical about this. I don't think the US passed on North Korea's offer because of some kind of constitutional inability amongst the American leadership to pursue diplomatic solutions (leaving aside Trump's gutting of the State department). The US wasn't ever going to take the deal that North Korea offered, because it would've done nothing to placate American concerns about North Korea's nuclear weapons, and would've left American allies (viz., Japan, South Korea) more vulnerable to North Korea because it would've withdrawn America's deterrent. North Korea went to a Lamborghini dealership and tried to buy a car with the lint in their pocket.

Originally posted by Reid:
I would argue even further, that the military pressure is one of the major causes of Kim Jong Un developing his nuclear and missile program. At any rate, if military pressure isn't helping the situation, then why are we still doing it?


Because North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war, and because each side having a deterrent and knowing that, if it attacks, the cost of war will be greater than what it is willing to endure, is what stops the tension from escalating into full blown conflict. Maybe the system won't work indefinitely, but military tensions have succeeded in staving off a renewal of war for decades.
former entrepreneur
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!