Copyright 1994 - 2013 Endtime Prophecy Net
CAPTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
AND THE NEW BABYLON :
Authored By : Bill Kochman (aka The WordWeaver)
Published On : December 15, 2003
Last Updated : February 20, 2012
Capture Of Saddam Hussein, Bush's Mushroom Cloud Remark, Fear And Paranoia Tactics, Clear Evidence Not So Clear, Bush The Unilateralist, War Casualties, Iraq Quagmire, A Few Pertinent Questions, Bush's Personal Vendetta, Motivations Behind The Resistance, Hated American Presence, Resistance Is Home-Bred, Iraq's Outside American-Picked Government, Caucus Elections, Bush's False Compassion For Iraqi People, America's Dictator Friends, Pakistan's General Pervez Musharraf, America's Use Them And Abuse Them Policy, Saddam A US Ally During Iran-Iraq War, Osama Bin Laden A U.S. Ally During Soviet Occupation Of Afghanistan, Mirky American Foreign Policy, Saddam's Invasion Of Kuwait, Division Of India And Pakistan, Kashmir, Creation of Israel Jordan And Kuwait, False Jews, Why A Divided Middle East And Africa, Nation-Carving: America's Real Middle East Agenda, America's Over-Exaggerated Saddam Threat, No Solid Evidence To Justify Iraq War, Paul O'Neill, Premeditated War White House Damage Control, US Withdraws WMD Inspectors Team
As I write this commentary, I can still remember my initial reactions one month ago, upon reading the first news reports regarding the surprise capture of Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, on the evening of December 13th, Iraqi time, in a small farming community called Adwar, or Ad Dwar, which is located about nine miles southeast of Saddam's hometown and former power base of Tikrit.
At the time, I felt a mixture of surprise, and to be honest, a bit of caution and incredulity; and I truly wondered if the person they had captured was really Saddam Hussein, or perhaps just one of his alleged doubles posing as the Iraqi leader. As some of you will know, we have a whole collection of Saddam images on our "Armageddon" Hotline server, so I am more than familiar with what the man looks like; yet still, even though I was relatively certain that they had captured the Iraqi leader, a bit of doubt did linger in my mind for a short while. However, those doubts were eventually dispelled as more news regarding Mr. Hussein's capture and positive identification was released to the anxious public.
Later in the day, after I had an opportunity to view the initial images which were found on various news sites, in which Saddam appeared dirty, with his hair in disorder, and sporting a greying, lengthening beard, and looking more like a vagrant than a world leader, I couldn't help but think to myself, "So this is the greatly-feared, iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for some two dozen years? This man, who was discovered hiding in a pit in the ground, cowering with fear for his very life, is the bold, defiant Saddam Hussein, who the Bush administration has repeatedly and adamantly claimed was armed with terrible weapons of mass destruction -- or WMD -- which he was planning to use at any moment to attack the United States of America?". The image of Saddam as portrayed by the Bush Administration and the American mass media prior to the war, was very different from the impression one obtained from viewing those post-capture photographs.
Allow me to refresh your memory.
The general populace seems to have a short memory span, as well as a propensity to easily forgive and forget; and some politicians certainly know how to take advantage of this; but let us not be so quick to forget President Bush's famous "mushroom cloud" remark; along with all of the other fear and paranoia-inducing remarks which were purposely made by him and his cronies, in order to condition and coerce the American public into blindly and patriotically accepting the "Bush War", prior to last year's illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush's PR -- public relations -- team did some rather heavy marketing, and they won; at least with the American public. In case you have already forgotten, allow me to share with you a quote from that famous pre-war speech, given to the American public by President Bush, on the evening of October 7, 2002, from Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Please notice how Bush subtly employs words and phrases such as "realities" and "clear evidence" in order to add weight to what would later be proven to be utterly false allegations. Contrary to his claims of "clear evidence", in the end, it turns out that his so-called evidence was murkier than the Mississippi River:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
----- End Quote -----
The above quotation is but one example of the fear-inducing rhetoric which President Bush heavily employed in his speech fifteen months ago. If you read the speech in its entirety, and compare it to what the Bush Administration is saying now, and weigh it against the facts on the ground, and what has actually been found in the way of concrete evidence, you will be utterly amazed. Nothing of what President Bush claimed in that speech has been substantiated to date; not the nuclear weapons; nor the "thousands of tons of chemical agents"; or even the thousands of "liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents". If it really ever existed, where did it all go? Even Bush Administration officials have stated that there is no way that Saddam Hussein could have spirited such large quantities of the alleged materials out of his country without them knowing about it. So isn't the answer rather obvious? Personally, I can only conclude that such materials never existed; at least not in the huge quantities which were being claimed by Mr. Bush and other officials.
When US Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, presented the American case for war against Iraq before the United Nations in February of last year, he likewise made it clear that the United States believed that Saddam Hussein was in possession of such materials. Please notice how Mr. Powell phrased his words. He was not saying that Saddam might possess such WMD, he was making it sound as if he already did possess them:
----- Begin Quote -----
"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option."
----- End Quote -----
In spite of the president's claims, the majority of the rest of the world was not in agreement with his hasty decision to wage war against Iraq. They felt that the UNMOVIC inspectors should have been given more time, as they had requested. This is one of the primary reasons why help in rebuilding Iraq has been so slow in coming from other nations. As he has done on other occasions -- such as with the Kyoto Protocol -- Bush, the unilateralist, stuck his nose up at the world and invaded Iraq. Now that the control and restructure period is turning out to be considerably tougher than he had anticipated, Bush expects everyone to cheerfully pitch in, and help rebuild Iraq, the American way. Never mind that George Bush invaded that country contrary to world opinion. Never mind that Bush kicked out the UNMOVIC inspectors, or at least informed them following the invasion that there was no longer any need for them to return to Iraq. Never mind that the Americans have taken control of the oil fields to do with as they please. Never mind that President Bush clearly stated that awarding contracts in Iraq would be heavily based upon which nations supported his illegal war. This has clearly been an American game from start to finish, yet Mr. Bush expects the world to do its "duty".
Sadly, Mr. Bush seems to think that he can slap the world in the face, and continue to push his weight around, and the rest of the world will still do his bidding. As the United States sinks deeper into the quagmire of its own creation, and as American servicemen continue to die in Iraq, in spite of the capture of Saddam Hussein, hopefully, Mr. Bush is slowly coming to his senses. Undoubtedly, the glaring fact that Iraq has yet to be brought under complete control even after nine months of American occupation, as well as the fact that Americans and soldiers and civilians of other nationalities are still dying there, is another powerful reason why other nations are so hesitant to offer the kind of direct assistance that Bush expects from them. The United Nations and the Red Cross have already been forced out of Iraq by the Iraqi defenders, whoever they may be. Who will be targeted next?
Allow me to ask you the reader a few questions. Was capturing Saddam Hussein as big a prize as the Bush administration has made it out to be? Has Saddam's capture brought the war to an end? Have Americans and others stopped dying over there?
In spite of the Bush administration's heavy pre-war public relations blitz, in which they scared Americans out of their wits with the WMD threat, for some odd reason, the idea of a personal vendetta fails to release its grasp upon my mind. Well, President Bush may now have an inflated ego, because he captured Saddam, and thus avenged the attempt on the life of his father, as well as accomplished what many felt his father should have done thirteen years ago, but I wonder if even George Bush realizes what he has unleashed by invading Iraq. If this war was just about Saddam Hussein; and if the Iraqi resistance fighters were merely fighting for Saddam Hussein; then one would think that the war would just about be over; but it isn't. This indicates to me that the Iraqis are fighting for more than just for Mr. Hussein. They are fighting for Iraq; they are fighting for Iraqi sovereignty and identity; and some of them are undoubtedly fighting for the causes of Islam as well. In my mind, this is what is really fueling the war, and not just loyalty to Saddam. They want Iraq to belong to the Iraqis, and not to the Americans via a puppet government.
It is interesting to note how for a number of months now, the Bush Administration has been doing all it can, in order to make it appear as if the brunt of the resistance to the American presence in Iraq is coming from outsiders, or from members of the Baath Party who are still loyal to Saddam Hussein. They are trying to create the false impression that the majority of Iraqis support America's invasion of Iraq. The goal of Bush's public relations team is obviously to shift the emphasis from the fact that there are many common Iraqis who are strongly opposed to the continued American presence in their land. They are happy to be rid of Saddam, but now they are saying to the Americans "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam for us, but now it is time for you to leave"; but the Americans are saying "Sorry, but that isn't how we have written the script. We are in control now". Have the Iraqis unknowingly traded one dictator for another?
So in order to downplay the discontent amongst the common Iraqis, the Bush Administration circulates the story that outsiders are sneaking in through the porous borders with Syria and Iran. While this has been true to a certain degree, even American officials are now saying that at best, perhaps a few hundred outside fighters have infiltrated the country. In other words, the Iraqi resistance is for the most part home-bred. Let's be honest here. Do you really believe that anyone, be they foreigners such as the al-Qaeda forces loyal to Osama bin Laden, or Baath Party members, or anyone else for that matter, could possibly organize and launch attacks against the Americans in such high numbers, without the knowledge and consent of the local Iraqis, who are at least partially supporting their endeavors? I don't. In fact, just yesterday, I was reading in the news, that on a daily basis, they uncover several dozen hidden bombs and missile sites. This is not the work of just a small handful of people. It is a widespread, popular resistance against the Americans.
Now, in addition to the Americans, there is most definitely a group of outsiders who have been profiting from America's illegal invasion of Iraq. No; I am not referring to Islamic extremists such as al-Qaeda; although America's aggression is definitely assisting their cause as well. I am referring to some of the men who now sit on the Governing Council in Iraq. While the common Iraqi has suffered during two decades of rule by Saddam Hussein, some of those leaders have lived abroad, in luxury, in the West. Now that Saddam has fallen, those men have returned to Iraq in order to rule the country they abandoned. They were hand-picked by the Americans; they were not voted into that position by the common Iraqis. It is those very same men who are now working on creating Iraq's new government and constitution, with American approval, of course.
While there have been some contentions between the Americans and some of the members of the Governing Council, in the end, you can be sure that those men will be America's puppets, and will do her bidding, because they owe their position of power to her. They will not truly represent the will of the common Iraqi people. In fact, while Bush has promised the Iraqis an open democracy, as I write this, there is already a squabble over the upcoming elections for the Interim Assembly. Led by their spiritual leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who is considered to be the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, many Iraqis desire a direct general election, while the Americans insist on a caucus-style election. A caucus is an internal vote where candidates are chosen by the leaders, and not directly by the general public in a one-man-one-vote type of election. In this particular case, the caucus would choose members for the Interim Assembly, who would in turn appoint officers for the Interim Government. In other words, the common Iraqis will really have no input in the election process.
Now, let us briefly discuss some of the deeper significance of this war, aside from America's obvious motivations for starting it in the first place. Concerning those motivations, as I have stated before, I am convinced that intervention by the Bush Administration in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Bush's so-called "compassion" for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein's rule. Anyone who believes that nonsense needs to have their head examined. They also need a long break from America's favorite propaganda organ: the mass media. There are countries, big and small, all over the world where people are oppressed by dictators of varying degrees; some of whom the United States supports and deals with on a regular basis.
A classic example of this would be General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, who we have discussed extensively on our private mailing list. Mr. Musharraf is not a democratically-elected leader; he is a military dictator who came to power by way of a coup during the late 1990's, short and simple. In fact, a few months ago, General Musharraf, ahem, adjusted Pakistan's constitution so that he can remain in power for an additional five years. While he has promised democratic elections, that has yet to materialize. While the general was pressured into becoming America's ally during the recent war in Afghanistan, following the usual American modus operandi of "use them and abuse them", he has since been demonized and vilified, due to the alleged role that Pakistan has played in facilitating nuclear weapons technology to other nations.
Along the same lines, let us also not forget that during the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was likewise favored, and was considered an American ally; and was given both intelligence and technology, because Iran was viewed as a more serious threat to Middle East stability at that time, than was Iraq. Of course, in reality, America's real desire is to restructure both Iran and Iraq; but she will play one against the other when it suits her purposes.
In similar fashion, America's feared enemy, Osama bin Laden, was considered an American ally during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. As I have pointed out before, it is a proven fact that Osama bin Laden led the Muslim rebel forces in the mountains of Afghanistan, and was provided with intelligence, financial aid, and weapons by both Pakistan and the United States of America, in order to drive out the Soviets, which they finally succeeded in doing. If you doubt these claims, then I encourage you to closely examine some of the news reports of the past, in order to verify these things for yourself.
In the mirky world of American foreign policy, one of the cardinal rules seems to be that as long as the leader of a certain country will bow to America's will, by promoting and supporting America's hegemonic agenda, that leader is free to govern their own nation as they wish. Be they president, prime minister, king, dictator or sheik, the United States will exercise a great deal of tolerance, and will even cast a blind eye upon any atrocities which that leader may inflict upon his own people, just as long as he quietly acquiesces to America's will. But just let that leader step out of line, or become a little too powerful or independent, and the American Government will begin to press down upon him in the form of trade sanctions, vilification, threats, and if it is deemed necessary, even military intervention.
Saddam Hussein found this out rather quickly when he made his grab for Kuwait some fourteen years ago. While a lot of people disapproved of what Saddam did, and viewed it as an act of war, from a historical and Biblical perspective, Mr. Hussein was only reclaiming what was rightfully his. Does that statement surprise you? Perhaps it wouldn't if you had a better understanding of the history of the area. You see, as I point out in a few of my articles, since ancient times, the country which is now known as Kuwait, was a part of the Babylonian Empire, which was also known as Mesopotamia; that is, "the land between the two rivers"; those two rivers being the Tigris and the Euphrates. To be more precise, Kuwait was probably what is referred to in the Scriptures as "the land of the Chaldees", or the Chaldeans. It was the land of wise men and Babylonian kings. It was also the location of Ur, which was the homeland of the Patriarch Abraham.
Let us move forward a few thousand years. Following WW II, great changes occurred in the geo-political world. Many of these changes occurred in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. These changes did not necessarily occur by the will of the common people who occupied those lands, but rather they were forced upon them by the global powers of that time period.
For example, are you aware of the fact that prior to the year 1947, the country now known as Pakistan did not exist? It was the waning days of the British Empire, when Mahatma Gandhi fought for the rights of his people. Before totally surrendering their mandate in India, the British carved up the country along ethnic lines; that is, Muslim and Hindu. Thus, what was once all of India, became the two nations of India and Pakistan. But, the division was not quite that simple. You see, ever since that time, these two nations have been fighting over who has sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir.
As I said, the very same thing occurred in the Middle East. Countries which had not existed before, suddenly came into existence by the will of the global powers of the day, such as the British and the French. The entire Middle East was carved up according to their whim. Nations such as Israel, Jordan and Kuwait suddenly came into existence, without the consent of the local populace, and there have been problems ever since. The British basically gifted Palestine to the "Jews", who moved in from Europe and other areas; but in order to do that, they also had to provide a place for the local Palestinian population. This problem was partially solved with the creation of Jordan. I don't know what the percentage is now, but at one time, ninety per cent of the population of Jordan was Palestinian. At any rate, 1947 was a very interesting year in world history.
So the point is, a lot of people's lives were affected in a negative way almost sixty years ago, by the rich and the powerful, who really had no business doing what they did. It has been said that these elite acted in part, as a result of the guilt they felt, due to the atrocities which had been committed against the "Jews" by the Germans. Many Europeans also wanted the "Jews" out of Europe for reasons which I will not explain at length here. You will find this discussed in more detail in such series as "The International Jew And The Protocols Of Zion". At any rate, the Middle East became the dumping ground, and the Arab populations were pushed out of the way in order to make room for the newly-arrived "Jews". And in case you are wondering, the reason why I have used quote marks around that word, is because many people doubt that the modern "Jews" who now occupy Israel, are the same people as the ethnic Jews of Biblical times; that is, the true descendants of Judah, the son of Jacob, who was later renamed Israel by the Lord.
But getting back to my main point, in reality, Kuwait was stolen from what is now known as Iraq. The British sliced it off from the rest of the country. Hussein merely wanted to get it back. You may not agree with what he did, but that is basically why it happened. If you understand that Saddam viewed himself as Nebuchadnezzar III, and had intentions of uniting the entire Middle East into one powerful Arab/Muslim superstate, then his actions may make a little more sense to you. Muammar El-Kaddafi, the longtime dictator of Libya, has had the same grandiose vision for Africa for many years now. Perhaps that is why the United States has feared him so. You see, a united Middle East, or a united Africa, is not in the best interest of the rich industrialized West. Why? Because then they would not be able to exploit them of all of their vast natural resources, which are so vital for the survival of the extravagant way in which the West chooses to live.
But let us return to the issue of America's intervention in Iraq. In spite of the fact that there are dictators all over the world, some who oppress their people worse than others, for some "odd" reason, President George Bush chose Iraq as his object of "compassion", to exercise his, shall we say, "democracy-building tendencies".
It isn't odd once one understands that "liberating" the Iraqis, and establishing "peace and democracy", was simply the deceptive cloak which George Bush used in order to gain control of the Iraqi oil fields, to establish an American power base in the Middle East, to rid Israel of one of her most threatening enemies, to avenge his father, etc. As I partially explained a moment ago, the simple truth of the matter is that this war is much bigger than Bush's hatred for Saddam Hussein, and the Arabs obviously realize this. They know that if the Americans are successful, and Iraq is converted into an American puppet state, their own regimes will be seriously threatened, and they could very well be next in America's script called "Nation Rebuilding : The American Way", and they are scared stiff. In particular, I am thinking of the hard-line Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the mullahs of Iran, as well as Bashar al-Assad of Syria; both of which Mr. Bush has included in his so-called "axis of evil". Could it be that the Americans and the British are in the mood for some modern "nation-carving" of their own?
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in private, some of the other Arab/Muslim leaders are actually rooting for America's failure in Iraq. Furthermore, it would also be within their character to allow some of their own fighters, or even al-Qaeda operatives, to quietly slip into Iraq, for the purpose of foiling America's intentions there. However, as I noted earlier, even if this is true, it does not negate the fact that many of the Iraqis are not happy with America's extended presence in their country, and they, meaning the Iraqis, are leading the resistance against the American invaders. Perhaps some of the other leaders of the Middle East didn't care too much for Saddam Hussein; but on the other hand, a powerful, American-controlled puppet state at their doorstep is even less desirable. Such a powerful state controlled by the American infidels, would undoubtedly be an affront to Islam, and would further fuel the cause, and increase the membership of al-Qaeda and similar radical Muslim organizations in the Middle East.
Returning to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the American deception, in light of those less-than-formidable images of the Iraqi leader which were released following his capture, America's claims of a powerful dictator, armed with WMD, who would be ready to blow up America within a year unless he was stopped, seem all the more ludicrous and unbelievable in my mind. It is abundantly clear now, that the threat posed by Saddam, was purposely over-exaggerated by Bush, for reasons which we have already begun to examine. Not only that, but as you will come to understand as we continue this series, said threat never really existed in the first place. How could the American public have been so deceived by the president? How could they have been so naive as to blindly accept his claim of an "imminent threat"? Are they really that paranoid? Did 9-11 scar the American psyche that deeply?
While President Bush has finally defeated his nemesis, the fact of the matter remains that, after about nine months of searching, the Americans still haven't produced any solid, verifiable evidence to justify their original stated purpose for even attacking Iraq; that is, disarming Saddam of his alleged WMD. Nothing tangible has been found by anyone. The UN team lead by Hans Blix was never able to find any solid evidence to support America's allegations; and now American military inspectors have met with the very same fate. There is nothing. In fact, with each passing month, more reports and analyses are being released by various organizations and individuals, which paint a rather clear picture that Saddam Hussein was never even close to possessing what the Bush Administration claimed he had, or would have, soon. To the contrary, they state that whatever Saddam did possess, was disposed of during the early to mid 1990's. These reports, such as those I have been reading during the past several days, arrive at the same conclusions we have been seeing for a few months now; and that is that the Bush administration, as well as the intelligence agencies, and a lot of people in between, knowingly and purposely distorted the facts, in order to provide legitimacy for Mr. Bush's illegal war.
As amazing as it may seem, even one of Bush's own ex-Cabinet members, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, is quoted as having said that the illegal war against Iraq was already in its planning stages a short time after Mr. Bush entered the Oval Office. According to O'Neill, it wasn't a question of why to attack Iraq, as if there was a moral dilemma, but rather how to legitimize it before the eyes of the American public and the world. In his controversial book "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill", author Ron Suskind quotes Mr. O'Neill as having stated the following:
----- Begin Quote -----
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country . . . And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
----- End Quote -----
Interesting enough, the minute the above information hit the news stands a few days ago, the White House entered into damage control mode, and began to discredit O'Neill. In the news today, it appears that O'Neill has already begun to bow to pressure, and is back-pedaling on the comments he made in the book. He now claims that what was occurring at that time was merely a continuation of the policies which had already been in effect under the previous Clinton Administration. Obviously, we the normal public will never know what is the real truth; but if what Mr. O'Neill has stated in the book is accurate, and I suspect that it may very well be, then it would seem that President Bush was determined to attack and take down Saddam Hussein, no matter what anyone else thought, from very early on in his presidency. In order to win over public opinion to his side, he assigned his underlings the task of finding a justifiable reason for doing so. As we now know, WMD, as well as a connection to the al-Qaeda network, was the ticket Bush and his team apparently settled on. That was the story they would begin to sell to the American public.
Obviously, Mr. Bush already knows that as a result of not finding any evidence of WMD in Iraq, politically-speaking, he is walking on unstable ground. Clear signs of damage control abound; and it seems that the intelligence agencies may be forced to serve as Bush's scapegoat, whether they like it or not. A January 9, 2004 New York Times article clearly demonstrated that the Bush Administration apparently retains little hope of ever finding massive evidence of WMD in Iraq. That article stated in part:
----- Begin Quote -----
The Bush administration has quietly withdrawn from Iraq a 400-member military team whose job was to scour the country for military equipment, according to senior government officials.
The step was described by some military officials as a sign that the administration might have lowered its sights and no longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal reason for going to war last March.
----- End Quote -----
A January 9, 2004 New York Times article similarly stated:
----- Begin Quote -----
The administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member team of American weapons inspectors who were charged with finding chemical or biological weapons stockpiles or laboratories, officials said this week. The team was part of the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group, which has not turned up such weapons or active programs, the officials said.
----- End Quote -----
What a far cry from the claims Bush made in his October 7, 2002 speech! Logic dictates that if they were truly hot on the trail of finding WMD in Iraq, they would not be making this kind of logistical move, would they? The truth of the matter is that the charade, and the deception is over. Less and less people are believing it with each passing month. It is becoming more and more apparent that Bush and his cronies blatantly lied to the American public, in order to fight a war based upon false allegations, over-exaggerations, and intentionally-cooked intelligence.
As we continue this article in part two, I will be addressing the issue of American hypocrisy. From there, we will examine the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; plus we will take a look at the nightmarish bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2, and determine whether or not it was truly necessary to drop those bombs. Also in part two, we will talk more about different aspects of President Bush's campaign of lies and deception, which he used to try to legitimize his bogus "war against terrorism". Added to the mix will be some focus on 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan, the 2004 election and Bush's chances of winning it, and embarrassing evidence which will further unveil the truth behind the Iraq war, and the psychological manipulation of the American public. I trust that you will join me.
⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .