A VIDEO THAT WILL FOOL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

[comic boy]

Oh yeah, that's right...people on the right wing of the political spectrum just can't wait to start wars. Of course, it's all to fund "big business". Thank God the Soviet Union lost the cold war so we could exploit the world with McDonalds & Coca-Cola.

missed my point by a mile. video is purely anti-war and text was trying to ironize the name of this thread.

this one depicts things you talk about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_Lo-0w0RM

Not talking about the video as I don't speak Russian and I haven't seen that poor quality of animation since Gumby. You're comment about people on the right-wing of the political spectrum being warmongering is false. I dislike war, but sometimes it's necessary. The problem we're having in Iraq is that some people don't think it is necessary. I disagree with that position, but at least they're making the case without throwing out the "warmongering" label.

Luns

Just as a matter of interest,why do you think the war was necessary ?
If it was for regime change then thats a slippery slope when the West and the USA have often backed murderous regimes in the past,the WOD's have proved to be a red herring and it certainly hasnt helped the global struggle against terrorism. I am of the opinion that some wars are just and need to be fought but I honestly cannot see what good has come out of the invasion of Iraq.

[luns101]

Just as a matter of interest,why do you think the war was necessary ?

1. Saddam Hussein illegally invaded & murdered innocent Kuwaitis in 1990.

2. United Nations Resolution 678 authorized the use of military force to eject Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait after he killed and butchered their citizens. The United States along with a coalition of countries used that force. They were victorious.

3. United Nations Resolution 687 set the terms for the "cease-fire". It was not the end of the conflict, it was only a "cease-fire". 687 says that if Saddam does not end his weapons of mass destruction program or attempts further hostilities, then 678 will be invoked again and military force resumed.

4. Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the terms of the "cease-fire" agreement. It was clear that he was waiting for the coalition that had ousted him from Kuwait to disintegrate and therefore resume his program to develop weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which called for "regime change" in Iraq to prevent the spread of terrorism.

5. If there were no weapons of mass destruction, then all Hussein had to do was detail when, where, and how they were destroyed. He did not do so and so military force was resumed against his regime.

[Psst!, Heads up!...this is where you guys are supposed to say I'm grasping for straws with right-wing propaganda]

If there were no weapons of mass destruction then why did Paul Martin say he feared they had fallen into terrorists' hands? Why did Demetrius Perricos claim that "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks"?

Were there stockpiles of WMD's...absolutely not. Were there elements from the pre-1991 invasion that he had which he could've used to reconstitute his chemical & nuclear programs...absolutely. Saddam had the capability to restore his weapon's program with radioactive material. "Yellowcake" from Iraq was found in the Netherlands. 500 shells of Sarin & Mustard Gas have been found since 2003. 20 banned SA-2 engines were found in Jordan. Gas centrifuge parts for enriching uranium were found as early as 2003. Did Saddam have stockpiles of WMD's...no

6. Given Hussein's track record of using biological & chemical weapons against his own people...why would the U.S. take the chance of allowing that regime to sell elements to terrorist groups who would use them against us? Did Iraq have the means to use them against the U.S. probably not, but he could have put them on the black market to be used by terrorist organizations. George W. Bush was not the only leader who thought that Iraq had WMD's. Even his political opponents believed Saddam had them. We were all wrong.

7. The ISG report found that Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not grown since the 1991 war. However, it also said that "there is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... " Both sides will take from that what it wants to interpret. The ISG also put out a list of countries that Saddam tried to manipulate through the oil-for-food program to keep the U.S. lead coalition from invading Iraq. (Look who the top 3 countries were! Hmmm...)

8. We should continue to try and win the war in Iraq because those who hate the U.S. want to use it as a caliphate in order to spread their hatred and power. Check out pg. 3.

George W. Bush lazily fiddled around after toppling Saddam's govt. by not providing the troop surge needed to squelch factional fighting. Now civil war must be avoided. He deserves criticism for that. His party received the penalty for not following through and effectively dealing with that in 2006. It appears that this latest surge is making a positive difference at the time I write this.

9. Positive results so far are dead terrorist leaders, dead terrorist leaders, and more dead terrorists! Oh yeah, and also deterring other leaders from pursuing the same goal.

...and now I prepare for the endless barrage from the coalition of anti-Bush, anti-US, anti-capitalism, pro-Karl Marx, and "I don't believe there's a God" crowd. This post was brought to you by the VAST right-wing conspiracy.

[Honibaz]

Just as a matter of interest,why do you think the war was necessary ?

1. Saddam Hussein illegally invaded & murdered innocent Kuwaitis in 1990.

2. United Nations Resolution 678 authorized the use of military force to eject Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait after he killed and butchered their citizens. The United States along with a coalition of countries used that force. They were victorious.

3. United Nations Resolution 687 set the terms for the "cease-fire". It was not the end of the conflict, it was only a "cease-fire". 687 says that if Saddam does not end his weapons of mass destruction program or attempts further hostilities, then 678 will be invoked again and military force resumed.

4. Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated the terms of the "cease-fire" agreement. It was clear that he was waiting for the coalition that had ousted him from Kuwait to disintegrate and therefore resume his program to develop weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which called for "regime change" in Iraq to prevent the spread of terrorism.

5. If there were no weapons of mass destruction, then all Hussein had to do was detail when, where, and how they were destroyed. He did not do so and so military force was resumed against his regime.

[Psst!, Heads up!...this is where you guys are supposed to say I'm grasping for straws with right-wing propaganda]

If there were no weapons of mass destruction then why did Paul Martin say he feared they had fallen into terrorists' hands? Why did Demetrius Perricos claim that "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks"?

Were there stockpiles of WMD's...absolutely not. Were there elements from the pre-1991 invasion that he had which he could've used to reconstitute his chemical & nuclear programs...absolutely. Saddam had the capability to restore his weapon's program with radioactive material. "Yellowcake" from Iraq was found in the Netherlands. 500 shells of Sarin & Mustard Gas have been found since 2003. 20 banned SA-2 engines were found in Jordan. Gas centrifuge parts for enriching uranium were found as early as 2003. Did Saddam have stockpiles of WMD's...no

6. Given Hussein's track record of using biological & chemical weapons against his own people...why would the U.S. take the chance of allowing that regime to sell elements to terrorist groups who would use them against us? Did Iraq have the means to use them against the U.S. probably not, but he could have put them on the black market to be used by terrorist organizations. George W. Bush was not the only leader who thought that Iraq had WMD's. Even his political opponents believed Saddam had them. We were all wrong.

7. The ISG report found that Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not grown since the 1991 war. However, it also said that "there is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... " Both sides will take from that what it wants to interpret. The ISG also put out a list of countries that Saddam tried to manipulate through the oil-for-food program to keep the U.S. lead coalition from invading Iraq. (Look who the top 3 countries were! Hmmm...)

8. We should continue to try and win the war in Iraq because those who hate the U.S. want to use it as a caliphate in order to spread their hatred and power. Check out pg. 3.

George W. Bush lazily fiddled around after toppling Saddam's govt. by not providing the troop surge needed to squelch factional fighting. Now civil war must be avoided. He deserves criticism for that. His party received the penalty for not following through and effectively dealing with that in 2006. It appears that this latest surge is making a positive difference at the time I write this.

9. Positive results so far are dead terrorist leaders, dead terrorist leaders, and more dead terrorists! Oh yeah, and also deterring other leaders from pursuing the same goal.

...and now I prepare for the endless barrage from the coalition of anti-Bush, anti-US, anti-capitalism, pro-Karl Marx, and "I don't believe there's a God" crowd. This post was brought to you by the VAST right-wing conspiracy.

Very detailed. Now I understand.

[Titanic]

You cant use the original Gulf War as a reason, even if it stopped for a ceasefire, they are two seperate wars. This Iraq war is not a continuation of the Gulf War.

Also, there have been no proven links between Saddam Hussien and Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organisations. That was American propaganda to help get support for the war in 2002 and 2003. Saddam never did, and never had the intention to sell and weapons, let alone WMD's to terrorist organisations, and there were less terrorist cells in Iraq under Saddam then now as he did not let the terrorists stay and faught them.

The oil-for-food programme was no reason to invade. He might have corrupted it and the system failed, but that was no reason to invade Iraq. I dont even think it was one of the stated reason to originally invade Iraq, its just a backup excuse which has come up as all of the main points have been proven to be false.

Finally, there were no WMD. If it was about WMD then USA should have let the UN team, led by Hans Blix, to search teh country properly. They were not even half way through when USA realised he was not going to find anything so they told the UN to leave as they would be invading. If they were serious about the WMD they would have let Hans Blix finish his search and his reports and then invaded if there were actually any WMD.

Btw, there were some SA-2 engines in Jordan? So what? Wheres the evidence that they came from Iraq? Jordan may have made them, or purchased them, or been given them by anotehr country. No proof what-so-ever that they came from Iraq. All the "evidence" to support the Iraq war was fiddled so that it fitted the USA's policy, it was not used as it was supposed to be.

[comic boy]

Luns

Im sorry but it does come across as a bit of a right wing mish mash
Anyway you put your view across in an articulate manner and thats all one can hope for in a debate, time will tell if the war was a blunder or not. It does strike me as strange though that you would support an exercise that HAS cost many thousands of lives on the justification that it MIGHT have saved lives in the future.

[umanouski]

Let me ask you this question. These are SOLDIERS and they knew what they were signing up for. They knew that they might have to possibly put their lives on the line. Sorry to say that's the truth. So you cant really count them as "lives lost" in the same category as civilians.

[vtmarik]

Let me ask you this question. These are SOLDIERS and they knew what they were signing up for. They knew that they might have to possibly put their lives on the line. Sorry to say that's the truth. So you cant really count them as "lives lost" in the same category as civilians.

They have souls and they have minds. Just because they've accepted the possibility of death on the battlefield doesn't diminish the fact that their families have lost something that they'll never get back. It also doesn't diminish the fact that they are human beings first, and soldiers second. When a human being dies, it's a tragedy. When they are deliberately gunned down, for any reason (be it accidental, intentional, or through some conflict) the tragedy is magnified.

Forgive me for seeing blood on the ground and feeling sad.

EDIT: Funny how you start the post with "Let me ask you this question." and then proceed to make statements without actually asking any questions. How very political of you.

[salvadevinemasse]

Let me ask you this question. These are SOLDIERS and they knew what they were signing up for. They knew that they might have to possibly put their lives on the line. Sorry to say that's the truth. So you cant really count them as "lives lost" in the same category as civilians.

They have souls and they have minds. Just because they've accepted the possibility of death on the battlefield doesn't diminish the fact that their families have lost something that they'll never get back. It also doesn't diminish the fact that they are human beings first, and soldiers second. When a human being dies, it's a tragedy. When they are deliberately gunned down, for any reason (be it accidental, intentional, or through some conflict) the tragedy is magnified.

Forgive me for seeing blood on the ground and feeling sad.

EDIT: Funny how you start the post with "Let me ask you this question." and then proceed to make statements without actually asking any questions. How very political of you.

*nods head in agreement*

Let me tell you guys something.. My parents were BOTH military.. Army intelligence and had one died or the other we would NEVER have been the same without them.

We get into our own battles at home, but I've never been more proud of my parents.. They had the balls to stand up for what they believed in. We live in a country where we do what we are told more then what we want sadly.. just look at your boss tell them to f*ck off and see what happens.. Thats how fucking free america is ..we all have to be kiss asses to a certain degree sadly and thats what our soldiers have to go through with this president..

[jay_a2j]

Lets be clear...MOST soldiers are conservative..(or at least lean Republican in elections) Don't give me this they are just following Bush as a type of "ass kissing"! The left doesn't understand this. Homeland Security = REPUBLICANS... CUT~n~RUN(don't offend the terrorists it's not PC for heavens sake!) = DEMOCRATS. Got it now?

[comic boy]

Lets be clear...MOST soldiers are conservative..(or at least lean Republican in elections) Don't give me this they are just following Bush as a type of "ass kissing"! The left doesn't understand this. Homeland Security = REPUBLICANS... CUT~n~RUN(don't offend the terrorists it's not PC for heavens sake!) = DEMOCRATS. Got it now?

Possibly the most simplistic nonsense I have read on this subject,good old fashioned red neck patriotic gung ho

[Neutrino]

Lets be clear...MOST soldiers are conservative..(or at least lean Republican in elections) Don't give me this they are just following Bush as a type of "ass kissing"! The left doesn't understand this. Homeland Security = REPUBLICANS... CUT~n~RUN(don't offend the terrorists it's not PC for heavens sake!) = DEMOCRATS. Got it now?

Possibly the most simplistic nonsense I have read on this subject,good old fashioned red neck patriotic gung ho

I most certainly agree.

Why does everyone always attempt to polarise an issue? REPUBLICANS v DEMOCRATS. LIBERALS v CONSERVATIVES. LEFT v RIGHT. If you are not with us, then you are against us, because there are only two possibilities and anyone who thinks outside this self-imposed square is obviously a dangerous lunatic. Hell, anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a dangerous lunatic!

Sorry for steriotyping, but the sterioityping in your post (jay) gave me ample precedent.

Why is it that there is only ever two points of view (your view and the wrong view Steriotyping again)? Surely other parties than the two mentioned exist in American politics, yet everyone seems perfectly happy to act as if they don't. Why? Because it impairs the process of polarization, and we certainly can't have that.

What proof do you have that every single, or even a majority of these Democrats favor 'cutting and running'? That may be the party's idea (if one decides to portray it in that light) but you would be hard pressed to keep up the current statistics if you could only use people who agreed 100% with everything the party says. What proof do you have that all Republicans support war? What proof do you have that the 'left' dosen't understand?

I would like to conclude my rant by saying that anyone who can classify themselves under a one word title isn't worthy of the honour of being considered a human being, due to their obvious severe lack in the 'intellectual capabilities' category.

[Simonov]

I most certainly agree.

Why does everyone always attempt to polarise an issue? REPUBLICANS v DEMOCRATS. LIBERALS v CONSERVATIVES. LEFT v RIGHT. If you are not with us, then you are against us, because there are only two possibilities and anyone who thinks outside this self-imposed square is obviously a dangerous lunatic. Hell, anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a dangerous lunatic!

Sorry for steriotyping, but the sterioityping in your post (jay) gave me ample precedent.

Why is it that there is only ever two points of view (your view and the wrong view Steriotyping again)? Surely other parties than the two mentioned exist in American politics, yet everyone seems perfectly happy to act as if they don't. Why? Because it impairs the process of polarization, and we certainly can't have that.

What proof do you have that every single, or even a majority of these Democrats favor 'cutting and running'? That may be the party's idea (if one decides to portray it in that light) but you would be hard pressed to keep up the current statistics if you could only use people who agreed 100% with everything the party says. What proof do you have that all Republicans support war? What proof do you have that the 'left' dosen't understand?

I would like to conclude my rant by saying that anyone who can classify themselves under a one word title isn't worthy of the honour of being considered a human being, due to their obvious severe lack in the 'intellectual capabilities' category.

ps now please make your move so we can finish that game

[luns101]

What proof do you have that the 'left' dosen't understand?

With a few exceptions, most of the posts by leftists on Conquer Club.

[got tonkaed]

actually having read the book Imperial Hubris before i had left for the summer, i have the feeling that really there are many occasions when neither side left/right and you can even throw in the middle if you want, have any clue what exactly homeland security and fighting a war against terrorism is supposed to mean. Now this is a knock because of course the terrorism issue is a very grave one but its importnat to understand that there are all kinds of possibilities for error given the parameters we have put on the conflict.

So to claim that one side has the answers, especially the right...when it seems that it was the right who bundled things up early on when things did matter, seems to be a bit much. Im not going to claim that the left has a better answer, but the right hasnt exactly produced the encyclopedia on how to fight terror.

[Stopper]

Very good video that any red-blooded American would like.CLICK HERE TO WATCH

a video that will silence warmonging right-winged conservative crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPl_P8M6zfg

Excellent video!

In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's an (American) agitprop cartoon - it's a very catchy tune, and the second-to-last verse is a good summary of what happened to Iraq (well, as good as can be done in five lines - plus, it keeps me on-topic.)

http://www.piratesandemperors.com/

I can't remember where I got it, but I've got the feeling it may well have been from here, on CC. Hmm.

(Oh, and welcome back, got tonkaed.)

[luns101]

You cant use the original Gulf War as a reason, even if it stopped for a ceasefire, they are two seperate wars. This Iraq war is not a continuation of the Gulf War.

Sure I can! I just did. I can understand why the left keeps getting upset when people on my side of the political aisle bring this up. It's uncomfortable.

Also, there have been no proven links between Saddam Hussien and Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organisations. That was American propaganda to help get support for the war in 2002 and 2003.

You might want to tell that to this guy. By the way, the 9/11 Commission said there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. There were contacts of a working relationship. Al Queda's media wing recently released a video documentary of their activities in northern Iraq right before the 2003 resumption of armed force against Saddam's regime. Did Bin Laden & Hussein pose for a photo together and declare they would directly work with each other...no. Did Hussein assist in al Queda's attack on 9/11...no.

Saddam never did, and never had the intention to sell and weapons, let alone WMD's to terrorist organisations, and there were less terrorist cells in Iraq under Saddam then now as he did not let the terrorists stay and faught them.

So let me get this straight...he was fighting against the terrorists?!! I'm open to admitting that there might have been some skirmishes between the two groups. What's your source for documenting the amount of terror cells before versus after the 2003 resumption of armed conflict?

The oil-for-food programme was no reason to invade. He might have corrupted it and the system failed, but that was no reason to invade Iraq. I dont even think it was one of the stated reason to originally invade Iraq, its just a backup excuse which has come up as all of the main points have been proven to be false.

Nope, wasn't making the point that it was used as a reason for resuming armed conflict against Hussein's regime. The chart that the IGS provided showed that the biggest three benefactor's of the oil-for-food program were Russia, China, and France...who just happened to be against resuming military action.

Finally, there were no WMD.

Then once again, all Hussein had to do was provide the UN when, where, and how they were destroyed. He refused to do that. He played a game of deception for years. I'll agree with you that there were no stockpiles of WMD's. But since Hussein never came clean on what was going on, what were Richard Butler and others supposed to conclude. He was known for concealing his banned elements when investigators got too close. Nobody behaves like that if there's nothing there!

If it was about WMD then USA should have let the UN team, led by Hans Blix, to search teh country properly. They were not even half way through when USA realised he was not going to find anything so they told the UN to leave as they would be invading. If they were serious about the WMD they would have let Hans Blix finish his search and his reports and then invaded if there were actually any WMD.

First of all, you are admitting that there were weapons inspections. UN Resolution 687 was the article which demanded those inspections take place. So how you can claim that there's no connection between the 1991 invasion and resumption of hostilities in 2003 is beyond me.

Here's a list of violations that Hussein's regime committed during the 1990's. Someone would have to have been either too young or not paying attention to world events during the 90's in order to miss these. Saddam wouldn't comply with previous inspectors...so we're to believe that somehow Hans Blix held the key to getting Hussein to do so?!!

Btw, there were some SA-2 engines in Jordan? So what? Wheres the evidence that they came from Iraq? Jordan may have made them, or purchased them, or been given them by anotehr country. No proof what-so-ever that they came from Iraq.

Either you did not read the article, or you are willfully ignoring what it said and just proceeding with "I don't want to believe it came from Iraq" rhetoric. The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission was the one that produced the report...not the Bush administration.

All the "evidence" to support the Iraq war was fiddled so that it fitted the USA's policy, it was not used as it was supposed to be.

Sorry, that's just not true

I just want to address one more point...

You can't force a people into democracy, they have to want it...AND THEY DON'T WANT IT.

I don't think this can be disputed. George W. Bush has HUGELY miscalculated on this point. The Iraqi people have a vastly different cultural history than the US. We can't expect them to adopt our style of government.

[got tonkaed]

first and foremost...(hi to stopper...how was your summer/equally hi to luns how was your summer)

anywho....there are of course somethings which i take umbridge with in the last post.

There are a lot of countries, to varying degrees of allegiance to the US which have some kind of working relationship in their countries with Al-Qaeda in the middle east. Its too large and multifacted of an organization to ignore, too many people are involved. A good example, pakistan, is tied to the group and at the same time is supposed to be one of our allies. To claim that simply because there is a working presence or potentially relationship to al-qaeda constitutes grounds for war, essentially claims warm on all the middle east not named isreal. Im sure if you were enough of a cynic you could make that claim, but im not, so lets not.

Saddam was by no means one of the good guys in the international community. But if we are out to get the worst of the worst, why not guys like Mugabe who have ran their countries into the ground for decades? well because we try not to be in teh business of regime change...or at least in general we should be right. im not here to argue that saddam is a freedom fighter or that he was a good guy, but if your going to just pick and choose who we are fighting against on the grounds that he was bad to his people or that he wasnt america friendly enough....there are other and more significant options.

Although i agree with your point, to claim that countries dont have vested economic interests in just about every foreign policy issue, or that the US didnt have interests in the oil that is in Iraq seems to be rather shortsighted.

Anyway put, the troubles we have in Iraq now are because we went into Iraq then, we cant change that fact but we can soberly look at what we did and hopefully learn from it, considering we will probably have many similar decisions in the next few decades, if we continue to run a war against terrorism.

[luns101]

hi to luns how was your summer

I got married...top that! Just kidding. I hope you had a good time.

[got tonkaed]

hi to luns how was your summer

I got married...top that! Just kidding. I hope you had a good time.

ha well then you certainly win, i did in fact have quite a good time. hope married life has started blissfully well, or at least well, theres plenty of time for the blissfully.

[Neutrino]

You cant use the original Gulf War as a reason, even if it stopped for a ceasefire, they are two seperate wars. This Iraq war is not a continuation of the Gulf War.

Sure I can! I just did. I can understand why the left keeps getting upset when people on my side of the political aisle bring this up. It's uncomfortable.

See! This is what I meant! Do you commonly highlight one sentence, make up a vague answer too it, then continue on, ignoring the rest of the argument?
Of course there are only two possible sides to a argument, your side and their side (which is, by definition, wrong). It would clearly go against several hundred years of mental wall building and self-inflicted narrowmindedness to consider any other possibilities, so it shall not be done.

Why is it that the 'left' never understands? If the 'left' was composed entirely of one person, who has one concrete set of opinions, then it is possible for this statement to be true but in any other situation you are ignoring huge percentages of the population who's political opinions may be even slightly 'left'.
Exactly the same thing goes for steriotyping against the 'right'.

Why is it that a huge percentage of the population cannot grasp this relitavely simple concept?
For future reference: There are more than two possible political opinions.

[MeDeFe]

hi to luns how was your summer

I got married...top that! Just kidding. I hope you had a good time.

I finally got divorced! Now top THAT if you can! no, not really, I'm also just kidding

[jay_a2j]

hi to luns how was your summer

I got married...top that! Just kidding. I hope you had a good time.

I finally got divorced! Now top THAT if you can! no, not really, I'm also just kidding

Can't be topped. UNLESS you got divorced and she got NOTHING in the settlement!

[luns101]

See! This is what I meant! Do you commonly highlight one sentence, make up a vague answer too it, then continue on, ignoring the rest of the argument?

Sort of like declaring that the US legal system is a "joke" based on the Roy Pearson case! Remember that one?

Of course there are a variety of opinions that have to be considered on many subjects. In the US, a majority of liberals don't support the war. A majority of conservatives do. Then the Libertarians come along and tear both sides to shreds, while the Green Party people plant more trees.

[vtmarik]

Telling a dyed-in-the-wool conservative or liberal that there's more opinions than Right v. Left is like fixing wheels onto a tomato: pointless and time consuming.

[umanouski]

hi to luns how was your summer

I got married...top that! Just kidding. I hope you had a good time.

I finally got divorced! Now top THAT if you can! no, not really, I'm also just kidding

Can't be topped. UNLESS you got divorced and she got NOTHING in the settlement!

Prenub!