Quote :

"There is a Sunni terrorist group inside Iran that commits terrorist activities against the Iranian government, and the group is definitely classified as a terrorist group by the EU and the US State Department. And the US just gave them millions a couple of years ago to try to destabilize Iran."

Any links to substantiate this?

11/30/2009 4:05:13 PM

^^^You'd have to be stupid to launch a nuke. Iran wouldn't do it. How many muslims would they kill in the process? Israel, I don't know, maybe they would do it. And I'm sure we would support them, for some reason.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2009 4:06:01 PM

Quote :

"Has Israel ever attacked Syria? Jordan? Egypt? Just because the entire massed middle east can get their asses handed to them in 6 days WHEN THEY START SHIT doesn't mean Israel is a threat."

Yes, Israel did/does start shit all the time...but thats what happens when you have the United States on a short leash (do what you want and get away with it card) and you're greedy for more land that doesn't even belong to you.

And yes, as a matter of fact Israel has attacked Syria and Egypt...but I don't think they teach that in history classes over here...at least not the facts. Because that would be anti-semitic

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2009 4:09:01 PM

They have not attacked any of those countries without provocation. Much less can be said for the vice versa.

Oh and if it weren't for the United States, Lebanon and Syria would both be smoldering holes at this point.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : *]

11/30/2009 4:10:30 PM

Quote :

"If Iran is a threat to Israel, let them take care of it."

d357r0y3r

*Sigh*

I know you can read, so please read my posts--this is and has been my position. I do add that the United States (us in particular) and other nations should back Israel.

Quote :

"They aren't a threat to us, and we shouldn't be doing a single thing to interfere with whatever they're doing, because it simply isn't our place."

d357r0y3r

The "Change" guy--Obama--disagrees with you:

Obama warns Iran on nuclear site
September 25, 2009

Quote :

"'Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.'"

--President Barack Obama

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/obama_warns_ira.html

Quote :

"You believe that the United States should police the world."

d357r0y3r

Wrong. The United States should not stand idly by while a rogue nation--a state sponsor of terrorism and supplier of weapons that kill American soldiers--arms itself with perhaps the most frightening weapon as yet known to humankind.

But as I indicated, peace does not simply mean the absence of conflict; it means the presence of justice. To allow Iran a nuclear weapon is unjust--and it will lead to even more destructive conflict.

A few related points:

US sees hand of elite Iranian unit in Afghanistan

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The United States believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards are providing training and weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan to help them fight Western forces, U.S. counterterrorism officials said on Monday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN21522027

Majority in U.S. Would Back Attack to Prevent Iran Nuclear Bomb

Quote :

"Oct. 6 (Bloomberg) -- A majority of Americans are skeptical that diplomacy with Iran will succeed and say the U.S. should use military action if necessary to prevent the Iranian government from developing a nuclear weapon."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNvqCq5beGAE

IRAN'S LATEST RIDUCULOUS RESPONSE TO OUR DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS--WE MUST BE REALLY GOOD AT "NEGOTIATING"!

Iranian official says decision to expand nuclear program is response to IAEA rebuke
10 uranium-enrichment sites announced after international rebuke
November 30, 2009

Quote :

"TEHRAN -- A top Iranian nuclear official said Monday that the country's decision to build 10 more uranium-enrichment sites is a direct response to last week's censure by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The facilities will be built inside mountains, the official added, to secure them from military attack."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113001880.html

11/30/2009 4:13:57 PM

Quote :

"Beowulf: Any links to substantiate this?"

http://www.google.com/search?q=jundullah+receive+money+from+US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jundullah

Of course, the US denies it, and maybe the US actually does not give them money. But they definitely support them in every other way.

Quote :

"hooksaw: To allow Iran a nuclear weapon is unjust"

What kind of justice are you talking about here, and it would be 'unjust' to whom and how? If anything, it would be 'unjust' to stop them, as Israel is allowed to have them. Whether Iran should have them or not is another issue, but to say it is 'unjust' is not only patently and logically false, but also just plain silly and weird.


[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2009 4:14:22 PM

^ Um. . .actually the point is crystal clear: Iran is breaking rules established by a league of nations, troll--and Obama said so:

Obama warns Iran on nuclear site
September 25, 2009

Quote :

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.'"

--President Barack Obama

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/obama_warns_ira.html

11/30/2009 4:25:44 PM

Quote :

"I know you can read, so please read my posts--this is and has been my position. I do add that the United States (us in particular) and other nations should back Israel."

Yes, I know it's your position, but you're wrong. There's no reason for us to back Israel. They have a powerful military. We've dumped a ton of money into Israel. We've given them weapons and technology. How much is enough? There's no incentive for them to make peace with anyone, because they know the United States will be there to come in and take care of the mess. Maybe if we would mind our own business, let them defend their own country, and let them negotiate peace with their neighbors, the world would be better off. We just make things worse.

Quote :

"The "Change" guy--Obama--disagrees with you:"

Obama disagrees with me on many things. I don't see that as a bad thing. Obama has been an awful president so far, and will probably keep operating in the same way.

Quote :

"Wrong. The United States should not stand idly by while a rogue nation--a state sponsor of terrorism and supplier of weapons that kill American soldiers--arms itself with perhaps the most frightening weapon as yet known to humankind."

Our soldiers wouldn't be getting killed if we didn't send them over there in the first place, but you're still not getting it. We don't have any money. Does that even register to you? That we're literally trillions of dollars in debt and have no way of paying it back? And now you want to potentially tack on a few trillion dollars more? It's time to get real. If the countries that actually have money aren't willing to step up, then oh well.

Quote :

"But as I indicated, peace does not simply mean the absence of conflict; it means the presence of justice. To allow Iran a nuclear weapon is unjust--and it will lead to even more destructive conflict. "

Peace doesn't mean either of those things. It means not being at war. We can avoid going to war by not getting involved. We always manage to make things worse. You can delude yourself into thinking that the United States has the power to make everything right, and that without our intervention the entire world will go to hell in a handbasket, but I just don't buy it. And, frankly, if the region descends into chaos...oh well. We're no longer in a position to do anything about it.

11/30/2009 4:35:38 PM

Quote :

"We're no longer in a position to do anything about it."

This is not necessarily true. If we expand our role as "world police" like hooksaw et al wants to do, we could maintain this position indefinitely. It would just require a state of perpetual war.

Iran is hardly a rogue nation in the sense hooksaw is trying to portray it. there are significant nourish able democratic processes in Iran that don't want to see their country isolated by the rest of the world, and this works to our advantage.

11/30/2009 4:47:26 PM

Quote :

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow, endangering the global nonproliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.'""

Wow

Replace Iran with Israel in that quote by OBAMA, and it is 10 times truer.

Obama is just a [slightly] milder Bush, when it comes to hawkishness, it seems.

11/30/2009 4:56:42 PM

deltabeta

Quote :

"WHEN THEY START SHIT "

come again?

Quote :

"rules that all nations must follow"

except us

12/1/2009 12:30:35 PM

^ Right on cue.

Quote :

"[You] have no real answer--other than to simply let Iran go nuclear in some half-baked moral equivalence ('We have nukes, so why can't Iran have them?')."

hooksaw

And, d357r0y3r, your posts are a bunch of gobbledygook. You smack of a wide-eyed freshman participating in his first coffee klatch--you have no moral clarity.

The fact of the matter is that Obama spewed all of his highfalutin rhetoric during the campaign--all the while implying and even directly stating that Bush was the problem with Iran (and everywhere else). But what do we have now under Obama--despite his pledge to meet "without precondition" with Ahmanutjob (and other dictators)? We have the discovery that Iran has been lying to the world all along about its nuclear ambitions and a pledge from Iran to build even more (at least 10) nuclear facilities. Is this success?

Oh, BTW, to throw another monkey wrench (as if it needed one) into "negotiations," Iran has taken five British sailors prisoner and accused them of spying:

Iran dashes release hopes as five sailors face spying inquiry
December 2, 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6940058.ece

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 7:04 PM. Reason : PS: Sweet Jesus. ]

12/1/2009 7:03:55 PM

Quote :

" Is this success?"

No, but is it failure?

12/1/2009 7:09:05 PM

destroyer, a fairly rational right-leaning conservative here, takes a critical look at the level of financial and military support given by the US to Israel.

Hooksaw summarily dismisses him as a "wide-eyed freshman [with] no moral clarity."




because anyone who dares to even question the disproportionate level of influence Israeli politics has played in decades of US foreign policy is obviously stupid and immoral, and therefore must be shouted down.

12/2/2009 2:35:05 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_britain_yacht

3 minutes ago. they released the british ppl

12/2/2009 4:57:36 AM

^^^ Yes.

^^ Wrong.

^ Great, Iran has decided to free the sailors and drop the phony spying charges. Now, if we can just get Iran to release those pesky "spying" hikers they've been holding for months on phony charges. . . .

In the meantime. . .

Iran sends analyst, opposition supporter to prison
(AP) – 1 hour ago

Quote :

"TEHRAN, Iran — A semi-official Iranian news agency says a well-known political analyst and the brother-in-law of the country's top opposition leader have been sentenced to prison. The sentencing is part of the mass trial of opposition figures accused of fomenting Iran's post-election unrest. The Fars agency reported on Wednesday that analyst Saeed Leilaz — known for his criticism of the government — got nine years for possession of classified documents. The Revolutionary Court also slapped the brother-in-law of opposition leader Mir Houssein Mousavi with a one-year sentence. Shapour Kazemi was arrested for attending opposition rallies this summer that challenged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election. Both have 20 days to appeal their sentences."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQruysEC9sGtRTN1_VR0MqYCp_UwD9CB4RFG0

12/2/2009 8:01:12 AM

Calif. insurers say $12 billion invested in Iran

By DON THOMPSON (AP) – 8 hours ago

Quote :

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California's insurance commissioner said Tuesday he will push insurance companies doing business in California to divest up to $12 billion in indirect investments in Iran's defense, nuclear, energy and banking industries. Commissioner Steve Poizner said he will urge the companies to voluntarily sell the investments they reported to his office. If they refuse to sell within 120 days, he plans to try to force the divestment so money paid by California policyholders is not flowing to a U.S.-listed state sponsor of terrorism. He also intends to subpoena executives from other companies that didn't provide the Iranian investment information to his office. Poizner, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor next year, is lining up support from other states' insurance regulators even as insurance companies object to a state-by-state approach they said could interfere with U.S. foreign policy. Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty, secretary-treasurer of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, said he is consulting other states' commissioners to see if it is practical to develop a national effort similar to California's. "We ought to do it through the states, but in a coordinated fashion," said Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario, who also is considering a divestment push. Steve Suchil, the American Insurance Association's assistant vice president for state affairs, said the industry has never questioned Poizner's authority to request the investment information. Neither he nor John Mangan, Western regional vice president for the American Counsel of Life Insurers, could say if their member companies were likely to fight a divestment order. Both said their member companies cooperated with Poizner to the best of their ability. The companies were required to disclose investments in companies that do at least $20 million of business in Iran's petroleum or natural gas industries, and list investments of any amount in companies doing business with Iran's banking, nuclear or defense industries. Ario said discouraging Iran's nuclear program is in the national interest, particularly given the potential alternative if the Middle Eastern country develops nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran is considering decreasing its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency after it issued a resolution critical of Iran last week. Iran said it would build even more nuclear facilities. "It ought to be a top priority for all Americans, including the insurance industry," Ario said. "If none of the forms of deterrence that we're using change Iran's plans, then you have to say let them have nuclear weapons or we're looking at a military strike." Poizner plans to use his opening remarks at this weekend's quarterly meeting of the national association in San Francisco to urge a nationwide effort. He scheduled a news conference Wednesday with an Iranian dissident and representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles to outline his findings and next steps. "It's just wrong for consumers here in California to find out that their hard-earned money that they pay in insurance premiums are propping up the regime in Iran," Poizner told The Associated Press before Wednesday's announcement. "We need to do whatever it takes to put maximum pressure on Iran to change its behavior." Insurers say they already cooperate with the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Treasury spokeswoman Natalie Wyeth declined comment. Poizner, who oversaw a National Security Council anti-terrorism division in 2001 and 2002, said he is trying to close "a giant loophole" in federal and state law that lets companies invest indirectly in Iran through other companies. The information disclosed by insurers shows most of those companies are based in Europe, South America, Russia and China, he said. In June, Poizner ordered 1,327 companies that do business in California to report their direct and indirect investments in Iran. About 250 of those companies are headquartered in California, the world's fourth-largest insurance market. Poizner's review found no direct investments in Iran, which would violate a California law that took effect this year. The companies reported $12 billion in legal indirect investments. The insurance department has been able to verify about $6 billion of those investments so far. Another 216 insurers have not responded. Poizner plans to subpoena a sampling of executives from 10 of those companies to explain themselves at a Jan. 12 hearing in Los Angeles, while he pressures the remainder to comply. He intends to give the remainder 30 days to say they will divest, and an additional 90 days to do so. He plans to publish the names of the companies that don't divest. Poizner's lawyers say he could force them to divest because the holdings are financially risky. However, it is unclear if he could force divestment by companies headquartered outside California. Poizner's lawyers previously said he could not, but now say they believe he has the authority. "

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5zPrGwNxbYWQVmcscjSdK0IeemQD9CAV92G2

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 8:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2009 8:02:49 AM

Quote :

"^^^ Yes. "

So if we've been failing for the past 8 years at least, and we continue to fail, in your eyes, then how can we succeed?

We had hawks Bush and Cheney and now I guess a dove Obama who have both failed in Iran, by your estimations. So what is the solution?

12/2/2009 1:02:31 PM

^be serious, do you think hooksaw is going to reveal his master plan to you on TWW? hell no, he's saving that gem for when he's running for office and people actually care what bat shit crazy stuff he has to say.

12/2/2009 1:06:51 PM

I heard something interesting earlier. So for years Iran has been trying to figure out a way to get rid of the gas subsidies. Apparently gas subsidies make little economic sense for Iran, and causes them to lose up to about 100 billion a year. The leadership never could accomplish this though, cause gas prices would quadruple leading to the citizens getting pissed at the gov. If we put sanctions on them it would make it easier for them to do it, and then they could blame the west. Win win for both parties. Iran saves money from the gas subsidies, and the US gets their sanctions.

12/2/2009 1:23:25 PM

Merkel says Iran is testing the West's patience
Dec 3, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B232220091203

Iran rejects IAEA transparency demand on atom sites
Dec 4, 2009

Quote :

"TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran said it will provide the U.N. nuclear watchdog with the bare minimum of information about its plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, a stance sure to stoke Western suspicions about its atomic agenda."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091204/wl_nm/us_iran_nuclear_sites_3

Obama advisor says "clock is ticking" on Iran
Updated: Monday, December 07, 2009

Quote :

"Washington, 7 December (WashingtonTV)—US President Barack Obama's national security advisor said on Sunday that Washington was still open to nuclear negotiations with Iran, but that the picture 'is not a good one.' Speaking to CNN, James Jones said that the 'clock is ticking' toward the end of the year, when Obama plans to review US diplomatic efforts with Iran. So far, Iran has spurned a United Nations-brokered nuclear fuel deal with Western powers, aimed at easing concerns over Tehran’s enrichment activities. The United States and its allies are believed to be preparing to seek harsher sanctions against Tehran if it continues to defy international demands over its nuclear work. But Iranian officials have dismissed the threat of new sanctions, warning Western powers they will fail to deprive Tehran of its 'inalienable right' to nuclear technology."

http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=3&id=16244

12/7/2009 8:51:22 AM

If the US is going to dictate what nations can and cannot have nuclear energy...they should do without it themselves first.

12/8/2009 12:34:08 PM

^ No, actually Iran has violated the NPT that it signed. And if Iran's nuclear program were for peaceful purposes only, there wouldn't be a problem--but Iran has refused to cooperate in confirming this, has hid the existence of nuclear facilities, and has defiantly vowed to build at least ten more (among many other signs of belligerent foreign and domestic policies).

Quote :

"They have no real answer--other than to simply let Iran go nuclear in some half-baked moral equivalence ('We have nukes, so why can't Iran have them?')."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=576740&page=6

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ]

12/8/2009 1:00:15 PM

Quote :

"^ No, actually Iran has violated the NPT that it signed. And if Iran's nuclear program were for peaceful purposes only, there wouldn't be a problem--but Iran has refused to cooperate in confirming this, has hid the existence of nuclear facilities, and has defiantly vowed to build at least ten more (among many other signs of belligerent foreign and domestic policies)."

Tell me again why the US has nukes?

12/8/2009 2:35:46 PM

^ To keep idiots like you alive.

12/8/2009 2:51:55 PM

nuke's take lives and don't save them. Aside from alien invasion, theres no scenario where the use of a nuke would keep "idiots like him" alive.

12/8/2009 3:10:56 PM

^^I thought you might say that.

If i'm such an idiot, why try to keep me alive?

12/8/2009 3:48:02 PM

^^ The idea is to make the other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country, troll.

^ We all need the clowns to make us smile.

12/8/2009 4:01:02 PM

^agreed, you've made me smile quite a lot today, thanks!

12/8/2009 4:10:50 PM

so nuclear weapons are useful only on the premise that lives outside of this country have no value.

12/8/2009 4:15:26 PM

^He doesn't want someone with different views from his own to carry a big stick.

12/8/2009 4:16:45 PM

^ Yeah, Iran's views are "different" all right.

Quote :

"Death to Israel!"

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

Iran's Ahmadinejad Promotes Holocaust Denial on Eve of UN Visit
By VOA News
21 September 2009

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-21-voa39.cfm

US sees hand of elite Iranian unit in Afghanistan

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The United States believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards are providing training and weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan to help them fight Western forces, U.S. counterterrorism officials said on Monday."

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN21522027

Quote :

"'[T]his origin of corruption [Israel] will soon be wiped off of the Earth's face.'"

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad also called the US a satanic power... that with -- God's will -- would be annihilated."

--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q

Iran's Khamenei rejects U.S. outreach
OBAMA EFFORTS DISDAINED
Ayatollah says talks would be 'perverted'
November 4, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110301397.html

12/9/2009 7:32:58 AM

Quote :

"^ Yeah, Iran's views are "different" all right."

Yet the only one bringing death to the region is the United States and their puppeteer, Israel.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - The United States believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards are providing training and weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan to help them fight Western forces, U.S. counterterrorism officials said on Monday."

History is repeating itself, Super power occupying Afghanistan -> Afghan rebels getting covert assistance from another nation. Rinse -> repeat. Shocker.

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2009 10:29:32 AM

Quote :

""Death to Israel!""

the translation to english the produces "death to" is equivalent with "down with" and the political end of an entity. So in context, he meant the death to the political naiton Israel, not the actual death of everyone in the country. Kind of like we might say "death to the homeowners association" or "death to acorn".

12/9/2009 10:53:55 AM

^pay attention to the username and save yourself the trouble.

12/9/2009 11:15:28 AM

Quote :

"^^^ Tell her that. But you can't--she was killed in Iran. "

Her name was Neda.

12/9/2009 12:28:42 PM

People are killed everyday...did you have a point?

12/9/2009 12:36:38 PM

^ It's "every day." And my point should have been self-evident, troll--this. . .

Quote :

"Yet the only one bringing death to the region is the United States and their puppeteer, Israel."

. . .is a lie.

12/9/2009 12:38:34 PM

You should run for office...you've got your head so far up your own ass, I'm certain you'd win.

[image of some random woman] was killed in [insert random country]

and I'll say this again since its one of the only bits of truth in this stupid thread...

Quote :

"Yet the only one bringing death to the region is the United States and their puppeteer, Israel."

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ...]

12/9/2009 12:50:52 PM

^ If this thread is so "stupid," why don't you GTFO, troll?

12/9/2009 1:31:37 PM

Honestly I do not give a flying fuck if Iran is imprisoning protestors, blowing up little girls, sodomizing iranian hippies, and controlling the iranian media. This sounds like an iranian problem not a US problem. Just like how I did not think the "liberation of the iraqi's" was justification for our intervention in Iraq. Honestly, I think those fuck-tards were better off with a totalitarian leader than tribal warlords causing trouble, and douches blowing themselves up in the name of Allah.

12/9/2009 1:42:07 PM

Thanks for sharing--except, not really.

12/9/2009 1:45:53 PM

Quote :

"^ If this thread is so "stupid," why don't you GTFO, troll?"

because the idea that you want to control everybody around you and make them bend to your will. Dictate to them what their beliefs should be, how they should run their system of government, etc, etc, etc...is just stupid. But label me a troll if you wish, that is the norm for you with anyone who doesn't see the world in the same lunatic ways.

12/9/2009 2:52:17 PM

Golovko proves the rule that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Along with everyone else in the middle east, minus those whose names end in -stein, -berg, or -man.

12/9/2009 4:26:54 PM

Quote :

"minus those whose names end in -stein, -berg, or -man"

yes, that is my point exactly...this is how you think. Israel commands you, and you obey...everyone else is just shit.

12/9/2009 4:58:29 PM

^ anti-semite

12/9/2009 6:32:54 PM

Lol. I like Jews. Just not the nation of Israel.

12/10/2009 1:25:25 AM

^ That's almost like saying I don't hate chinks--I love chinks.

12/10/2009 2:16:22 AM

^umm...what? That doesn't even make sense. Not to mention you're fucking racist.

12/10/2009 2:26:13 AM

^ It's a Sarah Silverman line, you stooge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bYOWVLWybk

You really are an uninformed doofus, aren't you?

[Edited on December 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2009 10:54:09 AM