Sponsored Links

[lederuvdapac]

President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796):

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Yes, the policy of isolationism which lasted right up until after World War II. In our current state of world affairs, Americans are in some places loathed and shown major disfavor. France, Germany... two nations in which we rebuilt after WWII and protected from Soviet invasion turned there back on us in the war in Iraq. The people of South Korea protest American and S.Korean military action in Iraq even when the United States is all that protects them from a N.Korean invasion.

The policy of isolationism was successful for many years until we became a world superpower with the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, we were the world's "Knight in Shining Armor" protecting the free world from the evil Communists and we were respected. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the US emerging as the only superpower we have been degraded by the world even been called "imperialists" by our "closest" allies.

BUT, what if the United States wasn't there for everyone. What if we decided that we will no longer care for the problems of the world and only care about ourselves. Stop sending foreign aid, withdraw all foreign troops, withdraw from the UN and NAFTA, and just worry about our own damn problems. What would the world think then? World Hunger, AIDS, Terrorism, Genocide, Dictators, for now on we will only deal with what affects us personally. The rest of the world can get by on its own. They do not like us? FINE!, they wont ever hear from us again. We can put all those troops on the border to help immigration and our War on Drugs, we can help our own economy by stop sending foreign aid, and we can fight the war on terror with a more secure America and less of a motive for radicals.

Questions for Debate:

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?
2) If so, to what extent?
3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?
4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

This post has been edited by lederuvdapac: Jun 26 2004, 02:08 AM

[Devils Advocate]

Well, I'll get the ball rolling here...

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?
2) If so, to what extent?
3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?
4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

First off I think that there have been more operations than just Iraq that would put the argument in favor of more isolationism. One was the Somalia aid-campaign and to a lesser extent Vietnam in general. So I believe that there are more examples than just Iraq, although that is one as well.

Second, if we do revert back to isolationism I think we should do it like we did pre-WW II with two exceptions. Those would be if a country requested our aid, like Haiti, or if there was another WWII situation. A situation where one country or people are engaged in combat and taking over countries with force that could endanger our wellbeing. I don't mean something like Iraq where Saddam might have been able to strike at us, but when he is physically taking over other countries and then becomes a threat to the US.

The main problems I see are that we could be cast as too good for helping other countries (How come we can't spread the wealth type thing). I think the biggest benefit would be that the US would no longer be seen as the world peace keeper that thinks it knows what's best for the world. We obviously don't know what's best, so why do we insist on trying so hard? We also wouldn't be seen as oppressive playing favorites with anyone, or being the bully that pushes other countries around. People don't like to be told what's best for them when you're not right very often. Also we wouldn't be seen as trying to conform the rest of the world to our ideals and standards (trying to make other countries democracies). Democracy works reasonably well for the US, but that doesn't mean that it will work well for other countries necessarily. We might be seen as having a more open mind, or most likely, less meddling.

In my opinion this would be a novel idea. To go back to isolationism, not completely, but to scale down our operations thus far. As far as I see it, we don't have everything figured out here at home, so why should we start trying to fix the rest of the world? If we concentrated on our homeland maybe we could fix some of the problems and make it better. Sometimes old ideas are good ones, and I think this one should be reconsidered and introduced as part of the foreign policy.

We don't have to be completely isolated and could still be part of the UN. All we have to do is take less action and stop trying to fix the world.

[DreamPipEr]

When I am in one of my more bitter moods I want complete isolationism. I am tired of hearing the rest of the world moan and groan about the evil imperialist empire America so I say fine, don't ask for help, don't ask for money, and don't groan when you can't support your socialist life on the backs of the American people. I also say I want financial repayment for the years of support we provided since WWII. How do you like them apples?

I know, though, that complete isolationism is not only impractical but could also be to our detriment. When GW (1) was President, communications and transportation were not what they are today. We are affected by the actions across the seas in ways that were not thinkable in 1796.

Therefore, I believe that we should lesson involvement in the world. They don't want us, we don't need to be there. We can be helpful if help is requested and these should only be one time requests. Not years of help. All financial support to any foreign nation should stop. Let charities do their jobs and be charitable. I would rather donate cash to a charity then have it taken (robbed) from earnings.

edit: I can't type and think at the same time.

This post has been edited by DreamPipEr: Jun 26 2004, 03:58 AM

[crashfourit]

Maby if we were to leave them alone; they would leave them alone!

No more help unless you ask it.
Only invasions of other contries should bother us.
Let them find for themselfs.

[logophage]

While isolationism has an appeal, it is entirely unrealistic. It's unrealisitic unless we wish to rid ourselves of capitalism as well. The interests of the economy and the interests of policy are too intertwined to allow for any attempt at separation. In today's world (at least First World), a nation gains power and leverage economically. In other words, no economic power = no political power. So, if the US were to become isolationist, the economic contraction would be disasterous.

[Robin_Scotland]

Isolationism is a bizarre concept to me, something I can't begin to comprehend. That is most likely an outcome of my upbringing in a Europe that is looking to make more ties, and a Britain that is concerned with international affairs. I can see how it could work in the USA, though. Its sheer size (geographically and population) is easily big enough to distract people from external issues.

However, it's still something I believe is wrong for the USA. To retreat into itself because *shock horror* its people were exposed to the opinions of non-American people who said nasty things! Or protested against Americas actions?! What kind of a world is this, where you can't be involved in international relations without suffering criticism? To me this isn't isolationism, it is defeatism.

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

I'm not American, but certainly not. Isolationism will only serve to alienate the US in a century where the rest of the world are doing their best to work more closely together. Britain and Australia were also involved in Iraq, and many nations supported the action. You won't see them looking to hide from the people who contradicted them; there have been massive protests in the UK, in Italy and Spain, against our governments, and lets not forget in the USA as well people turned out to say no to the war. You can't just lock the door because people make use of their freedom of speech.

2) If so, to what extent?

To no extent, it's time for America to fix any broken and uneasy ties and just accept that people have the right to disagree.

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

I'm hard pushed to see any significant benefits in this approach, especially in the 21st century. The problems that will arise will outweigh any benefits in my view; having unsteady relations with other countries is better than having no relations at all. An isolationist US can't expect to come back and hold any power or authority in organizations such as the UN, not after pushing itself forward as the major force for good in the world. Trade is also an issue as has been pointed out.

4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

No. On the one hand, you can say that the US has been involved in...wow how many was it? Em, well a LOT of military interventions since the second world war, and not all of them were for good. At the same time, the ideals that most Americans have are in line with the rest of the free world. Without the US there to react to problems and conflicts, the other free nations would have a struggle to stay on top of things. You might think this is a selfish attitude, and perhaps it is. But, the USA is the hyperpower, its power and abilities are essential to stability in unsure times. People will protest against it, of course they will: that, afterall, is one of the things that the USA is fighting for. However, people are supporting it also.

[kalabus]

I think it goes well beyond the people of the US not being able to tolerate criticism. The US has out of necessity become the worlds punching bag. No one is on our side and I place alot of that on the shoulders of Bush but the limites support of the nations of Australia, Britain and select others isnt a sign of continued diplomacy it is the beginning of the end. No one on earth except israel and US had a majority of people who supported the US in Iraq and now those people (even in those nations where the governments dragged their people into war against their peoples will) are voting out their pro-American governments. Blair, Howard, Berlesconi are all probably done. Anzar is out. In S. Korea the younger generation hates us and blames us for the seperation of families in the N and South.

The new generations could care less about what the US has done in the past. The US is now a global punching bag and the blame for all the worlds problems.

The only reason I see that the US cannot internalize is our market. I would love for the EU or any other nation besides Britain or the US take up their share of world peacekeeping obligations.

I wish the US would pull out every single last soldier from Korea, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan. If they get invaded they get invaded. Let them fend for themselves. The world doesnt need (at least think it needs) the US anymore. Let them defend themselves (korea) let them take care of their own regional conflicts (kosovo). The biggest thing that confuses me is how the US is seen as the bad guy in Africa. We didnt colonize africa. Africa wasnt the destination of American imperialism. It was Europe who ruined Africa and S. America. It was Europe who started Muslim/Western hostilities in the middle east. It is Europe who continually sits on the sidelines criticizing and resisting every step of a problem their continent in all probability created.

This doesnt boil down to im mad because I didnt get a pat on the back or you dont like us enough. This isnt some renegade protestors. The people who side against America outnumber those that side with America and those who still side with America are no longer willing to fight for that support. You cannot appease everyone. The US will simply be hated and despised because it is powerful and rich. People do not like the influence the US wields. So yes lets distance ourselves. Lets let nations fight for themselves. Lets pull out of basically obsolete unions like the UN and Nato. No one has the will to fight anymore and the US cannot fight everyone alone so as far as protection goes the rest of the world should be on their own. As far as aid goes...it doesnt not to nations we didnt screw up. We only remain global as far as economy goes. Everyone gets what they want. We are out of everyones business and we have secure borders.

[Julian]

For me, the core of this debate is not how much America has done for the world, but how much America needs the world.

On the first point, let's take off the rose-coloured spectacles and think why America did what it did. America didn't fight in WW2 purely because it wanted future compliance to American policy. It didn't protect Europe in the Cold War because it was expecting endless future gratitude and automatic agreement. It did these things because:

1) It was in America's best self-interest to do so at the time
2) It was the right thing to do

America has fought for freedom many times. The measure of America's success in NOT how much the beneficiaries of those efforts kow-tow to America, how much they agree with everything America ever does or wants. No, the measure of how free someone is must surely be how free they are to disagree. America should genueinely start to worry if nobody ever feels able to disagree with her.

Quite apart form anything else, AMERICA HAS NEVER FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM AND WON WITHOUT ALLIES. What is so hard to understand about that?

On the second point - if you want to withdraw form the world - go ahead. Take back all the jobs you've exported to China and India, if you can. Don't worry, I'm sure the hyperinflation that will be released when you find you just cannot do it as cheaply as them won't completely ruin your economy for more than a couple of hundred years.

Take back all your troops and materiel and your diplomats form the Middle East. After all, you're self-sufficient in oil, and your nation is at the forefront of efforts to become less dependent on it. Oops! I must be thinking of somewhere else.

American isolationism might work if you could somehow cut the USA away from the planet and float it off into space. Short of that, though, you're part of this world whether you like it or not, and no, the people you're doing all these favours for won't be fawningly grateful for every dollar spent, especially if they think that you're putting conditions on your charity, or if your policies in other areas are helping to create the problems that they face. (For example - US and EU food subsidies for overproduction put Thrid World farmers out of business, which makes it harder for them to feed themselves, and increases the likelihood that they will need future food aid from the US and EU. Why WOULDN'T they want to point this out?)

[DreamPipEr]

The US has been criticized for many decades and it is not the criticism that makes me more apt to want to recoil it is the hatred that is now more prevalently expressed. Criticism is one thing but outright hatred is another, harder, pill to swallow. When I get in my bitter moods it is because of the hatred not the criticism. The countries that stood up and said what they thought still have my respect for it. It didn’t change the outcome but it certainly fostered discussion.

I, though, don’t think that semi-isolationism would be a bad thing. Nothing is for free, so when our country gives aid packages to other countries it is not without a political price tag. I would prefer to see these aid packages disappear. I think the price is great and the outcome little. I would rather donate money to charities that can provide real aid to the starving nations. The US is an enabler, through aid, to these poor countries. The troops, too, they are not wanted or needed. Not only does it cost me money but it, too, bolsters another community that doesn't want them in the first place.

And yes we can’t do it alone, I would not advocate complete isolationism. We need the rest of the world and the rest of the world needs us.

This post has been edited by DreamPipEr: Jun 26 2004, 01:53 PM

[kalabus]

Julien you simply didnt understand my content or you were not talking to me.

Either way I will reply as if you were talking to me. I said the US should internalize in every sense except the market. That means remove all our troops from every nation and let the rest of the nations in the world fend for themselves and their regions as the UN and NATO are becoming obsolete.

It isnt about disagreement. Disagreement is fine but the nations of the world are not simply disagreeing they are moving away from us. They are voting out their governments that happen to agree with us. It isnt about disareement its about cutting out someones legs. In short the world is saying that the world would be better off with someone besides the US calling the shots and leading the way. It isnt the US job to simply be the muscle behind an operation if we are taking the risks if we are doing the majority of the work we should logically have the most control and the world doesnt want that. So we should internalize on every front except economically. We should stay out of foreign affairs that we are not the fault of. We should allow genocides and war and tyrants as long as they do not threaten us. This is just about the stance of every other nation on earth and it should be the US's. If it comforts the world to see Saddams, Milosevics, Pol Pots more then to see a nation wield such a powerful army and so much influence then so be it. If they do not want our troops in their nation pull them out just like in Saudi. The US cannot be the worlds police force. We should do what the EU does. Simply keep care of economic matters and do nothing militarily.

If the US economy falls so would everyone elses. This is why we have to stay external in the market but we should force nations to defend themselves on their own and if they are not strong enough to stand on their own (Taiwan) they deserve to be attacked because American lives is what should matter to an American and because not enough nations are willing to be militaristic enough.

As for conditions on charity? Every single nation on earth has these conditions. It isnt the US's job to bankrupt itself helping everyone and expecting nothing in return. Civilization has not and will never work like that. The US is simply the punching bag for it because we are the wealthiest.

Allies the ones you say we have never won without (which could be said we never won because of barring France in the American revolution) are no longer existent. When France Germany, Russia basically everyone agrees that Saddam has WMD's and Saddam is the most known dictator on earth and we cannot forge an alliance to oust him? When people do not see or remember why we have troops in their nation (korea) they should leave.

The US has taken up too big of a role a role no one feels comfortable with us having so we should step aside.

[Hobbes]

Either way I will reply as if you were talking to me. I said the US should internalize in every sense except the market. That means remove all our troops from every nation and let the rest of the nations in the world fend for themselves and their regions as the UN and NATO are becoming obsolete.

Kalabus, why do you think we leave these troops there? So they can enjoy the local culture? No, we leave them there to prevent outbreaks from occurring. Initiate a massive pull back of American troops around the world, and you will likely be greeted shortly thereafter with an outbreak of hostilities--many of them requiring troop redeployment. This wouldn't solve anything, and would make many situations worse.

Which isn't to say our troop deployments can't be evaluated for need, with some restrucuturing, perhaps even major. But not an immediate pull-out--that would just create a power vacuum, which would often be filled by those we wouldn't want filling it.

As to Washington's quote:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities

Times are significantly different now. International relations are essentially intertwined--what happens in one nation does tend to influence actions elsewhere. Therefore, the ties we create aren't really artificial any more--they're integral to our well being. Remember--in Washington's day it took weeks just to hear news from Europe--now its instantaneous. Economies then were fairly isolated and autonomous--not so any more. Globalization essentially renders these comments obsolete.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jun 27 2004, 05:16 AM

[kalabus]

I understand there would be an outbreak in hostilities. I fully expect it to happen but like I said it isnt our problem. We would not have redeployment. Let the world fend for itself. Korea and I would say most nations do not want our troops in their nations. They do not understand or see a need for US troops in fact they think US troops are the reason for their hardships (Korean family seperation). Of course not an immediate pull-out but basically start telling nations that we are moving out you have 18 months to build up your own defenses and military. I do not think military world stability should be spearheaded by the US considering that basically everyone Canada, Britain, France, Australia thinks we are doing a shoddy job at it. Nations like Liberia and nations geographically lovcated by the Americas that is a different story but the US shouldnt get involved in any more Kosovos or Rwandas. Let the people and their surrounding nations fend for themselves. If no one else wants to lift a finger well so be it. Im sorry if it sounds callous but the US burdens itself to much for nations that do not want or can barely tolerate our presence.

[Piper Plexed]

I am all for isolationism, the level of isolation I am interested in achieving is more or less separation of Market and State. To achieve this I believe the first step is to have the EU host the UN. The Global perception that the UN activities being defacto US imperialism may be lessened with such a change. I would also prefer a greater level of one on one diplomacy, any aide supplied from us to be a direct result of the request of the receiving nation. To remove the middle man "The UN" would allow the American Tax Payer a greater say in our Government's activities overseas. The parallels of where we are and why we are there will become clearer.

The catalyst for me was the Gulf War and Somalia. Since both actions were viewed as American interventions and not UN interventions the subsequent repercussions were unacceptable. In the case of the Gulf War, I believe our sovereignty as a nation was lost in the UN intervention. Many tax dollars as well as world opinion suffered. We were required to contain Saddam, place countless human resources in the region and were stale mated when we moved to finish the job. In Somalia we were ripped apart and our people murdered, why because it was a humanitarian action. Now I would have probably been somewhat OK with what happened, if only the world had noticed. At that time it became clear to me, the general assumption that the Americans should just keep on giving. I personally do not give the lives of our people that easily nor do I write blank checks.

[overlandsailor]

I read this letter several times and I loved it.

If Patton was the President

I think it is high time the US started to consider the US first, period.

Why do we continue to give Aid to Turkey? We have given aid to Turkey for years, Turkey turned it's back on us with the Iraq war and even tried to extort more aid from us.

My opinion, cut the aid to Turkey off completely. We were helping you, but we were doing it to ensure you would work with us when we needed you. You didn't. We have many other opportunities for the money that once aided you. And we cutting you off as to explore those options.

How would the world react. They would call us selfish, mean-spirited, etc. Basically the same why they talk about us now. Privately however, those receiving aid from the US would be put on notice. Aid is not free, your future support will be required.

Foreign aid should benefit the US, if it doesn't then why take the money from domestic possibilities that would certianly aid us?

[moif]

America would literally die of oil starvation within weeks. The economy would collapse and the political fall out would make the depression look like a barrell of laughs on a sunny summers afternoon. Texas would probably try and leave the union and the world might be witness to the first nuclear civil war...


1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

Why not? America often refuses to accept the responsibility its actions cause. Why should Iraq be any different?


2) If so, to what extent?

and

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

The benefit for America is it will finally realise its ultimate wet dream of having power with out responsibility. The problem is this will only last a few days.

The benefit for the rest of the planet is that it will have the chance to grow. The problem with this is it will require a lot of death and destruction.


4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

There is no such thing.

[Piper Plexed]

Great link Overland! An addendum to my post is since we are already viewed as "Americans are still seen as brash, loud, insensitive bullies [especially in an international sense]" why not be all that they claim us to be. Patton for Pres seems, a bit "Bent Nose" you owe me a fava diplomacy, hey lets get down to basics, nothing is for free.

edited as moif was posting while I was posting

The benefit for America is it will finally realise its ultimate wet dream of having power with out responsibility. The problem is this will only last a few days.
The benefit for the rest of the planet is that it will have the chance to grow. The problem with this is it will require a lot of death and destruction.

HUH? How is this power without responsibility? The rest of the planet will have a chance to grow? Please elaborate.

This post has been edited by Piper Plexed: Jun 27 2004, 05:19 PM

[GoAmerica]

Questions for Debate:

After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

No.

What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

The problem with adopting the policy of Isolationism is that while we think keeping our noses out of other peoples' bsuiness will keep us safe from harm, it is really making things worse makes the idea that we'd be left alone a pathetic idea. When we tried to stay out of WWII, it obviously didn't work. Today, if we were to stay out of the world's business, we'd be letting every terrorist and tyrants have free run of the world because they'd know we'd do nothing to stop them and sooner or later we'd be drug back into the fight. So we might as well stay in around the world.

In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

No. My reasons are above.

[citylawyer]

We must be careful not to outline the parameters of this debate as "us" and "them".

It is wrong because the debate is not a binary one merely between us and them. It is a symptom of ignorance to call everything outside the US as "them", since "them" presumes that the rest of the world are a monolith. The world does not have one opinion of America, it has several, and they vary greatly.

Most importantly, many posts here have ignored continents like Africa, which are criminally underepresented in global politics and are in need of desperate help - we cannot just say, "well people always complain about us so lets do nothing". If a man were there, dying on the street, and I knew everyone would look down on me and crticise me for helping him, I would still help him. Sure different morals and opinions exist, but there are - most would contend - some universals, which we, the west, have a humanitarian duty to uphold. To say that we are to let millions die, which is what isolationism could equate to, for the sake of not becoming possbily unpopular with certain groups, is ludicrous.

Moreover, isolationism is perhaps not even possible in today's globalised world. Global problems require global solutions. Isolationism is built upon invented nationalistic tendencies which grow, in reality, not from the fear of criticism as some here have suggested, but from what - to put it bluntly, can be termed as blind, selfish nationalism which is ignorant, xenophobic and in opposition to the unification and co-operation between the worlds states that is emerging in the latter part of the 20th century and early 21st. It is all well and good to claim that one might be a realist and such optimism is niave, but such a Machiavellian attidude is defeatest - it merely amounts to preserving the status quo; that is, western dominance and lifestyle at the expense of most of the worlds population.

With such a gulf, and gross inequality and injustice, isolationaism is - for all intends and purposes - a crime. A crime of apathy that even the heralded Martin Luther King warned against forty years ago. He criticsed and wanted to change America not because he hated them, but because he was a patriot, who loved his country. Americans must learn to accept criticism, absorb it, respect it and do somehting about it. Critiicsm is not a irrational phenomnea; it has concrete reasons for its existence, and these can be adressed.

Why is it Amerians take criticism so personally, and not from the perspective of universal values and common fraternity with all of mankind? If we are to improve the world, the last thing we want to do is erect barriers, physcial and otherwise, to common and global devlopment. In other words, criticism should not be conceived as a scathing attack on America, but as a suggestion on how to improve the world for all that is not as euro and west-centric.

If Americans disregard such nationalism and welcome plurality, isolationism becomes and obvious non sequitur, or as John Stuart Mill put it, a "dead dogma".

Isolationism is therefore a contingent phenomena reliant on historical, social and geographic circumstance. History will no dobut out grow it, but until that day, it is our responsibility to shy away from it and to embarce more positive, less divisive attitudes that can both save lives and make the world a richer place.

This post has been edited by citylawyer: Jun 27 2004, 06:52 PM

[Chiefdork]

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

Yes not for any reason other than economic, we have been for the last 40 years been selling out our industries particurally the salt of the earth professions like Steel, Wood, all manufacturing jobs.

2) If so, to what extent?

I would put tariffs up back out of NAFTA and GATT, and give serious consideration to reducing our support for the united nations. I would also incur severe penalties for companies who work overseas to avoid taxes but give incentives for them to stay in the USA.

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

Problems are CEO's would have to take a paycut, so more than likely they would balk, as would a lot of day traders.


Benefits are a job market not based in service industries. Better national security It is never a good thing to import any vital materials. The unions will become more powerful, so that is always better for your average warking Joe. Better food quality, Mexican/other imported fruits and vegetables often have pathogens on them from poor sanitary conditions. Add to that I have seen onions in Mexico get watered with raw sewage so I will pass.



4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

I don't particurally care about the world I put the USA over the rest of the world. In my opinion it would make America a better place.

[crashfourit]

The world needs a healthy dose of American Isolationism--10-25 years.

And we to heed Gorge Washington's advise--Don't get into entangling alliances (I.E. UN)

We need to put tariffs on importing so that we can keep jobs here.

We need to take the troops in Iraq and station them on the southern border, and have them patrol it.