All Activity

GON, You complain that the CTP is compulsory. That's what the "C" stands for, Compulsory Third Party. But it's only compulsory if you drive. Don't drive and you won't have to pay. It's like travelling on a train or bus. Buying a ticket is compulsory. Don't travel by bus or train and you don't have to buy a ticket.

It's their TRUMP Card. IF you are going to be Bombed Back into the stone age and have no water or Power.( ALL that is a crime against humanity) use what you have against those who would kill you by the Millions. That's HELL on Earth.. Nev

Regarding the recent rise in One Nation opinion poll figures, Newspoll has released their quarterly analysis which includes a breakdown of polling from January 12 to March 16. The initial figures quoted here are for Queensland voting intention if a federal election was held. One nation has hit the lead in the primary vote at 30%, followed by Labor at 27% and the LNP on 23%. As far as I know, the LNP still leads over One Nation in polls regarding a state election due to the relatively popular incumbent LNP state government. Federally, One Nation is running in second place everywhere except Victoria where the coalition has a 1% margin over them. One Nation's popularity with voters aged 18 to 34 had also risen to 19 per cent from 8 per cent during the last quarterly analysis in December, while also becoming the third most popular party (19 per cent) for younger Australians behind Labor (30 per cent) and the Greens (26 per cent). The polling found One Nation had also had a rise in support from female voters (26 per cent) as compared to male (25 per cent). The support of Australians from diverse backgrounds, who spoke a language other than English at home, for One Nation was also up from 9 per cent to 19 per cent. While the new figures brought it level with the Coalition, both parties trailed Labor’s 35 per cent majority in this group.

Trump thinks America won all the wars including WW2. They haven't won any since WW2 though they did help win WW2. But Hollywood depicts them as the heroes so it must be true. Facts don't matter to Trump. He has lied his way through life & isn't going to stop now. Hegseth hasn't got a clue & thinks his God will make sure he is right & if that doesn't work Whiskey blurs what is right & what is real so he can still feel good & what would 12 experienced & capable generals know anyway. All they did was tell him the truth so they were fired.

"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP" This is the very height of international diplomacy. Ravings of a crazy person. What sort of country can put up with a person like this in charge?

Speaking of Artemis, I see that their crapper has failed again

Insurance: There but for the grace of God go I.

Who says they do invest it? If they do, it is very short-term. You seem to think that the premiums you pay are pure profit without seeming to understand that the money they pay out to people injured IS comprised of all the premiums paid. If they gave back all premiums of people who did not claim, there would be no money to pay out. The idea that the only value of insurance is if you make a claim. When I lived in the bush, I had house insurance. One year I dropped the ball and neglected to renew. When I discovered that I was anxious, as it was a bad bushfire season. Once I renewed, I relaxed knowing that if my house burnt down, I would not be destitute. That is the value of insurance. Two years after I sold this property, a bushfire ripped through this area. Fortunately, the house did survive, although I am betting there was some damage, and I imagine a claim by the new owner would have been made. During most of my working life, I was self-employed or worked under contract to someone else. I was required to have public indemnity insurance, yeah, sure, a bit of a pain, but at least if I crewed up or even was accused of screwing up, I would not lose my house if sued. That is the value of insurance. Last year in NSW, 331 people were killed, and a huge 11120 were seriously injured. In your world, would these seriously injured only be looked after if they or other involved drivers chose to take out insurance? About 25 years ago, my wife was driving in a car park. A car full of young hoons smashed into her. She was unharmed, but the car suffered a lot of damage. This was quite an old car, so we did not have comprehensive insurance; however, of course, being responsible people, we did have 3rd party property. These hoons had no insurance. In the end, we could not get any money out of them and ended up scrapping the car at our expense. Now this was just a matter of damaged property but imagine this scenario if there had been injuries and the drivers had no third-party injury insurance. The bottom line GON is that in a modern, civilised society, we do subsidise each other. Although wage earners pay a Medicare levy, it does not fully cover a long hospital visit. Yes, the people who are healthy and need little medical care do subsidise those who require care. Sooner or later, all of us will need care. The fact that if I have an accident, there are medical facilities available is the mark of a modern, civilised society.

They got outmoded

They got outfoxed

The indemnity ceases at the end of the term. Each year, your inusrance expires and that, say $400, has paid for the indemnity for that period of time. Then when you renew, it is a new indemnity for all intents and purposes. I will try and explain it for a 5 year old. When you drive, you have a contingent liability - that is, while you are driving, you are accepting that should you have an accident that is your fault and you injure someone (physically or mentally), then you will be liable - or responsible - or be required to pay the injured party for their medical treatment - for how long that will take, any lost income, and potentially damages for pain and suffering (ex Vic, I think). That means, if you cause an accident and a severe injury to someone else, your liability will kick in and the costs of medical treatment (think chronic and continuing) can easily run into the millions. And the loss of include can easily also run into the hundreds of thousands and if long enough - even milltions. Clearly, all but a very few drivers in society can afford that sort of liability. And clearly, this will only happen to a few drivers out of the population, So, rather than be in a position where you cause someone a severe injury that bankrupts you and means the victim does not get the treatment or compensation they deserve, the government, with good judgement has deemed that this risk must be transferred to an insurer that can pool the premiums of many drivers and therefore have enough to pay for the likely number and cost of claims that will arise as a result. This is common to virtually every western government/society, because these societies have decided that it is a high priority that the person is protected as much as possinle in an activity which has a fairly high chance of something going wrong. This to me is a sound decision, because it means the victim can get the treatment, lost income, and compensation that would be right for them to receive as a resuilt, and the driver is not bankrupted at the same time. Everyone is happy (as much as they can be in these citcumstances). So, the $400 you pay gives you unlimited protection - you can kill and maim as many people as you want as long as it was accidental, and you won't pay a cent for their compensation nor costs. You can literally run up 10s of millions of dollars in long term liability over the duration of your insurance coverage - which is one year, never pay another penny as you decide it is time to hang up the car keys, and that is it. $400 to me seems a bargain. Of course, it is a furphy to say in most of Australia it is your choice to drive - especially in the sticks. The reason is that Australia is so heavily dependent on cars - even the big cities really do require them - especially in the outer suburbs. But because cars (and motorbikes, and trucks, and vans, etc) can be quite lethal, a part of the cost is ensuring that you asre covered in the case of you causing an accident and personal injury as a result. You need a car- they aren't free. You need petrol (or electricity) - that isn't free (well, for some, sort of is, but lets assume depreciation of solar cells). You have to register the car to pay for things like the roads; that isn't free; and insuring your car, even if you don't claim, isn't free. You have to accept it as a cost of driving. Note, you don't have to have third party property or comprehensive insurance. The goivernments have said, in the priority of things, they have left this totally up to the driver. If you do not want to transfer that contingent obligation to an insurer and protect what assets you have, that is entirely your business. At the end of each year, your insurance expires. The indemnity provided to you has to be renewed. As I said, you don't have to renew it if you don't want to drive. You may have in the last year caused an accident that has led to someone needing a large amount of care over a long time, list $150k.year salary, and is in constant pain and suffering. Because you stop renewing your premium, does not stop the liability of the insurer (although sometimes there is a big one off payout to cover for the years of assistance, lost income and pain and suffering, it is rarer these days, where the costs cannot be predicted accurately). But, you may not have an accident that is your fauit. Which means no liability of the insurance company (or more accuately no liability to you, which is indemnified by the insurance company) arises. OK.. that is why you are paying only $400 for the year and not $1milliion or $10m. That is because, insurance is about pooling contingent obligations and paying out when the events that give rise to those obligations occur. Still with me? I assume you are. In that way, it does share the burden across people, but make it a lot smaller than a massive and usually unable to be met burden across a much smaller number of people. This makes driving accessible to all, including you. The government, and most of society I would hope, would deem ensuring every driver has sufficent means to pay for any accident they cause that results in personal injury. If you don't want to pay someone else to take the risk on for you, then I would suggest the government would want some form of security from you that you could cover any likely oblligation if it arose from you causing an accident and injuring someone. That would mean they would a) take a lein over your house.. But it is unlikely most peoples' properties would cover what can be likely to arise int he obligation. So, don't worry, they will give it back to you when you stop driving, but they will take a $1m+ sureity deposit from you. Now, you may be able to cough up that amount of money and let the government hold it on your behalf, but most wouldn't and not too many people would be able to drive - legally. So, yeah. you are paying for something where you may never give rise to an obligation, but that is the cost to make it accessible not only to you, but to all. But, why can't you just pay the prevoium and get it back if you don't make a claim? Well, it wouldn't take too much brain usage to work that one out. ChatGPT tells me there is no relianle stats that say what percentage of drivers in australia cause an accident that results in personal injury. But using statistical extrapolication methods, it calculates up to 0.5% of the population. So, for every 200 drivers out there, 1 will cause such an accident. The average cost of compensation will is around $118,000; some are low, and some are very high. Again, according to ChatGPT, so pls take it as, at best a guide. So, given for every 200 drivers there will be, on average, 1 driver that causes 1 accident and the cost per accident per year will average $118,000.. Let's not even bring the per-annum dimension into this. So, assume the CTP insurance premium for all 200 drivers is over their life time, $35,000. Let's assume they all start and end their driving at the same time. Now, all the drivers that didn't have a claim will get there money back, which is what your asking for That leaves the money of the driver - $35,000 - in the scheme. However, the one accident has cost the scheme $118,000. Now, take into account all of the drivers, and all of the accidents, and the range of costs, and the fact this is an annual number not the life of a scheme number, and you can see it will take all of a year for the scheme to go bust or be a massive drain on the public purse. Which means more taxes, or rego to cover it.. What you are suggesting is a complete folly - in other words BS. Here is the hcart of the average cost of the personal injury claims from accidents by age group. Guess which age group has the highest. Yet, your policy price is the same as those with the lowest. If you have been driving all your adult life, you're about even. Up to about 30, and above 60, you are costing more than between 31 and 59 - on average. Therefore at the moment, almost all those younger than you are paying more to cover your risk. Yes, you may be the bestest driver at your age, so you may wualify for a small discount. But the risk assesment tells the insurers you aren't a great risk, buit better to slug those younger than you than make you pay more. I honestly don't understand what you are complaining about. Imagine if the insurers had to make a profit. You'd be paying as much, if not more than the UK and US folks do.

The promise extinguishes when a motorist hands their license in at the end of their motoring life. In my case, that promise will cost me $35,000 if I never make a claim. I'll be old, unable to drive any longer, and I'll never see any of that $35,000 ever again. It'll be in someone else's very tangible pocket, certainly not mine. It's stolen property, in the guise of insurance premiums. Interest is earned on it, but we never get handed any of that interest. They're making money out of ill gotten gains. Who said they can invest it? When I deposit money in my bank, I get a good share of the interest.

No.. You're not paying for a claim. You are paying for an indemnity shoud there be a need to make a claim against you - even by yourself. In other words a guarantee should you need it. That is what insurance is. To say what you say is, from an insurance perspective, say, "I am going to prepay a claim that will be made. If I make no claim, I want my money back". Think about it, the insurance company would then have specify the type of claim and value it is willing to shell out. That third party claim, say for dismembering a leg, may be worth, I dunno, say $1M. That woudl be yuour payment.. because they will pay your claim. If at the end of your driving, you don't make that one claim for dismembering someone's leg, then yiouget your $1M back, minus some margin for admin + profit. Now, if you make the claim because you do dismember someone's leg, there goes your $1M. That is a lot more expensive than the $35K that you paid in indemnities or guarantees - which is what insurance is. It is a small fee to protect you from a much larger cost. But, if you, say, I dunno, cause someone brain damage, then you have not paid for that type of claim - you are on your own. Or maybe the prepaid claim service will pay to the value of any claim up to the amount you have prepaid. In which case, that person who has brain damage may claim $10m. You have pre-paid your $1M claim, but they bankrupt you (or take another $9M if you have that available in realisable assets at current value). That is what you are describing in the above, As an analogy, in trade finance, we will provide letters of guarantee on behalf of clients who are importers. It is a bank guarantee to their suppliers overseas that once the goods are shipped to the point of delivery, we will release the funds to the exporter regardless of whether or not we have those funds. We charge our client (the importer) a fee for this service on the understanding that they will have the funds, and if they don't they also have an interest fee that accrues until the funds are provided to us. If, as they normally do, have the funds available at the right time, we don't give a refund on the guarantee we wrote. We provided them a service which allowed them to purchase the goods/services in return for the risk that we took on - i.e. transferred from the exporter to us. You clearly do not understand what insurance. It is not an intangible - it is a promise backed my a tangible promissory note being your insurance certificate. As long a you have that and it is within its insurance period, it s able to be touched and relied upon. Under international accounting standards, regulated insurance certificates sit on the tangible assets of the balance sheet and decreases from the balance sheet on a monthly basis and is charged to expense. You have lost notning. You have paid for a tangible service and you have received it. You are not paying for a claim itself. That is a conditional obligation of the insurer under the terms of the indemnity. Whether it is privatised or a state administered insurance scheme, it doesn't change. Whether it is volunatry or not, it doesn't change. At the end of the insurance period, you do not get your money back for making no claim. If CTP were not compulsory, and you decided to take out TP Insurance, in order for you to claim for losses of uninsured drivers, your premium would skyrocket (assuuming they offered the choice just for your policy to protect others and you be on your own if an uninsured). By being voluntary, you may decide you don't need the insurance and I have to protect myself against you. No matter how good you are i the past, if you do me damage, I would have to have some form of comprehensive 3rd party insurance to cover my personal injuries from uninsured drivers like you. Now you're aslking me to pay for you. Now, ask yourself, who is likely not to take up 3rd party insurance if it were not compulsory. I may be stereotyping here, but I am thinking it would be the ones more likely to cause injury than not - those less responsible in their outlook, etc. All that will happen is for you to protect against the thrid party risk is that your third party premiums will increase as a result. Well done, ol' chap. What you describe is not a negotiation. It forms part of the risk assessment. All this is taken into account. The states licensing agencies already have most of the information, and I am afraid a road safety course in 1972 is probably not going to be considered terribly relevant today. As I explained, the underwriting risks do not vary a lot between even the worst drivers and the best in terms of premium. That is because the risks they insure are generally likely to be caused by anyone with a momentary lapse in concentration. Also, they are looking at future risks, and given you were driving in 1972, I would say you are entering, if not already in a high risk zone. You can't do a simple bell curve of number of accidents per age group due to the difference in the number of drivers per band, but I got Chat GPT to do the heavy lifting and scale the nubmer of accidents per age band relative to the population of drivers in each age band: You can see, as you get older, the number of accidents per population increased from 60 onwards. So, GON, you are not in good future risk territory straight away. But, also the severity per accident increases: In your age group, it is also the severest, which means probably the highest payout per claim, which means, you can try and negotiate. Good luck! There's a reaon its hard to hire cars when you're under 25 and over 75: You can privatise it all you like, but unless, as I mentioned earlier, you're in the sweet spot of driving, you are likely to be paying more, and in your case, given your demographic's elevated risk of causing an accident, and then even higher than the youngan's in the severity and likely cost of the claims, you may want to be careful what you ask for.. you may get it.

Yeah we know what Americans are like, bombing schools and killing 160 kids.

They got outvoted.

Correct.

GON,, go out and have an accident. Break a couple of legs, lose an eye, then make a claim. That way you'll get part of your money back, at least.

Papaya juice

We are still charities if we never make a claim. My charitable contributions at the end of my motoring life if I never make a claim, will be approximately $35,000, adjusted for inflation. At that time, the intangible promise by the company to pay for medical treatment for bad unsafe drivers, extinguishes. I will lose every cent of that tangible $35,000. It is tangible, isn't it, or is it in my imagination. I will be expected to cop that on the chin, its the worst deal ever, if I never make a claim. If CTP were to remain compulsory, then at least give us all the chance to negotiate our own premium. A form could be filled out ... "Have ever completed an advanced driving course?" "Have you ever made a claim against a CTP provider?" "Do you live in a densely populated area?" "Have you ever been involved in a vehicle crash on public roads?" "How often do you drive after sunset?" "How many demerit points have you acquired in the last five years?" "In your own words, tell us more about why you think you deserve a cheaper Greenslip?" Something like this needs to be done for a fair go for motorists. Our money is tangible, a stand-alone promise to pay is not, it's only a promise to pay bad drivers, and the rest of us (safe drivers) who never make a claim, are asked to provide the funds, never to see our money again. Forced charity.

GON, I don't know if you are serious of just ship styirring. If the former, you clearly don't understand what insurance is: The promise is very tangible. It means a) if you hit someone and you are at fault, you are protected from any claims they have on your property. More importantly, the non voluntariness of it means that if someone hits you and it is their fault, because it is government guaranteed, you are guaranteed to get the treatment and compensation for your injuries and I believe loss of income, but owuld have to check. This is a very tangible promise and as absolute as it can be. Of course, if the driver doesn;t have insurance to cover property damage (i.e. your car's damage), then because that is a voluntary form of insurance, you may have to go for them, if they have anything, to recover yuor costs. But CTP is only personal insurance and the state (and community, I dare say) agree that this is a vital protection to protect the interests of the community in gerenal. In addition, it helps to pay for the even worse drviers who drive cars without current reg and CTP, who, if they hit you, would not have any way to pay for your treatment or lost income.. But, hey, if that is your preference, then I guess you can find somewhere in the world to live where it is optional. Not too many western countries, USA included, don't require CTP insurance. I think you are mixing up insurance with investment products, where you earn a return on your money. With insurance, you p[ay a premium for protection for a specific period of time. They work out the expected cost of the scheme, which, apart from admin, is the cvost of the claims they expect, how many policies they will have to write, and to cover for oninusred people (where participation and payouts are compulsory). Yes, you will be covering someone who has a worse record than you, and there are others, such as Octave that are likely to drive a lot less than others, and he is covering some of your expense (on the assumption you drive materially more than 5k kms a year). You are not paying for the claim.. otherwise, there would be noo point to insurance. Now that I am composed.. When was the last time you haggled with car insurance? I think you mean you can shop around. And yes, you could. But, you;re mixing up voluntary insurance with privatisation. The UK and the US have privatised CTP, but it is still mandatory. There is a theoretical argument for privatised CTP as it shoudl intorduce competition and it should lead to more competitive pricing. But the reality is sort of. The isurance market is made up of brokers, reinsurers, and underwriters. Most of the insurers you see on TV/hear on radio are brokers/agents or reinsurers. Some, such as AAMI are direct underwriters. A broker is a commissioned agent - they receive a comission for each policy sold. A reinsurer accepts some of the risks but transfers the vast majoprity of the risk to underwriters. The nature of the risks adopted by reinsurers are the long term catastophic risk that occurs really infrequently. The everyday and common stuff is transferred to the underwriter. If you go to the underwriter direct (e.g. AAMI), they take on all the risk and cost. They calculate you premium as if you went to a reinsurer. So, for every insurance policy, regardless of where you go to get it (ie. haggle for it - that still cracks me up), it will involve an underwriter's premium plus a reunsurers premium what what they call the long tail risk, polus the brokerage commission (it is rare an underwriter or reinsurer will discount the broker fee in the same way wholesalers generally don't stff their retailers. Yeah - I know there are some do it, but their marketing approach is to not use brokers or price comparison sites - which are also just self-service brokers). What will tend to happen is that you will find there ae very strict regulations around the provision of CTP insurance because the government have to be comfortable that the private insurers can meet their obligations - especially since it is a compulsory insurance - otherwise there is no point to the insurance. So, there is this thing called regulatory capital they have to hold based on their forecast obligations over different time horizons, because their revenue is not guaranteed. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it is possible to have a future liabillity for which you are no longer receiving a premium payment. For example, if you were iwth insurance company X at the time you hit a pedestrian because you didn't see them, that claim and associated cost could go on for years, but you may switcvh insurer because insurance company X just jacked up your premium. They still have to pay the claim for years, while you are now with insurance company Y. And it does happen quite a lot, so the private insurer has to cover a cost that a government insurer doesn;t have to as much (yes, they can - you can move interstate, or you can stop driving, but the numbers are far less than a priovatised multi-provider industry). The other thing is, it is not a fully competitive market. First, there are really high barriers to entry as you have to have a lot of money to be able to meet all your regulatory requirements - which are there to ensure sovency of the insurers so they can pay out (interestingly, the UK prudential regulations are called Solvency, with the current regs being Solvency III, I think). Then you have to have enough liquid assets to pay the claims when they fall due. Not only that, but each underwriter and insurer has to duplicate the administration and operations of the insurance sheme they operate.. More actuaries, quants, admin staff, claims staff, etc., medical teams/panels and the like that are not able to be utilised by curernt insurers as they don't have those liabilities today. The number of underwriters is small - according to Google, there are only 4. I think they have missed a couple - so lets say 6. Ironically, 1 per state, and none for the territories. First, you;re not going to get much competition, but since they are all subject to the same rules and have to cover the main risks, and because this is a compulsory insurance, they will ultimately have to cover some for uninsurd risk - where you will make a claim against your policy even though you are not at fault, you won't get too much competition in this space. Even though you may never had had an accident that is your fault, they are looking at the likelohood of you causing an accident, and as they saying goes, past performance is only a guide. You're getting older, your refelxes aren';t as good as they were, you're eyesight not as good as it was, etc. You probably don't want to hear it, but you could be entering the age where you are more likely to cause an accident and have a claim that a fit 40 year old who is mildly aggressive at the wheel. I think that is a reason why we tend to slow down as we get older. Be that as it may, they will work out an average cost per insured and then apply a small discount or premium for your future probability of risk, of which your past will come into it, but not the only, and in some cases, definitive factor. Then you go to the reinsurance premium. This is where your risk profile has much more of an impact on your premium. Also, your no claims years is likely to be taken more account of here than in the underwritten part of the risk because, although they hold the more catastophic risk here, it tends to be the very low probability stuff. Therefore, driver behaviour will more affect thei likeihood of a claim against this risk than a pure mishap that can give riske to claims under the risk the underwriter holds. The BMW plouhing into the beer garden in Dayesford is an example of that. Teh damage to the pub and the claims by people in the beer garden will probably fall on the reinsurer. But how often does that type of event happen? Very rarely in comparison to the fun of the mill hit and run, or bingle from failing o stop at a give way sign, I would guess. The reinsurer will has to cover losses of an uninsured driver doing the same as the BMW driver as well. So, that gets added eually to all premiums. The brokerage is immaterial, as it will usually be the same regardles of who the insured is. But, yes, you will be able, thankls to reinsurance, get a discount compared to higher risk drivers on your CTP. Well done. Except, there is one problem under a privatised model. And you only have to look at the USA and UK to find it. You get huge discrepancies as a result. The 18 year old in a Ford Focus (so not too powerful. but no slouch) is paying, say £1500 for CTP alone, which you may be getting it for £150. You havbe to have at least CTP to regisster your car or transfer ownership. So, he musters the £1,500 and pays it, registers the car, and the very next day cancels his insurance and gets all of it back. He is now uninsured. There are no ongoing checks (although with ANPR, they are bing picked up more often than they used to). So, now you are more likely to be hit by an uninsured driver. To get your treathment/compensation, you don't go to your insurance company, because they pay a premium to a fund that covers uninsrued accidents (third party being the operative term in CTP). You go to your insurance company and they will handle the claim for you (you pay for that as part of your premium, by the way), but they don;t administer the claim. And, because your uninsured driver may have done a runner, it coiuld be a long time before you see any of it, because they need to satisfy themselves it wasn't your fault before they accept an unisured liability. In the mean time, you could be in pain, lose your income, you job, etc for a very long time before you can get any money or treatment beyond the very basic, etc. Not only that, but because the number of uninsured drivers is higher and they are, for reinsurance purposes, in the higher risk category, thes uninsured fund will demand more premium form the insurers. And that will mean more premiumn to you - remember we are talking mandatory/compulsory insurance here. Which will mean, you probably won't save as much as you think. You're older, so you;re more of a risk whether you like it or not; you've still got to cover at least some of those that aren't as good a driver as you thanks to the underwriting component. And thanks to the privatised component and not hooking it up to your rego, you now have to cover an unisured fund as well as the need to make profit that will drag that difference to a lot lower than you think. Australia (or the states) have got it right. Just check out how much we actually pay for a private CTP insurance is in the US or the UK (and yes, for the US, you have to take into account the ridiculous sums of compenation they pay - so not entirely apples with apples).

Thanks Peter and yeah, l mean look at the bottom two. You bet that's where the Iranians would be leading them to. Sitting ducks.

This might give you some idea. The area around the Strait of Hormuz. Territory to the left of the image above Mountains around Tehran

Yeah that was bloody disgusting talk coming from the president of the US for God sake. Imagine how that made the general population over there feel , as if they won't be going through enough.

Yeah they showed videos of the terrain lt's mountains alright lots and lots of it but not just any old mountains. They're very rough the kind that sort of have lots of sharp ripples running all the way down, how you'd even get around on them , no idea. The Iranians would have their ways though for sure. And this is what they were talking about to and of how they could have anything on them and inside them but also be perched all through them too picking off the yanks from above type thing. Very very heavy duty landscape.