International News
See other International News Articles
Title: British navy to Iran: Back the hell off
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morr ... itish-navy-iran-back-hell-off/
Published: Jul 11, 2019
Author: Ed Morissey
Post Date: 2019-07-11 12:09:36 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 15671
Comments: 89
Do the Iranians want a war? They nearly got one overnight, not with the US but with the United Kingdom. The British navy aimed its guns on several Iranian ships attempting to block passage through the Strait of Hormuz of a British oil tanker, which caused the smaller ships to retreat: A British navy ship, the HMS Montrose, “was forced to position herself between the Iranian vessels and [the tanker] British Heritage and issue verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, which then turned away,” the British government said in a statement. “We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region,” the statement said. Last month, the Iranians shot down a US drone operating in international airspace, which nearly prompted a military strike in retaliation. The Iranians have now apparently either shifted their focus or broadened it, also in retaliation. The UK seized a Panamanian oil tanker carrying Iranian crude off the coast of Gibraltar, accusing Tehran of violating EU sanctions by selling oil to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Iran called it “an act of piracy” and threatened “consequences” for the seizure. This seems to be the UK’s reminder that even consequences have further consequences. For the moment, anyway, the Iranians got the message. However, they clearly want to start a fight in the Strait of Hormuz with someone, even though it’s becoming clearer that the US and the UK are willing to shoot back now after the attacks on other shipping in the Hormuz area. Iran may not have much choice. Their economy is collapsing again under the weight of US sanctions, and their population is growing restive. The Trump administration announced yesterday that more sanctions are coming now that Iran has openly admitted breaking past the restrictions on uranium enrichment: The United States called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Wednesday in response to the Iranian moves, while a senior French envoy was in Tehran exploring ways to reopen negotiations on compliance with the deal. Iran called this “warfare“: Iran’s representative to international organizations in Vienna, Kazem Gharib Abadi, told a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Wednesday U.S. actions were “neither legitimate nor legal” and should not be accepted by the international community. He says that the “costly” consequences of American sanctions mean “they should be seen as weapons of warfare.” Iran had better be careful before they find out what warfare actually would look like against the US and UK. They’ve been testing Western responses in the Hormuz area for some time, and the British navy gave the Iranians something to think about. If the mullahs are getting nervous about the misery of their population, then they should rethink their nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as their support for Iranian proxy terror networks in the region. Poster Comment: When the British allies on the British protectorate of Gibralter stopped the Iranian tanker illegally bound for Syria last week, Iran's leader vowed revenge on Britain, suggesting that Iran would seize a British tanker in retaliation. Britain did lawfully interdict a contraband oil shipment destined for Syria contrary to international agreements. Well, Iran tried to seize a Brit tanker and Britain made it clear they aren't going to be victims of Iranian piracy in the Strait of Hormuz. They sent Iran a message. I think they should have punctuated it with sinking one or more of the three Iranian ships to make their point to Iran even clearer. But that will be the next step if Iran tries something like this again.
Three Iranian vessels attempted to stop a British tanker traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, Britain said Thursday, in the latest escalation between Iran and Western powers in recent weeks. The United States on Wednesday accused Iran of “nuclear extortion” and threatened further sanctions against Tehran, which has begun stockpiling and enriching uranium beyond the limits set in the 2015 accord that President Trump has abandoned. Iran says it’s prepared to return to “full implementation” of its landmark 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, but only when matched by the full compliance of “all participants.” …
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-44) not displayed.
.
.
.
#45. To: Tooconservative (#40)
From what I know from people that lived under Hitler and what I've read and heard about life in N. Korea and Iran, there's a lot in your comparison that bears credible consideration. But when I read "Texas Court Orders Father to Raise His Son As A Transsexual" I wonder how a liberal democracy like the one we've been taught to honor from the day we learned to tie our shoes has so suddenly and inexplicably turned to shit.
You are gullible if you believe a Muslim who is trained to lie to you. You seem to have become even more unhinged than was noticeable 2 years ago, which is a remarkable achievement.
The Koran says to lie to non muslims. Do you have your head up your ass jwpegler, or are you just not paying attentiona? Of course Clapper is a liar too and maybe the other video you posted has a liar in it too.
You must be a Muslim then.
The American Left does have a genuine totalitarian streak, right down the middle of its yellow back.
You must a leftist then. You have a clear totalitarian streak, with Orwellian urge to lie.
You're a self-hating Pole.
Try harder.
You must be a dumb polack liar. If you think i'm a muslim liar you shouldn't post here anymore. You don't add anything anyway.
Dumb or not, you are dumber.
You can't tell the difference between a man and a woman. You vote for mass murderers. If you want to go to hell don't ask for forgiveness.
Your pedophile Bill Clinton appointed that thing. You know the Bill Clinton
fag lover you voted for.
And you are channeling her. Why?
Uh. You posted her bullshit you dumb pole.
Why? What Wahhabi Republicans do, Jihad against infidel Christians.
And the answer is: of course they can be. They're not supermen. If they're willing to sacrifice their futures and live in the dirt for four generations, in order to assert the dream of having nuclear weapons (because the reality is we will bomb their facilities if they ever get close), then let them become another North Korea - backwards, falling behind the world, suffering terribly, isolated. My bet is that the second or third generation will get tired of eating dirt and give up on the dream, the way the third generation of Communists did. The Communists did because we RESISTED them, fought them everywhere, at every turn, overthrew every government they tried to infiltrate, and contained them and fought them, until they finally ran out of money and the new generations lost hope, then their government collapsed and with it, all but four of the Communist countries ceased to exist and turned into potential friends and allies. Most did ally with us. That is EXACTLY what you do the Muslim fanatics in Iran. No, you will NEVER be permitted to develop atomic weapons. And given your size, and your lack of resources, you never have any hope of standing up to the US and the whole West and, the rest of the Middle East too. You will be isolated, you will not be permitted to sell your oil in quantities that even let you support your own people right. You will fall further and further behind, and the US will be there, wrapping you in iron, and grinding all hope of any future out of all of your children for generations to come, until you yield. And, since you're stubborn, fanatic jihadi fucks, you will NEVER yield, so your children will be ground into the dirt, And if they're stubborn Islamist fucks like you, THEY will live in poverty and despair. Eventually, your grandchildren or great grandchildren will renounce you and your beliefs and give up the point and join the civilized world, just like the Soviet Bloc did. That took us 75 years. And we weren't as relatively strong or relatively rich when we did that. We have FOREVER> We ALREADY rule the world, for all practical purposes. Our lives are advancing and getting better. But we are willing to make you live in a prison outhouse and keep you there, until you give up the point. That's the way it's going to be. We have forever. Their suffering doesn't even cross our radar screen, so we can just keep at it. In the end, we're too strong, they're too weak, and nobody but they want the nukes. They will never get them, and eventually they will surrender the point. All we have to do is just stand on them until we do. So we will. Count on it. Worked against the USSR. Will work against Iran. We've done that to North Korea for a long time, and Kim will make a deal with Trump on account of that. We're much better at this than you give us credit for.
A no nukes deal means that the Iranians have to submit to inspections to be sure that it remains true.
And if and when they get nukes? Do the sanctions then end or do we give them an incentive to use the nukes by continuing to torment the country? NK made nukes, and Iran is far more capable country in that regard tha NK is. Seems to me if non-proliferation was the goal, then Israel should not have been given nukes. That was most certainly a grave error. I don't think they even want nukes, but these sanctions are giving them that incentive to make them.
Israel is not relevant to the issue. Iran is a permanent, declared enemy and, unlike North Korea, which has a superpower protector that limits our ability to directly strike them to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, Iran has no such protector, so we CAN physically prevent them from doing so and destroy whatever they do develop. And we will. If the Iranians have decided that they are going to destroy the future of their people by engaging in a headlong, permanent fight with the United States and our worldwide allies, over their supposed "right" to obtain nuclear weapons, then so be it: they will in fact destroy the future of their people, by charging into guns too strong for them to face and getting shot down doing it. One of the reasons that it's so important to break Iran in this matter is because so many people, like you, see in Iran the hope of holding up the fist of rebellion against the American world order. It is very important, therefore, that the Iranian example of resistance is utterly crushed, so that hope dies in hearts all over the world, and the rebellious at heart realize that rebellion against the status quo comes at a fearsome price, that it comes without victory at the end, and that it's ultimately not worth it. Unfortunately for the Iranians two and three generations from now, the stubborn decisions of their grandparents to shake their fist in the face of the American world order will result in those children and grandchildren living backwards and constrained lives compared to what they might have lived, all of that sacrifice for the arrogant pipe dream of obtaining nuclear weapons (which still will not have happened by that time). By the fourth generation they'll be truly sick of it and give up. It would be best for all if they gave up before starting it, but there always have to be examples in this world. Iran has stepped up to provide one. We should thank them for that, I suppose.
I can't tell if you are in favor of the US empire or are just stating that's the way it is. Yes Iran is the underdog. But they are not alone. The US has only 5-6% of the world population, and an Achilles heel of enormous debt. In fact, much of the ME policy is no doubt to defend not the US directly, but the dollar itself. I for one don't consider Iran a military threat even with nuke weapons. Is Pakistan at threat? They have nukes and they are Islamic. I'm not confident the US will retain its empire status perpetually. Nor am I confident the US can prevent Iran from developing them any more than they prevented the much poorer NK from obtaining them. Iran is a large country fully 20% of the size of the US in population, and they have a lot to lose in any nuke contest, especially with Israel having nukes pointed at them. There is no danger in Iran having nukes. That's my assessment at least.
He is confident.
They are both a threat. Ir Iran makes Nukes we should wipe them off the map. You are sounding like an Iranian again.
Then why not wipe Pakistan off the map? Nukes are a reality, and Iran WILL have them if they so choose. If we could not keep NK from making them, we will not prevent Iran from making them. If they want them. Our only choice, as imperfect as it is, is to establish good relations with them and remove as much motive as we can from them from making that choice. Massive sanctions creates a motive for them to make them, as once Iran becomes a viable nuclear armed country, antagonizing them with severe and permanent sanctions will encourage their use.
Iran just seized British tanker Stena Impero. Confirmed by Iran and others.
Something tell me Iran wants the UK to release the tanker they took at Gibraltar. Call it a hunch.
I'm sure you're cheering them on. I don't think this will work out for the Iranians the way they're hoping. But you go ahead and hug yourself in glee, certain that the noble Iranians will teach those dirty Americans a thing or two and give those Brits their comeuppance.
This tanker is British, not American.
The US does not have an empire. We have a global security system of allies, th that is mutually beneficial among all of the allies, because it establishes a zo zone of free trade and - relative - personal freedom (not perfect - Saudi ain't fr free, free, but there is freedom of mov fr free, free, but there is freedom of movement anyway). free, free, but there is fr freedom of movement anyway). Th fr freedom of movement anyway). There is no historical precedent for the Pax Americana; it is on a much, much grander scale grander scale than any p grander scale grander scale than any previous "empire". Eff gran grander scale than any previous "emp previous "empire". Effe previous "emp previous "empire". Effectively, the Pax Americana COMB COMBINES the US with the old British, old British, French, D old British, old British, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Swed Swedish, Danish, Austro Hungarian, Ot Hungarian, Ottoman, J Hungarian, Ot Hungarian, Ottoman, Japanese and German Empires. We did did not conquer all of them. But all them. But all have d them. But all them. But all have did did not conquer all of them. But all have a common interest in t interest in the com interest in t interest in the common peac peace and keeping the oceans open everywhere to free trade. free trade. free trade. free trade. Nothing remotely like this every existed in history. The British Empire was th the militar the military riv the militar the military rival of the other Empires. The Pax Romana only extended to the bo borders of borders of Rome borders of borders of Rome, and was not really very peaceful. The Pax Americana is global, and is so beneficial to everybody that even countries countries that countries countries that have rival economic interests and who compete quite strongly on the econo the economic the econo the economic front, have US basing and cooperate with the US security network, because t because that because t because that worldwide peace, which never existed before on such a grand scale, is good f is good for is good f is good for nearly everybody. That doesn't make us an empire, though. We don't RULE England, Germany, France, Japan, Japan, etc Japan, Japan, etc. We compete with them. We merely vouchsafe the connon defense and are the are the l are the are the linchpin of th defense and are the linchpin of the world security system. system. system. system. It's something defense and are the linchpin of the world security system. It's something new under the sun. The countries that choose to remain outside of of the of of the of the world security of the of the world security system (North Korea, Cub Cuba, Cub Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Red China, China, Burma, Vietna China, China, Bur Burma, Vietnam and Russia) do not propose some alternative system of freedo fre freedom. They are, freedo freedom. They are, rather, oppressive states hellbent on on on on upsetting the world order, order, as though t order, order, as though they wer we wer were merely resisting the United States and seeking to replac replace the US wi rep r rep replac replace the US with themselves, like any other old empire. But that's the difference: Russia and China seek to emulate the old Brit B British/French/German/Russian/Japanese empires, with a home country and cowed s sate satellites.
I strongly disagree. By any objective measure, the USA is an empire. Our military is more costly than the next 15-20 countries combined. You can hear it on TV where the US is claiming the right not just to defend our military and allies in the ME region but also our "interests". We do rule our "allies". you can see it in the case of Iranian sanctions where Europe wanted to continue the Iranian deal but the US has dictated "no". You can see in in the UK seizing the Iranian tanker at the urging of the USA. You can see it when, for example, was it Spain that detained and searched a jet transporting the president of Bolivia because they suspected Snowden was aboard, in a breach of diplomatic protocol. These countries do what the USA tells them to. Free trade? How free is it when the US Dollar is the world reserve currency? The US uses its vast military to enforce the petro dollar. We have troops all over the globe. Yes, the USA is an empire, by any objective measure.
When did Iran become #1? It was Khomenei, Saddam Hussein, Assad, Khaddafi and OBL. Things really do change. Iran was on the brink of attempting a citizen led coup of the Mullahs under Bush and Obama. R and D....but they didn't want the boogey man taken down. You see they have their purposes. They can be rolled out when a war is wanted. Read the papers for decades and they told the story of how evil Assads regime was. Ayatollah Khomenei was allowed to return to Iran after Carter and the CFR decided it was time for tyranny of the Shah to be replaced by the tyranny of the mullahs. This is ALL a CIA/MI6/Mossad novel. Britain and Israel pull American strings, we send in the boys to die, and the American taxpayers to authorize another $1T+ a year in borrowing from the private corporations who fuel wars with their "EVIL DEBT SYSTEM" called the world banking system. Get back to me when they attack America like the hordes of immigrants, migrants and wetbacks are doing from around the globe. Now THAT is a reason to use some of the Trillions spent on Defense.
THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Reconquista Republican Trump wants Bill of Love amnesty, cheap Dream Student workers/voters.
You are a very cynical guy. Not really. He was the Alawite president of a Syria whose constitution required that that job be held by an Alawite. Different cabinet jobs were assigned to particular minority groups as part of the constitutional order. Assad was no more brutal than he had to be to keep order. Alawites, Christians, Shi'a, Druze lived peacefully among a Sunni majority. It was a Ba'athist government (commie Muslim in ideology and language, less so in practice). And Assad was never considered as brutal as Saddam was, his Ba'athist comrade dictator to the east.
If we're an empire, we are completely unlike the Empires of the past. We have no overseas territories to speak of. Instead, we base our navies, air forces and armies in allied lands. Can you imagine the British being granted basing rights in the French Empire, or vice versa, in the Age of Empires? Didn't happen. When an ally no longer wishes to have our forces based there and tells us to leave, we do. The French did it in the 1960s, and the Filipinos did it after Marcos. What empire does that? Our allies are just that - allies - not vassals. There's no empire in history anything like this. The United States is based in more countries, and has a wider scope of allied countries, than any nation in history. If the US is an empire, it is well over twice the size of the British Empire - the entirety of the Americas except Cuba is in it, Australia, New Zealand - all of Oceania is in it. All of Europe except for Russia, Belarus and Serbia is in it or seeking to associate with it. The Persian Gulf is in it, except for Iran. Most of Africa is in it. It's easier to name the countries NOT in the American security sphere - "Empire" if you will: Cuba. Russia. Belarus. Serbia. Ukraine. The "Stans" (except for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are American-occupied or nominmal allies). Syria. Iran. Sudan. Yemen. Somalia. Zimbabwe. Congo (Zaire...and even then...), India, China, Burma, Laos, Vietnam (and they're coming into it because of Chinese aggression), and North Korea. The entire rest of the world is allied and part of the system. Thst's just not an empire. The French parts of Africa are all very much focused on France, not the US, but they're still part of the US security system, and they still have US troops operating in them for various reasons. Pakistan doesn't like us much at all, but we still have passage through there, and still operate forces from there. If we're an Empire, we're certainly not in the mold of the British, French, Russian, Soviet, Mongol or Roman Empires. We're something else. Which is why the word "Empire" doesn't really work. We're a world security system, not an empire, not really.
I can't speak exactly for the nature of historic empires in comparison, but it the end result is the same. World control. Previously it was done with military presense. In todays world, it's done economically. How else could it be that the US is able to put severe pressure on what Iran can and cannot do from almost the opposite side of the planet? An empire controls the world. What does the US do? The US is an empire. Though it won't unwind as gracefully as the British empire did.
Please elaborate. Empire or Imperium originally meant an International Community - system of alliances dominated by one country. That is why Judea had a king - Herod.
But see, that's just it. No historical empire ever controlled the world, or even close. America largely does. They were all limited because they were ethno-national states expanding for the specific benefit of a mother ship ethnicity. And while some empires were stronger than others (in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the British Empire was strongest, followed by the French, with the others trailing behind them), the British certainly did not rule the world: they ruled their empire, could place some pressure on their rivals, but had very little power in Europe at all. The US, by contrast, does not RULE Europe, but it does have supreme military command over all of Europe west of Russia and Belarus. Nothing like that ever existed in history. Similarly in the East, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Sealand - these are sovereign countries, but they are all part of the American-commanded security system, and operate jointly, and the Americans operate in all of them. The historical British Empire had no relationships like that. They outright RULED Australia and New Sealand, with imperial authority and oversight. Nobody who wasn't under their military control voluntarily put the British in command of anything. Britain had no relationship with any country the way that the US has an integrated military command structure with every country in Europe. It's simply unprecedented, and it's not an "empire" anything like anything that came before. The Americans do not RULE Britain, nor govern it in any way. And yet there are American bases and forces there, and in Europe in peacetime and in war, the Americans command the British, French, German and everybody else's armed forces within NATO. Control of military operations WITHOUT legislative, economic or political control. It has never happened before on a structured permanent basis. That's not how empires worked. America is the global head of security, and in a hard power sense, effectively DOES rule most of the world (and contains the parts it doesn't rule). But that's it. In economic affairs, America competes with all of the other nations, and doesn't always win either.
Imperium was what was under the rule of the Imperator, the Supreme Commander. Herod of Jerusalem was nothing like, say, Elisabeth of the UK. Both were monarchs within a military imperium of sorts, but the similarities end there. Judaea and Samaria, and the rest of the Levant, were all outright CONQUERED by the Romans in war. They were no friendly allies. They were conquered provinces to whom the Romans assigned locals as rulers - to keep the peace and collect the tax tribute to be paid to Rome. The United Kingdom is a true sovereign country. The Queen is not appointed by the Americans, nor does Britain pay any tribute to the USA. There is a regional alliance, NATO, to which the British contribute the forces they choose to contribute (set by treaty) and place them under American supreme command. The Romans CALLED what they did with Israel "Imperium". Nobody living in the real world of international politics and military relations calls America the Supreme Commander of Great Britain. It's a silly pretense for intellectuals to debate on the Internet , not something that bears any relationship to reality. Truth is, America is not an Empire. It is the most powerful state in the world, and militarily the most effective force since World War II, and as such most of the world wants to be part of the US-led security system, because it makes THEM more secure. The US, in turn, expects certain concessions, mostly basing rights and some financial support for the effort. Countries help in other ways, such as diplomatic contributions. With Rome there was simply nothing like the "first among equals" relationship that America has with its allies. Rome WAS an Empire with REAL imperium. America is not an empire, and the only imperium it has is military, under treaty structures, with each member nation deciding what to place under American command, temporarily, in fulfillment of treaty obligations.
So the USA is not an empire even though it rules the world. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this. Control means power. Just because it's a power that is facilitated largely via economics instead of direct military might doesn't change things. Not to me, an least.
We DON'T control the world any more than the New York Police CONTROL New York City. We're the head of security, that's all.
Comments (85 - 89) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe mullahs and the Norks are very much in the Hitler mold.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Muslims are all liars. The Koran teaches them to lie.
#47. To: Operation 40 (#46)
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
The Koran says to lie to non muslims.
#49. To: randge (#45)
But when I read "Texas Court Orders Father to Raise His Son As A Transsexual" I wonder how a liberal democracy like the one we've been taught to honor from the day we learned to tie our shoes has so suddenly and inexplicably turned to shit.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#49)
The American Left does have a genuine totalitarian streak, right down the middle of its yellow back.
#51. To: A Pole (#50)
#52. To: Tooconservative (#51)
(Edited)
You're a self-hating Pole.
#53. To: A Pole (#48)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
You must be a dumb polack liar.
#55. To: A Pole (#54)
#56. To: A K A Stone (#55)
(Edited)
You vote for mass murderers.
#57. To: A Pole (#56)
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: A Pole (#58)
#60. To: A Pole, A K A Cheney, neo-bushbot Trumpkins, Wahhabi mooselimb Republicans, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#58)
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#61. To: Pinguinite (#14)
The question is, can Iran be strong armed into not making them,
#62. To: Pinguinite (#4)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
A no nukes deal means that the Iranians have to submit to inspections to be sure that it remains true.
#64. To: Pinguinite (#63)
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
#66. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#65)
I'm not confident the US will retain its empire status perpetually.
#67. To: Pinguinite (#65)
I for one don't consider Iran a military threat even with nuke weapons. Is Pakistan at threat?
#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)
#69. To: Tooconservative (#0)
British navy to Iran: Back the hell off
#70. To: A Pole (#69)
#71. To: A Pole (#69)
Iran just seized British tanker Stena Impero. Confirmed by Iran and others.
#72. To: Tooconservative (#71)
the noble Iranians will teach those dirty Americans a thing
#73. To: Pinguinite (#65)
(Edited)
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
#75. To: Tooconservative (#38)
(Edited)
#76. To: jeremiad, *Border Invasion* (#75)
attack America like the hordes of immigrants, migrants and wetbacks
Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values
#77. To: jeremiad (#75)
When did Iran become #1? It was Khomenei, Saddam Hussein, Assad, Khaddafi and OBL. Things really do change. Iran was on the brink of attempting a citizen led coup of the Mullahs under Bush and Obama. R and D....but they didn't want the boogey man taken down. You see they have their purposes. They can be rolled out when a war is wanted.
Read the papers for decades and they told the story of how evil Assads regime was.
#78. To: Pinguinite (#74)
(Edited)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
(Edited)
We're something else. Which is why the word "Empire" doesn't really work.
#81. To: Pinguinite (#79)
#82. To: A Pole (#80)
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#81)
But see, that's just it. No historical empire ever controlled the world, or even close. America largely does.
#84. To: Pinguinite (#83)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]