NationStates Jolt Archive

See the following article:

Russia selling nuclear technology to Syria (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200502/FOR20050218c.html)

Make for some very sticky diplomacy - especially if the US feels Iran is getting close and has to bomb one of the facilities the Russians financed.

Are the Russians just trying to make a buck, or making a political point to the US that they will go their own way?

Just heard about this - Russia's actions really don't surprise me

I would say a little bit of both

Russia isn't foolish enough to just sit by and let the US take over the Middle East. It's in Russia's interest to halt the US.

Russia isn't foolish enough to just sit by and let the US take over the Middle East. It's in Russia's interest to halt the US.

Ands its also in their interest to rebuild their economy. After the Arms race, they were fucked, remember the Kursk?

Ands its also in their interest to rebuild their economy. After the Arms race, they were fucked, remember the Kursk?

You have to look at the big picture - US hegemony in the middle east is bad for Russia and its economy. Also, it brings even more US forces dangerously close to what is Russia's back yard. They'd do well in trying to nip the US imperialism in the bud before it's too late. The Russian bear needs to wake up!

Let's see (I use the NY Times, so I'll just link to those articles):

Kremlin Reasserts Hold on Russia's Oil and Gas (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/business/worldbusiness/17yukos.html?th)

Getting Personal, Putin Voices Defiance of Critics Abroad (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/international/europe/24putin.html?th)

Putin Demotes Adviser Critical of the Kremlin (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/international/europe/04russia.html?th)

Rice Chides Russia on Quieting Dissent but Rejects Penalty (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/international/europe/06rice.html?th)

I also knew about selling weapons to Syria, but Iran's something new to me. Let's just say that Russia has been getting a little autocratic of late, but america is loathe to do anything about it.

Any government has the right to pursue a domestic nuclear power program. That is not something any other government has a right to complain about. The issue revolves around ensuring that the reactor is only used to provide power. And the deal mentioned says specifically:

The nuclear agreement, to be signed next week, will commit Russia to supplying fuel to the Bushehr nuclear plant for 10 years, while Iran pledges to return to Russia the spent nuclear fuel, which can be used to develop nuclear weapons.

The amount of waste product from a given volume of input material is a very well understood formula. As long as Syria lives up to that policy then there is no possibility of them stockpiling the enriched material from the delivered fuel to pursue a bomb program. Any other concerns could certainly be allayed with an ongoing monitering program.

See the following article:

Russia selling nuclear technology to Syria (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200502/FOR20050218c.html)

Make for some very sticky diplomacy - especially if the US feels Iran is getting close and has to bomb one of the facilities the Russians financed.

Are the Russians just trying to make a buck, or making a political point to the US that they will go their own way?
Welcome to the Nuclear Arms Race Part Deux!! :(

Brought to you in part by the cowboy from Texas.....Georgie (Warmonger) Bush-ka-bob. :eek:

I'm wondering if this all means Bush will try to do what Hitler could not ...

Then again, Bush is already trying ...

Meh.

*sings a few lines of God Bless America*

*stabs self in eye*

Russia isn't foolish enough to just sit by and let the US take over the Middle East. It's in Russia's interest to halt the US.
By equipping the main sponsor of Islamic terrorism with nuclear materials? Remember Russia's recent experience with terrorism at the school?

Welcome to the Nuclear Arms Race Part Deux!! :(

Brought to you in part by the cowboy from Texas.....Georgie (Warmonger) Bush-ka-bob. :eek:

He's from Connecticut. He and his family carpetbagged Texas.

Let's see Pakistan, India and Israel all have Nuclear Weapons..

And WE want to stop whom from having them?

In time we must realize, it will eventually happen, The best defense is to start teaching responsiblity..

What is that old american saying...

"Do what I say, not has I do"

lol... :fluffle:

I'm wondering if this all means Bush will try to do what Hitler could not ...

Then again, Bush is already trying ...

Meh.

*sings a few lines of God Bless America*

*stabs self in eye*
Ok, this is off thread, and I'm probably showing my "unhipness", but I constantly see this word "meh". Some sort of exclamation, what?

He's from Connecticut. He and his family carpetbagged Texas.
43 spent most of his life in Texas, unlike 41.

By equipping the main sponsor of Islamic terrorism with nuclear materials? Remember Russia's recent experience with terrorism at the school?

Iran is not a sponsor of terrorism. They're a constituional republic, just like the US is. They have denounced terrorism time and time again.

The 9/11 terrorists learned how to pilot in the US ... but that doesn't mean the US sponsors terrorism.

By equipping the main sponsor of Islamic terrorism with nuclear materials? Remember Russia's recent experience with terrorism at the school?

Remember 9/11? Russia wouldn't be the first country to fund the enemy of its enemy... Oh, and aiding Syria/Iran might just be a way to garner some islamic support.

Ok, this is off thread, and I'm probably showing my "unhipness", but I constantly see this word "meh". Some sort of exclamation, what?

Yeah ... it's a way of showing indifference.

43 spent most of his life in Texas, unlike 41.

Meh ... doesn't make him Texan. He has no Texan values and doesn't even speak like a Texan. He's pure Yankee.

Iran is not a sponsor of terrorism. They're a constituional republic, just like the US is. They have denounced terrorism time and time again.

The 9/11 terrorists learned how to pilot in the US ... but that doesn't mean the US sponsors terrorism.
Really?

Iranian sponsored terrorism (http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:58336345&refid=ink_pubnews&skeyword=&teaser=)

Iranian sponsored terrorism2 (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=528)

Iranian sponsored terrorism3 (http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/terrorism/state_sponsors.html)

And that's just a few of thousands done with a very cursory search of articles on the web.

Yes, they are a constitutional republic, that SPONSORS TERRORISM.

Meh ... doesn't make him Texan. He has no Texan values and doesn't even speak like a Texan. He's pure Yankee.
I've heard him speak, sounds Texan to me, and I am one. What Texan values are you referring? He's been in big oil (an insult coming from liberals, but SOP for Texas businessmen), he's owned a Texas baseball team, lived most of his life in Midland with his Texan wife Laura - what else does he need to be Texan? By the way, we're getting a little of topic here . . .

Any government has the right to pursue a domestic nuclear power program. That is not something any other government has a right to complain about. The issue revolves around ensuring that the reactor is only used to provide power. And the deal mentioned says specifically:
Agree 100%.


The amount of waste product from a given volume of input material is a very well understood formula. As long as Syria lives up to that policy then there is no possibility of them stockpiling the enriched material from the delivered fuel to pursue a bomb program. Any other concerns could certainly be allayed with an ongoing monitering program.

However....did you see the formula that they are going to use???

http://www.mathmistakes.com/mathmistake.jpg

Meh ... doesn't make him Texan. He has no Texan values and doesn't even speak like a Texan. He's pure Yankee.

You're not really a Texan either.

Yes, they are a constitutional republic, that SPONSORS TERRORISM.

So what? As did the US.

Remember 9/11? Russia wouldn't be the first country to fund the enemy of its enemy... Oh, and aiding Syria/Iran might just be a way to garner some islamic support.
Yes, it was so helpful to our cause with Islamic fundamentalists when we helped out the mudjaheddin in Afghanistan . . .

You don't curry favor with Islamic terrorists. They will do what they want.

So what? As did the US.
I dont think the US ever sponsored terrorism. if we did, then i haven't heard of it yet.

Agree 100%.



However....did you see the formula that they are going to use???

http://www.mathmistakes.com/mathmistake.jpg
:D

Yes, it was so helpful to our cause with Islamic fundamentalists when we helped out the mudjaheddin in Afghanistan . . .

That's 'cause you went on to fuck them over.

You don't curry favor with Islamic terrorists. They will do what they want.

True, that's why you might as well try to steer them in a direction that will be favourable to you. If it is to them as well, then...

Russia has to(o?) many nukes,
It costs them money to store them, it costs them lots of money to get rid of them, so they sell them.

He speaks like a dumbass and not only was he born in New England, he was educated there at a boarding school there too. Bush (he will never admit it) is as much a New Englander as Kerry is.

As for Russia and her apparent autocracy. Look at Russia's situation. A parlamantary democracy will trigger a weak Russia. The Federation under Yeltsin is akin to the Third and Fourth Republic of France. Russia it would be even worse because unlike France there are mounting ethnic tensions in the Caucuses. With Russia's economy in stake and with the Duma as embattled as the German Bundestag and French Estates Geneal, the economic change would be downgrading. We like to downgrade the Russian economy and feel a sense of pride in being one of the powers that crushed it, but under Putin Russia has expereinced an annual economic growth of 7% in its GDP. Putin is not autocratic (in the sense of Russian rulers). Although he is not the nicest of men, he does not compare to Peter the Great and Stalin.

I dont think the US ever sponsored terrorism. if we did, then i haven't heard of it yet.

Psst, there's this country called Afghanistan, and there's this guy called "Ussama bin Ladin"... and then there's this province called "Northern Ireland" and this group called the IRA... and then...(etc)

He's from Connecticut. He and his family carpetbagged Texas.
Oh I know that he is from Connecicut but Texas has adopted him, as he seems to fit right in? :eek:

Agree 100%.



However....did you see the formula that they are going to use???

http://www.mathmistakes.com/mathmistake.jpg


No, I think that's the one Revenue Canada uses to figure out how much taxes I owe.....

You're not really a Texan either.

I'm a member of the Sons of the Texas Republic.

You have to prove yourself to be a direct decendant of people who lived in Texas when Texas was its own country. On record with the STR, I am 7th generation Texan.

Yeah ... I'm Texan.

You don't curry favor with Islamic terrorists. They will do what they want.

[QUOTE=Fass]
True, that's why you might as well try to steer them in a direction that will be favourable to you. If it is to them as well, then...

You agree, then say try to "steer" them your direction? Which is it? If you can't curry favor, then what's the point of trying to steer them?

Psst, there's this country called Afghanistan, and there's this guy called "Ussama bin Ladin"...
Who was not engaged in terrorism at the time, but in a revolt against the Russians in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, support did not continue.

Russia should just give Iran and Syria a couple hundred nukes each and that should stop the nonsense in the Middle East.

Then Bush and Company can concentrate on raping Iraq.

I'm a member of the Sons of the Texas Republic.

You have to prove yourself to be a direct decendant of people who lived in Texas when Texas was its own country. On record with the STR, I am 7th generation Texan.

Yeah ... I'm Texan.

Sure, but they let anyone in. I remember the stories about my Great Great Grandfather who was born in Texas and the fighting they did against certain people.


Honestly though, I seriously doubt your native ancestors were really all that loyal to Texas and or the US.

Oh yeah, smells like WWIII to me. And Im prime draft age and in perfect health! Oh shit!

You agree, then say try to "steer" them your direction? Which is it? If you can't curry favor, then what's the point of trying to steer them?

Because the enemy of your enemy can be a great temporary friend. And I didn't agree with not being able to curry favour - because you can - I agreed to the fact that the terrorists would do what they want to do. You can always persuade them to want to do something.

Contra in Nicaraugua. Ask the people who were the terrorists there, the Contras or the Sandanistas?

As for terrorism, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You could debate this all day and nothing would come of it.

I'm a member of the Sons of the Texas Republic.

You have to prove yourself to be a direct decendant of people who lived in Texas when Texas was its own country. On record with the STR, I am 7th generation Texan.

Yeah ... I'm Texan.
I guess I'm not truly Texan either, then. I was born in Nebraska, lived there for 18 months, moved to Tennessee, lived there for 4 years, then moved to Texas, where I spent the rest of my childhood, except for two years in New Mexico. I went to college in NJ for 5 years, then moved back, and have been here ever since. My 3 children are all native Texans, however. I am particularly fond of the saying "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could".

Who was not engaged in terrorism at the time, but in a revolt against the Russians in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, support did not continue.

Ah, yes, it's not terrorism if it's not against the US. I keep forgetting.

/sarcasm

Oh I know that he is from Connecicut but Texas has adopted him, as he seems to fit right in? :eek:

Not really ... his father came in and started all kinds of redistricting - made worse under Perry (Bush jr's protege) - to force Texas to become hardliner republicon.

Texas has pretty much always been a slightly left of center state ... until about 15 years ago when all hell broke loose.

We are the state of the Hoggs, Ma Ferguson, Anne Richards, and Kinky Friedman. Texans do not sell out to corporations and we have stood firm in our belief that Texas belongs to the people. Texas has civil liberties in its Constitution that the US has refused to adopt - such as an ammendment that guarantees equal rights for women.

No ... Bush didn't fit right in here ... he carpetbagged, bought some powerful people, and has turned the State to shit. In 2006, we will take it back.

Ah, yes, it's not terrorism if it's not against the US. I keep forgetting.

/sarcasm

so does this make you an anti-american including all of the other remarks against us?

meaningless emoticons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:) :sniper:
:) :mp5:

:) :mp5:
:) :sniper:
:fluffle: :gundge:

Contra in Nicaraugua. Ask the people who were the terrorists there, the Contras or the Sandanistas?

As for terrorism, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You could debate this all day and nothing would come of it.
One of the Reuters news service infamous quotes. And totally untrue. Freedom fighters do not engage in targeting civilians or suicide bombings. When they start such tactics, they cease to become freedom fighters and are then terrorists.

Nicaragua? Don't know a whole lot about it, but from my understanding, both sides perpetrated horrendous human rights abuses.

Sure, but they let anyone in. I remember the stories about my Great Great Grandfather who was born in Texas and the fighting they did against certain people.

Not my people. We had a treaty with Texan settlers. There was no Indian war in Texas. Your great great grandfather lied.

meaningless emoticons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:) :sniper:
:) :mp5:

:) :mp5:
:) :sniper:
:fluffle:
http://67.18.37.14/108/141/emo/worship.gif

so does this make you an anti-american including all of the other remarks against us?

Oh, I see, I criticize the US, I must be anti-American!

/still sarcasm

Don't be a simpleton.

Not my people. We had a treaty with Texan settlers. There was no Indian war in Texas. Your great great grandfather lied.

Never said he hunted them in Texas. ;) At $5 a scalp it was good business.

Yes they signed a treaty, but were they loyal to the US and Texas?

Well we sponsored the Contras who sent death squads agaisnt the civilian population. So by Reuter's definition you just proved my point that the US supports terrorism. Then again we call it freedom fighting, and does any other world power who is playing this "Great Game".

Oh, I see, I criticize the US, I must be anti-American!

/still sarcasm

No..thats just the way you came off with your sarcastic remarks. Sorry if i offended you. (No sarcasm implied)

Never said he hunted them in Texas. ;) At $5 a scalp it was good business.

Yes they signed a treaty, but were they loyal to the US and Texas?

Loyal to Texas, yes, as am I. We hold no loyalty to the US. Never have, never will.

Ah, yes, it's not terrorism if it's not against the US. I keep forgetting.

/sarcasm
Terrorism is not the same as revolution. And terrorists deliberately target civilians and use suicide tactics.

Terrorism is not the same as revolution. And terrorists deliberately target civilians and use suicide tactics.

Oh, yes, and that didn't happen in Afghanistan or the other hell holes you got involved in...

/Oh, my, so much sarcasm!

No ... Bush didn't fit right in here ... he carpetbagged, bought some powerful people, and has turned the State to shit. In 2006, we will take it back.
http://www.politicallibrary.org/cards/SeriesTwoImages/thumbsup.gifhttp://www.politicallibrary.org/cards/SeriesTwoImages/thumbsup.gif

Keruvalia, we have loyalty to the US, or else that so called legislature of ours would have voted us out of the union. Hell, Texas has more red, white, and blue than any other state. Well, maybe not Alabama, but screw them.

Well we sponsored the Contras who sent death squads agaisnt the civilian population. So by Reuter's definition you just proved my point that the US supports terrorism. Then again we call it freedom fighting, and does any other world power who is playing this "Great Game".
Never said the US hands were not dirty. But the US is not, and never has been, a major sponsor of terrorism. Unless you redefine it to mean any aggressive action towards any other nation - which it seems many folks are doing these days.

Oh, yes, and that didn't happen in Afghanistan or the other hell holes you got involved in...

/Oh, my, so much sarcasm!

You must really enjoy confrontation.

Keruvalia, we have loyalty to the US, or else that so called legislature of ours would have voted us out of the union. Hell, Texas has more red, white, and blue than any other state. Well, maybe not Alabama, but screw them.

I was referring to the Caddo (my tribe). We hold no loyalty to the US.

I think that the governments of Russia and the US are scumbags. I think that Russia is desperate to both stop the spread of US influence in the middle east, help their own economy and get free oil. But to sell nuckear technology to IRan is extremely unwise given the current situation.

Not really ... his father came in and started all kinds of redistricting - made worse under Perry (Bush jr's protege) - to force Texas to become hardliner republicon.

Texas has pretty much always been a slightly left of center state ... until about 15 years ago when all hell broke loose.

We are the state of the Hoggs, Ma Ferguson, Anne Richards, and Kinky Friedman. Texans do not sell out to corporations and we have stood firm in our belief that Texas belongs to the people. Texas has civil liberties in its Constitution that the US has refused to adopt - such as an ammendment that guarantees equal rights for women.

No ... Bush didn't fit right in here ... he carpetbagged, bought some powerful people, and has turned the State to shit. In 2006, we will take it back.
Dream on! Texas is one of the "reddest" of the red states, with people voting for Bush in the 60 percentile range. And has been voting Republican since the Reagan years, while, because of masterful Democrat redistricting in 1990, still managing to maintain a slim majority in the House of Reps. The current redistricting is much more reflective of voters as a whole in Texas.

Loyal to Texas, yes, as am I. We hold no loyalty to the US. Never have, never will.

See, that's why he rode for a time with General Philip Sheridan.

I think that the governments of Russia and the US are scumbags. I think that Russia is desperate to both stop the spread of US influence in the middle east, help their own economy and get free oil. But to sell nuckear technology to IRan is extremely unwise given the current situation.

True..our government is full of scumbags. And i totally agree with you on all you just said there. But the choices were given (between Bush and Kerry), both seem to be horrible which really gives us no other choice but to vote for someone, say, in the Green party.

See, that's why he rode for a time with General Philip Sheridan.

And, yet, we're still here. We still hold the same lands we always did, we didn't get forced into reservations, we didn't get forced to submit ourselves to the Dawes Rolls.

Sheridan lost. Our legacy lives on.

Selgin, I have no idea why I, a Central Austinite is represnted by the same person as is in Laredo. What common interests do I have with someone from the Valley? I am up here in Austin! My interests are more tied in with people around me such as the rest of the Hill country. Likewise, what common interests do people in Highland Mall area (Northeast Austin) have in common with people in Montgomery Oaks or woods or whatever the damn blasted rich Houston suberb is called.

Selgin, I have no idea why I, a Central Austinite is represnted by the same person as is in Laredo. What common interests do I have with someone from the Valley? I am up here in Austin! My interests are more tied in with people around me such as the rest of the Hill country. Likewise, what common interests do people in Highland Mall area (Northeast Austin) have in common with people in Montgomery Oaks or woods or whatever the damn blasted rich Houston suberb is called.
As well as Texas conservatives wondering what they had in common with others in their districts drawn by the Democrats in the 90's. Not saying its right, just saying that it makes logical sense that a state that votes overwhelmingly Republican should have that reflected in the proportion of representatives it sends to Congress. Republicans gerrymandered no more than the Democrats did in the 90's - that got called the best district-drawing in the country at the time.

And, yet, we're still here. We still hold the same lands we always did, we didn't get forced into reservations, we didn't get forced to submit ourselves to the Dawes Rolls.

Sheridan lost. Our legacy lives on.

Most Caddos were forced on reservations.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/indian/intro/page2.html

Caddo

Caddo is the name given to about 25 affiliated groups of people who lived near the Red River in East Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. They lived in complex settled societies and were known for their cultivation of corn (maize) and their beautiful ceramics. As Europeans moved into their areas, the Caddos became leading traders, trafficking in furs, guns, and horses with Europeans and other Indians. By the early 1840s, the Caddos had moved to the Brazos River area to try to escape the relentless pressure of American expansion. They were forced onto a reservation in 1855. In 1859 they were forced to move again, this time to a reservation in Indian Territory (Oklahoma). Today, many Caddos continue to reside in Caddo County near Binger, Oklahoma.


Actually in the end Sheridan, and the whole policy won. The indians were under control. I thought you'd know your own peoples' history.

Back onto topic. The Russian government is dominated by ex-KGB and military government officials. The goal of this current Russian administration is not increase civil liberties (that happens once stability occurs), but to make Russia strong again. Even common Russians support this. In a poll, order and stabalization are top priority among Russian voters. Civil liberties lagged behind.

Maybe the question I should have asked is does everyone think it is good for the world for Iran, a major sponsor of terrorism, to get nukes? I just assumed everyone thought that would be a bad thing, but you know what happens when you assume ...

Selgin, it is not about representing the state, it is about representing your local area. Lloyd Doggett does not represent Texas, he represents Austin.

Really?

Iranian sponsored terrorism (http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:58336345&refid=ink_pubnews&skeyword=&teaser=)

Iranian sponsored terrorism2 (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=528)

Iranian sponsored terrorism3 (http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/terrorism/state_sponsors.html)

And that's just a few of thousands done with a very cursory search of articles on the web.

Yes, they are a constitutional republic, that SPONSORS TERRORISM.

what abount a link from the BBC or Reuters or AFP or EFE or JapanTimes or TheIndianTimes or StraitTimes...etc

what about a known unbiased source for a change

Is it good for Israel to have nukes? The Iranians are not stupid. If an Iranian nuke comes into being, than it will be used as a detterant. Afterall, Israel is widely beleived to have 200 of them. Iran is also surrounded by the US on two sides. So who is the threat to national sovreignty?

I dont think the US ever sponsored terrorism. if we did, then i haven't heard of it yet.first you need to unplug the stratified Crap filling your Earholes...

first you need to unplug the stratified Crap filling your Earholes...

You're a little late on that one..we already got past this.

what abount a link from the BBC or Reuters or AFP or EFE or JapanTimes or TheIndianTimes or StraitTimes...etc

what about a known unbiased source for a change
Happy to oblige:

BBC Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4246517.stm)

Reuters doesn't use the word "terrorism".

Why do you consider the BBC as an unbiased source?

Why are the previous sources I used biased?

And, as I stated, it wasn't hard to find numerous links to articles on the subject.

....
Caddo is the name given to about 25 affiliated groups of people who lived near the Red River in East Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.....I thought you'd know your own peoples' history.
There is several conflicting sources about those years...
if you want to have fun Learning...rent this DVDs

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/section/movies/amg/dvd/cov150/drt200/t277/t27729he3h5.jpg

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=29499
Its one of the Best movies ever...its a Classic.

Selgin, it is not about representing the state, it is about representing your local area. Lloyd Doggett does not represent Texas, he represents Austin.
And I repeat, it is no more right now than it was when the Democrats did it in the 90's. Before this redistricting, I lived in the Spring Branch area, which was pretty conservative, but my rep was Gene Green, because the district included some concentrated Democrat areas. And it is about representing the state to some extent. The members of Congress do not vote only on matters concerning their district, they also vote on laws affecting the state and the nation as a whole. If the state of Texas is 60+% Republican, the proportion of reps to Congress should reflect that - but lines should be drawn, I agree, so that the people in the districts have common interests. Which, if done properly, would probably achieve a similar proportion as we have now. The lines as they were before were not representative, either.

Happy to oblige:

BBC Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4246517.stm)

Reuters doesn't use the word "terrorism".


"Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and should realise it must not obstruct progress towards Middle East peace", UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.

His words to MPs come after President George Bush branded Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror".


Wuahahaha...Bushite allegations... is that the best you have?
GWBush and lapDogBlair do not have more credibility than some former Iraq Information Minester.

Actually in the end Sheridan, and the whole policy won. The indians were under control. I thought you'd know your own peoples' history.

The only Caddo who went to Oklahoma were the Yowani, a band of Choctaw who never wanted to be in the Caddo Confederacy to begin with. Cowards every one. I am Nakohodotsi, we fought, and I still own my family's tribal land: untouched by US soldiers and never in the hands of White terrorists.

Let me throw my two cents in.

Iran was a sponsor of terrorism; actually, they basically were a terrorist state in the late '70s and early '80s, but since then they have calmed down. If arab states get Nuclear weapons, they will simply use them as a deterrant to Isreal's weapons. You people have to understand, Iran can produce maybe 5-10 nukes in the nexy 10 years. The US already has 2600 more nukes than any other nation in the world. Nobody dares to bomb the US, if they do, in US terms, it will be catastrophic; but a nuclear attack on the US would cause the US to retalliate, and Dubya is a little too trigger-happy. Iran nukes New York--->the US turns Iran into an inhospitable crater.

No, I think that's the one Revenue Canada uses to figure out how much taxes I owe.....
Well.....depending what side of the equation you are on, this could be a good thing? :cool:

Are the Russians just trying to make a buck, or making a political point to the US that they will go their own way?


I hope they sell the technology, after all, the US and many other nations have it , even Israel, so why not Iran? They are less a worldproblem then the US, Israel or N.Korea are.