Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

[Jorian Drake]

It's good that not just USA has Nukes, there is a balance now, but i know Russia and Germany has nukes, and i think india, pakestan, egypt, china, the 2 koreas, have some too.

Now...

what do ya want to do? 

go to war with all of them? 

maybe i should send a mail to Budapest we should have some Nukes to defend ourself too from freaks 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you guys already have vampires!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uhum :D

Think about Vampires with nukes (w00t)

[Jorian Drake]

And Mothman, the Iranian leader might be a fundamentalist wacko, but yours is a moron cowboy ****kicker from Texas who is also quite incapable of being in office. I don't trust either of them having their finger on the Nuke Button. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's more competant than their leader and I'd trust him over Iran's current leader anyday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I probably would too, but that doesn't make him a good leader.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, USA didn't had his own wars for colonys ,so they just wanna have some now.

Irak is nothing more than a pupper regime, and I think there will be others in time

They nearly had no own wars, and don't think the Civil War was something special, it was just for USA, not the world, and in both WW USA just got in after any included nations had been weakened.The English and Russian could win against Germany on their own, and Russia nearly smashed Japan, this is why USA had to nuke it, they didn't want another communist state, and wanted to race for who the Japanese would be givin up. <_<

[Kinslayer]

Really?  Well I have news for you: everyone (or at least those who know something about current events) knows that the Iranians despise their government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a big number of ppl in Iran who mostly despise the current theocratic system of government, but all of Iranians don't, otherwise 17.2 million wouldn't have voted for Ahmadinejad in the second round of the presidential elections.....the only thing that was wrong about those elections were several candidates of the reformists who didn't get a chance to run for the elections due to pressure from the SL. But that isn't so significant since the reformists had there two main candidates in the elections, Mehdi Karroubi and Mostafa Moeen - and they both lost, end of story.

 

The government has been brutally repressing its own citizens for years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes the Iranian goverment had been repressing those who utterly oppossed their regime and the Theocracy in general. But that repression isn't anything compared to the dictatorship and tyranny by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a US backed dictator, but then again you have a tendency of supporting dictators who support your economic and strategic interests....anyways he was returned to power in Iran after he had fled the country in 1953. This was achieved by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh with the aid of a CIA covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax - and this is no opinion or story telling, it's facts and I dare you to prove me wrong.

 

The so-called election was rigged, as most of their elections are.  Do you really think the Iranians would like someone who is actively restricing their rights, which is what their current leader is doing right now? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The elections weren't rigged at all, the main opposition candidate who lost in the second round didn't say so and the international observers didn't say the results were fixed because they weren't and if everybody was so repressed then the voter turn out wouldn't have been 62.66% which is quite high, the Iranian ppl clearly outlined whom they wish for president. Now I'm not saying Iran is a 'pure' democracy because it's not and I don't agree with their regime, all I'm saying that all the Iranian ppl aren't so opressed and those who dislike and hate the current regime are in fact a minority - but admit quite a large one....

The main instigator that the elections were fixed was of course the White House and right wing media in US, wonder why......Bush said: "Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world" - well Mr.Bush change the word Iran with USA in that sentence and you'll have a great title for your autobiography - I'm sure it will be a bestseller.

 

Or maybe you didn't notice when the leader announced he was banning all western media from his country, such as music and television. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bingo...the current regime is more afraid of women wearing mini skirts and heavy make-up walking around Teheran then the US military.....that's excatly why if you invade or attack Iran, the grip of the current regime will just grow indefinitely upon the Iranian ppl decreasing chances for the success of the reformists.

 

 

And people will of course flame me for this, but I don't trust Iran to have nukes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nobody is going to flame you for that because your concern is understandable although I do not share it in any way.

 

 

First of all, the leader is a psycho.  Anyone who publicly denies the holocaust even existed shouldn't be in office in the first place.  Also, of the two nations to abuse their right to nuclear weapons, a country like Iran is more likely to do so than the U.S. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do not think he's a psycho, I salute him for having the guts to say what he did publicly although I strongly disagree with him regarding the statement that Holocaust never happened, because many of the Arab think the same but they are afraid of repercussions if they say it out loud - Iran isn't.

 

 

*snip from the forest of irrelevance and opinion*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want to turn a blind eye on the atrocities of your goverment commited by reinstating Shah to power and therefor aquiring safe flow of oil on the expense of lives of innocent Iranian ppl that's fine with me. Based on those events every Iranian has a right to be anti-Western, but hey Mothie if you have some fairy tale version of events in Iran from 1953 to 1979 do share it with us - I need a good laugh.

[Volourn]

The President of Iran isn't the problem. The problem is he has no real power. That's why Iran is not a democracy. And, yes, the Iranian people do disliek their ruler. Their ruler, btw, is NOT the president.

 

Iran is NOT a democracy. Demcoracy si where the people vote for who they want to govvern their country. Guess what? That doesn't happen in Iran.

 

Period.

 

It does happen in Iraq now thanks to the Coalition, and the brave Iraqis.

[Judge Hades]

I don't trust any country with a nuclear arsenal, but until we get rid of all of our stockpile we have no right to tell other countries not to have them. It would be hippocritical.

[Commissar]

I don't trust any country with a nuclear arsenal, but until we get rid of all of our stockpile we have no right to tell other countries not to have them.  It would be hippocritical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, we do.

[Jorian Drake]

Really?  Well I have news for you: everyone (or at least those who know something about current events) knows that the Iranians despise their government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a big number of ppl in Iran who mostly despise the current theocratic system of government, but all of Iranians don't, otherwise 17.2 million wouldn't have voted for Ahmadinejad in the second round of the presidential elections.....the only thing that was wrong about those elections were several candidates of the reformists who didn't get a chance to run for the elections due to pressure from the SL. But that isn't so significant since the reformists had there two main candidates in the elections, Mehdi Karroubi and Mostafa Moeen - and they both lost, end of story.

 

The government has been brutally repressing its own citizens for years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes the Iranian goverment had been repressing those who utterly oppossed their regime and the Theocracy in general. But that repression isn't anything compared to the dictatorship and tyranny by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a US backed dictator, but then again you have a tendency of supporting dictators who support your economic and strategic interests....anyways he was returned to power in Iran after he had fled the country in 1953. This was achieved by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh with the aid of a CIA covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax - and this is no opinion or story telling, it's facts and I dare you to prove me wrong.

 

The so-called election was rigged, as most of their elections are.  Do you really think the Iranians would like someone who is actively restricing their rights, which is what their current leader is doing right now? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The elections weren't rigged at all, the main opposition candidate who lost in the second round didn't say so and the international observers didn't say the results were fixed because they weren't and if everybody was so repressed then the voter turn out wouldn't have been 62.66% which is quite high, the Iranian ppl clearly outlined whom they wish for president. Now I'm not saying Iran is a 'pure' democracy because it's not and I don't agree with their regime, all I'm saying that all the Iranian ppl aren't so opressed and those who dislike and hate the current regime are in fact a minority - but admit quite a large one....

The main instigator that the elections were fixed was of course the White House and right wing media in US, wonder why......Bush said: "Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world" - well Mr.Bush change the word Iran with USA in that sentence and you'll have a great title for your autobiography - I'm sure it will be a bestseller.

 

GOOD ONE

(w00t) :D

[Judge Hades]

Nope.

[Jorian Drake]

I don't trust any country with a nuclear arsenal, but until we get rid of all of our stockpile we have no right to tell other countries not to have them.  It would be hippocritical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I don't trust USA, Russia, China, Egypt, England, and France if it comes to having nukes.

[Surreptishus]

egypt?

[Judge Hades]

Yes, Egypt. Behold the power of Dark Magician Nuke!

[Jorian Drake]

Yes, about 40-50 years they hide some, US -s CIA or whatever is spying on them too, and THIS time it could be correct.

[Jorian Drake]

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/index.html

 

see this

[Surreptishus]

Yeah, loads of countries had nukes or were developing before the NPT. The problem is new countries acquiring them since the treaty.

[Dark Moth]

Well, USA didn't had his own wars for colonys ,so they just wanna have some now.

Irak is nothing more than a pupper regime, and I think there will be others in time 

They nearly had no own wars, and don't think the Civil War was something special, it was just for USA, not the world, and in both WW USA just got in after any included nations had been weakened.The English and Russian could win against Germany on their own, and Russia nearly smashed Japan, this is why USA had to nuke it, they didn't want another communist state, and wanted to race for who the Japanese would be givin up.  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all, you're just blindly saying that the U.S. is just starting wars for colonization despite the fact it's clearly not. The regime, in case you've been living in a hole for the past two years, was elected by the Iraqi people. In fact, their's been controversy in the past about the regimes being elected because the Iraqis seemed to be leaning toward leaders the U.S. wasn't comfortable with.

 

I don't know what your point is about the Civil War, but in both World Wars the U.S. had been trying to stay out of the wars for very good reasons. We went into World War I because Europeans had been fought into a hopless stalemate, and Wilson wanted to use the opportunity to provide a lasting peace plan for Europe (some joke that turned out to be). In WWII, Hitler was too much of a threat to be left alone. In case you didn't know, we had been giving arms and supplies to the allies even before we went in after Pearl Harbor. It was also estimated that a ground invasion of Japan would cost between 500,000 and 1 million+ American lives. And the way Japan was going, they weren't going to surrender anytime soon. Maybe that's why they decided to use nukes? It may surprise you, but using those may have actually saved lives. I'm not supporting the use of nuks in combat, but in that one situation, it may have been the better alternative. And in case you haven't learned much about Communism in Russia yet, you'd be glad it didn't spread to Japan, either. For the longest time, the U.S.S.R. was the biggest threat to the western world, until it finally collapsed because its OWN PEOPLE couldn't take it any longer.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Mothman

[Dark Moth]

There is a big number of ppl in Iran who mostly despise the current theocratic system of government, but all of Iranians don't, otherwise 17.2 million wouldn't have voted for Ahmadinejad in the second round of the presidential elections.....the only thing that was wrong about those elections were several candidates of the reformists who didn't get a chance to run for the elections due to pressure from the SL. But that  isn't so significant since the reformists had there two main candidates in the elections, Mehdi Karroubi and Mostafa Moeen - and they both lost, end of story.

Becuase the election was rigged. Not just through manipulating numbers, but propaganda and weakening of liberal candidates. End of story.

 

Yes the Iranian goverment had been repressing those who utterly oppossed their regime and the Theocracy in general. But that repression isn't anything compared to the dictatorship and tyranny by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a US backed dictator, but then again you have a tendency of supporting dictators who support your economic and strategic interests....anyways he was returned to power in Iran after he had fled the country in 1953. This was achieved by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh with the aid of a CIA covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax - and this is no opinion or story telling, it's facts and I dare you to prove me wrong.

Link? And even still, it doesn't change the current situation in any way.

 

The elections weren't rigged at all, the main opposition candidate who lost in the second round didn't say so and the international observers didn't say the results were fixed because they weren't and if everybody was so repressed then the voter turn out wouldn't have been 62.66% which is quite high, the Iranian ppl clearly outlined whom they wish for president. Now I'm not saying Iran is a 'pure' democracy because it's not and I don't agree with their regime, all I'm saying that all the Iranian ppl aren't so opressed and those who dislike and hate the current regime are in fact a minority - but admit quite a large one....

The main instigator that the elections were fixed was of course the White House and right wing media in US, wonder why......Bush said: "Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world" - well Mr.Bush change the word Iran with USA in that sentence and you'll have a great title for your autobiography - I'm sure it will be a bestseller.

 

For one thing, your article actually supports my statements. (w00t) Maybe you missed the statemen of 300 complaints of electoral violations in Tehran alone? And why do you think the election turnout was so high? So the Iranians could get a better government for once. Some bullcrap that turned out to be.

 

Bingo...the current regime is more afraid of women wearing mini skirts and heavy make-up walking around Teheran then the US military.....that's excatly why if you invade or attack Iran, the grip of the current regime will just grow indefinitely upon the Iranian ppl decreasing chances for the success of the reformists.

We don't have reason to attack Iran. At least, we won't unless they start to go crazy with their nuclear program, which is already violating UN standards. I will never support nukes being controlled by a corrupt, theocratic government like Iran ever.

 

I do not think he's a psycho, I salute him for having the guts to say what he did publicly although I strongly disagree with him regarding the statement that Holocaust never happened, because many of the Arab think the same but they are afraid of repercussions if they say it out loud - Iran isn't.

 

Arab leaders have stated such things in the past. But if you want to turn a blind I toward the atrocities they committ, go ahead. If you want to salute him for expressing his anti-semitism and his absolutely disgusting views on history and on the world, go ahead. You'll disagree with him for his views but salute him for saying them anyway, no matter how morally wrong it is. I'm sure Hitler would have loved you.

 

If you want to turn a blind eye on the atrocities of your goverment commited by  reinstating Shah to power and therefor aquiring safe flow of oil on the expense of lives of innocent Iranian ppl that's fine with me. Based on those events every Iranian has a right to be anti-Western, but hey Mothie if you have some fairy tale version of events in Iran from 1953 to 1979 do share it with us - I need a good laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not turning a blind eye toward their atrocities nor justifying them. We aren't a perfect nation. My main point, and I stand by what I said, is that the Iranians hate their government. Don't believe me? I dare you to read more into the subject. In fact, Iran is launching a censorship campaign against, among other things, dissent. You were just trying to prove me wrong by bringing up something totally irrelevant and utterly useless to the discussion at hand. The focus is on today, not on 1953-1979. And as a final note, you are incredibly anti-U.S. biased, so don't ever accuse anyone else of having a "fairy tale version" of events in Iran. Heck, I'm pro-U.S. biased. But your views on us are no more accurate.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Mothman

[kumquatq3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

BERLIN - The British, French and German foreign ministers said Thursday that negotiations with    Iran over its nuclear program had reached a "dead end" and the Islamic republic should be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

 

Yes! Possible Sanctions!

 

That will show them after years of negotiation. Sure, they might get nukes and might escape sanctions all together if Russia (their new military buddy, that has an open contract for arms with Iran) vetoes it, but some of the Iranian people will prolly go hungry if it does go through and the French and Koffee Anon can profit off it! Possible Sanctions FOR TEH WIN!!!

 

EDIT: don't get me wrong, all for diplomacy, just think you should have parked a carrier or two outside their door while doing it "

Edited January 12, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Surreptishus]

All a moot point really since Iran can do whatever it wants at this point without fear of reprisal.

 

Oil sanctions wont be imposed, its the last thing we need with high oil prices. Force is unlikely for obvious reasons.

 

What would you suggest Kumq? I only ask because your sarcasm reached across the net and bit me.

[Lucius]

I would also like to know that, since the mockery is so obvious in your post. Invasion? Would that satisfy you?

[Hildegard]

Becuase the election was rigged.  Not just through manipulating numbers, but propaganda and weakening of liberal candidates.  End of story. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all before I reply, the thing I'm trying to prove this whole time is that the situation in Iran regarding opression and human rights violations is far from the one in Saddam's Iraq or presently in North Korea, and especially the state of mind of Iranian people if an attack by US or Israel occured.

The thing wrong with the Iranian presidential elections were in fact propaganda and weakening of liberal candidates, although as I already said they had their two main candidates in the elections...the thing that wasn't wrong at all was the numbers of voter turnout and the votes Amadinejad got which proves the fact that the hardline Islamist in Iran still have a strong support amongst the people.

 

Link?  And even still, it doesn't change the current situation in any way. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

link link link

 

That situation can have an influence on future events. I see two version of events like everybody, this being dealt by war on diplomacy:

 

1)Iran continues nuclear activities and the US launches strikes:

 

First the US launches airstrikes against key nuclear strikes with cruise missles and stealth bombers. Consider the timeline somewhere after Novembar 9th US Congressional elections when domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran would be greatly diminished, Israel launching strikes on its own is highly improbable. Iran, outraged by these actions, would accuse US of warmongering imperialistic actions saying this is the second operation Ajax to overthrow the Iranian goverment. Now the Iranians said that if US or Israel launches airstrikes that they would retaliate, probably on US troops in Iraq.

Now the key question is, considering some Iranain facilities are deep underground, are airstrikes sufficient in order to completley wipe out Iranian capabilities to enrich uranium? In my opinion a full scale invasion is highly unlikely because there is a great chance it would be as worse as Vietnam. Why?

 

First the Iranian army is far far better then the Iraqi was in terms of military hardware, military tactics and doctrines, logistics, organization and most of all moral. There is no way you can convience the Iranians that you are launching a ground invasion for their own good - because you really wouldn't, the Iranian ppl aren't so oppressed they would trade the current situation for your 'shock and awe liberation'. The current goverment would take an advantage from any of your strikes to further strenghten their grip upon the people which doesn't have any chance of turning in any revolt during a conflict with the second most hated country in Iran invading their homeland.

The Iranian goverment through propaganda would demonize the US to a point that the Iranian ppl would viciously defend their homes and family against the crusading imperialistic forces as they would see them. They would get the same moral boost that helped you defeat the British in the Revolutionary War, the same fighting spirit that was one of the main factor why the Vietcong defeated you in Vietnam - and that is the fighting moral you have when you defend your home and your loved ones, that mixed up with their religious fanatisism would result in a hard, long and bloody war.

 

Yes you would ultimately defeat the regular Iranian military, but keeping peace and stability in that country would prove to be far worse then defeating their military. You think that insurgency in Iraq is bad? You can beat your life the Iranian insurgency would be 3 to 5 times worse then the one in Iraq, Iran is in fact, the homeland of 'terrorism' as you know it and in maintaining stability and order your monthly casulties would equal does of half a year in Iraq. [/not overestimating]

Furthermore, airstrikes on Iran and especially a ground assault would also result in opening of a new pandora's box of worldwide political and diplomatic unstability, increase in numbers of terrorists everywhere, downcrease in US popularity in the whole world, especially in the ME.

 

Plus note one more obstacle if invading Iran on the ground - Iraq is mostly one big flatland besides on the north, that's why the Iraqi military never stood any chance in confronting the US Army in the open and giving the USAF little trouble in picking out targets in such battlefield. The Iranian geographical configuration is very very much different, it's pretty much harsh and mountainess and it certainly wouldn't aid the attacker....heck, guess your 10th Mountain Division would be one of the few who 'would not' have trouble with the terrain.

 

2)Put the war option completley out of option and give diplomacy a real chance this time:

 

There are currently UN observers in Iran overlooking their nuclear activities, if the observers report some serious and disturbing events about Iranians aquiring material for a nuclear bomb or if Iranians kick the UN teams out of the country then they'll just report Iran to the Security Council and economic and other sanctions will be imposed on Iran. Sure that would have a serious impact with Iran holding back their oil from the rest of the world, but Iran imports so many various goods that it just can't function as a country without them. Plus, I certainly don't think that Iranian people would have much understanding for that kind of a situation they would have to endure because of their leadership's strive for WMDs.

Further more if you think Europe doesn't have any diplomatic muscle to handle this situation then you're mistaken. Europe alone can make many problems for Iranians given the fact they import many goods from Europe, including, you're not gonna believe this, 40% of Iranian gasoline consumption. It's primarily because Iran doesn't have all the needed refineries to turn their large ammounts of oil to gasoline.

 

Why I imply that the war option be put of the table is because if the US or Israel keep waving and indirectley threatening airstrikes and war against Iran it will just have the opposite effect. Iranian aren't some bunch of scaredy cats who'll back down the moment you threaten them with military confortation, Iranians are very stuborn and proud ppl, and under pressure of a military action they'll just be more defiant to the point a compromise would be impossible to reach.

 

There are many other factors to consider here, for an example the US could show willingness to lift its embargo on Iran which still stands on certain products other then military hardware. There is also a big uncertainty would China go along with possible economic sanctions given the fact they import 2 million barrels of oil every day from Iran. Russia's unwillingness to go along with any drastic sanctions, not to mention possible war options, considering their close economic and other ties binding them. The list just goes on and on.... that's the ever complicated world of international diplomacy for you....but hey I would trade it nay given day for any of the scenarios I mentioned in part 1.

 

For one thing, your article actually supports my statements.    (w00t)  Maybe you missed the statemen of 300 complaints of electoral violations in Tehran alone?    And why do you think the election turnout was so high?  So the Iranians could get a better government for once.  Some bullcrap that turned out to be. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I didn't miss that statement, it just proves what I already said that was iregular with that elections - to much propaganda and political influence of the supreme leader. And it is my belief the election turnout was high because there is still very strong support amongst the ppl for the current regime, but that's where our view grow apart so let's leave it there.

 

 

Arab leaders have stated such things in the past.  But if you want to turn a blind I toward the atrocities they committ, go ahead.  If you want to salute him for expressing his anti-semitism and his absolutely disgusting views on history and on the world, go ahead.  You'll disagree with him for his views but salute him for saying them anyway, no matter how morally wrong it is.  I'm sure Hitler would have loved you. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not turning a blind eye on anything here, the whole purpose of my writing on Iranian politicals in this thread is to show any possible invasion by Western countries would meet very little if not any symphaty with the Iranian ppl which would result in a scenario very much different from the one in Iraq, one that wouldn't aid the possible attacker in any way whatsoever.

Don't twist my words Mothie, I know you would like very much to demonize me, trying to show that I support the context of what he said, but I never said anything like that or meant it. I salute him only for having the guts to say what he means, what ever that is, out loud. It certainly isn't a trait of politicians today, but hey if on this day every politician came out saying what he deep down thinks on other countries, you would have WW3 tomorrow.

 

 

I'm not turning a blind eye toward their atrocities nor justifying them.  We aren't a perfect nation.  My main point, and I stand by what I said, is that the Iranians hate their government.  Don't believe me?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

 

 

You were just trying to prove me wrong by bringing up something totally irrelevant and utterly useless to the discussion at hand.  The focus is on today, not on 1953-1979.  And as a final note, you are incredibly anti-U.S. biased, so don't ever accuse anyone else of having a "fairy tale version" of events in Iran.  Heck, I'm pro-U.S. biased.  But your views on us are no more accurate. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To fully understand the present one needs to know the past.

 

Yes the focus is on today, but the US was often ignorant to understand the broader prespective on issues such as this, seeing only things that suited her, that suited its interests.

With operation Ajax executed by the US and the UK you have no moral high ground to talk down on Iran after you and your puppet Shah did to thousands and even millions of Iranians - inflicting death, torture, pain and humiliation upon the Iranian people just because their democraticly elected goverment wanted the same amounts of money as the western companies got from oil sales, sales of Iranian oil.

But noooo, because five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and BP saw that move as unfair and the US putting their economic interests first as so often. But hey I guess it's totaly irrelevant you drove around with your big cars on the expanse of Iranian ppl being killed and tortured.

As they say, what goes around comes around....I believe there is justice in this world, it's very slow but it's there and one day you'll pay for those atrocities you inflicted upon the Iranian people and people worldwide so your geopolitical strategic and economic interests could be served.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Hildegard

[Judge Hades]

As they don't bother me they can do whatever they want in their own country.

[Commissar]

We're giving diplomacy a chance, Hildy. In fact, that's why we're letting the Euros handle things at the moment. Looks like it's going extremely well, too. We probably won't have to clean up the mess they make for another seven or eight months, at this rate.

[Lucius]

Was this sarcasm or what? I honestly can't tell the difference, knowing how outrageously thick you lay it on at times.

[Surreptishus]

Sarcasm.

 

I don't see what the americans could do that would be better.

[Lucius]

They can't do anything, hence (I guess) their frustration.