Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Oh well, that surely is not good, but for the weapon selling part, why should only make the US money with terrorists?
Well the UN has to see if they become a threat to others. It would be sad since they were somehow on the way to become part of the "free world" more. I would have even liked to see them in the EU but well thats just me.

Right now I'm not all that concerned with Russia's actions, atleast until Thursday when Bush is supposed to meet with Putin in Slovakia (i think that's where they are meeting)

Whether it works or not, I'm kind of proud that Bush is out in Europe all week long talking to and meeting with various leaders.

One thing I didn't quite understand was how Bush could say that an armed conflict in Iran was no where in the plans as of yet....but that they "haven't ruled anything out yet." Sure he was refering to a diplomatic means of handling the situation....but it seemed like that "anything" could have meant war too.

yeah, they are meeting but no idea why would it change anything, do you thing mr bush has an impact of european/russian decissions?

Not while he was Mr. Gung-ho guns a blazing at the first sign of a fight. But this whole unified E.U.-U.S. thing seems to be taking a different approach, with a more optomistic tone to it.

Russia selling weapons to Iran isn't really a big deal as long as an armed conflict doesn't result. If one does...then I'm sure the US will be pissed that Russia is still continuing to sell arms to Iran. But that issue will be adressed after the decision to use force has been made.

Of course he hasm to good or bad. But the US is important anyway.

He's doign what the US used to do. *shrugs*

it depends, overhere we are still very sceptic about his recent sucking-up-campaign and not many are convinced about his intentions

the US shouldn't butt into the economics of another country, if Russia wants to do that, they can. It's their choice... it's not cause Bush wants a new war to divert attention to someplace else that Russia should listen to them

"That crazy Putin guy."


Bah, I thought this thread was about Bill Cosby.

I thought it was about golf?

golf, gulf.middle east well.............. I guess it is about golf

As the saying goes..."Putin is as Putin does".

Well, what i cant stand is the hyppocrasy of the american's.
The americans have (in the last 10 years) used their weapons far more often than iran or syrria. America is far less reluctant to use thir weapons. And yet they believe that they should be allowed weapons, and that other countries should not have such weapons, even when those countries are more in need of weapons to defend themself with.
I think that they should disarm Bush!!
And about the weapons inspectors, I cant remember any UN weapons inspectors that have been allowed into area 51 to examine the top secret US military projects. There are clearly US military projects that the UN has no idea about (just look at the stealth bomber. That was in production, and th UN had no idea about it).

why should the UN know about that?

Because they were wanting to know about top-secret iraq military projects, why shouldn't they know about US ones. US uses its military more often than iraq does

Who actually cares for what the Un wants, even Norway doesnt spill their guts to the Un about weapons they make. That the Un wanted to know about Iraqi weapons well thats on their behalf. Fact is that Iraq would use and have used weapons of mass destruction on civilians, guess the Un would make sure Iraq didnt do that again. As long as a country dont use weapons Un dont have a bloody thing they could say about countries gaining those kind of weapon and so should it be with others countries too. If Norway wanted to get nukes into their arsenal it would be Norways business and no one elses

If no countries tell the UN about their sectret military projects, why would Iraq or syria be expected to do so.

The stealth bomber is not exactly a weapon. It may carry weapons, but the stealth bomber has no weapons on it. I'm sure there is more to the guidelines of informing the U.N on top secret projects. Does a country that is working on a top secret project to sustain a soldiers stamina have to inform the U.N? The top secret probably has to be nuclear or biological before it is any concern of the U.N. I dont know though, but who really cares about an airplane? even if it is bad ass.

Iraq used them, Syria well that is actually none of Un`s business

Um, the people who got bombed by it definatly cared. THe (1st) gulf war was won almost single handedly by the stealth bomber. THe iraqis had no way of detecting it, and shot down more of their own planes in an attempt to shoot down the stealths.

America is merely trying to consolidate its position as the worlds only true superpower...it does this on a very shrewd level...any countries who deal with russia and china do so under the watchful eye of america...if the deals these countries do with "the enemy" are thought to be affecting americas power them america simply cease trade with those countries safe in the knowledge that america can decimate a countries economy by refusing trade and thus keeping that country in the gutter

this is a double blow to russia in that america can stop countries trading with them and also keep the russian economy in serious problems

a very effective strategy indeed

Way to take sarcasm and turn it into a point. So whcih is more deadly...what the bomber carried or the bomber itself? also there is no limitations on a countries right to advance in waretime technology as long as it is not weapons of mass destruction

Do you really think that the victims of war care whether they were victims of a weapon of mass destruction or a 'normal' bomb?
Weapons are weapons. They still kill people. If a bomb destroys a large area, it IS a weapon of mass distruction

Well i think there is a great difference between a bomb that has a blast radius of fifteen meters and a bomb that has several blast's of a radius of three miles, and also makes the atmosphere un inhabitable for 99 years. Or a weapon that detonates with no explosion, but infects hundreds with chemical diseases which is spread to potentially thousands. I think there is a great difference between weapons of mass destruction and just weapons. Yeah it is sad that we have war and that each country needs a military, but thats the way things are. People die in war civilian and soldier.. Wartime technology can prevent the loss of life and at the same time increase it. So it is a double edged sword. However,the distribution is ONLY one thing, and that is devastating.

Well, its worse (for the country that is bombed) to have thousands of 'normal' bombs than it is to have one bomb that is thousands of times deadlier.