Russia's opinion

We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?

• This is what Russia thinks will happen - to the United States this coming spring.
  • Russia's opinion - potatopeeler

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried.  When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times.  Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia.   Yes, I am concerned about Russia.

military manuevers near Venezuela.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html

Because of our economy, United States will be split:  The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc.  As for Alaska?  Could be Russia's for the taking. 

What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin.  Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska.  Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.   

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01

President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.

Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.

The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.

In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.

At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.

You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.

Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.

The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.

But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.

Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.

The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.

Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.

But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.

The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.

Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.

This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.

Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.

The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new

meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....

http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0

I do believe, based on all information available, that Plame was truly outed.  There is no "opinion" involved here.  It is either true or false, and in this case, it is true she was outed. Throw as much distraction and verbiage at it as you want, but the fact remains.

This is all pretty much a matter of opinion, why does one have to be stupid to vote for who they FEEL is the best candidate.  None of them truly are qualified.  We can gave education and we can gain experience, but when given the task at hand, how many actually succeed.  I feel that the Bush administration has been the worst ever since I have become involved in politics over the years, but that is my personal opinion.  Not only was he given one term and failed, but a second term and things got worse.

I am not pushing any buttons or trying to step on anyones toes.  To me it does not matter what race, religion, or gender, have always been a democrat and nothing and no one can ever make me vote republican, but the replican administration that had the task of leading our country for the last 8 years has definitely turned some die hard republicans to say they will vote republican.

This is my thing, I'm poor in a sense that I do not have millions of dollars in the bank, the rising gas prices and food prices affect me tremendously, and I live below my means.  The economy has changed, it is not good.  I want to survive.  I want to know that my job is safe, if I need financial assistance to save my home or feed my kids that it is available.  There are more issues that hit home for me, just a few named above.  I do not care that the gentleman who started AIG lost 3 billion dollars, so what how many millions do he have left.  If I lose $100 that's a sore spot for me.  They are saving financial insitutions with buyouts, spending billions on a war, and nothing to help the working Americans who lost their job and lost their homes and they were working hard just to survive.

I'm torn in a sense, but I do feel sorry for our country.  How much more will we working Americans have to suffer. 

Just my thought, part of the money that is been sent to fund this war, can we have it here in America to give to our people who are suffering from natural disasters (hurricanes, raging fires, jobs moved overseas, and all the other major crises surrounding us).  What are we really striving for?

From reading her thesis....she just made it sound like ivy league colleges are directed towards the "Whites" and wondered if it was really beneficial for "Blacks" to attend these colleges in a predominant white setting.  Stating that "Blacks" who attended Princeton found themselves grouped together but at the end of their education came to finding their way in the "White" world and forsaking the "Black Community."  How some "Blacks" felt guilt because they felt they should help the low-income black community and hadn't and others felt no guilt and strived for a position in the white world like Princeton was to blame for these "Blacks" building a life for themself and their family instead of putting everything back into the black community.

It sounds to me like Michelle Obama is a bitter and arrogant black woman and her involvement and membership at Rev. Wright's church for 20 years is just more proof of that.  As many times as Rev. Wright showed up in interviews and spatted hate and the empowerment of blacks against their white oppressors....you cannot tell me honestly that Barrack and Michelle NEVER heard any message like that when it seems like that is all that comes out of Rev. Wright's mouth. 

I voted for the first time in 1960.  The issue then was "Catholic."  People were "scared" of a Catholic president.........much like Obama being "Muslim."  Not much new since then except for the extensive media and internet.  Of course the "Catholic" won.  Some still say that election was bought by the Senior Kennedy.  I  happen to believe that now and I voted for him.  At that time I was a young voter, JFK was young, good-looking and talked a good talk.

You say the media picked their "darling."  I've watched TV consistently since the beginning of all this mess, starting with the primaries and I have seen no bias on CNN where I usually get my news and watch debates, etc. I did notice that Tom Tancredo (whom I supported) and Ron Paul were NOT given equal time in the debates.   Anything I hear that does not come directly from the horse's mouth, I research and make up my own mind, thus I consider myself about as well-informed as anyone can be who doesn't personally know any of the candidates.  I continue to be dismayed by posters on this board such as the above poster who says "Obama caught in the act."  If this is the kind of ill-informed voters who actually vote and elect our leader, God save us all.

The ACORN thing.  If I understand it correctly, the actual voter registration office that "discovered" the fradulent registrations is run by Republicans.  So there you have it again...Dem vs. Pubs.  They say they "don't have time to sort out the legitimate registrations"...Isn't that their job?  Do you REALLY think ACORN is the only one guilty of voter fraud?  I most certainly do not.  Why do you think both parties steer far away from illegal immigration?  Not a word have I heard from either candidate about illegal immigration.  Why?  Both are in favor of giving the free-loading, criminal invaders of our country "a path to citizenship," because both parties want the Latino vote, legal or otherwise.

To answer your question....I think our next leader will be decided by rabid voters who support the ticket, whichever group has the most rabid voters that actually turn out, and it looks to me like it may be the Republican ticket so it will not surprise me if John McCain is the next president.  I personally know many people who say they are not going to vote because they, like myself, cannot support either candidate.  I think there will probably be a huge voter turn-out and much of the turn-out will be newly registered voters and those who have bought into the Obama is a scary fellow campaign.  Fear is the scary thing, it brings out the fight or flight instinct just as it is designed to do in this election.  Seems many people can't see the forrest for the trees. 

VOTING WITH A WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!

based on your dark interpretation of facts.  I look at the same data - Obama's record, his choice of high-level officials and see a hopeful future.  What you believe and forecast is an OPINION based on a skewed filter, surely not accurately predictive.

based on your dark interpretation of facts.  I look at the same data - Obama's record, his choice of high-level officials and see a hopeful future.  What you believe and forecast is an OPINION based on a skewed filter, surely not accurately predictive.