There are optics, and then there are there is realpolitik. This is a 8.5+ on the political Richter scale.
This is the result of the cartoon controversy: not fear, but opportunity to gain political advantage by Moscow, and Beijing.
Or maybe, just a way to solve Chechnya. Not enough info yet. Wait and see!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Anonymous said...
Since we're just skipping about so zanily here, let me ask qrswave if she was ever able to come up with any kind of an argument against the charging of interest--in as few words as possible. So in short, qrswave, u've failed, so far, because u've failed; that's all there is to it. If u've got an argument, give it, or cite it; don't just point to a mass of verbiage with assurance it's in there somewhere. Why is it so difficult for u to produce? Apollonian
Thursday, February 09, 2006
"Maintaining our contacts with Hamas, we are ready in the near future to invite the Hamas authorities to Moscow to hold talks," Putin told a news conference in the Spanish capital Madrid . . .
Speaking through a Spanish interpreter, Putin said: "We haven't considered Hamas a terrorist organisation. Today we must recognise that Hamas has reached power in Palestine as a result of legitimate elections and we must respect the choice of the Palestinian people."
An Israeli government source voiced surprise at Putin's comments . . . "(Russia) agreed to the Quartet's statements, so people in Jerusalem are raising an eyebrow -- what's going on here?" the source said.Wow. Neocons must be pacing frantically.
2 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formHa ha ha ha ha ha :)
There are optics, and then there are there is realpolitik. This is a 8.5+ on the political Richter scale.
This is the result of the cartoon controversy: not fear, but opportunity to gain political advantage by Moscow, and Beijing.
Or maybe, just a way to solve Chechnya. Not enough info yet. Wait and see!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Since we're just skipping about so zanily here, let me ask qrswave if she was ever able to come up with any kind of an argument against the charging of interest--in as few words as possible. So in short, qrswave, u've failed, so far, because u've failed; that's all there is to it. If u've got an argument, give it, or cite it; don't just point to a mass of verbiage with assurance it's in there somewhere. Why is it so difficult for u to produce? Apollonian
Thursday, February 09, 2006