http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071016/D8SA9P5O0.html
=============================================================
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Russian leader Vladimir Putin met his Iranian counterpart Tuesday and implicitly warned the U.S. not to use a former Soviet republic to stage an attack on Iran. He also said nations shouldn't pursue oil pipeline projects in the area if they weren't backed by regional powers.

At a summit of the five nations that border the inland Caspian Sea, Putin said none of the nations' territory should be used by any outside countries for use of military force against any nation in the region. It was a clear reference to long-standing rumors that the U.S. was planning to use Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, as a staging ground for any possible military action against Iran.

"We are saying that no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state," Putin said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also underlined the need to keep outsiders away from the Caspian.

"All Caspian nations agree on the main issue - that all aspects related to this sea must be settled exclusively by littoral nations," he said. "The Caspian Sea is an inland sea and it only belongs to the Caspian states, therefore only they are entitled to have their ships and military forces here."

Putin, whose trip to Tehran is the first by a Kremlin leader since World War II, warned that energy pipeline projects crossing the Caspian could only be implemented if all five nations that border the Caspian support them.

Putin did not name any specific country, but his statement underlined Moscow's strong opposition to U.S.-backed efforts to build pipelines to deliver hydrocarbons to the West bypassing Russia.

"Projects that may inflict serious environmental damage to the region cannot be implemented without prior discussion by all five Caspian nations," he said.

Other nations bordering the Caspian Sea and in attendance at the summit are: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

The legal status of the Caspian - believed to contain the world's third-largest energy reserves - has been in limbo since the 1991 Soviet collapse, leading to tension and conflicting claims to seabed oil deposits.

Iran, which shared the Caspian's resources equally with the Soviet Union, insists that each coastal nation receive an equal portion of the seabed. Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan want the division based on the length of each nation's shoreline, which would give Iran a smaller share.

Putin's visit took place despite warnings of a possible assassination plot and amid hopes that a round of personal diplomacy could help offer a solution to an international standoff on Iran's nuclear program.

Putin's trip was thrown into doubt when the Kremlin said Sunday that he had been informed by Russian intelligence services that suicide attackers might try to kill him in Tehran, but he shrugged off the warning.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini dismissed reports about the purported assassination plot as disinformation spread by adversaries hoping to spoil good relations between Russia and Iran.

Putin has warned the U.S. and other nations against trying to coerce Iran into reining in its nuclear program and insists peaceful dialogue is the only way to deal with Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment.

"Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere," Putin said Monday during his trip to Germany. "They are not afraid, believe me."

Iran's rejection of the council's demand and its previous clandestine atomic work has fed suspicions in the U.S. and other countries that Tehran is working to enrich uranium to a purity usable in nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is only wants lesser-enriched uranium to fuel nuclear reactors that would generate electricity.

Putin's visit to Tehran is being closely watched for any possible shifts in Russia's carefully hedged stance in the nuclear standoff.

The Russian president underlined his disagreements with Washington last week, saying he saw no "objective data" to prove Western claims that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons.

Putin emphasized Monday that he would negotiate in Tehran on behalf of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members - United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - and Germany, a group that has led efforts to resolve the stalemate with Tehran.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the U.S. government expected Putin to "convey the concerns shared by all of us about the failure of Iran to comply with the international community's requirements concerning its nuclear program."

Putin's schedule also called for meetings with Ahmadinejad and the Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

While the Kremlin has shielded Tehran from a U.S. push for a third round of U.N. sanctions, Iran has voiced annoyance about Moscow's foot-dragging in building a nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr under a $1 billion contract.

Russia warned early this year that the plant would not be launched this fall as planned because Iran was slow in making payments. Iranian officials have angrily denied any payment arrears and accused the Kremlin of caving in to Western pressure.

Moscow also has ignored Iranian demands to ship fuel for the plant, saying it would be delivered only six months before the Bushehr plant goes on line. The launch date has been delayed indefinitely amid the payment dispute.

Any sign by Putin that Russia could quickly complete the power plant would embolden Iran and further cloud Russia's relations with the West. But analysts said Putin's trip would be important for Iran even if it yielded no agreements.
=============================================================

Think about what is going on in the world and look at Ezekiel 38-39.

I just did. What a waste of time.

Ezekiel is clearly talking about a war conducted on horseback. How does that relate to modern Iran?

[15] And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:

Just goes to show how people can't let go of mythology.

The Bush Administration is very close to single-handed reestablishing the Cold War!

Russia with its history is a very paranoid country. Paranoid of over aggressive Nations who throughout history have invaded them repeatedly.

WWII brought on an aggressive defensive policy that lasted for almost 50 years! They begin taking over and occupying buffer countries on all sides as a protection measure against what they perceived as a threat from the West!

For years, until the Reagan Administration the world lived under the fear of Nuclear destruction. It was a very real threat, but one that had begun to ease somewhat. The younger generation today do not even remember it. Many, many have never seen the armed border that stretched across Europe from the North Sea to the Alps.

Now George Bush's aggressive policies around the world are beginning to give the Russians reason to worry again! You may be right spider, this might be the beginning of the end, but the fault will lie on Bush and the blind followers who support him with their militaristic attitudes!!

Abra,

Ezekiel 38:15
=============================================================
And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:
=============================================================

So you read up to this point, did you go any further? Read the next verse carefully...

Ezekiel 38:16
=============================================================
And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.
=============================================================

How could horses cover a land "as a cloud"? Well, let's look at the word horse. "cuwc" is translated as horse, but we find that it can also mean "a swift"...you know, the type of bird. Since we can assume that Ezekiel had never seen an airplane before, what else would he call it but a bird? Which would the word "cloud" more aptly describe, a lot of horses or a lot of airplanes?

But if we assume that the word "cuwc" was supposed to mean "horse", why is that hard to accept? Ezekiel lived 3000 years ago, so the Holy Spirit inspired him to write about a great army and he wrote about that army, but in the terms he understood. Magog, Gomer, Put aren't on any maps, but we know that they are ancient names for existing countries.

You are free to ignore anything in the Bible or insist that it's old and out of date. But as for me, I will trust that since this war hasn't happened and there was never a time before when mankind had the ability to destroy an entire nation completely, I will go with where the facts point, rather than come to a conclusion and look for evidence to support my beleif.

Ironically the world was safest during the 'cold war' era. Two superpowers keeping each other honest ensured it!

Today we are confronted with a single 'active' superpower.
A nation made up of 50% or so of its people whom believe to different degrees,
... that the words in a book are those of a god,
... that the god, through 'his book' tells them that he created man, ... and woman as an afterthought from a man's rib, in a 'garden of eden'.

... And that somehow from that point on, evertyhing went to hell,
... and we must try and get back to this heavenly garden,
... which might happen at the 'end of time' this 'god' wrote in 'his book',
... and it should turn out to be in Jerusalem with the second coming of a 'more real' (human like: Jesus) god,
whom would decide THOSE CHOSEN FEW (whom would convert to Christianism), whom deserve eternity in heaven.

When that nation is the most powerful nation in the world! When that nation is the US!
And when the US is the principal 'forceful' and 'bias' moderator in talks taking place in the oldest 'self fulfilling prophecy' between the Judeo-Christian (good), and Arab-Muslim (bad), in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, NO ONE IS KEEPING THE GENIE HONEST!!!

... and that truly scares the 'tihs' out of me.

If Bush's outing, and the emergence of Russia as a dissenting perspective are enough to heed the 'genie', maybe China will will give it a gentle slap behind the head, and get the 'genie' back in its hole!!!

Sorry!

Last paragraph should have read "aren't enough"

"... If Bush's outing, and the emergence of Russia as a dissenting perspective (are) "aren't" enough to heed..."

Your comment is completely unreasonable. Both Russia and China have huge stores of nuclear weapons. If that is not superpower status what is? If you think that does not moderate US activity you are not thinking clearly. You speak as if there is no threat to the United States if it just does whatever it wants.

Clearly you really dislike the US don't you Voil, suggesting that China should give the US a slap. What makes you think that China could do so if the US were the only superpower.

You talk as if there is no problem finding political solutions to everything, but your own bias makes it obvious that some people can not be satisfied. The United States looked for a solution to the Iraq issue for years, and now they have been with Iran for more years. For that country the work has been ongoing and tolerant since 1979, and the country remained a problem to peace in the region and is continuing to get worse.

It seems to me you are going to keep taking shots at the United States no matter how they try to find political solutions. That sort of attitude is part of the problem. Work on the political solutions instead of just taking cheap, idealogical pot shots.

By liberal standards, Saddam should never have been taken out of office. Here is an example...

President X
Year 1 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 2 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 3 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 4 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 5 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 6 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 7 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 8 - Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack

President X + 1
Year 1 - You just got into office, warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 2 - You have only been in office one year, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 3 - You have only been in office two years, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 4 - You have only been in office three years, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 5 - You have only been in office four years, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 6 - You have only been in office five years, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 7 - You have only been in office six years, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack
Year 8 - You have only been in office seven years, Warn Saddam, it's too soon to attack

Because a new president is elected every eight years (at a minimum), no president would have tried hard enough to get Saddam to live by the law. This is all based on the fact that we (the US Government) tried to get Saddam to comply from 1991 until 2003, but since it wasn't one president the whole time, the Liberals cry foul.

Oh yeah, when Clinton / Gore decided to go to war with Iraq in 1998, the Republicans and Democrats had their backs, it was the UN weinies who caused us to not attack. So I guess the lesson is that war with Iraq is bad, when the president is a Republican.

Hmmmm, is it possible that the Russians (as well as others) are worried about the US trying to take over the world, just like the US was worried when Germany or Russia might have been tring to do it?

When anyone starts thinking they can do no wrong because they have god on their side or they take something that was written in a book and believe it's a prophecy that they were meant to fulfill, then there's going to be trouble. Absolute lunacy!

No Kid, I don't believe that could be the case. It could be the pretense for a lot of discussion, but as a practical matter, taking over the world means controlling the world, and there aren't even enough Americans to manage the details, without the issue of trying to force them.

It's been pretty clear that the United States has been endeavoring to deal fairly with peace loving peoples everywhere. Some may argue the point, but a hell of a lot of history goes to support the position.

The God comment, goes both ways. Apply it to mohammed as thoroughly.

Philosopher, it's not the actuality of it, it's the fear of it that I was referring to. It's amazing how fear and distrust can be such a motivator. Unfortunatly not always in a positive way.

I apply the god comment to all religious nut cases equally, reguardless of their particular brand.

Did you all really think that the whole world sits back and watches while you first take Iraq, looking for Iran already, and then, what's next? Turkey? They have called their envoy back already for talks, meaning, Turkey is not happy with the US.
Will they be the next enemy? Incidentally Turkey is a Muslim country as well.

And the whole world still sits and watches?
Don't fool yourself.

Hi Andrea

Hi Harry

'philosopher',

Wouldn't know to start with a reply to yours. You are truly confusing everything. That's your prerogative though, and I forgive you!

Very humbly though, I would suggest you read my posts again and make an effort to understand the essence of the thoughts expressed, before interpreting them.

It sounds weird, but you have this bad habit of reacting with personal opinions and attacks towards other posters, without showing any understanding of their positions.

Anyhow, to give you hint of this incoherent and impertinent habit of yours, here is a good example. You wrote:
"... Clearly you really dislike the US don't you Voil..."

Clearly a shallow and biggoted 'cheapshot'! Perhaps you aren't even aware of the fact that you don't understand what people are talking about. Worse yet, you don't understand, and yet you are convinced that you do.

What I said:
"... and that truly scares the 'tihs' out of me!!!..."

And I'm referring to roughly 50% of US citizens whom believe in varying degrees, that a fictitious story in a 'god' given 'books' are reality, and that reality, is just an inconvenience!

No mention of dislikes of anything nor anyone. No dislikes, but 'scared' with the beliefs roughly 50% of the people of the 'active' superpower of the globe (never implied there werne't other powerful nations, but they are not considered THE superpower of the globe. The US is. If you have a problem with that claim, then that is a vey personnal opinion of yours).

So preoccupied with religious fundamentalism, and the space it is occupying in the matters of the state, bears no association or link to your impertinent comment:
"... Clearly you really dislike the US don't you Voil..."

If you must make unfounded tribal cheapshots, use other 'targets' than me as you might say.

Your comment "If Bush's outing, and the emergence of Russia as a dissenting perspective are enough to heed the 'genie', maybe China will will give it a gentle slap behind the head, and get the 'genie' back in its hole!!!" was specifically what I was referring to. If you prefer to have the US slapped for trying to moderate the effects of religious fundamentalist extremists then I would suggest you are not making a wise choice.

Ah we don't have anything to worry about...its not like the US blindly invades other countries

'philosopher',

Please make an effort!

That post and it's opening sentence supported the 'cold war' syndrome, since we haven't transcended our 'barbaric' mentality.

Equal force, barbaric and religious fundamentalist forces keeping each other honest. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has occupied the 'globe' superpower solo! In the past 8 years, the house has been under a strong fundamentalist agenda.

Solo Global Superpower, and 'fundamentalist' tainted white house pilots and agenda.

A 'fundamentalist' Russia or China, to get the 'fundamentalist' US back in the bottle is the point I made, which you obviously missed.

My preference (Bush's outing), I so trust the better wisdom of the US people, that I don't think it will allow their brand of 'fundamentalists' religious rambos to keep running their country's agenda. And thus, other fundamentalists won't have to slap US fundamentalists back in 'their dark hole'!!!

My choices are made, and they don't involve any flavor of religious or fanatical fundamentalists: not chinese, not Russian and not US

Now, as I suggested before, make an effort to understand your fellow debater's point before interpreting, and jumping to conclusions. It will make it more productive all around.

Damnit cloudy!!!!!