Russia Defies U.S. Pressure on International Arms Sales
ypark
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/02/10/armstrade.shtml
The head of Russia's state arms exporting firm Rosoboronexport has
said that Moscow will not restrict sales of other weapons to countries
that are out of favor with the United States.
D. Scott Ferrin
Their stupidity will likely end up biting them in the ass.
Komin
groups for testing new weapons, to keep up with the new century .
Chinese money is financing new russian military projects .
Russia is also looking to south America , breaking the US monopoly of
this Latin market for arms .
Venezeula should buy russian nuclear missiles .
Russian should sell missiles to the west African states which have lots
of oils ,which the US wants .
D. Scott Ferrin
The US should sell attack subs with nuclear cruise missiles to Taiwan
who has lots of lands which the Chinese wants.
The US should sell ICBMs to the Israelis which have lots of lands
which the Iranians wants.
The US should sell nuclear bombs to the South Koreans which have lots
of fertilizers which the North Koreans wants.
The US should sell ICBMs to the Japanese which have lots of islands
which the Chinese wants.
Komin
If the US wants to keep Taiwan as a US protectorate , let American
give the taiwanese free American new weapons like the American did to
the Isreali.
Taiwanese are paying too high a price for American weapons.
the Americans can cut away taiwan , like the American did with Panama
in 1890.
Let see what China will do .
Isreali has plenty of nuclear war heads ,
that is why Iran must develop its own nuclear war heads at any cost s.
American should give the south Korean nuclear war heads ,
American should give Japan nuclear war heads ,
the Chinese should give Burma nuclear missiles ,
the Chinese should give Cambodia nuclear missiles,
the Chinese should give North Koreans nuclear missiles.
The Chinese should also give Iran nuclear missiles .
the Chinese should give Algeira nuclear missiles.
the Chinese should give Egypt Nuclear missiles.
the Chinese should Morroco nuclear missiles .
This will be a good balance of power
Robert Slater
wrote:
>Smart decision by Moscow. No pint in losing large chunk of the lucrative
>business - particularly one in which USA has largest market share.
>
>DK
I know.....it is so unfair for the USA to tell countries what the can
sell or not sell.
Robert Slater
But Russia is selling obsolete stuff to countries like China.
Robert Slater
Ok then Russia and China should sell Nukes to the Arabs and the Muslim
world.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
You ever heard of the words; "facetious", or "sarcasm"?
Jim E
"D. Scott Ferrin" <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:572v01ltjg9btqnd0...@4ax.com...
Couldn't get past "D" for dumb ??
m4mm4ry...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> The head of Russia's state arms exporting firm Rosoboronexport has
> said that Moscow will not restrict sales of other weapons to countries
> that are out of favor with the United States.
Why should the States be able to tell Russia who they are able/not able to
sell to?
--
.............................................................................
"Become the change you wish to see in others"
-Mahatma Gandhi
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Kevin Brooks
<m4mm4ry...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:Gj7Td.4247$38.4222@clgrps12...
> In alt.war.nuclear ypark <ypark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The head of Russia's state arms exporting firm Rosoboronexport has
>> said that Moscow will not restrict sales of other weapons to countries
>> that are out of favor with the United States.
>
> Why should the States be able to tell Russia who they are able/not able to
> sell to?
Maybe $7 billion or more in direct aid from the US to Russia since 1991, not
to mention over $20 billion in assistance from the IMF (for which the US is
the largest contributor, and for which it has the greatest voting clout)
indicates that the US does indeed have a say in the matter. Those spigots
can be cut off, you know.
Brooks
qu07a_...@salmahayeksknockers.edu
> Maybe $7 billion or more in direct aid from the US to Russia since 1991, not
> to mention over $20 billion in assistance from the IMF (for which the US is
> the largest contributor, and for which it has the greatest voting clout)
> indicates that the US does indeed have a say in the matter. Those spigots
> can be cut off, you know.
Then let America cut it off, and stop sticking it's nose where it doesn't
belong.
--
.............................................................................
The rank and file are not philosophers, they are not educated to think for
themselves, but simply to accept, unquestioned, whatever comes.
-Susan B. Anthony
.............................................................................
ds...@m3m3t1ccand1ru.com http://www.memeticcandiru.com
Kvebekski
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9_ednZq3yLn...@adelphia.com...
Too late. Russia is now free from IMF. It has no power to dictate anything
to Russia anymore. Putin is smart, not necessarily sympatic, but smart.
stuart
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> <m4mm4ry...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
> news:Gj7Td.4247$38.4222@clgrps12...
> > In alt.war.nuclear ypark <ypark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The head of Russia's state arms exporting firm Rosoboronexport has
> >> said that Moscow will not restrict sales of other weapons to
countries
> >> that are out of favor with the United States.
> >
> > Why should the States be able to tell Russia who they are able/not
able to
> > sell to?
>
> Maybe $7 billion or more in direct aid from the US to Russia since
1991,
Mostly given for things that serve US interests, like eliminating
ICBMs, reprocessing weapons-grade fissile materials into nuclear fuel,
and stuff like that.
> not to mention over $20 billion in assistance from the IMF
More like $15 billion, every dime of which has been paid back to the
IMF, with interest.
> (for which the US is
> the largest contributor, and for which it has the greatest voting
clout)
> indicates that the US does indeed have a say in the matter. Those
spigots
> can be cut off, you know.
Yes, it is amusing to see a threat to cut off "spigots" that either
have been dry for years, or which flow to things that are in the US
interest.
Stuart Wilkes
kirill
Russia was pumping an average of 24 billion US per year to western banks
via capital flight for most of the 1990s and until three years ago. This
is on top of Russia's average debt and principle payments of 15 billion US
per year. Putin's government has cracked down on oligarch thieves such as
Berezovsky, Gusinsky and Khodorkovsky who were the primary reason for this
money siphon. No more free money for the west and the west is fuming mad.
comp...@hotmail.com
If Bush wasn't such a pussy, he'd bomb them like
he does Iraq and will to Iran.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>
> Mostly given for things that serve US interests, like eliminating
> ICBMs, reprocessing weapons-grade fissile materials into nuclear fuel,
> and stuff like that.
>
..........................................>
>
> Yes, it is amusing to see a threat to cut off "spigots" that either
> have been dry for years, or which flow to things that are in the US
> interest.
>
> Stuart Wilkes
>
It is interesting that you see these in a negative light,
and as being in the US interests,
rather than as positive actions to benefit world peace and
the economy (power generation) in Russia.
Kevin Brooks
<qu07a_...@salmahayeksknockers.edu> wrote in message
news:i0aTd.25010$0h.4029@clgrps13...
> In alt.war.nuclear Kevin Brooks <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe $7 billion or more in direct aid from the US to Russia since 1991,
>> not
>> to mention over $20 billion in assistance from the IMF (for which the US
>> is
>> the largest contributor, and for which it has the greatest voting clout)
>> indicates that the US does indeed have a say in the matter. Those spigots
>> can be cut off, you know.
>
> Then let America cut it off, and stop sticking it's nose where it doesn't
> belong.
Refuse the aid payments if you don't like the hook attached to the line.
Brooks
William Black
<comp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109216330....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> If the Russians are not with us, they're against us.
> If Bush wasn't such a pussy, he'd bomb them like
> he does Iraq and will to Iran.
>
Bombing people with lots of nukes and an ABM system is suicidal...
You may win, but you'll be dead...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
zzbu...@netscape.net
William Black wrote:
> <comp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109216330....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > If the Russians are not with us, they're against us.
> > If Bush wasn't such a pussy, he'd bomb them like
> > he does Iraq and will to Iran.
> >
> Bombing people with nukes is stupid.
>
> Bombing people with lots of nukes and an ABM system is suicidal...
>
> You may win, but you'll be dead...
But, neither Russia nor the US planeed on winning
a nuclear war. Since after the hygrogen bomb
was invented, we no longer let the navy
make bombing runs. They only can do
parachute runs.
We changed the rules on the UN idiots,
and named it Star Wars.
Since, it doesn't matter if the
the Pentagon, The US military, THe British military,
The French military, The Russia military,
the Chinese military, or the Israeli
military likes it, it's still Star Wars.
Obviously because the only people who think
ABM works, are the very same people who
think missiles work, which is Russia, China,
The UN, The New York Times, People from Afghanistan,
and the Pentagon.
Not people with 21st Century technology.
stuart
> stuart wrote:
>
> >
> > Mostly given for things that serve US interests, like eliminating
> > ICBMs, reprocessing weapons-grade fissile materials into nuclear
fuel,
> > and stuff like that.
> >
> ..........................................>
> >
> > Yes, it is amusing to see a threat to cut off "spigots" that either
> > have been dry for years, or which flow to things that are in the US
> > interest.
> >
> > Stuart Wilkes
> >
>
> It is interesting that you see these in a negative light,
Not necessarily, Rosty.
> and as being in the US interests,
That is after all the main motivation for it. Do you object to me
identifying it as such?
> rather than as positive actions to benefit world peace
> and the economy (power generation) in Russia.
Actually, these expenditures could have reflected an actual US interest
in Russian Democracy and economic prosperity, as well as world peace,
if they had been part of a larger program to support those goals with
actual resources. Unfortunately, the objectives of Russian Democracy
and prosperity were supported mainly by verbiage, whereas the goal of
Russian disarmament was supported by actual money, if not much. This
indicates that the US has mainly been interested in Russian
disarmament, not the other stuff.
If you do not will the means, you aren't serious about the ends.
Stuart Wilkes
comp...@hotmail.com
William Black wrote:
> <comp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109216330....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > If the Russians are not with us, they're against us.
> > If Bush wasn't such a pussy, he'd bomb them like
> > he does Iraq and will to Iran.
> >
> Bombing people with nukes is stupid.
>
Which is why I can't believe Bush has not bombed Russia already.
William Black
<comp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109280717.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> William Black wrote:
> > <comp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1109216330....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > If the Russians are not with us, they're against us.
> > > If Bush wasn't such a pussy, he'd bomb them like
> > > he does Iraq and will to Iran.
> > >
> > Bombing people with nukes is stupid.
> >
>
>
> Which is why I can't believe Bush has not bombed Russia already.
To coin a very old phrase, GW Bush isn't as green as he's cabbage
looking...