Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iran rejection of nuclear deal becoming clear: Rice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 06:07 PM
Original message
Iran rejection of nuclear deal becoming clear: Rice
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=10767100&src=rss/politicsNews

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday Iran's resumption of atomic fuel research would signal its rejection of a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis, but stopped short of saying this would finally trigger a U.S. push for U.N. Security Council action.

Rice said she hoped "diplomacy has not been exhausted," but added that it was "becoming clearer" Iranians are not accepting a diplomatic compromise that constrains their nuclear ambitions.

Rice addressed State Department reporters after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday Iran would resume atomic fuel research next week despite warnings from the West that this would endanger efforts to find a diplomatic compromise.

She said if Iran proceeded with sensitive nuclear research "it really will be a sign that they are not prepared ... to actually make diplomacy work."



The rhetoric of war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. I still say 2007
This year will feature a lot of chest thumping and testosterone. The war comes next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. People need to get prepared.
I don't understand why so many people are just ignoring this Iran bullying.
This is truely scary. :scared: And I just don't think that there is any stopping it. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. We need to pay attention to troop movements as they "pullout" from Iraq
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Don't forget the 40,000 pulled from Europe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. I wonder how many troops we have in Afghanistan along Iran's border?
Edited on Fri Jan-06-06 03:19 PM by Roland99
The US troops being removed from Afghanistan in place of NATO troops?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
priller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. No no no, it's *this* year -- mid-term elections
It's all about the elections. ALWAYS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. Pravda: "Rice signals move to punish Iran is near"
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2006/01/06/70838.html

The headline indicates that they have no illusions about what is going on. I wonder what the official position of Russia will be regarding the "punishment" of Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. In March they start up
the Oil Bourse. Priced in Euro's. That's a serious problem for the US.

It was a problem when Iraq did it in 2000.

The atomic angle is a red herring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-05-06 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. There doesn't seem to be any real give and take here
Which is necessary for diplomacy, as far as I know. It seems like Iran is being requested to give up ambitions that the U.S. and other countries have already fulfilled. It is doubly strange for the U.S. to lecture a country about armaments, when it has already invaded and occupied its neighbor.

I am not keen on nuclear proliferation, but I can't see any valid reason to deny weapons to some countries and not others. Without reciprocity, efforts to prevent nuclear weapons spread are doomed to fail. These efforts could then only be based on domination, thus reinforcing the desire for the very weapons they are attempting to forestall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. And did the US unwittingly give Iran the info it needed to build a bomb??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. A fascinating article
It could explain a thing or two about the recent fixation on Iran. It could also be disinformation, to make an attack seem more justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. If they did anything, it was not unwittingly done. This yet another....
...story designed to build support for a strike, preemptive or not, nuclear or not, against Iran.

And wht would the CIA be involved in this? Why not the NeoCon Pentagon-based OSP...that seems to be their forte more so that the CIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Well, notice this started in the Clinton administration
Clinton even approved the covert ops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Yes, to deliver the false data. Where did the idea originate?.....
...Among the NeoCons in the Pentagon.

What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. personally approved by Clinton
Clinton wasn't afraid of using the military for certain ideological reasons. Clinton wasn't a saint, mind you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Do you really want Iran to join the nuclear club?
I don't.

They are a far-right state under the control of fundamentalists, with a terrorist as President who says that Israel should be wiped off the map. They are actively building nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles. This seems like the perfect progressive rallying cause to me. Bad politics, bad religion, bad record. What else is there?

I don't care whether or not the US, China, Britain, France, or whoever have been perfect global citizens. Every country added to the nuke list increases the probability that one of these weapons is going to be detonated. There is no reliable way to predict what will happen if a nuke goes off in a Western city or in Israel, but the phrase "end of the world" comes to mind.

Daleo, think this one through again. There are extraordinary reasons to deny nukes to anyone who has a flag and a palace and a desire not to be shoved around. Ultraright xenophobes like Ahmadinejad are the *last* people who should have them.

I'm curious - what is your position on handgun control?

Peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I don't particularly want to see the "club" expanded
I just don't see how enforcing non-proliferation through warfare can work for long. In the long run, I think it is counter-productive, since the take home lesson is that a country is not safe until it has its own nuclear deterrent.

Stalin had nuclear weapons. Mao had nuclear weapons. Nixon had nuclear weapons. Thatcher had nuclear weapons. All of them were dangerously unbalanced at some point of their careers, but we are still here. I think the same would be true of Iran. The idea that some countries are suicidal enough to use nukes (e.g. Iran nuking Tel Aviv) just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I think handgun control depends on the circumstances of the jurisdiction involved. In most countries, it can be an effective measure. I don't know about the U.S. - handguns may have penetrated too deeply. I know you are making a parallel between the two situations here. But I think the handgun issue doesn't scale up, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons in an offensive way
Given the US imperialistic foreign policy of late, I can understand why Iran wants nuclear weaponry. The US wouldn't have gone into Iraq if Saddam truly had nuclear weapons. The US hasn't touched North Korea, either. Pakistan sure hasn't been the best ally, either and all of the fears about an India/Pakistan nuclear battle haven't come true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthInCO Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Holocaust 2.0
I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons in an offensive way


That's just retarded. Flame away at me, it's fine i don't mind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Not gonna flame ya. I could be 100% wrong but it's just a gut feel
I don't see Iran going on the offensive and using nuclear weapons. What purpose would that serve them? They'd be obliterated by Israel, Pakistan, US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthInCO Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Never again, its 1930 something all over
My concern is not that they could acheive anything militarily, or that they could invade or dominate a nearby country, but rather that elements within the country would seize the weapons and extort and hold Europe hostage to threats of nuclear destruction.

Or, that the technology could fall into the hands of others who might use the weapons for ideaological or political gains yet unforseen.

I agree with you that no "sane" government would believe that going offensive with their weapon would serve them at all. In fact we all know it would be suicidal. The problem is the regime doesn't have popular support and isn't stable, rational, or even civilized.The things that have been said lately regarding the state of Israel, the holocaust, the west and those who enjoy non-islamic dominance, concern me.

If the world (i.e. U.N, Europe, U.S.) doesn't do anything about their nuclear aspirations, then we really should just abandon all the hypocrisy and rhetoric and forget about the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Let every country develop nukes, unrestrained and unmonitored and deal with the fallout (no pun intended). I hear repeatedly that "we have nukes, so why can't they". I have no children I care about, but some do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. What is this, "Backwards World"???? Just curious, but who the heck....
...do you think is currently extorting and holding "Europe hostage to threats of nuclear destruction"??? You have two guesses, and both countries are allied to each other.

And where do you get this bull about telling other sovereign nations what to do and what not to do??? When the heck did the U. S. become the world's policeman??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Who are we
To tell other countries what they can/cannot do? If they all have nukes, then the playing field is level, and our wars of agression will end. If they want to wipe Israel off the map, well, Israel's a big boy, and they can take care of themselves. I would love nothing more than to close every offshore military base, bring every single troop home, and tend to our own country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthInCO Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. level playing field
Edited on Sat Jan-07-06 03:24 PM by truthInCO
" If they all have nukes, then the playing field is level, and our wars of agression will end."


I don't even want to touch that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I bet you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. this is EXACTLY the same stuff people said about
india, pakistan, israel and north korea. when THEY were known to be building 'the BOMB'. there is no reason to think that iran would be any less responsible than those nations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. "Iran isn't civilized" (paraphrase)
Well, we aren't civilized; we deny medical care to those unable to pay for it, all in pursuit of the almightly dollar.

Also, I wouldn't call this govt.'s response to the Katrina victims civilized.

We're a pretty barbaric nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Maybe you ought to be thinking about the U. S. using nukes.........
...in a preemptive nuclear strike, long before anyone else would use them.

I really don't care if you think that's "retarded" or not.

Additionally, it should not be our business to tell other countries what they can or cannot do. I thought we already learned that lesson in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Iran join nuclear club? Problem is...
I don't want to be looking at pictures of armless and legless Iranian children and the blackened bodies of their parents from WP.

If I were the head of a ME country, I would be working to get nuclear weapons. They see what happened to Iraq. Only an idiot would not connect the dots.

It's the monster Bush that has brought about this state of affairs. So, yes, ME countries need nuclear weapons, just as Israel has them. It's the only way to protect themselves. In a perfect world I wouldn't wish for this, but we now live in a world ruled by filthy thugs. Sad but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
35. You could say the same about Israel or the US. Why are they allowed nukes
Bad politics. Bad religion. Bad record. What's your point? Both the US and Israel have been the aggressors many, many times and they are armed to the teeth. Why the bias?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charles19 Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
38. I don't think their actions mean they will be in the Nuke club
Many in Israel say they own the land all the way into Iraq. Did that cause anyone to deny them nukes?

Iran having a powerful military is a crucial counter weight to Israeli power in the Middle East and much needed. It will actually help bring peace IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. "Iranians are not accepting a diplomatic compromise..."
compromise my foot. there's no reason why they should listen to a single DEMAND the us gives 'em. none. this is one more case of bush deciding who is PERMITTED what sort of toys. and despite bush revisionist history saddam DID what he was 'asked' to, and it resulted in the rape of his nation nonetheless. so clearly, the us cannot be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. The CIA gave Iran a nuke bleuprint last year. Cows out of the barn.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel4jan04,1,4817832.story

In a clumsy effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, the CIA in 2004 intentionally handed Tehran some top-secret bomb designs laced with a hidden flaw that U.S. officials hoped would doom any weapon made from them, according to a new book about the U.S. intelligence agency.

But the Iranians were tipped to the scheme by the Russian defector hired by the CIA to deliver the plans and may have gleaned scientific information useful for designing a bomb, writes New York Times reporter James Risen in "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration."
His CIA handlers never imagined that the Russian defector would tip off the Iranians to the fatal flaw that they had hidden deep within the blueprints. But that, the book adds, is exactly what the Russian did, in part because the CIA failed to send anybody to accompany him out of fear that it might make the Iranians suspicious.

The book does not say whether Iran used the plans, but reports that a senior Iranian official visiting Vienna appears to have taken them immediately to Tehran after the defector dropped them off.

"He was the front man for what may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA, one that may have helped put nuclear weapons in the hands of a charter member of what President George W. Bush has called the axis of evil," the book contends.


"Iran has excellent scientists and any information related to weapons designs could move its program ahead," said a European nuclear weapons expert, who refused to allow his name to be used because his government prohibits comments on nuclear weapons or designs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-06-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. That story is a pile of bull. Sounds like the "Niger yellowcake" story...
...with some of the details changed.

I can't believe anyone is swallowing this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
28. The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat
This entire thing seems in some ways to have unpleasant echos of the build-up to the war in Iraq. Who can we trust?

The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat

The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05), Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear bomb which he estimated might happen between 2008 and 2015.

Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud war propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party officialsaccused Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their election campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social issues".

In a message directed at the Israeli Right but equally applicable to AIPAC and the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US, Labor member of the Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the upcoming elections won't motivate the prime minister and defense minister to stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines of confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue and there is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, December 14, 2005).

Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely un-productive".

More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a nuclear power plant". Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, stated "America can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005).



http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=500595 (article originally published in Counterpunch)

The article goes on to say that in a move to clarify it's intent, Iran offered to allow the US to help in building a nuclear power plant. And that seems to have gone as much under the radar as the fact that Saddam did allow the inspectors in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-07-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. The setting-up of the Iranian Oil Bourse possibly has more to do with
Edited on Sat Jan-07-06 09:39 PM by Matilda
US unease.

It was mentioned by an earlier poster, but nobody has taken it up. I've
been reading quite a bit about this lately (not in mainstream press, of
course), and there's a link with the fact that Saddam was also trading
oil in Euros from about 2000 on. Of course, after the invasion, the
US quickly moved to sell Iraqi oil in US dollars.

The sabre-rattling of Ahmadinejad does nothing to help Iran's cause, and
I certainly don't think the country is a model of democracy or even
common-sense, but it's certainly not the demon that Rice is portraying.

As ever, the rest of the world should be looking carefully at where the
economic interests of the US lie if it wants to get at the truth.

A very balanced article here from Al-Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm

Sets it out rather clearly, I think, and it's far from a US-hating
rant.

On edit:

Update from the Centre for Global Research - it sounds quite alarmist,
but they are a well-accredited organization, I believe:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714


With the Bush Administration, any madness is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Thanks (I guess) for those excellent articles on the Iranian Oil Bourse.
I had not understood it as well before. The al Jazeera article was, as you suggested, very balanced. The thing that I still don't really understand is exactly what will be the effect on the US economy, if this does occur, as it sounds as if it will. It sounds as if it could be very dramatic and devastating, even, but I am still unclear.

And the other article, from Global Resarch, scared me greatly (that's why I had to add the "I guess" to my thanks). What madness indeed for the US to even consider any nuclear weapons at all. I sincerely hope that it is only a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I'm not too good on matters of high finance,
but I found this article that explains how the world is currently tied
to the $US, and what would happen if that changed, in a way that I can
comprehend:

http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm


It's quite an interesting website too, one I haven't seen before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Thanks for that link, Matilda. Interesting article.
That article also was quite accessible for someone like me, who also is far from an economics whiz. It makes me wonder if there is anything the US could do to head off such a dire sitation. It looks as if the economic interests of both the Europeans and the OPEC nations may be running counter to our own interests. Not good. And isn't the change as far as Iran is concerned likely to happen as early as March? I truly hope that the solution that the hawks in the admin come up with isn't to bomb Iran. That would hardly help, imho.

What could the US possibly do to avoid this? (I'm posing that as a general question, really. It doesn't seem that anyone really has the answer.)

(That does look like an interesting site. I've bookmarked it for exploration later.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-08-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Lots of information on this link.
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC