I think it’s pretty obvious…

These babies bathe in oil and they can think of nothing better than a snappy skirmish with those get in the way. Jibosiac, maybe when a ‘desert-thorn’ unit is outside your front door you can ask them how they reconciled their religious differences.

Report from The Caspian Summit

Russian President Vladimir Putin reinforced ties with his Iranian counterparts today, when he met with the 5 Caspian Sea border countries today in Tehran. The flourishing relationship between Ahmadinejad and Putin was put on showcase as they stressed using the Caspian Sea for peaceful purposes, as tensions heighten over the presence of US airbases in Azerbaijan and a new plan to restore an old Soviet airbase in Turkmenistan (which prides itself on its neutrality). US planes have been using the airbases in those two nations mainly as refueling stops on the way into and out of Afghanistan, however speculation over whether these bases could be key in a military action against Iran has mounted in the coming weeks as tensions surrounding the region are on the rise. In effect, the 5 country counsel voted to only use the sea for peaceful purposes and reinforced the fact that no military action against Iran would be launched from any of countries, their respective airspace, or the sea for that matter. Their claim is that since the sea is landlocked (somewhat) that its contents belong to only those counties it borders and it is not considered international waters. This should cause quite a bit of concern for the US, considering if there were military action against Iran it would force the US out of using a very strategic and important front, from which to attack. Putin reinforced his willingness to use its UN Security Council veto to block any further sanctions (a vote that could be mirrored by China). In the face of US and Western European pressure on the Iranian nuclear program, Putin offered a vote of confidence saying that his country was the only country supporting Iran in peaceful nuclear ambitions. So, I ask where the line is drawn. When does peaceful nuclear ambitions turn into dropping the bombs and what do we do then? Sanctions or WWIII. I can understand Putin's strong arm tactics when it comes to oil, but what benefit other that a few billion can a nuclear capable Iran be and at what price. There must be some other motivation, with which I am not in the know. It seems to me when a crazy person walks into a gun store telling you they want a gun to make their bicycle go faster, you don't give them that gun. Anyways, it seems the discussion was controlled by the polarizing figures of Ahmadinejad and Putin because many of the issues concerning the other countries were not even touched upon. Putin, for example, cited environmental concerns over the disputed oil pipelines that would go beneath the Caspian Sea and into Azerbaijan, where it could be sent directly into Western Europe bypassing the monopoly of pipelines Russia has going into Western Europe. I was astonished by the key aspects of this somewhat small, incredibly important body of water. The Caspian Sea holds the third largest concentrated oil deposits in the world, deposits that were once controlled 50/50 by the Soviet Union and Iran. The oil deposits in the sea have still not been distributed properly since 1991 and Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan have all voiced their desire for the sea to be split by the length of the shoreline border. Iran, however, will not settle for anything less than 20%, so things remain unsettled. After all of this, I'm still trying to determine the relationship that exists between these two storied nations. It hasn't been since WWII that a Russian leader has been to Iran, but Iran uses almost exclusively Russian weapons. I also can't help, but point to the religious and moral differences between the two nations as a point of tension. I'm at a loss here, is it really "all about the money" or is there a bigger, more devastating plan in the works. But for now, all quiet on the Caspian front.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/world/17iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Just try and burn this library, Amr ibn al'Ass!

There was an interesting op piece reprinted in the MN Daily from the UCONN Daily Campus paper about Wikipedia that I thought I'd share. I remember the good professor (Zapsyou) and I briefly discussing it's merit as academic resource a while back, so it seemed relevant to share it. I am someone who often uses wikipedia to bolster my repertoire of pointless minutiae and for quick references on obscure historical details that certain pompous authors (Umberto Eco, say) obnoxiously insist on making vital elements to their plots. Is this foolish of me? Am I putting too much faith into a compendium that most academic institutions find dubious, at best? The article suggests that I am not. In fact, it suggests that Wikipedia has the potential to become the most authoritative source on world knowledge. This goes too far, in my opinion, but the author doesn't make the statement without a defense. I don't know, read and discuss. Read and discuss.