Hahaha your caption is awesome.

Edit. O ya, we were just talking about that today too. I wonder if it is a IRIS 3, I think it can use a Shihab-3 base rocket like the news reported. That is a pretty advanced rocket. About half a decade away from ICBM at this point. I can haz bomb shelter?

Life is chess not checkers. Missiles are in fact a bad thing to hit you. If anything, a missile shield is exactly the kind of passive stuff we should do more of instead of invading places. I am all for defencive implacements. It is always best to have a shield and not need it than the other way around.

The fact is, Iran is developing medium ranged ship based missile technology. So that missile shield better span the globe if it is to be effective. I would actually think more people would be down with this kind of passive protection? Is this more to do with you dislike of this administration than any logical grounds to not want to have missile defence abilities at our disposal? Cause im not fan of this administration either, but I can see a strong defence being a good thing more than a bad thing.

Russia getting mad about seems like they are still stuck in a cold war kind of mode of resisting any attempt the US makes to make itself a little safer from threats, no matter how hypathatical they are. I don't think we shouldn't consider them because russia isn't comforatble with it. One thing we can't alow to happen in the big world cooperation is to undermind our own security to oblige someone else. Above all, the government should look to our defence more than cooperating with the world at large.

Anyone that has dealings in millitary intelegence would of told you that pre-war iraq had MWDs. Even the people that are against the war now were very very for having the weapons inspectors get at the weapons that we KNEW they had...hell, we still had some on file what we gave Sadam when we financed him.

Intelegence isn't fool proof, and more over, its a big ass desert out there to hide things in. If anyone remembers, Iraq had about a dozen and a half migs in the first gulf war. Iraq flew them out ASAP to iran who wasn't anally (Iraq and Iran are bitty enimies) and iran happily took them for their own. The same was most likely done with anything Iraq did have, and we did end up finding lots of gas that he was using on the curds after the media had already come to the conclution that there were absoulutly no WMDs found, even though we did find them, just not the nuclear and biological ones we thought were there. Most likely, he never had them, but we will never really know, the point is he didn't submit to UN weapons inspections like he should of. And the US decided (imo in error) to enforce UN laws without UN concent (bad idea).

Anway, this is off topic. Word is Iran may indeed have medium ranged balistic missile tech from a energy deal with China. This isn't in any means ironclad as intel never is, but it looks to be true.

I always try and stress, don't like administrations blow your consideration of the big picture. The world is a messed up place with messed up people that want to do messed up things for their own messed up agendas...and sometimes, they get a hold of power and weapons which is a bad thing. Don't let hate of one person cloud your minds of the things that still should happen for our best interest.

/rant

btw, a Medium-range ballistic missile is right around 1km to 3km in range. An intercontinental ballistic missile is anything north of 5.5km. Iran is belived to have more of medium and Intermediate-ranged missiles. None able to hit US via a ground lauch. But well able to hit via a sea launch which doesn't require to much adaptation.

Zelzal-3,Shahab-3D range 1,000-1,350-1,500 1999
IRSL-X-2 range 2,200-2,672
IRIS 2,3 range 3,500-3,750(2 stage, farily advanced missile)

(all ranges in KMs)

Well I wasn't exactly talking about channel PQs I think thats too much redundancy. Though could work also.

My request for a vote to publish requirement for channels to be different. For example if I set the vote requirement to 5, then even PQed videos that only have 5 votes would publish to the channel page. Unless the channel owner removes them.

There is tons of obscure stuff I want to be in my channel even if it didn't make the 10 votes to publish to VS main.

Like this video http://www.videosift.com/video/IRIE-ITES-Special-Dr-Darling-Medley, it has * votes but it goes into PQ. I would want that to publish to channel, then if it gets 10 it would be published on VS main page.

It's a bengal and her name is Iris, according to the guy who uploaded the video to YouTube. (See the comments on his other videos for more info)

Iris looks like a savannah to me. Look at the ears. a nd the head shape. Bengals have small round ears.

This cat looks just like my savannah (and my savannah's love pearching in the car with paws on dashboard, looking out the window.

Open a window and play it loud enough to hear it quite well as you walk a hundred yards or more into the woods. I guarantee you that every creature will stop to listen to Iris sing.

Iris is way tooo whiny fer these ears....appreciate-wanted to up vote, but that fingernails on the chalkboard voice.....!

You discarded http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Prine-and-Iris-DeMent-In-Spite-of-Ourselves to post this?!

from YouTube:
"World Statues 2006 Arnhem
The Dutch WK Living Statues - World Statues Arnhem 2006, part of the Arnhem Rijnfestijn. Living Statues from countries like USA, Spain, United Kingdom, France, Austria, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, the United States and Russia.
With participants like Alison Johnson (Velocity Circus) United States, Antonio Gomes Dos Santos (Guinness Book of Records 1988 - motionless for 15 hours 2 minutes and 55 seconds), Sophie Malraye aka Piétà (France), Iris van der Sar (Netherlands). Nomination: Guinness Book of Records - Largest Living Statue Championship."