So which one's are they,
Type 80/80-II they have about 1500 of these but most of them have been with drawn from front line units
Type 85 which they has been sold oversea to Pakistani (300) the Chinese have around 600 in service with another 200 to be add to the PLA over the next 3 years.
Type 85-III that were going to be going to Pakistani but they rejected them but this order is only for 250
Type 88 which is the latest of the Chinese Tanks and they have only between all models A-C only 400-500 in service while both Pakistani and Bangladesh each have around 300.
So please tell me which version that Iran is going to be getting since Iran signed a Tank deal with Russia two years ago to have all of their T-64 and T-72 upgrade over the next five years.
2) I made a big deal out of Obama bowing?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...post1057979681 (Obama a disgrace, bows to another leader... wtf is that?)
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
There's No False Choice on IranThere's No False Choice on Iran : The consequence of a weak president.
Rejecting "false choices" is a favorite rhetorical device of President Obama. His speeches are littered with examples. A half-dozen times, he's repudiated "the false choice between our security and our ideals." He's dismissed "the false choice between sound science and moral values." He's not only disposed of "the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars," he's laid to rest the clash between those who'd "conserve our resources" and those who'd "profit from these natural resources."
But confronted by a popular revolt in Iran, Obama has succumbed to a false choice. Either support the democratic forces in Iran aligned against the rigged presidential election or preserve his chance to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad regime for a nuclear arms deal--one or the other. The president thinks he's stuck with a dilemma. He's not. The two options aren't mutually exclusive. The choice is indeed false.
To escape his predicament, Obama has sought neutrality between a discredited regime and democratic protesters. This actually helps the regime, since President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs don't need Obama's support. The protesters do. In effect, Obama has tilted in favor of the regime. The result is personal shame (for Obama) and policy shame (for the United States).
And the protests and murders go into Saturday and still the U.S. sits here idle unwilling to back this freedom movement. One wonders what would have happened had the French not aided our own revolution.
Those who would have our nation take sides with the protesters are not thinking. If we back them, Iran will see them as a western driven and backed force. This will cause far more deaths. But, hey, let's act like Bush, close our eyes, and go all knee jerk on this..... God forbid someone think this through. War is stupid and we need to stop "making" it. There are ways to get to these people, but, right now, our President is doing the right thing. OH! And, the President has made a statement.
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama urges Iran to stop violence against its own people - Blogs from CNN.com
It's not as though Iran hasn't meddled in our affairs and the affairs of others,and we have thousands of soldiers with missing limbs from explosive devices furnished by Iran to show for it. Maybe IED's should start moving across the Iran/Iraq border in the direction opposite to how they customarily have been moving,along with guns and real "HOPE".