<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_26_1949222</id>
	<title>US and Russia Conclude Arms-Control Treaty</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269592800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>reporter writes <i>"According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27start.html?pagewanted=all">finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware</a>.  Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield. Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half. It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December. But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield. ... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries. According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>reporter writes " According to a report just published by the NY Times , Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware .
Notably , the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield .
Quoting : 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter , and on launchers by half .
It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime , replacing one that expired in December .
But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe , it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield .
... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries .
According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty , it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each , from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty .
It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted .
Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reporter writes "According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware.
Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield.
Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half.
It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December.
But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield.
... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries.
According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty.
It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted.
Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31635138</id>
	<title>Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead?</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1269612960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One warhead is one warhead.</p><p>A MIRV would count as one launcher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One warhead is one warhead.A MIRV would count as one launcher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One warhead is one warhead.A MIRV would count as one launcher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632758</id>
	<title>Re:Not good</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1269599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope it does not infringe the second amendment ha ha ha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope it does not infringe the second amendment ha ha ha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope it does not infringe the second amendment ha ha ha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637830</id>
	<title>We realize it</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1269683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, we realize that the US ruling political group needs this agreement just because its anti-missile shield can handle only a certain limit of missiles simultaneously.</p><p>So they want to make their anti-missile shield more effective to re-play this one way or another: <a href="http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold\_War/b\_Stalin\_era/b\_Yalta/Images/march.jpg" title="ramapo.edu">http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold\_War/b\_Stalin\_era/b\_Yalta/Images/march.jpg</a> [ramapo.edu] Those who will own the vast resources of the immense landmass of Siberia will have a strategic advantage in global economy. It is just the matter of time.</p><p>I think the government of RF still agreed on it just to reduce the risk of an accident similar to 9/11, when some terrorists get control of nuclear missiles and then make some bad unpredictable thing with it. It is still easier to guard 1500 warheads than 2500.</p><p>But it is also clear that this is just a temporal measure. The real global security could provided by moving to more fair world with co-development, compulsory elementary education, total global access to health-care, clean water, housing, integration, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , we realize that the US ruling political group needs this agreement just because its anti-missile shield can handle only a certain limit of missiles simultaneously.So they want to make their anti-missile shield more effective to re-play this one way or another : http : //phobos.ramapo.edu/ ~ theed/Cold \ _War/b \ _Stalin \ _era/b \ _Yalta/Images/march.jpg [ ramapo.edu ] Those who will own the vast resources of the immense landmass of Siberia will have a strategic advantage in global economy .
It is just the matter of time.I think the government of RF still agreed on it just to reduce the risk of an accident similar to 9/11 , when some terrorists get control of nuclear missiles and then make some bad unpredictable thing with it .
It is still easier to guard 1500 warheads than 2500.But it is also clear that this is just a temporal measure .
The real global security could provided by moving to more fair world with co-development , compulsory elementary education , total global access to health-care , clean water , housing , integration , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, we realize that the US ruling political group needs this agreement just because its anti-missile shield can handle only a certain limit of missiles simultaneously.So they want to make their anti-missile shield more effective to re-play this one way or another: http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold\_War/b\_Stalin\_era/b\_Yalta/Images/march.jpg [ramapo.edu] Those who will own the vast resources of the immense landmass of Siberia will have a strategic advantage in global economy.
It is just the matter of time.I think the government of RF still agreed on it just to reduce the risk of an accident similar to 9/11, when some terrorists get control of nuclear missiles and then make some bad unpredictable thing with it.
It is still easier to guard 1500 warheads than 2500.But it is also clear that this is just a temporal measure.
The real global security could provided by moving to more fair world with co-development, compulsory elementary education, total global access to health-care, clean water, housing, integration, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633378</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>zx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1269602220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, what are you talking about?</p><p>Found resources by drilling more oil? Gee that was hard, anyhow Russian military is a joke -- <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]. Everything that is still valuable, like the nuclear industry, was built in Soviet time, and hasn't yet completely fallen in disarray, this applies to the space agency as well; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion, Roscosmos 2.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Federal\_Space\_Agency" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Federal\_Space\_Agency</a> [wikipedia.org]) even if everything is very cheap in Russia, which is not, the difference is staggering.</p><p>About nuclear power -- let me remind you in which country Chernobyl happened and this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk</a> [wikipedia.org], and lots of other really bad things. As much as I like the idea of nuclear power, Russia doesn't have a particularly good track record using it even for 'peaceful purposes'. Anyhow, the latest government's pet project is this -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_floating\_nuclear\_power\_station" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_floating\_nuclear\_power\_station</a> [wikipedia.org] which in my view seems to be a rather dumb idea.</p><p>There's no manufacturing capacity to speak of, most of the manufacturing facilities built in Soviet Union are now gone, you have no idea how hard Soviet economy crashed, all that's left, are manufactures that prepackage and deliver raw materials like oil, natural gas, nickel, aluminum, the list goes on. There's also a car maker that is getting bailed out over and over again -- <a href="http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html" title="themoscowtimes.com">http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html</a> [themoscowtimes.com] and if you think that GM and Chrysler got a sweet deal from the government, think again. On a related note, Americans really don't appreciate American cars.</p><p>The myth that Russia is strong and it is rising is perpetuated by the Russian government to disguise the fact that those who in charge are just interested pumping more oil, and if you don't approve of current government, you want Russia to fail, I am not kidding -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris\_Gryzlov#Memorable\_quotes" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris\_Gryzlov#Memorable\_quotes</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101510173019130.html" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101510173019130.html</a> [wsj.com]</p><p>Russia is slowly dying and things will not change unless the resent government suddenly vanishes. I read on some forum in 2002 or so that Mr. Putin's Russia will end up being a version of Soviet Union with healthcare system, army and education removed and it seems that that's the way it has been going all these years.</p><p>
&nbsp; Also a paper to about a downfall of Soviet Union, I don't think that too many things have changed since then -- <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html" title="hoover.org">http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html</a> [hoover.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , what are you talking about ? Found resources by drilling more oil ?
Gee that was hard , anyhow Russian military is a joke -- http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] .
Everything that is still valuable , like the nuclear industry , was built in Soviet time , and has n't yet completely fallen in disarray , this applies to the space agency as well ; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion , Roscosmos 2.4 ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA \ _Budget , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian \ _Federal \ _Space \ _Agency [ wikipedia.org ] ) even if everything is very cheap in Russia , which is not , the difference is staggering.About nuclear power -- let me remind you in which country Chernobyl happened and this http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk [ wikipedia.org ] , and lots of other really bad things .
As much as I like the idea of nuclear power , Russia does n't have a particularly good track record using it even for 'peaceful purposes' .
Anyhow , the latest government 's pet project is this -- http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian \ _floating \ _nuclear \ _power \ _station [ wikipedia.org ] which in my view seems to be a rather dumb idea.There 's no manufacturing capacity to speak of , most of the manufacturing facilities built in Soviet Union are now gone , you have no idea how hard Soviet economy crashed , all that 's left , are manufactures that prepackage and deliver raw materials like oil , natural gas , nickel , aluminum , the list goes on .
There 's also a car maker that is getting bailed out over and over again -- http : //www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html [ themoscowtimes.com ] and if you think that GM and Chrysler got a sweet deal from the government , think again .
On a related note , Americans really do n't appreciate American cars.The myth that Russia is strong and it is rising is perpetuated by the Russian government to disguise the fact that those who in charge are just interested pumping more oil , and if you do n't approve of current government , you want Russia to fail , I am not kidding -- http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris \ _Gryzlov # Memorable \ _quotes [ wikipedia.org ] , http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101510173019130.html [ wsj.com ] Russia is slowly dying and things will not change unless the resent government suddenly vanishes .
I read on some forum in 2002 or so that Mr. Putin 's Russia will end up being a version of Soviet Union with healthcare system , army and education removed and it seems that that 's the way it has been going all these years .
  Also a paper to about a downfall of Soviet Union , I do n't think that too many things have changed since then -- http : //www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html [ hoover.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, what are you talking about?Found resources by drilling more oil?
Gee that was hard, anyhow Russian military is a joke -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm [bbc.co.uk].
Everything that is still valuable, like the nuclear industry, was built in Soviet time, and hasn't yet completely fallen in disarray, this applies to the space agency as well; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion, Roscosmos 2.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_Budget, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Federal\_Space\_Agency [wikipedia.org]) even if everything is very cheap in Russia, which is not, the difference is staggering.About nuclear power -- let me remind you in which country Chernobyl happened and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversk [wikipedia.org], and lots of other really bad things.
As much as I like the idea of nuclear power, Russia doesn't have a particularly good track record using it even for 'peaceful purposes'.
Anyhow, the latest government's pet project is this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_floating\_nuclear\_power\_station [wikipedia.org] which in my view seems to be a rather dumb idea.There's no manufacturing capacity to speak of, most of the manufacturing facilities built in Soviet Union are now gone, you have no idea how hard Soviet economy crashed, all that's left, are manufactures that prepackage and deliver raw materials like oil, natural gas, nickel, aluminum, the list goes on.
There's also a car maker that is getting bailed out over and over again -- http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/united-russia-to-save-avtovaz/390702.html [themoscowtimes.com] and if you think that GM and Chrysler got a sweet deal from the government, think again.
On a related note, Americans really don't appreciate American cars.The myth that Russia is strong and it is rising is perpetuated by the Russian government to disguise the fact that those who in charge are just interested pumping more oil, and if you don't approve of current government, you want Russia to fail, I am not kidding -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris\_Gryzlov#Memorable\_quotes [wikipedia.org], http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101510173019130.html [wsj.com]Russia is slowly dying and things will not change unless the resent government suddenly vanishes.
I read on some forum in 2002 or so that Mr. Putin's Russia will end up being a version of Soviet Union with healthcare system, army and education removed and it seems that that's the way it has been going all these years.
  Also a paper to about a downfall of Soviet Union, I don't think that too many things have changed since then -- http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/72997307.html [hoover.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632170</id>
	<title>I hope Civ V isn't bound by this.</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1269596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boy would that stink if I can't nuke everyone with ballistics in one turn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boy would that stink if I ca n't nuke everyone with ballistics in one turn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boy would that stink if I can't nuke everyone with ballistics in one turn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633190</id>
	<title>Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269601080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each RV counts as one warhead.</p><p>So, if a hypothetical missile system could countain 20 reentry vehicles, that one missile would count as 20 warheads towards the total number.</p><p>(posting from work, where we do ICBM testing)</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each RV counts as one warhead.So , if a hypothetical missile system could countain 20 reentry vehicles , that one missile would count as 20 warheads towards the total number .
( posting from work , where we do ICBM testing )  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each RV counts as one warhead.So, if a hypothetical missile system could countain 20 reentry vehicles, that one missile would count as 20 warheads towards the total number.
(posting from work, where we do ICBM testing)
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634686</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>alexmin</author>
	<datestamp>1269610260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congradulations, you have managed to be wrong in pretty much all you points.<br>1. Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30\% of staff because of lack of money. Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.<br>2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.<br>3. There is no manufacturing capacity as of note. Maybe dozen plants here and there again all staffed with guys in sixties.<br>4. There is no space \_industry\_. There are old thirty year old designs on life support.<br>5  Maybe Russia is not american enemy if you could read russian, you would know that USA and NATO is still their enemy number one on official and laymen level. They seem to be very nostalgic about russian/soviet empire. There is a Kremlin-sponsored campain to whitewash Stalin's name. Yes, the guy who directed killing of more people than Hitler ever did.</p><p>For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missle that never flew as expected in like 10 years:<br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56\_Bulava" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56\_Bulava</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congradulations , you have managed to be wrong in pretty much all you points.1 .
Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level .
The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as much as possible since everything else is in disrepair .
In fact , they are cutting close to 30 \ % of staff because of lack of money .
Oil money go to Putin 's private coffers so not much left for anything else.2 .
Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.3 .
There is no manufacturing capacity as of note .
Maybe dozen plants here and there again all staffed with guys in sixties.4 .
There is no space \ _industry \ _ .
There are old thirty year old designs on life support.5 Maybe Russia is not american enemy if you could read russian , you would know that USA and NATO is still their enemy number one on official and laymen level .
They seem to be very nostalgic about russian/soviet empire .
There is a Kremlin-sponsored campain to whitewash Stalin 's name .
Yes , the guy who directed killing of more people than Hitler ever did.For you education , here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century : the missle that never flew as expected in like 10 years :   http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56 \ _Bulava [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congradulations, you have managed to be wrong in pretty much all you points.1.
Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level.
The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as much as possible since everything else is in disrepair.
In fact, they are cutting close to 30\% of staff because of lack of money.
Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.2.
Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.3.
There is no manufacturing capacity as of note.
Maybe dozen plants here and there again all staffed with guys in sixties.4.
There is no space \_industry\_.
There are old thirty year old designs on life support.5  Maybe Russia is not american enemy if you could read russian, you would know that USA and NATO is still their enemy number one on official and laymen level.
They seem to be very nostalgic about russian/soviet empire.
There is a Kremlin-sponsored campain to whitewash Stalin's name.
Yes, the guy who directed killing of more people than Hitler ever did.For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missle that never flew as expected in like 10 years:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56\_Bulava [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632986</id>
	<title>These always worry me...</title>
	<author>anom</author>
	<datestamp>1269600180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how much the US and Russia limit their stockpiles of this and that, we'll still both be able to blow the world up a few times over, so this is really all pointless.  I'd rather make sure and keep a healthy supply of nukes for when the big asteroid comes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how much the US and Russia limit their stockpiles of this and that , we 'll still both be able to blow the world up a few times over , so this is really all pointless .
I 'd rather make sure and keep a healthy supply of nukes for when the big asteroid comes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how much the US and Russia limit their stockpiles of this and that, we'll still both be able to blow the world up a few times over, so this is really all pointless.
I'd rather make sure and keep a healthy supply of nukes for when the big asteroid comes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636166</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>ACKyushu</author>
	<datestamp>1269619500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, just from my own humble perspective on your "Unspeakable Truth"... I used to Live in Brooklyn, now I live in Nagasaki. The last time I checked, there was still a hole where the World Trade Center used to be. Nagasaki, not so much. I am pretty sure having less nuclear weapons (smart!) is probably a good thing overall, considering the rate at which Americans rebuild things (...slow.) and the rate we go to war (dumb!) over things. I personally would rather see systematic dismantling of weapons such as these than say; "Well! ODDS ARE...Thing won't go foom unless turrist get one!" and hope for the best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , just from my own humble perspective on your " Unspeakable Truth " ... I used to Live in Brooklyn , now I live in Nagasaki .
The last time I checked , there was still a hole where the World Trade Center used to be .
Nagasaki , not so much .
I am pretty sure having less nuclear weapons ( smart !
) is probably a good thing overall , considering the rate at which Americans rebuild things ( ...slow .
) and the rate we go to war ( dumb !
) over things .
I personally would rather see systematic dismantling of weapons such as these than say ; " Well !
ODDS ARE...Thing wo n't go foom unless turrist get one !
" and hope for the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, just from my own humble perspective on your "Unspeakable Truth"... I used to Live in Brooklyn, now I live in Nagasaki.
The last time I checked, there was still a hole where the World Trade Center used to be.
Nagasaki, not so much.
I am pretty sure having less nuclear weapons (smart!
) is probably a good thing overall, considering the rate at which Americans rebuild things (...slow.
) and the rate we go to war (dumb!
) over things.
I personally would rather see systematic dismantling of weapons such as these than say; "Well!
ODDS ARE...Thing won't go foom unless turrist get one!
" and hope for the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632126</id>
	<title>Ha!  Russia.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They aren't even a superpower anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't even a superpower anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't even a superpower anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633874</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Kumiorava</author>
	<datestamp>1269604980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you haven't looked the labels on nuclear power plants, labels on your gas, labels on your software, etc. Consumer electronics and clothes come from those countries you mentioned, but Russia is not greatly involved in that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you have n't looked the labels on nuclear power plants , labels on your gas , labels on your software , etc .
Consumer electronics and clothes come from those countries you mentioned , but Russia is not greatly involved in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you haven't looked the labels on nuclear power plants, labels on your gas, labels on your software, etc.
Consumer electronics and clothes come from those countries you mentioned, but Russia is not greatly involved in that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632924</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269599880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Cue I'm not a naive hippie-contest*</p><p>Huh, actually not. Where are all the regular I'm not naive-guys today? A gun convention somewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Cue I 'm not a naive hippie-contest * Huh , actually not .
Where are all the regular I 'm not naive-guys today ?
A gun convention somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Cue I'm not a naive hippie-contest*Huh, actually not.
Where are all the regular I'm not naive-guys today?
A gun convention somewhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632544</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269598260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go back to jacking off to your photos of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and Glenn Beck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back to jacking off to your photos of Ayn Rand , Ronald Reagan and Glenn Beck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back to jacking off to your photos of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and Glenn Beck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632168</id>
	<title>Two arms per person</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Max.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Max .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Max.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636934</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269625800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The economics of the situation really will change for the better.  Missile defense systems are now statistically far more likely to stop an attack, since there are a quarter fewer warheads to track.  A quarter is quite a bit of slack.</p><p>This is a good treaty.  The gradual reduction in warhead quantity makes missile defense more effective at the same cost.  America asserted its right to defend itself from attack (presumably from future rogue states) via the SDI while still maintaining its commitment to arms reduction with the other major stockpile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The economics of the situation really will change for the better .
Missile defense systems are now statistically far more likely to stop an attack , since there are a quarter fewer warheads to track .
A quarter is quite a bit of slack.This is a good treaty .
The gradual reduction in warhead quantity makes missile defense more effective at the same cost .
America asserted its right to defend itself from attack ( presumably from future rogue states ) via the SDI while still maintaining its commitment to arms reduction with the other major stockpile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economics of the situation really will change for the better.
Missile defense systems are now statistically far more likely to stop an attack, since there are a quarter fewer warheads to track.
A quarter is quite a bit of slack.This is a good treaty.
The gradual reduction in warhead quantity makes missile defense more effective at the same cost.
America asserted its right to defend itself from attack (presumably from future rogue states) via the SDI while still maintaining its commitment to arms reduction with the other major stockpile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633618</id>
	<title>Re:Uuum, we did have such treaties since the 80s!</title>
	<author>Truth is life</author>
	<datestamp>1269603600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial\_Test\_Ban\_Treaty" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Yes,</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_Non-Proliferation\_Treaty" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">in</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_Arms\_Limitation\_Talks#SALT\_I" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">fact</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic\_Missile\_Treaty" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">there</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_Arms\_Limitation\_Talks#SALT\_II" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">have</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range\_Nuclear\_Forces\_Treaty" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">been</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_I" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">many</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START\_II" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">such</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORT" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">treaties</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive\_Test\_Ban\_Treaty" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">!</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>It's almost like they might be signing something...<em>changed</em> from what went before, isn't it?</p><p>(For the spam filter and the sarcasm-impaired) This treaty goes beyond the many I linked above by imposing somewhat deeper cuts and a new "trust but verify" mechanism (which SORT did not have). It is a welcome step forwards for stability, peace, and cost-cutting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , [ wikipedia.org ] in [ wikipedia.org ] fact [ wikipedia.org ] there [ wikipedia.org ] have [ wikipedia.org ] been [ wikipedia.org ] many [ wikipedia.org ] such [ wikipedia.org ] treaties [ wikipedia.org ] !
[ wikipedia.org ] It 's almost like they might be signing something...changed from what went before , is n't it ?
( For the spam filter and the sarcasm-impaired ) This treaty goes beyond the many I linked above by imposing somewhat deeper cuts and a new " trust but verify " mechanism ( which SORT did not have ) .
It is a welcome step forwards for stability , peace , and cost-cutting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yes, [wikipedia.org] in [wikipedia.org] fact [wikipedia.org] there [wikipedia.org] have [wikipedia.org] been [wikipedia.org] many [wikipedia.org] such [wikipedia.org] treaties [wikipedia.org] !
[wikipedia.org] It's almost like they might be signing something...changed from what went before, isn't it?
(For the spam filter and the sarcasm-impaired) This treaty goes beyond the many I linked above by imposing somewhat deeper cuts and a new "trust but verify" mechanism (which SORT did not have).
It is a welcome step forwards for stability, peace, and cost-cutting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632480</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1269598020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No idea, but hey old nuclear weapons make for great nuclear fuel, so that is another bonus to this story.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons\_to\_Megawatts\_Program" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons\_to\_Megawatts\_Program</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No idea , but hey old nuclear weapons make for great nuclear fuel , so that is another bonus to this story.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons \ _to \ _Megawatts \ _Program [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No idea, but hey old nuclear weapons make for great nuclear fuel, so that is another bonus to this story.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons\_to\_Megawatts\_Program [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31653628</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Reservoir Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1269801120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you are maybe not a troll, I'll reply to you then as a Russian who reads both Russian and International news. I am definitely not brain washed, I understand my country is not perfect.<br> <br>

&gt; 2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.
<br> <br>
Not quite sure what is meant by 'nuclear industry' here exactly but the civilian nuclear industry is alive and well. The current plans call for the construction of 20 new nuclear reactors at the pace of 1 or 2 per year. Ten are currently under construction and the first two reactors have been very recently completed.<br> Plus we are building new reactors all over the world, a deal to build 16 new reactors in India has recently been signed.
<br>
Skilled factory jobs now pay more than entry level paper shifting 'manager' jobs aka 'office plankton' so there are many more younger people at the factories now.
<br> <br>
&gt; For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missile that never flew<br>
&gt; as expected in like 10 years: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56\_Bulava" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56\_Bulava</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
The missile had 5 successful tests out of 11.  It is hardly a complete failure and it's shortcomings will be fixed in the near future. How about Ares-1? Billions over budget and then canceled? This kind of cherry picking negative information and obsessing over it is why most Russians dislike the tiny but vocal (in front of Western cameras) pro Western minority. Why not write about the very successful civilian Sukhoi Superjet project or Sukhoi PAK FA next generation plane, both of which are partially assembled at the Sukhoi factory in my home city.
<br> <br>
&gt;Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as<br> &gt;much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30\% of staff because of lack of &gt;money.
<br> <br>
Again you do not know what you are talking about. Russian military doctrine calls for reduction of manpower gradually to allow discharged officers to have dignified existence outside of the army (like providing them with civilian skills and free housing). The amount of new equipment delivered to the military has been increasing every year. The conscription period has been reduced to one year. Russia is well on it's way to have a modern, mobile, well equipped professional army. And we can fight, just recently we totally humiliated in battle superior numbers of trained to NATO level Georgian troops who dumped their western made weapons and ran to Tbilisi like scared girls.
<br> <br>
&gt;Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.
<br> <br>
Even the most basic research would tell you this is also a lie. In the last 10 years Russia has been paying it's foreign debt ahead of schedule, managed a balanced budget (unlike some other country that is well past bankrupt and is sustained by China) and on top of that accumulated nearly a trillion dollars in the stabilization fund and gold reserves which were then partially used to dampen the effects of American initiated world wide recession. I know Russia is not exactly a pillar of democracy and Putin does have authoritarian tendencies but accusing him of being a thief does not do justice to a rational person.
<br> <br>
&gt; 4. There is no space \_industry\_. There are old thirty year old designs on life support.
<br> <br>
Russia has a very successfully Soyuz design that is now basically the only way to deliver people and payload to the ISS. And we are a major player in commercial launches. Solar system exploration projects nearly have been restarted with a major project (Phobos-Grunt) being launched soon. What does America have? A space agency in permanent crisis, a canceled Constellation program, and given a new wave of anti-intellectualism in general a very uncertain future.
<br> <br>
To summarize - all what you wrote wa</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you are maybe not a troll , I 'll reply to you then as a Russian who reads both Russian and International news .
I am definitely not brain washed , I understand my country is not perfect .
&gt; 2 .
Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so .
Not quite sure what is meant by 'nuclear industry ' here exactly but the civilian nuclear industry is alive and well .
The current plans call for the construction of 20 new nuclear reactors at the pace of 1 or 2 per year .
Ten are currently under construction and the first two reactors have been very recently completed .
Plus we are building new reactors all over the world , a deal to build 16 new reactors in India has recently been signed .
Skilled factory jobs now pay more than entry level paper shifting 'manager ' jobs aka 'office plankton ' so there are many more younger people at the factories now .
&gt; For you education , here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century : the missile that never flew &gt; as expected in like 10 years : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56 \ _Bulava [ wikipedia.org ] The missile had 5 successful tests out of 11 .
It is hardly a complete failure and it 's shortcomings will be fixed in the near future .
How about Ares-1 ?
Billions over budget and then canceled ?
This kind of cherry picking negative information and obsessing over it is why most Russians dislike the tiny but vocal ( in front of Western cameras ) pro Western minority .
Why not write about the very successful civilian Sukhoi Superjet project or Sukhoi PAK FA next generation plane , both of which are partially assembled at the Sukhoi factory in my home city .
&gt; Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level .
The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as &gt; much as possible since everything else is in disrepair .
In fact , they are cutting close to 30 \ % of staff because of lack of &gt; money .
Again you do not know what you are talking about .
Russian military doctrine calls for reduction of manpower gradually to allow discharged officers to have dignified existence outside of the army ( like providing them with civilian skills and free housing ) .
The amount of new equipment delivered to the military has been increasing every year .
The conscription period has been reduced to one year .
Russia is well on it 's way to have a modern , mobile , well equipped professional army .
And we can fight , just recently we totally humiliated in battle superior numbers of trained to NATO level Georgian troops who dumped their western made weapons and ran to Tbilisi like scared girls .
&gt; Oil money go to Putin 's private coffers so not much left for anything else .
Even the most basic research would tell you this is also a lie .
In the last 10 years Russia has been paying it 's foreign debt ahead of schedule , managed a balanced budget ( unlike some other country that is well past bankrupt and is sustained by China ) and on top of that accumulated nearly a trillion dollars in the stabilization fund and gold reserves which were then partially used to dampen the effects of American initiated world wide recession .
I know Russia is not exactly a pillar of democracy and Putin does have authoritarian tendencies but accusing him of being a thief does not do justice to a rational person .
&gt; 4 .
There is no space \ _industry \ _ .
There are old thirty year old designs on life support .
Russia has a very successfully Soyuz design that is now basically the only way to deliver people and payload to the ISS .
And we are a major player in commercial launches .
Solar system exploration projects nearly have been restarted with a major project ( Phobos-Grunt ) being launched soon .
What does America have ?
A space agency in permanent crisis , a canceled Constellation program , and given a new wave of anti-intellectualism in general a very uncertain future .
To summarize - all what you wrote wa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you are maybe not a troll, I'll reply to you then as a Russian who reads both Russian and International news.
I am definitely not brain washed, I understand my country is not perfect.
&gt; 2.
Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the next five years or so.
Not quite sure what is meant by 'nuclear industry' here exactly but the civilian nuclear industry is alive and well.
The current plans call for the construction of 20 new nuclear reactors at the pace of 1 or 2 per year.
Ten are currently under construction and the first two reactors have been very recently completed.
Plus we are building new reactors all over the world, a deal to build 16 new reactors in India has recently been signed.
Skilled factory jobs now pay more than entry level paper shifting 'manager' jobs aka 'office plankton' so there are many more younger people at the factories now.
&gt; For you education, here is a greatest russian engineering project of new century: the missile that never flew
&gt; as expected in like 10 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56\_Bulava [wikipedia.org]
 
The missile had 5 successful tests out of 11.
It is hardly a complete failure and it's shortcomings will be fixed in the near future.
How about Ares-1?
Billions over budget and then canceled?
This kind of cherry picking negative information and obsessing over it is why most Russians dislike the tiny but vocal (in front of Western cameras) pro Western minority.
Why not write about the very successful civilian Sukhoi Superjet project or Sukhoi PAK FA next generation plane, both of which are partially assembled at the Sukhoi factory in my home city.
&gt;Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level.
The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as &gt;much as possible since everything else is in disrepair.
In fact, they are cutting close to 30\% of staff because of lack of &gt;money.
Again you do not know what you are talking about.
Russian military doctrine calls for reduction of manpower gradually to allow discharged officers to have dignified existence outside of the army (like providing them with civilian skills and free housing).
The amount of new equipment delivered to the military has been increasing every year.
The conscription period has been reduced to one year.
Russia is well on it's way to have a modern, mobile, well equipped professional army.
And we can fight, just recently we totally humiliated in battle superior numbers of trained to NATO level Georgian troops who dumped their western made weapons and ran to Tbilisi like scared girls.
&gt;Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.
Even the most basic research would tell you this is also a lie.
In the last 10 years Russia has been paying it's foreign debt ahead of schedule, managed a balanced budget (unlike some other country that is well past bankrupt and is sustained by China) and on top of that accumulated nearly a trillion dollars in the stabilization fund and gold reserves which were then partially used to dampen the effects of American initiated world wide recession.
I know Russia is not exactly a pillar of democracy and Putin does have authoritarian tendencies but accusing him of being a thief does not do justice to a rational person.
&gt; 4.
There is no space \_industry\_.
There are old thirty year old designs on life support.
Russia has a very successfully Soyuz design that is now basically the only way to deliver people and payload to the ISS.
And we are a major player in commercial launches.
Solar system exploration projects nearly have been restarted with a major project (Phobos-Grunt) being launched soon.
What does America have?
A space agency in permanent crisis, a canceled Constellation program, and given a new wave of anti-intellectualism in general a very uncertain future.
To summarize - all what you wrote wa</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31666174</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1269880560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, Bush and Putin reduced nukes by 80\%--from 10,000 apiece to 2,000 apiece (Moscow Treaty aka SORT).  Obama and Medvedev/Putin are going to reduce them just 25\%--from 2,000 to 1,500.  Not really as spectacular as Bush's achievement.  If a McCain really would have been 'Bush's third term,' would it also have followed that McCain would have achieved more spectacular cuts than Obama achieved?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Bush and Putin reduced nukes by 80 \ % --from 10,000 apiece to 2,000 apiece ( Moscow Treaty aka SORT ) .
Obama and Medvedev/Putin are going to reduce them just 25 \ % --from 2,000 to 1,500 .
Not really as spectacular as Bush 's achievement .
If a McCain really would have been 'Bush 's third term, ' would it also have followed that McCain would have achieved more spectacular cuts than Obama achieved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Bush and Putin reduced nukes by 80\%--from 10,000 apiece to 2,000 apiece (Moscow Treaty aka SORT).
Obama and Medvedev/Putin are going to reduce them just 25\%--from 2,000 to 1,500.
Not really as spectacular as Bush's achievement.
If a McCain really would have been 'Bush's third term,' would it also have followed that McCain would have achieved more spectacular cuts than Obama achieved?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1269600660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I have never seen a "made in Russia" label on anything. China? Taiwan? Pakistan? South Korea? Mexico? Yes yes and yes. Russia? Never.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also ( still ) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity , which they 're leveraging on the global market .
I have never seen a " made in Russia " label on anything .
China ? Taiwan ?
Pakistan ? South Korea ?
Mexico ? Yes yes and yes .
Russia ? Never .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market.
I have never seen a "made in Russia" label on anything.
China? Taiwan?
Pakistan? South Korea?
Mexico? Yes yes and yes.
Russia? Never.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632788</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1269599220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact."</i> <p>
Yep, keep it up and pretty soon WE won't be a superpower any longer either...er, that is what you were cheering for, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Damn Obama , first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact .
" Yep , keep it up and pretty soon WE wo n't be a superpower any longer either...er , that is what you were cheering for , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact.
" 
Yep, keep it up and pretty soon WE won't be a superpower any longer either...er, that is what you were cheering for, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632348</id>
	<title>Interesting number of bombers</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since 744 B-52's were produced I have to assume that number was derived to match the US's current heavy bomber fleet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since 744 B-52 's were produced I have to assume that number was derived to match the US 's current heavy bomber fleet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since 744 B-52's were produced I have to assume that number was derived to match the US's current heavy bomber fleet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134</id>
	<title>Not good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear United States of America and Russian Federation, your new enemies are China, North Korea and various countries in the Middle East.</p><p>Sign peace treaties between you two but don't disarm yourselves, the wolves are watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear United States of America and Russian Federation , your new enemies are China , North Korea and various countries in the Middle East.Sign peace treaties between you two but do n't disarm yourselves , the wolves are watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear United States of America and Russian Federation, your new enemies are China, North Korea and various countries in the Middle East.Sign peace treaties between you two but don't disarm yourselves, the wolves are watching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632810</id>
	<title>Rusty nukes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269599340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sucks for us that Russia will get credit for reducing its old poorly-maintained aresenal, much of which they'd have to get rid of anyway. With this treaty, we're scrapping our cherry nukes while Russia scraps some rusty clunkers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sucks for us that Russia will get credit for reducing its old poorly-maintained aresenal , much of which they 'd have to get rid of anyway .
With this treaty , we 're scrapping our cherry nukes while Russia scraps some rusty clunkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sucks for us that Russia will get credit for reducing its old poorly-maintained aresenal, much of which they'd have to get rid of anyway.
With this treaty, we're scrapping our cherry nukes while Russia scraps some rusty clunkers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632688</id>
	<title>Re:Not good</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1269598800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>North Korea could most likely nuke Japan. While that would result in the end of their current government its still a threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>North Korea could most likely nuke Japan .
While that would result in the end of their current government its still a threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>North Korea could most likely nuke Japan.
While that would result in the end of their current government its still a threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778</id>
	<title>Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead?</title>
	<author>molo</author>
	<datestamp>1269599160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs.  This is known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV" title="wikipedia.org">MIRV</a> [wikipedia.org] (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles).  Each one can be aimed at different target.  Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?</p><p>Thanks.<br>-molo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that do n't know , one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs .
This is known as MIRV [ wikipedia.org ] ( multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles ) .
Each one can be aimed at different target .
Does such a system count as one warhead , or do each of the bombs count separately ? Thanks.-molo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs.
This is known as MIRV [wikipedia.org] (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles).
Each one can be aimed at different target.
Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?Thanks.-molo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637502</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269721200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coz what Russia makes is for EU market. And thier economy only now starting to spin up.<br>Examples are plenty. Samsung electronics factories all over the country, etc. JFGI for more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coz what Russia makes is for EU market .
And thier economy only now starting to spin up.Examples are plenty .
Samsung electronics factories all over the country , etc .
JFGI for more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coz what Russia makes is for EU market.
And thier economy only now starting to spin up.Examples are plenty.
Samsung electronics factories all over the country, etc.
JFGI for more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632288</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>1729</author>
	<datestamp>1269597240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.</p></div><p>The President has actually requested a $624M increase for NNSA Weapons Activities in FY2011, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all understand what is going on here , The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free ( stupid !
) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.The President has actually requested a $ 624M increase for NNSA Weapons Activities in FY2011 , but do n't let the facts get in the way of your rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!
) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.The President has actually requested a $624M increase for NNSA Weapons Activities in FY2011, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632542</id>
	<title>On the other hand</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1269598260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Russia agreeing to reduce nukes may mean they have become more confident in their conventional weapons capacity, unlike in the 90s when their economy was in free fall.
</p><p>
Still nuke reduction is a good thing, I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Russia agreeing to reduce nukes may mean they have become more confident in their conventional weapons capacity , unlike in the 90s when their economy was in free fall .
Still nuke reduction is a good thing , I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Russia agreeing to reduce nukes may mean they have become more confident in their conventional weapons capacity, unlike in the 90s when their economy was in free fall.
Still nuke reduction is a good thing, I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632342</id>
	<title>However...</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1269597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news mr Kim is planning a nuclear war with his southern neighbors...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news mr Kim is planning a nuclear war with his southern neighbors.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news mr Kim is planning a nuclear war with his southern neighbors...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</id>
	<title>Hooray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact. You're good. I wonder how McCain/Palin would've handled the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn Obama , first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact .
You 're good .
I wonder how McCain/Palin would 've handled the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact.
You're good.
I wonder how McCain/Palin would've handled the situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632220</id>
	<title>Re:Ha! Russia.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They aren't even a superpower anymore.</p></div><p>And with all the debt and the recent economic failure of US, it seems they aren't either. China on the other hand..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't even a superpower anymore.And with all the debt and the recent economic failure of US , it seems they are n't either .
China on the other hand. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't even a superpower anymore.And with all the debt and the recent economic failure of US, it seems they aren't either.
China on the other hand..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31651788</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Yunzil</author>
	<datestamp>1269781800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!)</i></p><p>You know who else wanted to get rid of nukes?  That's right...</p><p>"It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; --Ronald Wilson Reagan at the '86 Reykjavik summit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free ( stupid !
) You know who else wanted to get rid of nukes ?
That 's right... " It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons "     --Ronald Wilson Reagan at the '86 Reykjavik summit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!
)You know who else wanted to get rid of nukes?
That's right..."It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons"
    --Ronald Wilson Reagan at the '86 Reykjavik summit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632696</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>catchblue22</author>
	<datestamp>1269598860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect this was one of the main reasons why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  The word in diplomatic circles is that this move towards nuclear disarmament originated directly from Obama himself, and not from staffers.  I heard that from a very reliable source, ie. someone in diplomatic circles.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect this was one of the main reasons why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize .
The word in diplomatic circles is that this move towards nuclear disarmament originated directly from Obama himself , and not from staffers .
I heard that from a very reliable source , ie .
someone in diplomatic circles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect this was one of the main reasons why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The word in diplomatic circles is that this move towards nuclear disarmament originated directly from Obama himself, and not from staffers.
I heard that from a very reliable source, ie.
someone in diplomatic circles.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31659372</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>MachineShedFred</author>
	<datestamp>1269886920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's bad that we now have a politically expedient reason to disassemble the 700 oldest, least reliable, and most expensive warheads in the arsenal?</p><p>This is going to save us a boatload of money from the DoD budget, look good while doing it, all the while keeping lots of nuclear scientists employed at the likes of Y-12 in Tennessee.  I don't see how anyone could be against this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's bad that we now have a politically expedient reason to disassemble the 700 oldest , least reliable , and most expensive warheads in the arsenal ? This is going to save us a boatload of money from the DoD budget , look good while doing it , all the while keeping lots of nuclear scientists employed at the likes of Y-12 in Tennessee .
I do n't see how anyone could be against this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's bad that we now have a politically expedient reason to disassemble the 700 oldest, least reliable, and most expensive warheads in the arsenal?This is going to save us a boatload of money from the DoD budget, look good while doing it, all the while keeping lots of nuclear scientists employed at the likes of Y-12 in Tennessee.
I don't see how anyone could be against this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31639374</id>
	<title>This is such a mistake</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1269704340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads.  The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war. Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.<br>
In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program. We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder. Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon. Japan has found Uranium up there, and it is ideal for converting to Plutonium for use on the moon and mars and general space travel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads .
The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think ' that they can win in a nuclear war .
Considering that they are focused on doing offensive , not defensive , I am concerned about this .
In addition , I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program .
We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder .
Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon .
Japan has found Uranium up there , and it is ideal for converting to Plutonium for use on the moon and mars and general space travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads.
The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war.
Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.
In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program.
We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder.
Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon.
Japan has found Uranium up there, and it is ideal for converting to Plutonium for use on the moon and mars and general space travel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637458</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1269720240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that how godly Obama is these days?  He can sign treaties himself without having them ratified by the Senate?  Hello Palpatine...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that how godly Obama is these days ?
He can sign treaties himself without having them ratified by the Senate ?
Hello Palpatine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that how godly Obama is these days?
He can sign treaties himself without having them ratified by the Senate?
Hello Palpatine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633518</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269602940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The water glass standing on my table says otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The water glass standing on my table says otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The water glass standing on my table says otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632322</id>
	<title>Re:Not good</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1269597360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese already know that Russia is a more likely threat to them than the US.</p><p>North Korea is a threat mainly to themselves and occasionally to the South Koreans.  North Korea is unable to mount an attack that would go much further than a few miles past their borders, they just plain do not have the logistics necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese already know that Russia is a more likely threat to them than the US.North Korea is a threat mainly to themselves and occasionally to the South Koreans .
North Korea is unable to mount an attack that would go much further than a few miles past their borders , they just plain do not have the logistics necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese already know that Russia is a more likely threat to them than the US.North Korea is a threat mainly to themselves and occasionally to the South Koreans.
North Korea is unable to mount an attack that would go much further than a few miles past their borders, they just plain do not have the logistics necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633740</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1269604320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's partly, at least, a realization on the part of the Russians that much of their arsenal isn't functional.  They don't have the money to bring everything back to working order, so why not take the missiles that are rusting in place and trade them away in an arms control agreement.
</p><p>They'll still have a more than credible deterrent with just the newer rockets like Topol-M, and this deal will free up desperately needed money for new submarines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's partly , at least , a realization on the part of the Russians that much of their arsenal is n't functional .
They do n't have the money to bring everything back to working order , so why not take the missiles that are rusting in place and trade them away in an arms control agreement .
They 'll still have a more than credible deterrent with just the newer rockets like Topol-M , and this deal will free up desperately needed money for new submarines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's partly, at least, a realization on the part of the Russians that much of their arsenal isn't functional.
They don't have the money to bring everything back to working order, so why not take the missiles that are rusting in place and trade them away in an arms control agreement.
They'll still have a more than credible deterrent with just the newer rockets like Topol-M, and this deal will free up desperately needed money for new submarines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269597420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Like every country in the world, they're a Competitor for resources. The fact that they have warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest. They don't necessarily have to launch Nukes into US soil in order to make a point.</p><p>2. Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country. I'm not anti-Russian, but they do have weapons of mass destruction. If the wrong people were in charge, and if desperate they could threaten attacks to get resources. Similar to number one.</p><p>On note from the article, I don't really see how that is that important. Yes there are less Nukes, but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over. It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Like every country in the world , they 're a Competitor for resources .
The fact that they have warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest .
They do n't necessarily have to launch Nukes into US soil in order to make a point.2 .
Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country .
I 'm not anti-Russian , but they do have weapons of mass destruction .
If the wrong people were in charge , and if desperate they could threaten attacks to get resources .
Similar to number one.On note from the article , I do n't really see how that is that important .
Yes there are less Nukes , but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over .
It just seems like a waste of air negotiating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Like every country in the world, they're a Competitor for resources.
The fact that they have warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest.
They don't necessarily have to launch Nukes into US soil in order to make a point.2.
Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country.
I'm not anti-Russian, but they do have weapons of mass destruction.
If the wrong people were in charge, and if desperate they could threaten attacks to get resources.
Similar to number one.On note from the article, I don't really see how that is that important.
Yes there are less Nukes, but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over.
It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632286</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>GuJiaXian</author>
	<datestamp>1269597240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you honestly willing to assume that their warheads are now all duds? Regardless of any political or environmental views or feelings, it seems naive to assume that all those weapons out there "probably wouldn't even go foom."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you honestly willing to assume that their warheads are now all duds ?
Regardless of any political or environmental views or feelings , it seems naive to assume that all those weapons out there " probably would n't even go foom .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you honestly willing to assume that their warheads are now all duds?
Regardless of any political or environmental views or feelings, it seems naive to assume that all those weapons out there "probably wouldn't even go foom.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632588</id>
	<title>"Conclude?"</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1269598440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Conclude " means " bring to an end .
" They might have concluded treaty negotiations , but they did n't conclude a treaty ( except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one , which is clearly not what was meant ) .
And concluding negotiations does n't imply either agreement or disagreement , so the headline should probably read " US and Russia agree to arms control treaty .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Conclude" means "bring to an end.
" They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant).
And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633162</id>
	<title>My idea of arms control</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1269600960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My idea of arms control is double-checked coordinates,
and officers who aren't afraid to turn their keys.  They
come after superpowers with MIRVs, next thing you know
they'll be trying to take away my mutated anthrax.  I need
that.  For duck huntin'.</p><p>(Don't mod unless you know what sarcasm is, and have watched every episode of Futurama
at least twice).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My idea of arms control is double-checked coordinates , and officers who are n't afraid to turn their keys .
They come after superpowers with MIRVs , next thing you know they 'll be trying to take away my mutated anthrax .
I need that .
For duck huntin' .
( Do n't mod unless you know what sarcasm is , and have watched every episode of Futurama at least twice ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My idea of arms control is double-checked coordinates,
and officers who aren't afraid to turn their keys.
They
come after superpowers with MIRVs, next thing you know
they'll be trying to take away my mutated anthrax.
I need
that.
For duck huntin'.
(Don't mod unless you know what sarcasm is, and have watched every episode of Futurama
at least twice).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632354</id>
	<title>Now if they could only agree on Iran's nukes</title>
	<author>Gomer79</author>
	<datestamp>1269597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be more impressed if they could agree on a way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be more impressed if they could agree on a way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be more impressed if they could agree on a way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632626</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269598500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now if a nuclear war happens, it won't be that bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now if a nuclear war happens , it wo n't be that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now if a nuclear war happens, it won't be that bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633562</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>lul\_wat</author>
	<datestamp>1269603180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny cause I've never seen a 'made in USA' label on anything either

I take that back actually, Staggs Chilli is made in the USA right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny cause I 've never seen a 'made in USA ' label on anything either I take that back actually , Staggs Chilli is made in the USA right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny cause I've never seen a 'made in USA' label on anything either

I take that back actually, Staggs Chilli is made in the USA right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634834</id>
	<title>Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1269611220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?</p></div></blockquote><p>Since (IIRC) SALT II, the bombs have been counted separately from the launchers specifically because of MIRV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does such a system count as one warhead , or do each of the bombs count separately ? Since ( IIRC ) SALT II , the bombs have been counted separately from the launchers specifically because of MIRV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?Since (IIRC) SALT II, the bombs have been counted separately from the launchers specifically because of MIRV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633188</id>
	<title>Uuum, we did have such treaties since the 80s!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269601080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.</p><p>How quickly &ldquo;people&rdquo; (or rather cattle) forget...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.How quickly    people    ( or rather cattle ) forget.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.How quickly “people” (or rather cattle) forget...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632684</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1269598740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1.We aren't enemies anymore. Right?</i></p><p>We negotiate treaties with non-enemies regularly, holding treaties with the UK, Canada, and Mexico.  It isn't always meant to solve disputes, but in some cases to head them off before they can become a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.We are n't enemies anymore .
Right ? We negotiate treaties with non-enemies regularly , holding treaties with the UK , Canada , and Mexico .
It is n't always meant to solve disputes , but in some cases to head them off before they can become a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.We aren't enemies anymore.
Right?We negotiate treaties with non-enemies regularly, holding treaties with the UK, Canada, and Mexico.
It isn't always meant to solve disputes, but in some cases to head them off before they can become a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</id>
	<title>Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I have to speak an unspeakable Truth here.</p><p>We shouldn't be negotiating treaties with Russia anymore.  Two equally good reasons:</p><p>1.We aren't enemies anymore.  Right?</p><p>2.Russia wouldn't be a threat to us anyway.  They are a third world country with some residual nukes from a day when they were a second world country with nukes.  They haven't had the resources to maintain their conventional army, odds are they haven't had any better luck maintaining the nukes so they probably wouldn't even go foom!</p><p>We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I have to speak an unspeakable Truth here.We should n't be negotiating treaties with Russia anymore .
Two equally good reasons : 1.We are n't enemies anymore .
Right ? 2.Russia would n't be a threat to us anyway .
They are a third world country with some residual nukes from a day when they were a second world country with nukes .
They have n't had the resources to maintain their conventional army , odds are they have n't had any better luck maintaining the nukes so they probably would n't even go foom ! We all understand what is going on here , The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free ( stupid !
) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I have to speak an unspeakable Truth here.We shouldn't be negotiating treaties with Russia anymore.
Two equally good reasons:1.We aren't enemies anymore.
Right?2.Russia wouldn't be a threat to us anyway.
They are a third world country with some residual nukes from a day when they were a second world country with nukes.
They haven't had the resources to maintain their conventional army, odds are they haven't had any better luck maintaining the nukes so they probably wouldn't even go foom!We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!
) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31646140</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting number of bombers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269772440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only a fraction of that is still flying though. The 700 number seems to be for Russia's sake since they have three distinct heavy bombers I can think of, the Blackjack, the Bear and the Backfire while the US just has the B-52.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a fraction of that is still flying though .
The 700 number seems to be for Russia 's sake since they have three distinct heavy bombers I can think of , the Blackjack , the Bear and the Backfire while the US just has the B-52 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a fraction of that is still flying though.
The 700 number seems to be for Russia's sake since they have three distinct heavy bombers I can think of, the Blackjack, the Bear and the Backfire while the US just has the B-52.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632334</id>
	<title>Nuclear Arms?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269597420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't hug your children with nuclear arms !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636286</id>
	<title>I have never seen a "made in Russia" label on anyt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you haven't bought ammo then have you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you have n't bought ammo then have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you haven't bought ammo then have you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31638924</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269699720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh oh. Somebody opened a political can of worms. And he was marked +5 Insightful besides. Alright. I'll bite.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact. You're good.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>I'm going to be fined $1000 for not belonging to an HMO, and my personal taxes will increase $1500 (according to a CNN Sunday Morning report). If you think I'm going to praise Obama for that, then please think again.</p><p>Yes Obama is good for having eliminated some of those missiles. Good job.</p><p>But IMHO the number of things he's done wrong outweight the good.  Like renewing the Patriot Act.  Given himself (or any future leader) power to turnoff the internet, and so on.   In general I view Obama as just a continuance of Bush's policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh oh .
Somebody opened a political can of worms .
And he was marked + 5 Insightful besides .
Alright. I 'll bite. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Damn Obama , first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact .
You 're good. &gt; &gt; &gt; I 'm going to be fined $ 1000 for not belonging to an HMO , and my personal taxes will increase $ 1500 ( according to a CNN Sunday Morning report ) .
If you think I 'm going to praise Obama for that , then please think again.Yes Obama is good for having eliminated some of those missiles .
Good job.But IMHO the number of things he 's done wrong outweight the good .
Like renewing the Patriot Act .
Given himself ( or any future leader ) power to turnoff the internet , and so on .
In general I view Obama as just a continuance of Bush 's policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh oh.
Somebody opened a political can of worms.
And he was marked +5 Insightful besides.
Alright. I'll bite.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact.
You're good.&gt;&gt;&gt;I'm going to be fined $1000 for not belonging to an HMO, and my personal taxes will increase $1500 (according to a CNN Sunday Morning report).
If you think I'm going to praise Obama for that, then please think again.Yes Obama is good for having eliminated some of those missiles.
Good job.But IMHO the number of things he's done wrong outweight the good.
Like renewing the Patriot Act.
Given himself (or any future leader) power to turnoff the internet, and so on.
In general I view Obama as just a continuance of Bush's policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632518</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1269598140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 1. Like every country in the world, they're a Competitor for resources. The fact that they have<br>&gt; warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest.</p><p>So we should be doing arms reduction treaties with France?  They compete with us and could probably muster as many WORKING warheads as the current Russians.  Or how 'bout China?  No, we aren't on the brink of world war with the French or the Chinese.  And neither are we with the Russians.</p><p>&gt; 2. Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country. I'm not anti-Russian,<br>&gt; but they do have weapons of mass destruction. If the wrong people were in charge, and if desperate<br>&gt; they could threaten attacks to get resources. Similar to number one.</p><p>Yea, so?  They have no ability to harm US other than the hope one of their nukes would actually go Foom!  Most of their Navy couldn't leave port if the fate of the world depended upon it and their air power is almost as pathetic.  I'm all for realizing the reason for NATO's existence is gone and leaving the defense of Europe to the Europeans.  Having to fund a military of their own would level the competitive playing field a bit and might just force them to move back toward freedom instead of continuing to drift toward socialism/fascism.</p><p>&gt; It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.</p><p>Beyond the reason I proposed in the first post there is the need among some people to prop up the reputation of Russia, to pretend they are still a great power.  I'll leave the analysis of that as an exercise for the student.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 1 .
Like every country in the world , they 're a Competitor for resources .
The fact that they have &gt; warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest.So we should be doing arms reduction treaties with France ?
They compete with us and could probably muster as many WORKING warheads as the current Russians .
Or how 'bout China ?
No , we are n't on the brink of world war with the French or the Chinese .
And neither are we with the Russians. &gt; 2 .
Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country .
I 'm not anti-Russian , &gt; but they do have weapons of mass destruction .
If the wrong people were in charge , and if desperate &gt; they could threaten attacks to get resources .
Similar to number one.Yea , so ?
They have no ability to harm US other than the hope one of their nukes would actually go Foom !
Most of their Navy could n't leave port if the fate of the world depended upon it and their air power is almost as pathetic .
I 'm all for realizing the reason for NATO 's existence is gone and leaving the defense of Europe to the Europeans .
Having to fund a military of their own would level the competitive playing field a bit and might just force them to move back toward freedom instead of continuing to drift toward socialism/fascism. &gt; It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.Beyond the reason I proposed in the first post there is the need among some people to prop up the reputation of Russia , to pretend they are still a great power .
I 'll leave the analysis of that as an exercise for the student .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 1.
Like every country in the world, they're a Competitor for resources.
The fact that they have&gt; warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest.So we should be doing arms reduction treaties with France?
They compete with us and could probably muster as many WORKING warheads as the current Russians.
Or how 'bout China?
No, we aren't on the brink of world war with the French or the Chinese.
And neither are we with the Russians.&gt; 2.
Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country.
I'm not anti-Russian,&gt; but they do have weapons of mass destruction.
If the wrong people were in charge, and if desperate&gt; they could threaten attacks to get resources.
Similar to number one.Yea, so?
They have no ability to harm US other than the hope one of their nukes would actually go Foom!
Most of their Navy couldn't leave port if the fate of the world depended upon it and their air power is almost as pathetic.
I'm all for realizing the reason for NATO's existence is gone and leaving the defense of Europe to the Europeans.
Having to fund a military of their own would level the competitive playing field a bit and might just force them to move back toward freedom instead of continuing to drift toward socialism/fascism.&gt; It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.Beyond the reason I proposed in the first post there is the need among some people to prop up the reputation of Russia, to pretend they are still a great power.
I'll leave the analysis of that as an exercise for the student.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634996</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269612300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Assuming you are in the US) Perhaps people living in the US will never see a Tupolev or a Sukhoi or whatever in the same way the average Russian will never see a Boeing.  Almost no airline in the West use Soviet/Russian aircraft.  The situation in the US is also tainted by the historical political situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Assuming you are in the US ) Perhaps people living in the US will never see a Tupolev or a Sukhoi or whatever in the same way the average Russian will never see a Boeing .
Almost no airline in the West use Soviet/Russian aircraft .
The situation in the US is also tainted by the historical political situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Assuming you are in the US) Perhaps people living in the US will never see a Tupolev or a Sukhoi or whatever in the same way the average Russian will never see a Boeing.
Almost no airline in the West use Soviet/Russian aircraft.
The situation in the US is also tainted by the historical political situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31635526</id>
	<title>But will Congress bollux the whole thing?</title>
	<author>2muchcoffeeman</author>
	<datestamp>1269615240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earlier this week Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88285-mccain-dont-expect-gop-cooperation-the-rest-of-this-year" title="thehill.com">his party would not cooperate with the Democrats for the rest of the year</a> [thehill.com].</p><p>So if they stick to that, how could it end? Well, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-26/the-next-gop-screw-up/" title="thedailybeast.com">badly</a> [thedailybeast.com]. I just hope <a href="http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z149/deshields538/common-sense.jpg" title="photobucket.com">common sense</a> [photobucket.com] breaks out at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earlier this week Sen. John McCain ( R-Ariz. ) said that his party would not cooperate with the Democrats for the rest of the year [ thehill.com ] .So if they stick to that , how could it end ?
Well , badly [ thedailybeast.com ] .
I just hope common sense [ photobucket.com ] breaks out at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earlier this week Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that his party would not cooperate with the Democrats for the rest of the year [thehill.com].So if they stick to that, how could it end?
Well, badly [thedailybeast.com].
I just hope common sense [photobucket.com] breaks out at some point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636256</id>
	<title>Re:"Conclude?"</title>
	<author>Captain Nitpick</author>
	<datestamp>1269620160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."</p></div><p>This is incorrect. The headline uses the word "conclude" correctly.</p><p>"Bring to an end" is one of the many meanings of conclude. The one being used here is "to bring to a decision or settlement; settle or arrange finally: to conclude a treaty."</p><p>This use is not only correct, it is the dictionary example of this particular meaning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Conclude " means " bring to an end .
" They might have concluded treaty negotiations , but they did n't conclude a treaty ( except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one , which is clearly not what was meant ) .
And concluding negotiations does n't imply either agreement or disagreement , so the headline should probably read " US and Russia agree to arms control treaty .
" This is incorrect .
The headline uses the word " conclude " correctly .
" Bring to an end " is one of the many meanings of conclude .
The one being used here is " to bring to a decision or settlement ; settle or arrange finally : to conclude a treaty .
" This use is not only correct , it is the dictionary example of this particular meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Conclude" means "bring to an end.
" They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant).
And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty.
"This is incorrect.
The headline uses the word "conclude" correctly.
"Bring to an end" is one of the many meanings of conclude.
The one being used here is "to bring to a decision or settlement; settle or arrange finally: to conclude a treaty.
"This use is not only correct, it is the dictionary example of this particular meaning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633114</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1269600600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On note from the article, I don't really see how that is that important. Yes there are less Nukes, but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over. It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.</p></div><p>There's never been enough nuclear weapons to "destroy" the world a few times over. And the huge reductions in the nuclear arsenal greatly reduces the maximum damage from a short term nuclear war. This especially includes secondary effects like fallout and nuclear winter which are more likely to harm third parties.<br> <br>

Nuclear weapons are extraordinarily destructive, but even that can be greatly exaggerated. For example, in the movie, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318627/" title="imdb.com">Resident Evil: Apocalypse</a> [imdb.com], a cruise missile with a five kiloton warhead wipes out a large US city. The only problem? That bomb is only a fraction of the explosive power of the only nuclear bombs used in war, Hiroshima (13 kilotons) and Nagasaki (21 kilotons). Even Nagasaki wouldn't have wiped out that city (there'd still be plenty of mostly intact zombies running around, for example).<br> <br>

For whatever reason, people like to exaggerate the effects of nuclear weapons yet at the same time downplay their effectiveness as peacekeeping tools.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On note from the article , I do n't really see how that is that important .
Yes there are less Nukes , but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over .
It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.There 's never been enough nuclear weapons to " destroy " the world a few times over .
And the huge reductions in the nuclear arsenal greatly reduces the maximum damage from a short term nuclear war .
This especially includes secondary effects like fallout and nuclear winter which are more likely to harm third parties .
Nuclear weapons are extraordinarily destructive , but even that can be greatly exaggerated .
For example , in the movie , Resident Evil : Apocalypse [ imdb.com ] , a cruise missile with a five kiloton warhead wipes out a large US city .
The only problem ?
That bomb is only a fraction of the explosive power of the only nuclear bombs used in war , Hiroshima ( 13 kilotons ) and Nagasaki ( 21 kilotons ) .
Even Nagasaki would n't have wiped out that city ( there 'd still be plenty of mostly intact zombies running around , for example ) .
For whatever reason , people like to exaggerate the effects of nuclear weapons yet at the same time downplay their effectiveness as peacekeeping tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On note from the article, I don't really see how that is that important.
Yes there are less Nukes, but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over.
It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.There's never been enough nuclear weapons to "destroy" the world a few times over.
And the huge reductions in the nuclear arsenal greatly reduces the maximum damage from a short term nuclear war.
This especially includes secondary effects like fallout and nuclear winter which are more likely to harm third parties.
Nuclear weapons are extraordinarily destructive, but even that can be greatly exaggerated.
For example, in the movie, Resident Evil: Apocalypse [imdb.com], a cruise missile with a five kiloton warhead wipes out a large US city.
The only problem?
That bomb is only a fraction of the explosive power of the only nuclear bombs used in war, Hiroshima (13 kilotons) and Nagasaki (21 kilotons).
Even Nagasaki wouldn't have wiped out that city (there'd still be plenty of mostly intact zombies running around, for example).
For whatever reason, people like to exaggerate the effects of nuclear weapons yet at the same time downplay their effectiveness as peacekeeping tools.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633470</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1269602640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.</p></div><p>This is actually another example of Obama's bipartisan agenda.  He is after all following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan on this issue, so I assume we'll be hearing soon from Republicans everywhere about what a great day for America this is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all understand what is going on here , The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free ( stupid !
) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.This is actually another example of Obama 's bipartisan agenda .
He is after all following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan on this issue , so I assume we 'll be hearing soon from Republicans everywhere about what a great day for America this is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!
) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.This is actually another example of Obama's bipartisan agenda.
He is after all following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan on this issue, so I assume we'll be hearing soon from Republicans everywhere about what a great day for America this is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633402</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1269602340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What can we <i>not</i> blow up with the 1,500 strategic warheads still permitted under the treaty!?  This is mainly just going to save both of us a lot of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can we not blow up with the 1,500 strategic warheads still permitted under the treaty ! ?
This is mainly just going to save both of us a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can we not blow up with the 1,500 strategic warheads still permitted under the treaty!?
This is mainly just going to save both of us a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632592</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269598440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh.  Somebody opened a political can of worms.  And he was marked +3 Insightful besides.  Alright.  I'll bite.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact. You're good.</p><p>I'm going to be fined $1000 for not belonging to an HMO, and my personal taxes will increase $1500 (according to a CNN Sunday Morning report).  If you think I'm going to praise Obama for that, then please think again.</p><p>Yes Obama is good for having eliminated some of those missiles.  Good job.</p><p>But there are other things I could criticize Obama for, like his decision to track cellphones, turnoff the internet whenever the president (either him or some future dude) feels like it, and also signing the Patriot Renewal Act.  PLUS: If I lived in the EU, I'd be asking why America is building a shield instead of the Europeans?</p><p>In general I view Obama as just a continuance of Bush's policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh .
Somebody opened a political can of worms .
And he was marked + 3 Insightful besides .
Alright. I 'll bite. &gt; &gt; &gt; Damn Obama , first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact .
You 're good.I 'm going to be fined $ 1000 for not belonging to an HMO , and my personal taxes will increase $ 1500 ( according to a CNN Sunday Morning report ) .
If you think I 'm going to praise Obama for that , then please think again.Yes Obama is good for having eliminated some of those missiles .
Good job.But there are other things I could criticize Obama for , like his decision to track cellphones , turnoff the internet whenever the president ( either him or some future dude ) feels like it , and also signing the Patriot Renewal Act .
PLUS : If I lived in the EU , I 'd be asking why America is building a shield instead of the Europeans ? In general I view Obama as just a continuance of Bush 's policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh.
Somebody opened a political can of worms.
And he was marked +3 Insightful besides.
Alright.  I'll bite.&gt;&gt;&gt;Damn Obama, first healthcare and now cutting nukes whilst keeping your shield intact.
You're good.I'm going to be fined $1000 for not belonging to an HMO, and my personal taxes will increase $1500 (according to a CNN Sunday Morning report).
If you think I'm going to praise Obama for that, then please think again.Yes Obama is good for having eliminated some of those missiles.
Good job.But there are other things I could criticize Obama for, like his decision to track cellphones, turnoff the internet whenever the president (either him or some future dude) feels like it, and also signing the Patriot Renewal Act.
PLUS: If I lived in the EU, I'd be asking why America is building a shield instead of the Europeans?In general I view Obama as just a continuance of Bush's policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634224</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1269607200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No you're going about it all wrong.<br>You should be saying "Health Care Reform?  That's not real health care reform - it's a fraction of what Nixon tried to do."  You see - you are just showing blind tribalism over something that used to be Republican policy and should be bipartisan.<br>The other bit where you're wrong is expecting sudden change of everything when government is sloooow.  Of course just about everything is going to be a continuation of Bush's policies for years.<br>I wouldn't trust those CNN numbers either since they would be coming out of PR from someone lobbying against the changes.  It's not a sudden descent into communism driven by a magic nigger, it's just a few changes to get things away from being an insurance scam and a bit more like health care from a mainstream lawyer that just happens to be a Democrat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No you 're going about it all wrong.You should be saying " Health Care Reform ?
That 's not real health care reform - it 's a fraction of what Nixon tried to do .
" You see - you are just showing blind tribalism over something that used to be Republican policy and should be bipartisan.The other bit where you 're wrong is expecting sudden change of everything when government is sloooow .
Of course just about everything is going to be a continuation of Bush 's policies for years.I would n't trust those CNN numbers either since they would be coming out of PR from someone lobbying against the changes .
It 's not a sudden descent into communism driven by a magic nigger , it 's just a few changes to get things away from being an insurance scam and a bit more like health care from a mainstream lawyer that just happens to be a Democrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you're going about it all wrong.You should be saying "Health Care Reform?
That's not real health care reform - it's a fraction of what Nixon tried to do.
"  You see - you are just showing blind tribalism over something that used to be Republican policy and should be bipartisan.The other bit where you're wrong is expecting sudden change of everything when government is sloooow.
Of course just about everything is going to be a continuation of Bush's policies for years.I wouldn't trust those CNN numbers either since they would be coming out of PR from someone lobbying against the changes.
It's not a sudden descent into communism driven by a magic nigger, it's just a few changes to get things away from being an insurance scam and a bit more like health care from a mainstream lawyer that just happens to be a Democrat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31659662</id>
	<title>Re:Do MIRVs count as 1 warhead?</title>
	<author>MachineShedFred</author>
	<datestamp>1269888120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The distinction between launch vehicles and warheads takes care of this.  A Peacekeeper ICBM (LGM-118A) could carry 10 warheads (or a combination of warheads and decoys) when it was produced, and the Minuteman-III (LGM-30) can carry 3 warheads, though most of the active LGM-30's only carry one recycled W87 from the decommissioned Peacekeepers, because it has much more fuzing capability and much more advanced safety systems than the original W78 warheads designed for this missile.</p><p>The START-I treaty limited how many MIRVs could be on each launch vehicle.  Under START-II, MIRVs were supposed to be all but abolished, but it never went into effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The distinction between launch vehicles and warheads takes care of this .
A Peacekeeper ICBM ( LGM-118A ) could carry 10 warheads ( or a combination of warheads and decoys ) when it was produced , and the Minuteman-III ( LGM-30 ) can carry 3 warheads , though most of the active LGM-30 's only carry one recycled W87 from the decommissioned Peacekeepers , because it has much more fuzing capability and much more advanced safety systems than the original W78 warheads designed for this missile.The START-I treaty limited how many MIRVs could be on each launch vehicle .
Under START-II , MIRVs were supposed to be all but abolished , but it never went into effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The distinction between launch vehicles and warheads takes care of this.
A Peacekeeper ICBM (LGM-118A) could carry 10 warheads (or a combination of warheads and decoys) when it was produced, and the Minuteman-III (LGM-30) can carry 3 warheads, though most of the active LGM-30's only carry one recycled W87 from the decommissioned Peacekeepers, because it has much more fuzing capability and much more advanced safety systems than the original W78 warheads designed for this missile.The START-I treaty limited how many MIRVs could be on each launch vehicle.
Under START-II, MIRVs were supposed to be all but abolished, but it never went into effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633258</id>
	<title>I can see the headlines now</title>
	<author>ThanatosMinor</author>
	<datestamp>1269601440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama planning to cut nuclear arms.  Emo President trying to see past 100 megaton bangs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama planning to cut nuclear arms .
Emo President trying to see past 100 megaton bangs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama planning to cut nuclear arms.
Emo President trying to see past 100 megaton bangs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634688</id>
	<title>too bad</title>
	<author>tomohawk</author>
	<datestamp>1269610260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad they threw the Eastern Europeans under the bus to get this far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they threw the Eastern Europeans under the bus to get this far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they threw the Eastern Europeans under the bus to get this far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632710</id>
	<title>Re:Hooray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269598860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Selfish perspective:  Obama gave me a new monthy bill and Bush gave me $600.  Bush wins everytime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Selfish perspective : Obama gave me a new monthy bill and Bush gave me $ 600 .
Bush wins everytime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selfish perspective:  Obama gave me a new monthy bill and Bush gave me $600.
Bush wins everytime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1269597960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pay more attention to Russia:  They've found the resources they need to raise all the capital they need to maintain their military at any level they choose.  They've discovered they have petroleum riches comparable to the middle east...  I'd argue that their nuclear industry is in better shape than that in the United States.  They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market.  Their space industry rivals, and in some ways exceeds, the technological capability of both the United States and European Union.  But, your first point is correct, we're not really enemies any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay more attention to Russia : They 've found the resources they need to raise all the capital they need to maintain their military at any level they choose .
They 've discovered they have petroleum riches comparable to the middle east... I 'd argue that their nuclear industry is in better shape than that in the United States .
They also ( still ) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity , which they 're leveraging on the global market .
Their space industry rivals , and in some ways exceeds , the technological capability of both the United States and European Union .
But , your first point is correct , we 're not really enemies any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay more attention to Russia:  They've found the resources they need to raise all the capital they need to maintain their military at any level they choose.
They've discovered they have petroleum riches comparable to the middle east...  I'd argue that their nuclear industry is in better shape than that in the United States.
They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market.
Their space industry rivals, and in some ways exceeds, the technological capability of both the United States and European Union.
But, your first point is correct, we're not really enemies any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637870</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269684600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market.</p></div></blockquote><p>I have never seen a "made in Russia" label on anything. China? Taiwan? Pakistan? South Korea? Mexico? Yes yes and yes. Russia? Never.</p></div><p>You don't live in Europe, do you? We see it here all the time if you look for it. The two lamps in my livingroom were bought in IKEA but made in Russia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also ( still ) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity , which they 're leveraging on the global market.I have never seen a " made in Russia " label on anything .
China ? Taiwan ?
Pakistan ? South Korea ?
Mexico ? Yes yes and yes .
Russia ? Never.You do n't live in Europe , do you ?
We see it here all the time if you look for it .
The two lamps in my livingroom were bought in IKEA but made in Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market.I have never seen a "made in Russia" label on anything.
China? Taiwan?
Pakistan? South Korea?
Mexico? Yes yes and yes.
Russia? Never.You don't live in Europe, do you?
We see it here all the time if you look for it.
The two lamps in my livingroom were bought in IKEA but made in Russia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632768</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking an Unspeakable Truth to Power</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1269599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually very important. Most of us here (me included) are too young to remember. But our parents generation lived in fear of a nuclear war. Tensions were very high and the nuclear build up was huge. Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually very important .
Most of us here ( me included ) are too young to remember .
But our parents generation lived in fear of a nuclear war .
Tensions were very high and the nuclear build up was huge .
Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament wo n't happen quickly , but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually very important.
Most of us here (me included) are too young to remember.
But our parents generation lived in fear of a nuclear war.
Tensions were very high and the nuclear build up was huge.
Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632278</id>
	<title>Re:Not good</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1269597180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dear United States of America and Russian Federation, your new enemies are China, <b>North Korea</b> and various countries in the Middle East.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Interestingly theres just <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQydsIWmNQZpwRriADac51u5rx8gD9EMFM1G0" title="google.com">now happening something between North Korea and South Korea</a> [google.com].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday, prompting the South's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.</p><p>Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.</p><p>After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, including the defense minister and other top military officials.</p><p>Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea, raising fears of an exchange of gunfire.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear United States of America and Russian Federation , your new enemies are China , North Korea and various countries in the Middle East .
Interestingly theres just now happening something between North Korea and South Korea [ google.com ] .A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday , prompting the South 's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.Earlier Friday , North Korea 's military threatened " unpredictable strikes , " including a nuclear attack , in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.After the ship began sinking , President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers , including the defense minister and other top military officials.Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea , raising fears of an exchange of gunfire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear United States of America and Russian Federation, your new enemies are China, North Korea and various countries in the Middle East.
Interestingly theres just now happening something between North Korea and South Korea [google.com].A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday, prompting the South's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, including the defense minister and other top military officials.Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea, raising fears of an exchange of gunfire.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31659662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31646140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31638924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31653628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31659372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31635138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31666174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31651788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1949222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31659662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31635138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31666174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31638924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31659372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31646140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1949222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31653628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31637870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31636286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31634996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31633114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31651788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1949222.31632544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
