kactus

They are not going to pay back since if they opted out they will file for bankcruptcy. The rest of the market will definitely feel the pinch. time will tell...

Wouldn't buy into yet another "cooked up story" to get reactions and knee jerks for an attack... This news will probably join the rest of other anti Iran rhetorics on this forum and elsewhere since it all started in 2006.... It's yet another sensationalising tabloid.

Yeah...but I said the non-monetary implications for opting out of euro zone... Hence the example about the british tourists visiting other EU countries when on holiday.

The whole thing is a shamble... If the greeks decide to default which effectively means it will happen next year it will become bankrupt...No doubt about this. But imagine if UK decided to opt out of Euro zone tomorrow. Let's consider the non-monetary implications. people will have to queue in non-euro immigration area to get their passports stamped for a visit to let's say Costa del sol...

I don't think I have criticized the concept of capitalism to qualify as one of those people. I like to think this is clear from my previous posts. To follow up from earlier, I like to think that banks have learned their lessons. More development on Greece below: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15538809

Or you can argue that banks have been lending money to the wrong people. In other words to those who realistically can not afford to pay back.

Why? They owe the money. You can't just write it off. Otherwise it will have domino effect on other EU economies as it has already taken its toll on Germans.

No actually my response was to Topaz's assertion on US debt and NWO.

Sad it is indeed with the beginning of the end of capitalism....

well well 10% increase on VAT, sstaggering unemployment in public sector, astronomical inflation and a crippled economy for many years to come is what Greece has inherited..They have no choice but to say yes to the referendum.

Well...rhetorical questions but since you asked if this tyrant which I agree with you has the blood of many lybians on his hands and if he was not killed and I repeat not injured by Nato bombardments of his convoy and subsequently killed by rebels perhaps and only perhaps he could have answered some of these questions instead of flatly denying that he was not fit to answer any question in the court of law. You just can not take the law in your own hand and kill dictators especially when they have a lot to answer for. Look we can sit down and talk about how bad he was, the fact that none of the arab countries got along with him, etc etc etc It still doesn't change the fact that the very British prime minister was a so called friend of Gaddafi shaking his hand in his tent just a few months before the end of his prime ministerial role! This has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with how a foreign policy can go pear shaped with devasting long term consequences to put it midly.

Absolutely correct! Make no doubt about this. Now we wouldn't want to fight a war over Zimbabwe and package it as "humanitarian aid" to support their people from "mad dog" Mugabe. Talking of resources there's an interesting link on BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

The best success/ outcome here seems to be the fact that the "mad dog" of the oil rich Lybia had reached his expiry date of 42 years of ruthless ruling when he decided to introduce a different currency for oil markets and west decided to liberate Lybia under pretext of democracy. Heck we could have liberated mad Mugabe in Zimbabwe but that wouldn't have given us the best outcome. Would it?

The attack was for his role in terrorist bombing not the fact that he has been killing/ torturing his own people for 42 years.

This is what I tried to explain earlier that Gaddafi's ruthless ruling lasted 42 years. Where were we all this time to be their saviour of "freedom" and "democracy" whilst he was killing his own people all this time??

You ask me if the brutality of Gadaffi is fake. I answered his brutality towards his own people has been going on for 42 years when we turned a blind eye and let him continue. So there is nothing new... While there many accusations of wrongdoings by Gadaffi he still wasn't tried and convicted. Nato claimed that there goal was to establish democracy in Libya. This was the basis. Democratic nations value the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Killing Gadaffi who has not been through a court of law seems to defeat any claims made by Nato and the rebels. Practiocing democracy is about maintaning the rule of law not arbitrary killing.

Thought my point is clear but obviously it isn't...42 years of ruling and tyranny by Gadaffi and his systematic killings and torture of his people didn't seem to get much coverage in the past. Infact when he became a so called ally he wasn't so bad in the eyes of the west. Please read my previous posts on this thread. Thanks for giving a little insight in your little adventures around the world. I mean it it's a little more info than I expected.

Where have you been for the last 42 years?

I have no problem with that and businesses seizing opportunities. What i do have problem with is this whole "cooking up" stories prior to attacks and this whole notion of liberating libya under the context of "freedom" and "democracy" as a justification to attack tyrannies of oil rich arab countries when we knew what the true intentiontions were...

Democracy, freedom of speech and the rest of these jazzy words are packaged in disguise to secure the ongoing "rebuilding projects" for oil rich Lybia. Only this morning a group of contractors left UK to seize this opportunity and not lose out on lucrative deals. Of course a new friendly lybian government that can fulfill this order is what is required whilst offering some sort of "democracy" to lybians.

Well,that's the way it goes with dictators. Some leave a legacy some become forgotten as soon as they are dead. Chapter closed...History repeating itself. I suspect NATO could have kept him alive if they wanted to. Gadaffi has indeed a lot of questions to answer for. Don't forget that the same megalomaniac you talk about is the same person Tony Blair and Gordon Brown tried to reach him in the past through signing some lucrative contracts but still failed to get to the bottom of Lockerbie bombing, PC Evonne Fletcher's murder, his dealings with Pakistan (US's ally) and so many other unanswered questions. Look I am not disputing that we could have got the answers we want from Gaddafi through court had he stayed alivebut surely it would have given some reassurance to the victims of Lockerbie bombing about the truth. What really baffles me is why there is this tendency to go after tyrants that are typically in oil rich countries? Why not people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe or they have no interest to serve in the name of democracy?

Yep...

Guess you may be right. But I doubt even the next few years.... I think it was the scottish government that ordered his release nevertheless it was a wrong move in my opinion.

The hawks have been robbing their hands on this for too long with all the hoohaas for an attack on Iran.......You can actually see how many threads have been openned here with all kinds of rhetorics and war scenarios. Nah the mud wouldn't stick. Let Baird et al bark as loud as they can. You can bet it will get bloodier... On Gaddafi I think keeping him alive wouldn't have served anyone's interest. I mean this is the same guy who shook hand with Blair, Brown and Obama. I always doubted why they released Al Megrahi the mastermind behind Lockerbie bombing to go back to Libya.

No one is denying that...The point is that there are still unanswered questions about the Lockerbie bombing, his nuclear dealings with the so called america's "ally" Pakistan amongst other mysterious unresolved questions. Lots of other dictators were tried at Hague why should this be an exception? Personally, I would have thought that killing Gadaffi has set back the effort to find the truth.