kactus

Following an investigation today it was confirmed that the police did actually used 'inappropriate and excessive force' to deal with protesters. The case below has been on the news recently and still under the investigation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8011418.stm Quite frankly this and a lot of other cases emerging puts little credibility in the police force and the way they should have handled the situation.

Considering the current global recession (the worst since WWII) I would have thought we are already witnessing the collapse of capitalism! The question is how long will it last and can the governments and financial institutions instill the confidence back in pensioners, genuine mortgage holders and the rest of the indigenous population?

Taliban are a nasty piece of work! I don't think anyone will share any sympathy with this brutal oppressive force group unless ofcourse if you are part of pakistani forces guarding along the border with Afghanistan.

Again that was just a hypothesis that is based on threats from Israel to attack Iran. If nuclear bomb makes you detterent then you will think twice about attacking another country. This is a valid point when countries know they have the capability but depolying the weapons tantamounts to their own total destruction. Exactly! But it also acts as a deterrent and makes people think twice. Now I am not saying this is true in the case of Iran as there's no case to even substantiate the validity of the claim that they are in possession of a nuclear bomb. All we can do is to think of scenarios and just have a hog wash talk about the mullahs, terrorists, nuclear devices falling into the hands of hezbollah, and bla bla bla. The mullahs may be fanatics but they certainly are not stupid! Yes, but it was inevitable that Pakistan's possession of that technology is gonna happen sooner than later. Both countries know fully well the consequences of an attack will result in MAD but it was inevitable that Pakistan would eventually become nuclear. Call it from their perspective having a prestige to join a nuclear club, to leverage their power in the region or any other scenarios.

MAD

The amount of money people will have to pay if they are not insured is rediculously astronomical in the US unless you have a proper insurance scheme. And then comes the level of service which is debatable. Change yes! But not in the way it has been handled in the past. Especially when it concerns the foreign policy.

Agreed! This is not an ideal scenario and infact I argue if the whole middle east becomes a nuclear free zone. But you know very well that realistically this isn't possible. If you look at the countries along the persian gulf for example and the amount of military hardware they have bought in the past few years you will realise that the entire region is almost turning into a military zone. With the amount of money invested by arm dealers and US companies in Israel and other middle eastern countries it will put them out of lucrative business of selling the key parts to these countries. Why? Israel has said repeatedly that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran and has warned that it will use nuclear bunker busters in the past. This is one of those plans that has been binned because of the ramifications. Absolutely! But who is talking about invasion? Israelis have threatened to do so in Jan 2007. Infact thay have been discussing an attack on Iran for a while. Israel has had several jets flown around mediterranean region which is about approximately the same distance from Israel to Iran. Not disputing that statement. 1- Where's the evidence that Iran has nuclear bomb? 2- Suppose there's an answer to question 1 which no body has a proof why should Israel attack Iran? Let me rephrase your question: Why should Iran deploy a nuclear bomb on Israel without being provoked in the first place and kill jews and palestinians and destroy all those religious places that is held sacred to both religions in the process? I have made my position clear about nuclear free middle east but since your subject is shifting outside the middle east maybe that rule should also extend to other countries like Pakistan. I agree that Pakistan in the current state is more of a danger and unstable. especially with their relationship with taliban and intelligence sharing, which is not helpful. But you see you can not apply one formula to one country whilst India neighbouring Pakistan has several nuclear warheads at its disposal. Lots of fightings call it religious or the geo-politics of the region is the cause of rivalry between India and Pakistan to this very day. Neither am I! But middle east affair is not two dimensional and it takes a lot more indepth knowledge of the region and other events happening right now that shapes the current affairs. I don't know where I read this. A middle east or rather near east analyst wrote it: If you take the analogy of a spectacle, Israel is like that spectacle through which US views middle east and shapes the foreign policy. Or something to that extent. Now I am not going to get dragged into palestinian/ israeli conflict but these words speak a volume on the way people see things differently.

Trust me I have read so many posts and scenarios on Iran ever since after the invasion of Iraq that frankly I have grown a thick skin and got used to to the same rhetorics on Israel is gonna do this and Israel is gonna do that. People feel inclined to write based on certain preconceptions about this subject and I can honestly say that I have been through so many threads on this forum where likely scenarios of an imminenet attack has been discussed bu doesn't resemble the reality/ hasn't born fruition. It's not my job to convince you of what I think but it's necessary to see things from different perspectives! I respect your opinion it's just that when people talk about each of these countries one should take the the geo-strategic and demographics of each of these nations into consideration. Just simply lump them as evil, terrorists, axis of evil is naive and counter-productive.

Funny you mention this! I kinda do! And it doesn't bother me at all if they have a nuke or two. Certainly with all the sabre rattlings and constant threats of an attack by Israel it does push them to become more vigilant. To say the least, the country's neighbours are invaded by the US forces coupled with the fact that if they have the nuclear capability it would make them deterrent against any eventual attacks. That kinda makes the rationale given the situation with North Korea. As for your comment regarding Ahmadinejad he is just a figure head and a mouthpiece and does not hold the real authority. In short the option of attacking Iran far outweighs benefits and opportunities. It's just how we are gonna have to accept to live with it. And that's my opinion.

Given the track records of Bush & Co? You're damn right it's about time for change. Not based on my entitlements. Americans owe it to themseleves! Better education and health system and better imagein the world.

Your argument is very well presented and formulated! Terrorists come in all size and shapes. It only depends on the definition and from whose perspective. It can resembles any terrorist groups around the world whether it's Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League or Irgun group, and Yitzhak Shamir (Stern Gang) or possibly Hammas.

With the exception of the former neither can I dude!

I think the title of this thread should read is Obama wise enough? I think he is considering the track record of the republicans. About time someone did something about the economy and puts the priorities in place. Time for a real change!!!

Hmm George Bush fitted the bill quite nicely. Are you telling me he wasn't an actor?A terrible one if you asked me. A bit of an Orwellian touch!

Oh yeah sure! Not in our lifetime! Que??? Thanks for poping in with that insight!

Which is why it's showing the true face of america. A large proportion of population still deeply ingrained in the policies of Bush/ Cheney and resistant to change.

ffs Give the guy a chance! He has only been appointed 3 months. * years of Bush and what a legacy he's left behind...

Please enlighten us! So perhaps you would also recall that the same president also said there's no problem with Iran having one or two atomic bombs in one of his speeches.

And point being??? Talking about it and doing it are two different things! Nothing! So long we are clear this is the real reason not people like yourself claiming Iran is gonna "wipe Israel off the map" which was initially said for Iran not having nuclear programme.

The irony is, the only superpower today that preaches other countries on 'pre-emptive strike' is the one that actually deployed nuclear bomb against another nation! (Hiroshima) And yet we are to believe that Iran is gonna use it against Israel! No wait! Whilst at it let's shift the goal post and change the scenario to add more gravitas for the rationale. Namely it is for protecting our interest in the region.

With G20S headed by Gordon Brown, it now seems a step in the right direction for boosting the ailing economy. Let's hope Obama can bring in some sanity into the foreign policy that concerns the very major topic discussed here.

What do you mean by disproportionate propensity for violence? Again if you are talking about all muslims I have made that my views clear time and again in plain english! I have no wish to get dragged into this argument over palestinian and israeli conflicts and what some may consider disproportionate acts in their wars against terrorists. I have no symapthy for either groups whether palesinians or israelis with their own little propaganda machine pump out images and news that are aimed at garnering sympathy to their cause. My point of contention is the fact that not all muslims are violent or have the propensity for violence as much or even more than jews. The trouble is many people see this as war over religion.

To refuse to accept that there are fanatical elements in any nation whether they are jews, christians or muslims and insinuating that all muslims irrepsective of their nationality are fanatics is biased and crosses the line! It is not so much an issue when people criticise a government or their policies but it does escalate into a bigger problem when you make attacks against all muslims as a rational for an argument! Since you brought the example of 911 it's ironic that the majority of those culprits were actually of saudi and egyptian origin (action of a few) Using that logic does that qualify to punish iranian community?

Well excuse me I don't think you are that much different either. Theer's a double standard and quite frankly you have shown that you use the same paint brush to protray all nations that are muslims the same as minority few. True there are those fanatical elements amongst muslims but so are fanatical jews in Israel too!

I find your generalisation on all muslims astonishing and quite frankly a cross line between having prejudices against all nations that are muslim and absurdity. "Peaceful and constructructive nature of the israelis"? Don't think so! That has not always been transpired in their aggressive illegal expansions and on the other hand the arab palestinians having their equal share of blame with their propaganda machine in reporting their news. But it seems your views are biased towards Israel. One has to argue from both perspectives not just one-sided! And again what is your point? That's too generalising on holding such a view against iranians who happen to be muslims. Is there an insiniuation that therefore all iraninans (who happen to be muslims) are evil and israelis (parctising judaism) are superhero??? My replies here have always been very much on topic. I just don't see how your post below has any relevance to the topic at hand other than using the same paint brush to portray iranians in the same picture: This can be misconstrued as yet another muslim bashing if that ever was your intention... There is no place for 'ad hominem' in this day and age! The history of the middle east (specifically Iran/ US relations to stay on topic) concerns many historical events that relates a lot of subject areas being discussed here. One can only hope that the role of the new US elect president Obama is to in establish a constructive engagement with Iran where the past US policies have failed and exploring new opportunities given the upcoming election in Iran.