l0l0lpur32

Georgia has been perusing close relations with the US and NATO for awhile now. The US likes them because they are a progressive democracy, and Georgia has been pushing to get into NATO for awhile, with the United States' support. Had Georgia made it into NATO when they were attacked by Russia (they were in the process of applying for membership), most of Europe, the US, Canada, Turkey and several other countries would have automatically declared war on Russia. Georgia is hardly a democracy, and the only good thing which might've came out of them joining NATO was NATO managing to convince them not to launch the offensive on South Ossetia.

See you wouldn't like it, so quite obviously Russia wouldn't like it. Basically what America is doing is stopping Russia's chances of attacking, while America can still attack easily. Obviously Russia isn't going to like that. So you're saying we should sit down and watch while Russia nukes us? =D> bravo genious Russia isn't going to "nuke" anyone. Are you saying Russia shouldn't be worried about an organisation put together to fight them spreading east with missiles and radars?

Would you be OK with Russia installing missiles somewhere in Latin America? Can you blame Russia for getting worried about an organisation which was put together to fight them constantly expanding east with missiles and radars?

No. shallow chicks are a bad thing. Preferring a male who is better cut/considering appearances as a factor is shallow/bad? Sounds like a trademark case of antipopularkiditis. I would like to point out a couple of things: 1) I am speaking of the people (adults included) who only date "good-looking" people. They tend to lack depth and personality. I feel the same way about gold-diggers. 2) Popularity means nothing to me. One can be popular and not be the greatest looking person in the world. Personality, my friend. I am also speaking from both sides of the fence. I'm a switch-hitter, so I know how it works with both sides. Although it may be "shallow", the fact is that people find people in better physical shape more attractive.

Simply money into Africa is counter-productive.

Why do so many posts turn into people talking about nuclear war?

I would rather the money was used at home rather than sent to Africa, but I agree that too much money is being used on the olympics.

They won't start a war against Russia.

With that kind of attitude nothing will change. With virtually no support the so called smaller parties (imo they are virtually unexistant) can't even grow and challenge the main parties. Voting for them is a vote for better future, even though it may not be seen in the next few elections. So your solution to party loyalty is to become loyal to another party that exists outside of the main contenders instead? OK... Personally, I'm of the belief there should be three parties. One on the left, one on the right, and one in the middle to provide a sort of buffer to keep people involved in the political process while they're disillusioned. Then people will actually vote on what they believe in, not whoever's promised to lower their taxes most. All that Respect and the SNP have done in this country is destroy Labour's reputation. They've weakened the left wing, and the Tories are profiting. That doesn't strike me as voting for a better future - it actually strikes me as voting for the exact opposite future you want. That would be making the false assumption there was a "united left wing view" (and "united centre view" + "united right wing view"), whatever that means. As for the last paragraph, the reason why the SNP is stronger in Scotland and the Tories are stronger in England (while Labour is weaker across the whole UK) is because of people being unhappy with the government, and turning to them parties (SNP in Scotland, Tories in England) as the best chance to beat Labour in the next election.

Found this video of an interview with the Georgian president: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbXS9CNVotg Why is the EU flag there?

Exactly. Its a shame they have so much influence. I would rather have the US being the #1 world power than it being China or Russia.

Of course the religion which the majority of a country follows has influence on it's laws.

I'd love a statistic on that. :| http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/ This is a statistic to show racial profiling at its finest, along with the fact that 62.5% of blacks are in jail because of drug offenses; the majority being because of marijuana. Half of state prisons consist of non-violent crimes; 20% of those beings drug related offenses, the rate is higher among Federal prisons. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf So now you're putting NON-VIOLENT people in jail, for resorting to 2 crimes that help them financially because they have no other options. You're exposing them to violence, gangs, the drugs are still in prisons, they're abused by the cops who have an authority complex, and when they get out they have a felony on their record and cannot get a job. What happens then? Back to square one: more theft, more drugs. Can't you see, even if a very very small blur, that these criminals are victims of society? Ever thought that some of them do it instead of other options, rather than because it's their only option?

I'm not from the US, but I would probably vote McCain. Both of the candidates aren't very good, but Obama reminds me a bit too much of Tony Blair.

I don't want to turn this into a debate on the legality of drugs but are you saying to make marijuana legal? Also I would like to see some statistics on that.

No, I'm going to throw my hands up and say "Take whatever you want but please don't shoot". He''l steal my wallet and TV but those things can be replaced. You watch too much TV.

Obama is the US version of Tony Blair.

Only a very tiny amount of violent attacks are because of a "crazy phycotic" wanting to kill people.

I don't really care, I find it disgusting but it's their culture, also there is probably a lot of aspects of our culture that they aren't too fond of.

Partially through disillusion with the three main parties who have become more professional politicians rather than groups who stand for stone-set ideologies, as should be the case. That's really what's killing politics in this country. There's no way New Labour should be to the right of the Liberals. All three of the main parties are the same now. I expect that in 2010 people will vote for the tories to kick labour out thinking it'll make a difference, then after they have a couple of terms in government it'll be the same again with people voting labour to kick out the tories...

What exactly is "fascist" about the BNP? Don't take this as me defending them in any way. The reason the BNP is growing is mostly not because of actual support, but because of people protesting against the LibLabCon. Read their racial policies man... To even be a member, you have to be "Indigenous Caucasian". That's racism, not fascism. They say they have modernised, but if they truly had they would've removed that policy.

What exactly is "fascist" about the BNP? Don't take this as me defending them in any way. The reason the BNP is growing is mostly not because of actual support, but because of people protesting against the LibLabCon.

All this is going to do (both the state-sponsored board of imams, and the teaching about islam in schools thing) is play into the hands of both islamist groups, and the BNP. The BNP are deplored by almost the entire British public, and laughed at by other countries. They have members who organise debates on Bebo to attract youths, and hang off every word Pat Condell gives them. It really doesn't bother me that the BNP profit, because the BNP are so incredibly tiny, it makes no difference. Almost all people have the intelligence to look at them and see them for the racist, homophobic fascists they are. Moderate imams coming into schools and informing people of spiritual Islam is harmless. What you're saying is like suggesting an Anglican priest coming into schools would play into the hands of homophobes. What does Pat Condell have to do with the BNP? He even mentions in one of his videos he doesn't like it when white supremacists use his videos as their propaganda. And yes the BNP is a disgusting racist party but calling them "fascist" or "nazi" is just silly. The "moderate imams" in schools thing will just help extremist groups because it'll back up their propaganda of "the west is trying to water down/destroy islam". The reason why it'll all help the BNP is because it'll back up their propaganda of "britain is being islamofied and the BNP is the only party which will stop it". The whole idea is just completely naive and a waste of money.

All this is going to do (both the state-sponsored board of imams, and the teaching about islam in school citizenship lessons thing) is play into the hands of both islamist groups, and the BNP.

Well it's not hard to see how. Young Muslims see this man being tortured for what he believes in - beliefs they themselves can relate to. It encourages them to join terrorist organisations. This is the thing. You torture a man, you have no idea how many people will follow his cause in inspiration of his devotion. What's your solution to the ever increasing influence of hate-preaching anti-western groups? Throw money at pointless things like this (same thing on BBC) and this?