There are few people in this world who would defend Gaddafi as a sane and viable leader of Libya; but I think there would be even less that would see the logic in the U.S selling guns to someone as psychotic as him and then parading about as world police.

It's the equivalent of a sheriff giving an outlaw a six-shooter and then acting surprised when he starts popping off the town folk. 

The second one U.S plane gets shot down by one U.S surface-to-air missile, all the military big wigs should get together and make a decision once and for all - "we have to stop shooting at tyrants we've given guns to".

What do you think about Libya? What do you think about the obvious contradictions in U.S foreign policy and how do you think they should be addressed? Tell us and remember...Disqus!  . . read more

In answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former President Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any - in the Democrats' failure to stop the war. You're the ones who have the saying which goes, "Money talks."

[An extract from the latest Osama bin Laden video, which some claim to be a forgery] . . read more

“I am not worried about the planet” she says when asked about the future, “I am worried about us”.

The war crimes in Iraq which have been committed by the U.S., Britain, Australia – the “coalition of the willing”- are ignored by the Press which has colluded with coalition Governments in censoring the abuses of Fallujah, of torture, of the murder of thousands of innocent civilians. The Press does not ask ‘why?’ or show curiosity about the drivers of terrorism – “where is everybody?” she asks her colleagues.

As David Cornwell (John Le Carre) noted recently – when future historians review the first decade of the Third Millennium, they will be struck by the failure of the U.S. Press to tell us what is really going on.  . . read more

The success of ‘the Surge’ is becoming almost received wisdom in the U.S. This is strange since, if the U.S. strategy did win such an important victory, why do America generals need more soldiers, currently 147,000 of them, in Iraq than they did before ‘the Surge’ started? But belief in this so-called victory is in keeping with the American tradition of seeing everything that happens in Iraq as being the result of actions by the U.S. alone. The complex political landscape of Iraq is ignored.

U.S. commentators have never quite taken on board that there are not one but three wars being fought out in the country since 2003: the first is the war of resistance against the American occupation by insurgents from the Sunni Arab community. The second is the battle between the Sunni and Shia communities as to who should rule the Iraqi state in succession to Saddam Hussein. The third conflict is a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran to decide who should be the predominant foreign power in Iraq. The real, though exaggerated, fall in violence in Iraq over the last year is a consequence of developments in all three of these wars, but they do not necessarily have much to do with ‘the Surge’. [More] . . read more