MEEEEEHDIIII!!!

Nice of you to join us. Perhaps you should have posted a link to the actual EU fact finding report which is online instead of an article BY you, with some fairly selective excerpts. I have read the entire EU report. I would suggest you go and do the same.

I notice you edited Colin Powell's comments and used them out of context the same way Russian channels did. Of course if Colin Powell says something it must be true - as we know from Iraq!!

The only concession that Tagliavini gives is that the Russians had the right to intervene IF their peacekeepers were attacked. It does not say that they were. In fact according to the Georgian side an officer was killed by Russian 'peacekeepers' right after ordering his troops not to fire on them. Although Russia's role as a peacekeeper in Georgia has been laughable since the Russian air force, Russian special forces and mercenaries helped bomb, murder or drive out the Georgian population of Abkhazia in the early 90s, and after the South Ossetian govt were replaced by Russian FSB, who then preceded to shell Georgian villages.

The EU report does say Russia's invasion of Georgia was illegal. Give it a rest. You accuse people of seeing reds under the bed, but you could watch Putin shoot a Chechen or Georgian child in the face and still find a way to justify it.

I can assure you that I am not a Putin fan. We don't live in a black-and-white world. Just because I don't back Georgia, and don't want to go to war with Russia, doesn't mean I "support" Russia or Putin's unpleasant government.

Noone wants a war with Russia. If anyone did the brutal assault on Georgia would have been a more than adequate excuse.

And if someone was to argue that Georgia got a well deserved lesson in power politics just like Iraq did, and Iran might soon, then I would simply respectfully disagree.

What is revolting to me however is the way in which the same numerous New Statesman and Guardian columnists who have shown such unremitting moral outrage over Iraq, were the same people jeering and sniggering when Putin sent the 58th army and murderous militia into Georgian towns and villages. After all those collaborators were only getting what was coming to them.

People like Kate Hudson of CND weren't even content with that. They actively helped sell Putin's war in Georgia.

Why in the world would you still be trying to claim Russia's actions were in any way legitimate?

It actually shows that Dave is actually a sharp as a dodo! As Alex Salmond of the SNP pointed out , that it was a gaff by the tory leader , who actually meant North Korea . That being the case in what way would David Cameron be different to Bush Junior ? The answer is he wouldn't . If Cameron or his ill advised researchers were trying to suggest that China is as much of a threat as Iran in the "axis of Evil" ,it ill leave KimJong IL of North Korea in laughing his head off!
David Cameron will be a laughing stock in the world if he makes gaffs like that if he were ever to be elected as PM .
It shows yet again that Cameron is not ready to take over the reigns , and needs some knowledgeable people on hi s side , rather than the dim wit con men advising him just now.
Little wonder then , just why Barak Obama politely regards David Cameron to be a political light weight .

This thing called Cameron is an unprincipled liar without integrity or honesty: he has reneged on so many things I.E Referendum on the EU, a referendum on Human rights, and now child benefits and what next will it be ?

Clearly if Cameron is a lightweight in the writer's eyes then the writer is a featherweight. No threat from China and Iran? No worries about Russian posturing, Georgia or the fact they fly military aircraft into our airspace? Was it really unreasonable for us to expect Russia to think twice about attacking Georgia had it been in NATO and do you think that is was entirely justified that Russia invaded Georgia in the first place? Please do the slightest bit of research otherwise I could go to the pub for better-informed views...

Medhi and Goldfish hava got it right.
The people out there who think that Britain led by Cameron could sort out China, Russia and Iran with nuclear threat live in cuckoo land .
It would be like farting on grizly bears hoping that would teach them a lesson. Ridiculous!

Why did you choose to compare the number of Chinese nuclear warheads to the number of UK SSBN submarines? Would the better comparison not be to our number of warheads (185).

The quote that you present "we can't be certain of the future in China" seems to me to be self evident.

@Mark
"Does China pose a threat? Yes. A threat to democracy."
Mark, remind me to call on you to volunteer in a future war against China. The liberal brigades are always long on dramatic flair and short on action. As soon as the shooting starts, we can always count on the liberals to immediately stop running their mouths and start making haste for the shelters.

Bloody marvellous! the Great English Gentleman David Cameron won tonights leader's debate, it was like bring back fox hunting with a group of dogs.

Hong Kong!, the desperate Gordon Brown was trying to frighten the 'yellow belly voters' to vote for Labour. Yellow bellies get voting! Gordon Brown's little joke: "Them two remind me of my two children fighting over bathtime." He also knew the different between a woman and a man.!

Bang on! Nick Clegg done the leg work again but no one really understands what he stands for. One has to question himself whether he understands what he stands for?

Yeah, ok Mehdi. Cameron was the big loser.

Hardly. Whilst it may suit Labour hacks like yourself to divert the attention from the horrible, almost robotic performance of your own dear leader, it won't wash. Clegg was the big winner by virtue of the fact that he managed to actually get on a platform with Brown and Cameron, but mainly that he played on the anti-politics vote, which is probably the biggest one at this election, given all that has happened.

Interestingly, the YouGov poll after the debate asked two questions. Firstly, it asked respondents to put aside their political allegiance and rate the debate winner. Unsurprisingly, Clegg won, Cam second, Brown third. Then, it asked who would make the best PM. Cameron got 39%, Brown 26% and Clegg 22%. On that front, the Tories dont have to be that worried after last night.

Oh, and one final thought on foreign policy. It was Labour that used dodgy evidence to justify Iraq, and then didn't supply troops with the proper equipment. It was a Labour foreign secretary (David Milibanana) who has been condemned on various trips around the world for lecturing the country he visits (India particularly). It is also Labour that is cutting the diplomatic service and the FCO, a vital part of Britain's presence in the world.
You really have no right to attack anyone over foreign policy, even if I don't agree with all that Cameron said last night.

"Are we really happy to say that we'd give up our independent nuclear deterrent when we don't know what is going to happen with Iran, we can't be certain of the future in China?"
It appears that I have been corrected !In fact David Cameron is indeed well informed .
There appears to be a madman and Chairman Mao apostle eagerly awaiting to take over with the "uncertainty in China" looming over our heads .
Perhaps David Cameron has just awoken Britain to the fact that like Iran , China also has capability of making nuclear weapons? It must be ! He mentions Iran before China . Indeed the Great David Cameron appears to have a Great insight in Chinese politics to regard China as a greater threat to world security than , North Korea (as North Korea doesn't even get a mention, from Cameron).
Cameron sounds to be a truly worthy "heavy weight" of great proportions who regards kim Jong IL not worthy as a mention of a threat .
Perhaps Obama was wrong and now regards Cameron as a true world "heavy weight"?

Re:who would make the best PM. Cameron got 39%, Brown 26% and Clegg 22%. On that front, the Tories dont have to be that worried after last night.
I find the above statement quite interesting as the Sunday Times' interpretation of the same poll showed that Gordon Brown was 36% David Cameron 29% and Nick Clegg 21%.
And as the Times is supporting David Cameron(being owned by Rupert Murdoch) , I find it most surprising that on the question of who was the most Prime ministerial would result in Gordon Brown having the lead , after the televised debate .

And this is the guy pleading at Chongqing University for China to step up bargos with Zimbabwe.. hilarious

08001...your comment is fantasy. Russia were responding, disproportionately, to an aggressive act by Georgia. The BBC reported this a few weeks after the event. You are the one who is misinformed, however yours is from plain ignorance.

"08001" - "foreign affairs dunce"? Moi? Recycling Russian propaganda? Nope. Just citing the EU's Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. See:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/02/macshane-georgia-r...