A certain nauseous feeling always arises, when in my sister's car. It is always when we enter Total petrol station. It is not the scent of the petroleum that gives me a sickly feeling. It is in fact, the notion, that the Prime Minister of Burma is under house arrest, as her citizens cannot afford the fuel and food costs of the illegal government under the nom de jeure of Myanmer. A government that spends more on military processions than the welfare of Burmese people. A vile regime based on supernatural jingoism, enfused with pseudo-communism.

Reports that at their Camp David meeting in July, Brown gave Bush the green light for US air strikes on Iran - possibly offering support from RAF bases and the British navy patrolling the Gulf - are deeply worrying.

Is it hypocritical to support one military action and not the other? I'm actually not sure. I'm not old enough to remember UK going into Kosovo, but I think I would have been for military intervention in the Balkans. There are some who are always against these interventions, people like Tony Benn etc. There are also conservitives like Malcolm Rifkind who was against intervention in Kosovo and Iraq. There are others who shared the views of Robin Cook, for the first war, not the other. Another Hitchenesque school of thought is always confusing, defining missiling Sudan as a war crime, but, defending the intervention of Iraq. I was against intervention in Iraq from the start. Does it make me hypocritical? I think on the basis that Milosovic was threatning other countries and ethnic blocs. But I didn't believe Iraq was threatning other countries, the failiure to get a second UN resoloution, the faulty intelligance etc. were the reasons for my opposition. Hussein was obviously lots of things which I won't choose to say on a Sunday morning. If the 'Blairesque' school of thought is to be believed, then we would also have to intervene in Belarus, Burma, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and many other countries. And I'm sure, that many bloggers would like to see intervention in some of these countries, but not others.

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. Basically there were weapons cocking. Someone, I'm not sure who, someone said, I quote, 'lads, lads I think we're going to get executed'. After that comment, someone was sick and as far as I was concerned he had just had his throat cut." Royal Marine Joe Tindell

It seems that the Iranians are preparing to release the 15 kidnapped British soldiers.

Is it not time to give them there final warning?

I say yes, they've done this not just once too many times, they've done it TWICE.

An act of war is this, a completely illegal one at that.

Michael Meacher on the need for a wholly different approach to foreign policy, opposition to any attack on Iran and the need to reduce dependency on oil.

(From the People's Assembly against the War, London Tuesday 20th March)

BBC is reporting that it's discovered the US's contingency plan to attack Iran.

Say these IDIOTS.

Lets face it, they'd sooner see israel engulfed in a mushroom cloud before they decided to take action.

Tehran has no interest in negotiations with the west. It has been nothing more than a delay tactic for them.

Alot of you might not have heard of this story before, but apparently the current president who needs no introduction, was involved the embassy hostage crisis.

None of these stories seem to get followed up on, but there is plenty of evidence against this man.

If so what questions does that raise about how we deal with such a man and regime in the future?

Chatham House has released a report that suggest Iran has benefited from Western policies in the Mid East.