You may have perceived from my list, which included two flippant items which clearly will not happen that my disdain for the middle east and most of its citizens is near absolute and the only thing predictable is the regions unpredictability.

Two other issues -Israel and Brits on sofas-we are in agreement. Which leaves only the issue of Iranian possession of nuclear arms in one year, and since confirmation of the fact would be difficult at best (am I to believe IAEA inspectors-hmmm) would leave me at, how would you say- a massive disadvantage. You have proved to be the better chess player, and thus I retire a chastened and broken man.

However I do not wish to be known as a welcher, therefore if you ever find yourself in Vancouver, Canada I will gladly buy you two extremely good pints, provided that is you do not drink bitter, for some reason nobody here can brew a decent draft bitter.

I cannot in good conscience steal the price of a couple of pints from you-the prediction is too easy.

In one years time the Middle east will still be a bloody mess, grievance mongers assisted by the EU and UN will bemoan the only democracy that allows indigent arabs a vote and returns land so that it can be devastated by "palestinians".Iran will have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Excitable bearded men with weapons shouting Allahu Akhbar will be advancing the cause of homosexuals and women in North Africa, Europeans tourists will flock to their beaches to experience burquinis. Most Brits will be unaware as they sit on the sofa munching potatoe crisps watching towie.

Over to you.

We seem to agree on Tom's major point that Euro politicians cannot enunciate a clear political doctrine, on the other points perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Thank you for remaining civil during our discussion.

Mick, there is a word for diverting your attention to more imminent issues like war and it is not hypocrisy.

Politicians have to respond to the world they live in not the one they wish it would be, that perhaps is my biggest complaint against the likes of Odumber, the Camoron, and the entire EU.

And (once again) if you think muslim controlled government bordering the Mediterranean, controlling massive oil reserves and at one of the major shipping choke points of the world is not a problem particularly for Europe then you are being disingenuous.

The point I was making, badly it seems, is that the speech is great. I agree with every word of it. But there is no evidence that when she was in a position to make a difference, she did so. In other words-hypocrisy.
Now, I am perfectly happy to accept that as a Kremlinologist her focus was elsewhere-but that doesn't negate the above now, does it?
Yes, GW's government was a war government-but again it shouldn't have been. Criminals should have been brought to justice -not a bloody war declared on well, who exactly? Al Qaeda?-thats a philosophy, not an organisation. So mayhem was inflicted on the Middle East to achieve err-no, I don't know either.
Is the US mainland more secure against such attacks?-doubtful.
As for Muslim controlled government in the Middle East-well, it quite simply isn't our problem, is it? If they do bad things to the West, there will be retaliation-simple. We just need to buy the oil-again simple. What else would they do with it, drink it? Who sells it is irrelevant.

I think you overestimate the field of influence of the Secretary of State. Most of what you seem to be critical of resides under other departments.

My next statement will surely be controversial-GW Bush's government was essentially a war government, and lots of domestic policy and budget control went to hell as bureaucrats seized an opportunity while the main focus was elsewhere. Judged on domestic policy they were an abject failure, judged on their ability to prevent further attacks on the US Mainland they were successful.

As for Egypt and Libya I think we can already perceive that muslim-controlled government will not be beneficial to the West (or Africa).

No substance-now I know you are kidding. She expertly linked the need for a growing economy and balanced budgets to national prestige and diplomatic effectiveness. Without naming Odumber she excoriated his policies of non-achievement, neglect, jealousy and envy.

Her question of where America stands could not be clearer, nobody knows, least of all Odumber who starts ill-prepared projects then gets distracted like an eight-year-old eg Libya and Egypt. And if you think Libya and Egypt are not governed by friends of Iran then you are just not paying attention.

And Tom is right there is nobody in Europe and very few around the world who can grasp the link between budgetary control and national prestige.

Yes, she was misled by faulty British intelligence, silly of her really to believe such incompetents but she was not alone in erring on the side of action during the days when further serious attacks against the West seemed imminent.

Funny how you do not similarly berate Odumber for for some of his egregious mistakes, the disastrous miscalculation of the outcome in Libya and Egypt for one.

Returning to Tom's subject-the speech was impeccable in tone and substance, it's delivery was well-measured, avoiding any sense of shrillness.

American pols and their superskilled speechwriters are a box of weasels. Take nothing at face value - CR's speech is full off dog-whistles to the gullible. There's loads of turkeys who think they're related to the poulterer.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm pro Obama - he had a great chance in his first 100 days to discipline the banks but blew it or sold it, I don't know which.

Thr American people are indeed, overwhelmingly, great people. Like the Brits. But the democratic system has a backdoor in its programming that lets in Wormtongue & co. Did you ever read The Selling of The President?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selling_of_the_President_1968