Should the US Presidency Meet with Enemy States?

In a recent debate that included the two front runners for the Democratic nomination, New York senator Hillary Clinton and the Illinois senator Barack Obam, the candidates were asked if they would meet in the first year of their presidency with the leaders of such enemy nations as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

Hillary Clinton said that she would not promise to meet with the leaders of enemy nations stating that a new president had to be careful not to be exploited by hostile leaders for propaganda purposes and not to do anything "that would make the situation worse." Before any meeting, she'd have to know "what the way forward would be."

Barack Obam on the other hand said that he thought it a disgrace that "we haven't talked to leaders of the five anti-American countries" and pointed out that despite President Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" he still talked to Soviet leaders. "

Do you think that dialogue between hostile nations is the way forward and is an opportunity that is too easily overlooked?

In politics, is last years enemy, this years friend as in the case of Libya's Colonel Gadafy; or last years friend this years pariah as in the case of Saddam Hussein?

Can an end to conflicts like Northern Ireland only be achieved once the politicians have opened up a discussion?

Is the willingness to meet face to face with your enemy a sign of weakness?

Participate in this weeks open survey Should the US Presidency Meet with Enemy States?

Was Salman Rushdie's knighthood deserved?

In 1988 the publication of The Satanic Verses sparked worldwide protests when it was condemned by the Islamic world because of its perceived blasphemous depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

It was described by one book critic as a cosmic battle between good and evil that combined fantasy, philosophy and farce.

The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities and in 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's spiritual leader, issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie's execution.

Although in 1998, the Iranian government said it would no longer support the fatwa some groups said that the fatwa was irrevocable.

After many years in hiding Salman returned to public life in 1999.

Fast forward to 2007 and Salman Rushdie was one of over 900 people to appear on the Queen's Birthday Honours list, which is aimed at recognising outstanding achievement.

Iran were quick to criticised the knighthood, saying praising the "apostate" showed Islamophobia among British officials.

Also a Pakistani minister was reported to have said that 'Salman Rushdie contributes to insulting Islam and may lead to terrorism' and the Religious Affairs Minister Ejaz-ul-Haq told his parliment that such 'actions are the root cause of terrorism.

Were the British right to honour Salman Rushdie, did he deserve such an honour and were Pakistan and Iran correct in their criticism?

Participate in this weeks open survey Was Salman Rushdie's knighthood deserved?

Should Service Personnel be Allowed to Sell Their Stories?

In March 2007 15 British navy personnel were detained in Iran for 13 days after being seized by the Iran Revolutionary Guard in the Shatt al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq for allegedly trespassing into Iranian territorial waters. The British government said they were in Iraqi waters.

While in Iranian custody some of the personnel where seen on Iranian television apologising for their action and in interviews stated that they were being treated well by their Iranian hosts. Some of those in custody wrote published statements that criticised the British involvement in Iraq.

On the navy personnel's release six members of the group attended a press conference arranged by the Navy and said they were kept in solitary confinement for much of the time and that they were at times fearful that they would be executed.

With media interest growing the navy was authorised by the Government to allow the naval personnel to sell their individual stories to the press. There was severe criticism from within and outside the armed forces for allowing the service personnel to benefit financially. Some argued that it would undermine the reputation of the British Armed Forces at home and Britain's standing abroad and that it would also set a dangerous precedent for whenever military actions are the subject of intensive media coverage in the future. Many argued that it was unfair to other service personnel who were serving in in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, first denied involvement but eventually admitted that it was he who first authorised the service personnel to sell their stories and then later reversed his decision when he announced that Service personnel will not 'be allowed to talk to the media about their experiences in return for payment' until the review is complete.

Relationships between the government and the British armed services have been strained as the government have been slow to admit their involvement.

Should a country's military personnel be allowed to discuss their experiences with the press and if so should they be entitled to some financial reward?

Do you believe that the British personnel had wandered into Iranian territorial waters?

Participate in this weeks open survey Should Service Personnel be Allowed to Sell Their Stories?