in the geopolitical interests of the united states and it's ours that's pure hypocrisy would you agree with that. absolutely and it is. strange in the sense that although islamic woman's have proven to one to be part of a democratic process and have been the victims of the lack of the market there is asia we continue to hear people accuse islamic movements or this movement so it's political it's of being on the democratic i think the major obstacle to democratization in the muslim world today as we stand in this very moment is the united states of america. and their allies in the west because they are the ones who count on and rely entirely on regimes that are this partake that are corrupt and simply because these regimes so their best interests democracy in our part in this part of the world is not in favor of the best interests as seen by those who are in power in washington and in the major capitals of western europe ok if i could go back to denver nader if if let's say in an imaginary world really imaginary that all of these these dictatorships that are so close to the united state

how about the united states? has anybody supervised or inspected the nuclear arsenal here in the united states? remember that the i.a.e.a. statute says that when it speaks of disarmament, everyone must disarm. secondly everyone must enjoy peaceful nuclear energy and third that proliferation must be stopped. now, what has the i.a.e.a. done in terms of disarmament? nothing? >> rose: so? >> ( translated ): the countries that have veto power have, in the meantime, done nothing, too, about it. it's quite natural. it's politicized from the very foundation of it. and now they don't like us and what we represent and they feel that the nuclear issues is one excuse to put pressure on us. but they're wrong and the time for that has passed. >> rose: okay, fair enough. who do you mean by the "zionist regime"? >> ( translated ): a regime that has occupied palestine and now forces its rule on that territory. >> rose: but why don't you just say aisrael? why don't you say the state of israel rather than the signist regime? >> ( t

show cross talk is next for peter lavelle's guests clash over illegal immigration in europe and the united states. nineteen thirty eight england and france try to reason with hitler germany demands of the land and gets its way they all thought they had created a safety net for themselves in nineteen thirty nine the whole of europe isn't going to war efforts to establish a system of collective security nine hundred thirty eight failed and it's still on the agenda. the lessons to be learned from the munich agreement on r t. can you can. start. to. follow it and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle who are they undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens a label that protects or punishes as an anti immigration groundswell threatens europe and splits the us we cast a cold eye over the debate what we find is heated rhetoric finger pointing and few easy answers. and you can. start. to discuss if immigrants should stay or go i'm joined by michelle they're low cost in phoenix she is the founder of mothers against illegal aliens in durham we go to jake a big dork he's a professor at duke universit

i have legalized dozens of dwelling units, illegal units, for people in san francisco. in the last 10 years, there has been a sea change within the bureaucracy, the building and planning departments, where the attitude has been very proactive in trying to help property owners bring things up to code and to save these old, illegal units, rather than force them to be abandoned. the attitude of the city has really changed a lot and people are more likely to get help from their building inspector rather than enforcement. >> what i had hoped we could do is look at this little hand out for further discussion. starting on page one, it is from a website, home remodeling magazine, there is a long list of things supposedly san francisco-based, adjusted for local conditions, and how much of the cost you can expect to recoup for the work you're doing in the building. if you're doing work because you want to live there and you want to appreciate the improvement, that is different. if you're doing work with a clear eye to how much you can get back, i am shocked to see under the colum

the unit is being demolished and this is not being merged into another unit. this does not have anticipation and the project will be analyzed with those -- both the merger and the criteria. the property will be closer into conformance and the density of the prescribed zoning. the building to be demolished is currently vacant. >> i wanted to apologize, i forgot to mention the final comment time. usually you repeat this after. i know you can do this for item number 10. >> i read this when i called the item. >> september 7th. this is on the record. the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my husband and i have lived at 1020 hayes street since april 30th, 1997. we are requesting commission to remove a nonconforming structures that we can have a garden. the structure in question was built without a permit in 1947. this was still below grade on a concrete slab. the neighbors objected strenuously. on april 7th, the committee granted approval and this is consistent with the general plan. the structure is not historically or architecturally significant. the property is

states and if it escalates against the united states you can be sure the u.s. will counter escalate not called and she delays struggles to a strategy of regime tehran will and when you run well that's and that's the question of you and i personally think that aaron would blink but i think the only place you can we do things and we do i mean i ask you you're mean are you saying that it has doesn't have the right of self-defense so you very childish interpretation of you know you know we have this peter and gloria you know in a way i want to show you i mean it is barbaric to go down the great thing about being in a university is that you get to study history and learn from it and in fact we have two presidents for this in one thousand nine hundred one israel did military air strikes against iraq's almost open ocean iraq a nuclear reactor in two thousand and seven israel did air strikes against syria's reactor under construction both reactor is very well just so you might imagine the reaction really really right no make a wrong you know we get why she didn't reall

states and vice versa of their united states goes on if we had open free unshredded elections do you think radical islamic movements would come to power instantly across the greater middle east. i'm not radical i think many of the mainstream political islamist movements would come to power in the early elections but over time if your hypothetical scenario were to take place i think over time. muslims within the broader muslim world will have the opportunity to engage in a debate that is largely denied to them right now about the type of society that they want to live in what form of religion how much religion they want in their government. and so i think you know one has to understand the question of democracy as a long term historical process there is this myth that somehow democracy can be achieved in a fortnight. and so there's this concern that you have these elections and then you have these you know liberal groups that come to power but i think that's perfectly understandable and reasonable if one has a sense of history in terms of how democracy developed i mean in the united s

to have an exchange at the united nations. i think that would be very positive so that everyone can hear what we have to say. and it could help resolve many problems. >> larry: secretary of state clinton says sanctions are biting your economy. even the former president said that the sanctions are serious, can't be dismissed. are you worried about their effect and their continuing effect? >> translator: it seems to me you've raised several issues. the question is why does the u.s. government place sanctions in a are over and above those specified by the u.n. security council? is that not an illegal measure? is it not indicative of the hostility of the u.s., the american people, towards the iranian people and the u.s. administration, more importantly, towards the iranian government? that's one issue. the second issue is that sanctions really are unimportant to us because we have been under sanctions for over 30 years. furthermore, our economy is not based on the economy of the united states. it is a self-contained economy, an in

>> in the united states. by the press in the united states. but i thought it was a very successful visit. and, in fact, at the end of the visit, there was a very lengthy joint declaration that was made as to what the two countries needs toe do together. they were all very positive and i certainly take hard by that particular visit there was one point that was made by both presidents that the two countries need to improve strategic trust between the two of us, between two countries. and i think it's a very, very... >> rose: what's the problem in terms of the strategic trust. >> i think, as i said earlier, you know, there are people in america who thinks china is a threat to united states. they're people in china who thinks america never wished china well in the first place. and these are real issues. and is it real? how can we overcome these problems? we need to overcome some of these problems and in the case of the first instance, it's america's view china is a threat now china has no wish to challenge the united states of america. there's no

consists of russia the united states the european union and the united nations has urged israel to extend its freeze on settlement construction in the west bank and gaza palestinians have said that israel can forget about direct talks if this moratorium is not extended and with these to go before the deadline of the moratorium israel has already said it is refusing to extend this moratorium so now the clock is ticking and after being on and off and on and off again direct talks between the israelis and palestinians did not take place for as long as two years and actually took place for the first time in two years earlier this month now meanwhile the united nations millennium development goal summit has also been taking place back in the year two thousand world leaders have agreed on a set of eight targeted goals which they hope to meet by the year twenty fifteen these include things like eradicating poverty and hunger in the world a very difficult task and so far results have been mixed especially considering the difficult economic situations that many countries are faced with right now a

the chance was missed in two thousand and seven had had the government unite in the united states and the treasury not been controlled by goldman sachs and wall street as it was or timothy geithner in the new york fed and now in the u.s. treasury. if you would out a sensible intelligent government concerned about the nation's welfare they would have nationalized five to seven of those institutions immediately and done what sweden did in the early ninety's with a secure room good bank bad bank a model that was considered anathema it was called socialist by henry paulson the treasury secretary at the time and as a result trillions of dollars of taxpayer money went to bail out the wall street friends of goldman sachs henry paulson and not only that the federal reserve ben bernanke he refuses to say what he has done what the federal reserve has done with its money creation it's over the top now. mark mentioned the these statistics from from this boston professor about the unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare and so forth it's just. the banks have been looted the country su

states and debt ratios are also close to what the united states is in the u.k. they say so and then in terms of how or how you're a pair the situation no we are not particularly optimistic and beyond really politicians ease i mean again i mentioned i mean what william actually said is you should probably let a lot of those banks fail i mean many of the wall streets being they're on drily bangs out because senos they just put a visit money and if they if they get it wrong they get by the taxpayer if they get it right they just take it out as a bonus quickly enough so that when later on so are things done so are they there to get the taxpayer money again so that was the big problem but now really i don't really see an easy fix was a solution even from the federal reserve can print more money of a have more power it's not going to work because i learned greenspan even alan greenspan even recommended homeowners before the borrower came on to take all of these. mortgages the federal reserve made it much much worse so i'd best they're very incompetent or worse they're

before that he was russia's ambassador to the united nations. i spoke with him earlier today in the security council chamber at the u.n. here is that conversation. welcome. >> thank you. nice to be here, mr. rose. >> rose: you wrote a piece in "russian global affairs" in july 2010, sort of outlining how you saw sort of the new world order, to use a high faluting word. tell me what forces are at work and how does russia adjust to them? >> well, certainly i believe we would all agree that the world is changing. it's not only globalizing but becoming more and more competitive. new centers of economic power, financial power appear and certainly with economic and financial might comes political influence. and that's what we call multipolarity in progress and that certainly must be taken into account by all series foreign policy planners. the united states, i think, under the obama administration understands much better need to build coalition which was already evident during the bush administration time, but the obama foreign policy said very clearly

>> larry: you're not saying the united states committed genocide, you're saying the united states committedoth iraq and afghanistan. but that's a separate issue. i like to ask you, if in a country someone's rights are violated, they're oppressed, assuming your assumption, your statement is correct, does that imply that they can go and occupy another land? is there any logic in that if we were to follow that logic, will there be in security left in the world? in world war ii, if they were to occupy 20 countries around the world that would be terrible. >> larry: israel is a legal state. >> translator: the question is -- come on. the question -- you just said yourself it's over the holocaust. why are you changing your statement? >> larry: you were saying -- >> translator: my question is what are the interests of the united states to -- absolutely defending them. there are many parts of the world where human rights are violated. you know how many american indians were killed? do you know or not? >> larry: i know. we're out of time. >> translator: you're a reporter, you should have the answers t

what role does the west play in all of this because it's patently obvious that you know while the united states and its allies preach democracy invade countries to spread democracy at least they claim that but at the same time they do support these really terrible regimes in the middle east and you know even on mainstream media it's kind of taboo to be too hard on the saudis and things like that because there are our allies you know but a lot of the money that goes to terrorism comes from a place like saudi arabia i mean isn't the west really is an incumbent upon the west to be the end these kind of double standards i mean either want to mock or see or just stop talking about it. well i think it's true that the west has played a very deleterious role and it goes way back in fact if we go back into the nineteenth century i think another one of the factors for the lack of democracy particularly in the middle east was european colonialism and the negative effects of that that have lingered on to this day and people reacting to that i think one of the reasons we're even having this discussio

up just to put units in front of it. the challenges are light and air that it produces but we did get 18 studio units, how none of which are the size to be a two- bedroom units. also accessibility is making this project difficult because we are trying not to do further damage to the exterior. in the adaptive reuse scenario, we actually look that keeping the front and two side walls of the building as much as we could. this permitted us to have as many as 23 units. we assumed that the building would be set back in order to provide insurance into the building and access with a very efficient steam. we would also be leaving you with the front and side prickles for better enforced. in both cases, because it was a comparison, it did as soon the 0.75 parking places and the under a brick building and providing parking would be difficult. this does little for the neighborhood, this does not provide the 40% or does it provide any real creation of the neighborhood fabric. >> thank you. >> i have handed you a copy of what i have to

know if i could go to michelle here michelle what why should why should be the united states getting and being involved in want to be involved in the democratic process of another country like iran for example ok you may not like the outcome but that is you know what is why should the united states be so judge mental about the nature of the democracy in iran in other places i mean sure and you know you may not like it but that's the outcome that it's the choice of the people want it because it's down to ok i'll show you my cards i mean a lot of iranian regime and i'm trying to make sure no talking to michele regime i'm talking to a show right now ok but show i mean is it really because it's not a western liberal democracy that is just like us because that's what he gets to when he gets into the greater middle east do you agree or disagree with that. well i would disagree i mean i think first of all. the promotion of democracy i mean the united states is founded on the idea that that democracy is the best political system for ensuring the rights of both the majority and the minority i

states since all three of the you are in the united states. i think that the most important thing that everyone needs to recognize is that the debate in the united states is not without precedent there have been many episodes in american history where we've gone through the exact same debate if you look around the world there are countries from australia to europe that are undergoing similar debates immigration today and immigration historically has always been about the movement of people from poor countries to rich countries the threat that is perceived in rich countries is a threat primarily to the way of life we enjoy much better living standards in rich countries than in poor countries and the concern whether we're talking about the united states or we're talking about western europe is the concern that as more immigrants flow into the country there's a threat to the economic way of life. and you're saying they have borne what you're saying that you're saying that's a myth. no i'm saying that this is the this is all very true but we have

we look forward to having her unite with her family and when she comes back to the united states, details will be discussed through her family. >> envoy mitchell said today we are making progress. how substantial is this progress? is it more than two weeks ago? and what was discussed on the first item on the agenda? >> i had the opportunity to converse with the team this morning. i think we would characterize discussions today as serious and direct discussions on the core issues. those discussions will continue tomorrow. as the secretary said, you know, enroute, it would be important for the leaders on both sides -- they have a special responsibility. these direct negotiations are the only mechanism through which palestine achieves a viable state and israel achieves the security that it deserves. they have -- now, they have a vested interest in seeing this process continue. they will have to find ways to overcome the immediate obstacles so that the direct negotiations can continue and ultimately solutions found that resolves all of the outstanding issues as part of the process. >> just to

much of this is about the united states. now, defense ministries all over the world prepare for bad outcomes, worst-case scenarios, etcetera. so i sort of come back to the point that the historical definition of threat, or at least we're taught in the military where i came from, is a combination of capability and intent. and so it's that intent side of the equation that is now uncertain that i think we can shape and work on and prevent this from being a relationship that heads toward uh, conflict. but there's no question in my mind that on the capability side of the equation, there's very robust, uh, investment, and much of it is oriented against the united states. >> you've had a good deal of military experience. i know there have been numerous efforts over decades, really, to engage in military to military cooperative exercises and discussions and so on. it doesn't seem as though much of that has succeeded. why? >> well, we've talked about the mutual suspicions and the overall relationship. that's at it's height, highest p

get to the full senate as rapidly as possible our work is not done the full united states senate has to now debate this and ratify it. it's our hope that they're going to happen quickly before the end of the year and we will work to try to make that happen we had a very constructive process today as i think you saw. by judgment. the. long work of the committee of the administration to bring together representatives from almost every administration president nixon all the way through president george bush who testified that helped to build a consensus on this treaty this treaty will make america more secure it will assist us in moving towards the goal of less nuclear threats and for that reason we're proud of the actual who took the day off. well he said today the senate foreign relations committee did not just say ok to the three to the treaty they also passed the resolution on their treaty so what does that mean the resolution senators in this resolution senators express their concerns their understanding of the language of the treaty they they do this you know translation from engl

states this is geopolitically interesting for the for the united states. there is a high correlation between the two very hard. our relations in the coals i think you can you can make the you can run the argument the other way. it's not a general rule that economic growth produces democratization it goes that way in some cases democratize ation may be actually a condition of economic growth where you have a system who's the chief variable of which is hire a lawyer and so on energy and commodity. economy there's no incentive for the elite to to modernize the economy they're very happy living off the rents so that then has to be another impulse a political impulse and i think that's true of russia today unless there is some democratization of the political system i think the russians will remain fairly stagnant that's a very important point to make because we've just before this discussion i mean again what is democracy and what does it delivered during the first decade of independent russian democracy delivered them nothing zero well if you. actually got to