Johnj,

Alright then, where do you think the world is headed?

I will pass on my analysis.

Russia has provided advanced missiles, both anti-tank [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-14_Kornet: Which missile they have & can knock out any tank in existence (inc.Merkava & Abrams): http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964], surface-surface missiles [http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1095] & also surface to sea [China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802], to both Syria & Iran, the question is why?

Is it because they will form a crescent with the new Shia nation of Iraq, which not only provides control over a large proportion of the worlds oil, and thus provides export earnings for Russian weapons [http://www.russiamonitor.org/en/main.asp?menu_id=11_a_1338], but allows Russia to hold the remainder of the world to ransom, whilst also providing its long held ambition of safe, all year, naval bases on both the Mediterranean (requiring Syria to control Lebanon) & Indian oceans?

This alliance, would also involve a major & disturbing alteration in the balance of power in the region, which is already leading to a massive arms race in the middle eastern Arab nations [Saudi:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=71654&session=dae.22183260.1154717466.RNOXGsOa9dUAAF72Q@E&modele=jdc_1: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ06Ak01.html: http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/22/10054081.html: Egypt:http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/haaretz150905.html].

Unfortunately, the US is overextended, and like the 1970's is currently missing an upgrade cycle [http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060626/50041965.html]. Therefore, it appears that the new russian armed countries will enjoy both a qualitative and quantitative advantage.

What does that mean, well for starters it would mean a return to the 1950-80's cold war, although this time it would be much more fragile, with Egypt, Israel and Iran having nuclear weapons, also Pakistan & India, et al. This would be in my opinion a very dangerous, and particularly difficult time, as with access to both the med, and Indian oceans, russia could avoid containment.

What can be done, not a hell of a lot soon, however, the time bought by Israel at present is, in my opinion, vital.

I could be wrong,

Inshallah

2bob

I suppose 2bob, if all what you summise is true, people will have to talk and negotiate - in short become friends - cos nobody wants the alternative do they?

I'm ba----ack.... just been up to Sydney.

Humerous anecdote first. Front page of Daily Telegraph is flooded with 'HUGE SEX SCANDAL at GOULBOURN POLICE ACADEMY' the story is developed further in the next couple of pages. On page 7 or so, is a VERY costly advertisement (about 1/4 page) as follows:

"For a fulfilling and rewarding career with pride, join the NSW Police force"

So, its rather ironic.

Point ? "Things are not always what they seem".

Releveance ? Little, but, you could say it pays to know what is going on behind the public facade of any organization eh ?

Syria gets very CHEAP oil from Iran (hence the connection between Iranian Shia and Syrian Sunni/Socialist regimes). Iran calls the tune, and Syria dances to it. Perhaps the lyrics are "Hi Ho, hi ho, its off to Hezbollah you go" (referring to the lastest and most lethal anti tank guided missiles that of COURSE Hezbollah, representing the POORest segment of Lebanese society can afford to buy on top of their educational and health initiatives that are also so affordable from said poorest segment)

LETS GET REAL here... Iran (Via Syria) are seeking to control MIDDLE EAST OIL and strangle you and me, and our countries.

4 strings to twang.

1/ Mobilize the Shia of Iraq with weapons and support to eliminate the Sunni's
2/ Mobilize fund and supply the Shia of Lebanon against Israel
3/ Keep Syria under control with cheap oil.
4/ Rid Iraq of the US/coalition forces

OUTCOME

Most interesting...

a) Control of Iraq by proxy or directly via the Shia's.

b) Deprive the West of oil (or make it so expensive it 'Dimmifies' us)
c) Military/Economic Coalition with China (affordable oil) and Russia (access to hi tech arms) and.....
d) Destruction of Israel (by proxy)

Expand Islamo fascism world wide. (avoiding treading on Russian/Chinese toes)

And people wonder why Israel is reacting so heavily ?

P.S. why are the Iraqi Sunni's not demonstrating with cries of 'out with the occupiers' ?

Part One
Firstly, 2 bob regarding your comments about the Jew woolbuyers not having daily radio contact about rising prices, it was known that because they worked with major woolbrokers, they rang up their company early each morning from the local town about prices before they went out buying.

Anyway, appreciated your interesting comments. about a possible a future bi-polar scenario, with China and India possibly joining the ex-Soviets in a new global power balance.

So interesting because as mature-age social-science, students, we talked with the younger ones about such possibilities towards the end of the Cold War, and even wondered whether the US would be a fit nation to be unipolar global top-dog.

I guess you might say that one of the weaknesses in what we might call the Humanities sections of universities, is the encouragement to be cosmopolitan or not to take sides. It is then, of course, looking for weaknesses in both sides during university lectures, can cause reactions similar to the US student protests during the Vietnam War.

There is also now talk in Schools of Humanities that a power balance as mentioned in the above top paragraph, might be a better scenario for peace in the world than having one powerful nation arguing to have all the fire-power, including nuclear.

But, of course, this is now only a pipe-dream because we have so many nations besides the US, such as China, India, Pakistan, France and Britain, and as well of course Russia, which though having virtually surrendered causing the end of the Cold War, an important part of the deal was to retain her nuclear armanents.

Now we have still neglected to mention Israel’s nuclear capacity, which is said to include 200 hundred atomic-tipped rockets ready to go, which as well as building up more hatred generally from the Islamic world towards both Israel and the US, the most danger must come from the Iranians, especially if they get supplied with warheads from North Korea and even from Russia through one of her satellite states selling arms, hinted at on SBS Dateline the other night

Part Two

Finally, going back to the Schools of Humanities, you are probably not surprised that much of the blame goes to America for virtually destroying the United Nations, leaving her with her own right to carry out pre-emptive strikes. Britain and Australia unfortunately, have also been party to it

Now with Condoleeza Rice always talking about democracy, 2 Bob, why was America so determined to replace the libertinian people power of the United Nations with the personal power of the United States alone?

Also whatever your comments to the contrary, you must agree that it is the duty of all Schools of Humanities in our democratic Western world to also decry the US for backing Israel’s attack on Lebanon. And certainly to decry Hezbollah’s role also. However, you must also agree that the problem now in Lebanon is now a global problem, and that all global problems must be handled by a democratic institution rather than one powerful nation like America making its own rules.

A further local problem unfortunately, concerns so many of our Onliners calling people from the Schools of Humanities loony leftwingers or fruitcakes. The point is, the only other place these objectionable Onliners can procure their reasoning from, is from John Howard or Peter Costello who certainly by our pact with the US, would rather have the US as global watchdog than a democratic UN.

Therefore, despite not agreeing to the beliefs of our loony uni’ frutcakes, 2 Bob, you surely still must agree to help rebuild our United Nations into the edifice first designed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant during the Napoleonic Wars, which became the League of Nations, then redesigned with the help of Konrad Adenuear, when it became the United Nations. And so right now not only to leave it with its present ideal moniker, but to strongly revive it, and with people with good commonsense to run it, not those too much with a finger on the trigger.

2bob, I had a look at your links and must say I can't disagree. I can't disagree 'cos most just gave me an "Error 404" (ie file not found), so there's nothing much to disagree with. I guess you'll just have to update your bookmarks.

A quick search suggests to me that there's no certain proof that Kornets are being used in Lebanon. You ask why Russia would supply such weapons to Syria (who may have supplied them to Hizbullah)? The answer seems obvious to me: CASH. Given the parlous state of Russian finances, hard foreign currency would be ample reason. Likewise, the notion that the USA is falling behind in an arms race with Russia seems laughable to me.

To me, your whole argument seems rooted in the notion that Israel is a bulwark for the West against Islamic/Russian agression. It sounds awfully like the Domino Theory to me. There are, to be sure, some very complex political maneuvers going on. The prospect of Iran, Israel, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan etc with nuclear weapons is a scary one. I agree with you that oil is obviously a key issue underpinning much of the tension in the MidEast.

I don't have any answers to these problems. It seems to me that the USA doesn't either. Which, given their propensity to meddle in things they don't understand, makes for a very dangerous future.