Part One

Maybe you could learn a bit more about Middle East history, Shorbe, where you will find that the US in the ME has never liked UN involvement because the UN has most always tried to cramp her style there.

A letter in our latest WA Sunday Times, points out how the US has used its veto 81 times since its inception near the end of WW2, and you can bet your life, that most of the US vetoes were to do with Middle East political problems.

Though in retirement, we are part of a group who has been studying historical philosophy for the last 13 years, going right back to the early Greeks where the idea of democracy first came from.

The trouble with America since the end of the Cold War, rather than working more pacifically through the UN, she has been too much like the Roman Empire, believing that peace can only be kept by the strong arm, not so much with the level head.

Malcom Fraser and Tim Fisher in fact, in the future might be termed those of the level heads, rather than John Howard, who could be now rightly termed as having the political knack at close quarters, but not enough knack to benefit from the lessons of history.

Part Two

Future world historians will be not far wrong to call our period that of the American Empire, including the fact of both Tony Blair and John Howard foolishly tagging along, to call it part of the intriguing 300 year period of the English speaking Anglophilic Empire.

Shorbe, you talk about the West, including the Israelies getting out and leaving the Middle-East to drown in their own problems, but you forget that just to the east of Iran, is the edge of an ancient area with a whole new concept of largely Western ideas, they can improve upon. India and China, for example, both nuclear powers, with Russia possibly on side as well.

Returning to the UN, maybe in the future the US will be forced to have need of the United Nations she has scorned so much by means of the veto, enabling her to carry out unlawful preemptive strikes as on Cambodia and more recently on Iraq. From now on it is up to the UN members to gain a bit of guts and have vetos dropped into the rubbish bins where they belong, allowing the UN to perform the sterling task it was originally designed to do at the behest of Franklin Roosevelt, and Konrad Adenuear et al.

bushbred: Okay, so America has had dreams of empire of late (actually, it goes a lot further back). So, who doesn't or hasn't? Civilisations have spent millenia not living in peace with each other and trying to expand at each other's expense. They're not going to change their tune just because Europe is now on the decline and is having a big sulk.

As elsewhere, you haven't actually addressed my grievances with the U.N. Firstly, I never got to elect Kofi Annan. How could a fourth, even more distant level of government actually be more accountable and representative of anyone, anywhere?

Secondly, here's where I think you really miss the point. America isn't perfect (and I certainly don't like its hegemony), but by removing its veto (and presumably those of China, Russia, Britain and France), what you're saying is that America should be on a level footing with every two-bit third-world dictatorship. It's desirable that every uncivilised hellhole on earth should be able to hold the west over a barrel?

More importantly though, removing America's veto would actually hasten the demise of the U.N., so it would be counter-productive to your goals anyway. How long do you think America would remain in the U.N. sans veto? Once it left, how long do you think it would be before China and a whole bunch of other nations followed? Would anyone important actually remain in the U.N.? (Don't mention any European nation because no one anywhere actually takes them seriously.)

Then you bring in the red herring of China, India and Russia. Aside from the irrelevance of them concerning the Middle East post-oil, it's highly unlikely they'll ever form a bloc in the medium to long term. China and India still have unresolved borders, which is just the tip of the iceberg between those two. Russia could only gain from China in the short term as ultimately, it would be a minor partner or else it would lose influence (and possibly land) in both central Asia and Siberia.

Spare me the anti-American rhetoric without thinking about a viable replacement to American hegemony.

Marilyn

You accuse the US and Israel of telling lies. Is no one else, perhaps Hezbollah telling lies? Or is lying all one sided. And rightly you are concerned with the killing of children. Does this also include Israeli children killed by Hexbollah and Hamas rockets and suicide bombs? Are they also not innocent of their parents quarrel?

If so why not declare it. That would make us feel better about you. I too hate the killing of Arab children.

And in Iraq you consider that it is not terrorism for locals to kill Americans. Perhaps you have a point there. But what about Shi'ites who I understand have been killed by Sunnis and vice versa. Is this not terrorism, or is this just a set of lies and never happened?

And in Aghanistan were Afghan people not involved in the destruction of the Taliban? And what was Saddam doing before the Americans arrived?

The following website is by a Christian from Lebanon who was most unhappy with the siruation.

http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/columbia-university-speech.html

And there have been others. I realise this is from an American University site so perhaps it must be all lies of Israel and the West?

Please I am interested.

For those dreaming about replacing the only Jewish state in the world - it will never happen. Do not play with fire and under-estimate Israel's determination: I agree that it is probably the beginning of the end for America, but if indeed this is the beginning of the end for Israel as well, then the only possible outcome is the whole middle-east becoming a radioactive waste-land, no oil at all from that region and an enormous amount of cancerous gases and poisoned water significantly shortening the life-span and life-quality of the rest of the world. Those cheering for terrorist success - you will reap what you sew.

Israel is indeed losing because its ability to explain to the world what it's doing and why it's justified, does not match the capabilities of its air-force, navy and army. If article after article like this are published here, as in the rest of the world, full of and based on factual lies that demonize Israel for every evil under the sun which they never committed, and so many readers take it for granted to be true, including even Anth who in principle supports israel, then despite all success on the battlefield, Israel has lost the overall war. Myself, I am now tired of repeatedly pointing out how all those libelious claims are false - only to see them repeated in the next article. Then, what's the point discussing anything based on incorrect facts?

However, I do not see the end coming, but a bright future for Israel once it is relieved of its crippling dependency on the failing USA. For starters, it will no longer receive the mis-directed hate of the world against America (caused by totally unrelated issues).

There will eventually be a fair two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders and every one will be happy except the terrorists and their supporters. How long it will take, depends on each and every one of us committing to fight fundamentalist extremism on both sides rather than the innocent people caught in between that only try to defend themselves.

Shorbe,
Russia and China are actually very relevant to what is happening in the Middle East. Russia is the world’s biggest producer of natural gas and a significant oil producer. The pipelines coming from Russian go through the Middle East and this is the background to most of the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and (soon) Iran. These pipelines had to be completed to supply China’s growing demands, otherwise contracts could not be met and the global oil price would rise.

Likewise, China had energy supply agreements with Albania and these played a more significant part in the Bosnia/Serbia conflict than many people realise.

Kofi Annan? It’s interesting that he is married to a member of the Rothschild dynasty – one of the prime movers in establishing centralised banking systems in each country as they are invaded by the West. There are only about 5 countries left, including Iran, Libya and North Korea. I sometimes wonder where his loyalties really lie. Nevertheless, I prefer a strong independent UN to a rogue State policing the world for it's own domestic agenda.

Saddam and WMD? He had a “beware of the dog” sign but didn’t have the dog to back it up. He also had Iraq’s oil tied to the Euro, rather than the US dollar - another reason for him to go.

Israeli influence on the West? This site has a lot of interesting resources.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Marilyn will get a lot of justification for her comments here – many others may feel a little uncomfortable. Of course, some will suspect that it's all propaganda but,unlike many other sites like it, the links all seem to go to reputable independent sources.