Part One

Shorbe, thanks for the interesting answer to my reply Post.

However, there is much more historical back-up needed to prove my point about the use of the veto by strong nations - such as the veto weakening the original intended democratic status of the UN.

During the Cold War to keep out the slow learners, as you might say, were suggestions about regional representation to balance against major powers. It was suggested that Western Europe, for instance, should only have a small delegation, with one leader representing the whole area. An intensive study went into it at the time, but it fell through , leaving the big powers holding vetos which certainly has put the UN at their mercy. There has also been accusations that why the elected heads of the UN like Kofi Annan, have been usually from the less important nations, is to give appearance of fairer global representation.

Anyhow, Shorbe, your point of view that America is quite capable of running the whole global show sounds somewhat too simplistic. It goes along with the same wornout argument that is still used to support the British Empire as having achieved more democracy in her colonial world than there would have been without the empire.

Using the modern American Empire in the same way in our troubled world, historians might argue that the only difference really today is the change from British gunboat diplomacy in the colonial times, to US missile diplomacy in our own times as well as very likely well into the future. Let us only pray that those American missiles will never be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Part One

One of the worries about the present rulership of America, according to Dr Denis Kenny, an Australian political scientist formerly teaching at Harvard in the US, is the growing tendency towards religous fundamentalism, which he calls an extremism which can too easily be induced to turn militant to support a cause.

Even in Mandurah here, we have a charismatic group from our Anglican Church who have links with the American religous right declaring that they have received spiritual messages about Heaven having forgiven the Jews for the Crucifixion with a brand new Jesus all ready for a Second Coming with Israel in sound position.

Going by the paragraph above, maybe it might be better that we forget about faith in these bad times and stick more to reason.

Shorbe,
The pipelines I was referring to are the ones coming from the Caspian sea area that do go through the Middle East, particularly the one through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the more recent one via Iraq. The Caspian is landlocked and the cheapest way of getting the sheer volume out is overland by pipe and the narrow Bosporus can't cope with the number of Oil tankers required to transport it via the Egean Sea.

Iran (which, although not an Arab State, was still in the Middle East last time I looked) is strategically important to oil supplies. Iran is also planning new pipelines to India and Pakistan which are being resisted by the US for their own commercial reasons.

The US invasion of Afghanistan was already planned for November 2001 - well before the events of 911 occurred. This link alone suggests what they had in mind as far back as 1998.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

Likewise, here's the Israel / Iraq oil situation in 2003 as a background to the invasion which had only just begun.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak01.html

These articles alone suggest that oil played a significant part in both wars.


Considering that Oil Politics has quietly been in the background of almost every major political event for the last 100 years, I don't believe that oil will be willingly supplanted as our main energy source for some time. As I mentioned elsewhere, every US President for about the last 38 years has come from an Oil background or from an Oil State, except for Jimmy Carter - whose contribution to oil was to effectively shut down the US nuclear power industry.

The US has historically always acted only in its own best interests and can't be relied upon to be an impartial referee for all world affairs.

I think it would be better to find a way to make the UN work more effectively than go just back to the law of the jungle.

Keith,

In principle I like the Saudi proposal and so does Israel.
It will work perfectly in an ideal world.

But the devil is in the details,
and in the ability to trust that agreements will be kept.
While the paper is wonderful, what happens if it is not kept?
what happens if it is just an exercise in "Hodna": a seemingly peace-agreement, which Mohammed kept only as long as it he was weak, but when he became stronger he broke the agreement and massacred the other tribe.

bushbred: Again though, having some sort of equal regional representation (or worse, relative to population) would mean that the west could very easily be dictated to by despotic regions in the world. Besides which, how exactly would it work? For instance, east Asia (China, Japan, the two Koreas) is a region where none of the countries particularly like each other, so whose interests would a representative from such a region represent?

I'm not saying America is capable of running the show. I agree with many of its criticisms that you and others point out. However, I think the alternatives would be far worse. I think the rest of the west often has the luxury of being incredibly pious because America does its dirty work for it or picks up its military tab. I'd like to see that everyone in the world could just leave each other alone, but that's never going to happen.

Also, I agree that the trend towards Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. is worrying. However, there are strong secular traditions in the U.S. that may reverse the trend. A lot of Americans are really sick of the Christian right.

wobbles: I wouldn't have considered Iran part of the Middle East, but maybe our definitions are different.

I'm not disagreeing with you over the U.S. acting in its own interests, but so does any nation, and that would be (and has been) the same in any organisation. I don't think there will ever be an impartial referee.

As for oil being so dominant, it doesn't have to be. Brazil has taken the lead in using alternative fuels, and Australia could do likewise. A lot of places could, and as oil becomes increasingly expensive it will happen. It's a matter of economics, and it's a matter of politics too. ie. that a lot of people are sick of the nonsense that goes on over oil.

Dear Keith

I looked up the issue of "Hamas accepts" the Arab Peace Initiative but can only find as follows:

"Hamas is willing to 'consider' the initiative but only if Israel accepts it first." (in other words, when pigs fly)

On the issue of the election platform, I accept your correction/addition there, and would have to say that the Palestinians who voted for them cannot be held responsible for more than they were informed about during the election.

I would just say, that the bigger problem is the Charter, and any divergence from it would more likely be 'Medinan' deception/delaying rather than abandoning of the principles.

If you read it closely, you will see what I mean.

"From the days of conquest to the resurrection"..... thats what they really stand for. It would only be a matter of time and strategic position. Then the 'Meccan' phase would begin. They would find some way of justifying the breaking of the treaty, like MOhammed did with the treaty of Hudabaya (with Mecca) and it would be on for young and old.

Hamas has tried to separate the issue of its Charter from its current Political posture, but they have never denied its validity, they just appear to be presenting that as a separate entity.(But just as dangerous)

I appreciate your compassionate approach, but I think you need to dig deeper into the motivating forces of such people as Hamas. (quite different from the PLO or Fatah) Some reading of the history of the expansion of Islam would be helpful also.

I do believe Israel wants to take as much of the West Bank as possible, and I see this as the unfolding of history, similar to the settlement of Australia, which did not result in all sides exactly rejoicing.

All peace is based on war.
Every peace, contains the seeds of the next war.

cheers