Part One

Hullo Aqvarius, seems like we are all into a very interesting much needed discussion. Reckon the more the political pot is stirred without going to more war-war regarding today’s Middle East, all the better.

Could say, in fact, that holding back and favouring the strongly realistic - survival of the fittest - or - the means to an end factor- as you seem to believe in, matey, could leave the Middle East in a horrible mess, possibly Terehan plastered with Israeli rockets. The US then with the excuse to finish Iran off, culminating in a much more globally unpopular US with her co-Anglipholic allies Britain and Australia still happily tagging along.

It was an angry Charles Darwin who condemned both Western businessmen and warmongers about using his survival of the fittest concept to set up what is still known as social Darwinism, the socialiam employed being right-wing enough to eventually help the rise of Nazi Germany.

An extract from Darwin on man’s moral qualities.

Different to the animals---- ‘......man is a moral being capable of reflecting on his past actions and motives - approving of some and disproving of others....’ - ‘..... the influence of an all-seeing Deity has also had a potent influence on the advance of man’s morality.’

Or should have had, one could add.

BB Part Two

By now, over the centuries so-called Western civilised
man should be ethical enough not to resort to tactics such as allowing little Israel to go atomic to create some sort of politicised peace between Jews and Arabs, justifying the Jewish Old Testament doctrine that any means justifies a successful end. But a doctrine certainly not justified by Jesus in the New Testament.

Instead it could be a case of love or forgive your enemy, as Nelson Mandela seems to have done to be rid of Arparthaid.

Though the the US has been on the right track to rid the world of dictators like Saddam, it is such a pity America had to use Rumfeld to help Saddam get rid of Iran, which turned out a failure, with Iran stronger than ever.

Added to the above is the crazy scenario now in Iraq which could be a future young historians possible intense interest.

America’s so-called allies the Saudi Sunnis have in the last few years not only produced Al quida as well as bin Laden who ordered the 9/ll destruction, but also appear to sympathise with the Iraqi Sunnis who are also blowing up the Shi-ites whom George W’ went into Iraq to avenge, the Shias strongly supported by Americas’s sworn enemy Iran.

A arch-politico' dog's breakfast if ever there was one.

Keep the conversation going Lindsay. I was pleased that Hilary Clinton used that phrase in her announcement. Dialogue is the vision I have for the future about anything. It is in dialogue - not monologue even if it is clever - that we reach understanding and can see clearly to act well. It takes longer but there are strong indications that democracy is best served by it. To sit around and talk and weigh in with frameworks of Justice and Kindness for example, always lead to what is a better outcome especially for those who have the most to lose. Juggler

bushbred the world has been talking and talking and talking to all the involved States that make up the Middle East since the United States first built it's navy to fight the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Your many worlds in one philosophy and "Christian" turn the other check nonsense only goes so far. There is only one end. That is that TODAY the world is far too small and far too nuclear to have two or more opposing world philosophies. The means to a peaceful end is war. I don't like it. You don't like it. Anyone who has ever been in a war doesn't like it. You will not be able to talk al-Qeada or Hezbollah or the Taliban or any other hate filled radical jihadist or Ayatollah of a Islamic Theocracy into a peace settlement. You may be able to coerce, or bribe, but talk ain't gonna do it. You may argue that reality but, reality it remains.

Part two of this situation is that oil is only going to get them so far. Most every nation is working to produce their own alternate energy sources. In a few years they will have to dump oil onto the market to make alternative fuels to expensive to be worth producing. The real hit will be overall employment factors. How many investor's will want to pour millions into a hostile desert landscape? How many jihadist will put down the AK47 and unstrap the vest bomb to become waiters or shop keepers?
All those American companies I listed earlier are in Iraq to see that those people eventually have the capability to manage themselves and compete in a free market economy. To have all the advantages of the free world. Something they didn't have under Saddam or will not have under a Islamic Theocracy by Ayatollah al Sistani. Who by the way is Iranian.

Funny how you "Christians" always have the Christians turning the other cheek.

Part One

Aqvarius, you are no historian, otherwise you would know that your extremist realistic theories are nothing new. We now have a unipolar world with the Americans as top dogs, as the Greeks were top dogs in the time of Alexander, then came the Romans who were virtually rulers of the world from around 200 BC to beyond 500 AD.

Your talk is so selfish and unipolar in fact it is scary and immoral, as if we do need this as simply a replacement of British gunboat diplomacy with US missile diplomacy, America simply inheriting the hatred and dubious respect that pretty well all of Asia, particularly the East had for 19th and early 20th century Britannica.

With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, the formerly proud Middle East Muslims, already subjugated by the Ottoman Islamics, were looked down upon by British and Aussie troops and treated like sh--t during WW2.

Most historians and social scientists we have studied with have a similar view to the above, matey, so why haven’t you?

Don’t you realise Aqvarious that the hatred the Muslims now have for us has been fermenting for years. Even Mubarak of Egypt who is said to be now forced to behave like an American puppet, has claimed that the main problem in the Middle East over the years, has been Western intrusion and injustice. Certainly made worse by us shutting our eyes and ears when Israel went very illegally militarially atomic.

As that female judge in Iran has claimed, most Iranians in time are quite capable of forming their own style of democracy, as the rest of the Middle East Arabs are also quite capable of. Does not need to be Christian, neither.

Could suggest to you ultra-realists, Aqvarious, that you all take a lesson from Gandhi and Mandela, both non-Christians, who both proved how peaceful wisdom and understanding can achieve far more than can the sword or the gun, or today’s equivalent.

Just watched on CNN one US Senator talking about George W’s new version of Texan cowboy politics to fix the mess Bush has already caused in Iraq. Then on the following feature Tony Blair appears still backing Bush, as his arrogant neo-colonialist reasoning had backed Bush before.

It is also so interesting that Bush and Tony Blair were members of David Rockeller’s Trilaterists together along with Henry Kissinger who made such a blotch of buggering up Cambodia by advising the US to attack the little nation towards the end of the Vietnam War.

Really sums it all up, doesn’t it?