It was Churchill early in WW2 who declared that he preferred his top generals to have a thorough knowledge of historical strategy right back to the Greeks.

No doubt Churchill's grave mistake over giving the order for the alled attack on Gallipoli early in WW1 had got conveniently stuck in his mind.

However, though a knowledge of historical strategy is all-important for leaders, it is surprising how many of our leaders pattern the needed strategy for today on lessons they say of early WW2.

Rather than an obvious build-up and takeovers by the Nazi forces, we have had much smaller incidents such as the 9/11 attack, the Americans putting on such a show as if their whole nation was to be taken over.

Similar to the overdone occupation of Iraq, which is now in the position that Saddam's Sunni forces our allies went into defeat because they were so cruel to the Shias, are now on the American side trying to defeat Iraqi Shias whom apparently got fed up with the Americans trying to save them?

With much of the blame now being lofted on Shia Iran, even academic historians are wondering what warlike events back in history could be similar to it?

Of course, we might get over it by placing the whole blame on Islam, or even Mahomet.

Or why not on Christianity which hasn't proven as snow white as it's Angel's wings neither?

We might ask where do genuine historical laws come in below?

It has been asked in the Guardian newspaper recently why the Americans have such a love of war?

Maybe the same can be asked of the Islamics?

Also historically the white Western races are descended from the warlike barbarians over the Alps, as the Romans called the Germanics.

Also the mostly Arab Islamics are descended from barborous Arabic tribes.

The British Germanics of a smallish island state, have proven themselves as seafarers as well as ruthless colonialists, becoming a powerful global entity, to colonise North America, beginning what is now not only the independent entity of the United States, but today the world’s ever strongest power.

From the above we hsve the horrific situation in the Middle East, seemingly consisting of tribal problems between mostly whites and dusky off-whites, which according to the United States President, George W Bush, is mostly about right and wrong.

But should a leader of a nation based on the colonial subjugation of native inhabitants be lawfully trusted to make decisions about right or wrong?

Indeed, it was Immanuel Kant, German philosopher who declared back in the late 17th century, that not one personage, nor one nation even under God should ever be trusted to have dictatorship over this world?

Thus it was the League of Nations followed by the present United Nations, both beginning with a belief in a democratic representation of Kantian global philosophy, which was simply an elected federation of world nations of arranged equal power, with multilateral shared leadership.

But the problem has never ever been solved of how to prevent one ruthless big power unlawfully ruling the world, and the only nation allowed to have an unlimited armoury - as it was to some measure with Britain with the League' and to the full right now with the United States from the UN?