Bill Hahn,

fair point about NYT.

Re. talking to Iran, Syria etc., I know it's called diplomacy and I do agree it's preferable to mayhem. But my point is that it's not going to be honest diplomacy. It's going to be along the lines of "You have to change your societies and the way you live. You are going to have to be more pro-Western in your attitudes. You are going to have to co-operate with our takeover of resources in your region. You are going to have to render yourselves militarily impotent. While your neighbour and our ally may be allowed to have nuclear weapons, this right is not for you. You are going to have to open your markets to our Free Trade regulations which will be great for our big corporations, but probably disastrous for your social welfare, as has been the case all over the 'Third World'"

Now, if you were one of the countries being addressed in that way, you might be less than enthusiastic about such a message. Certainly if China was interfering in the Middle East region in this manner, planting its troops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and demanding that the populations and governments of those countries toe the Beijing line, Britain and America would be the first countries to shout about the spread of communism (though China is no longer communist - as Diang Xiaopeng said 'to get rich is glorious') and democracy etc., That is, unless China was stronger and / or willing to cut them in on the deal. They would complain about it not because they really have any great love for democracy, but because China would be 'interfering' with what they regard as their pie.

The White House makes a lot of noise about Syria and Iran having no real respect for democracy and not being interested in democracy for palestine or Lebanon, but I think it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

As for Condoleeza Rice: as a diplomat? She certainly knows how to be tough and has the ability to handle her opponents fairly well. But to many she comes across as being a bit creepy. There was a very good cartoon in a paper that summed it up here: It shows Rice standing in front of a Lebanese landscape that is being slowly reduced to rubble. Regarding the hoped-for ceasefire at the time (about two weeks ago) she is saying "Not yet.....not yet....' and finally '..Now!' as the last building in Lebanon is flattened. But her hypocrisy unfortunately is fairly clearly visible to most, and hardly does much for her reputation as a diplomat. I don't think any of the Arab countries take her seriously anymore (Lebanon's leader even told her go home until she was willing to get serious) and many countries in Europe find her a bit creepy as well. If she ever became president she would simply continue her warmongering subtext in a more open fashion.