The Rose interviews on July 18 made it clear that the US has switched sides so often with all the subgroups in the region apart from Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia that it has lost credibility as a peace mediator from each sug-groups perspective. One of the u-turns I dont understand or cannot recall the context of was why Clinton had made some progress in building brdiges with Iran only to have Bush apparently doing a major uturn. Can someone remind me what was the particular reason why the Bush admin made this particular u-turn

Tonight's extraordinary clarification of combinatorial tactics make a game of survivor look like childsplay. This interview comes on top of the world overhearing the G8 sidebar between Bush and Blair where the lack of mutual respect/dignity in Bush's over-simplified suggestions of actions make me question whether any of the G8 leaders at the table had as little framing of how peace in the region is a multi-sided negotiation game - assuming peacemaking is what democracies still elect people to public office to seek to represent. Can Bush not take a step back from short-term gunslinging to see the long-term dynmaics? All our hopes as people and parents must surely be to prevent hurtling towards the tipping point of world war 3, which as a speaker in the day? before's program mentioned will not be a war between nations in the way that 20th century world wars were, but between networks many of which have no elected national status to lose and are therefore terrifyingly capable of terrors for terrors sake. By which I mean ordinary people of all nations are certain to be the biggest loser. I lost a great friend in the London tube bombings; any belief that nations actually protect their own people when they fail to see that network wars go beyond or below nations must be dismissed from strategic planning however inconvenient a truth it may be to national leaders used to believing that top down power is the only game in town.

Hypothetically but practically, if we are to view peacemaking for the whole region as if it were a game of chess but with about 12 different groups making survivor alliances, its pretty clear that Bush (at least the isolated Bush 20o6) would not get through to the final 6 let alone the final 3. Is this because at the end of the day he's not a very smart player at a survivor game that has many diferent dynamic alliances in it? or does he still cling to an unrealistic belief in the power of the US pieces in the grounded way this particular game's rules evolve? What seems evident to me is that although it is obvious that the US has far more resources than all the other sides put together, this is ultimately a game where almost every side apart from the US has nowhere else to go but stay in this region. Unless the US is represented by a leader who can accept that paradox in how systemic integrity of collaboration moves is rehearsed through many moves ahead, every move the US makes in the region will make the whole area more unstable however much this may not be what any US president including Bush has actually wanted. My guess is that Condoleesa is going to be ever more busy as the last skilled negotiator left in the White House's very own Hell's Kitchen. Or do you think this adminstration has any other negotiators you would trust if you were playing survivor with them?

This looks like a pretty well informed web on Syria and many countries eastwards http://www.globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=566&cid=2&sid=5

Interesting map of wonders of ancient world, showing Syria as in the middle geographically http://www.platial.com/deisnor/map/1660?title=7_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World

What an interview! Tonight's Charlie Rose with the President of Syria BASHAR AL-ASSAD
Google 1 Charlie*Syria
Google 2 Charlie*Al-Assad

It reminds me that every practical book I have ever come across on worldwide networks has made its number 1 passion the hope - the prayer even - that those in charge of leading countries care deeply about understanding the viewpoints of other countries.

May I hypothesise the irony: the more hi-technology leaders surround themselves with the less able they deeply they seem to have been able to understand each other's countries. If this is so, can you help me understand why? alternatively if you disagree could you refer me to one speech made by America's 21st C administration which best shows an understanding of another's country

My first job in 1973 was in the UK National Develoment Program for computer assisted learning. I was left with some peculiar impressions:

First computer assisted media would change the world but it would be a couple of decades out before inter-networking went broadly public instead of our early tests linking 4 university's undergraduate students. The class I monitored was psychologists, and computer assited knowledge sure had quite peculiar impacts on this group. Even if its too late to get 50 year olds to make the deepest use of computer mediated learning systems, I do hope we do not repeat the same mistakes with nine year olds today (vested interest : my daughter's nine)

Can you tell us a best bin category web for searching Syria

Our usual favourites are OK but not as diverse as I feel we need for this club

omidyar.net*syria