The paradox here is that no Middle East peace initiative can succeed without the US driving it, yet the US with its ingrained bias towards Israel is incapable of brokering a deal acceptable to both sides.

And I really can't see how you can have realistic peace talks without including Hamas. They have power and influence in the region whether we like it or not.

There is a parallel with Northern Ireland where the UK's stance of 'we're not negotiating with terrorists' (i.e. the IRA, UVF and UDA) never produced any meaningful results. It wasn't until the British and Irish governments actively brought the 'terrorist' organizations into the negotiations process was there any real progress.

This is how it has gone year after year: the US reports x insurgents/criminals/Al-Qaida killed in a gun battle with US troops. The Iraqi locals (and occasionally a brave reporter) reveal that many were actually innocent men, women and children.

The US is confronted with this, routine denials ensue, and that's the last you hear of it. If pressed, very occasionally an 'inquiry' is held which drags on for ages (by which time most people have forgotten about the 'incident' or the evidence has faded away) and the soldiers are vindicated.

If the incident was ever reported by the MSM, it is quickly forgotten. But it is NOT forgotten in Iraq. Every time this happens it is fuel for the jihadists and adds new recruits to their cause which results in more dead American soldiers.

Everybody accepts that there will be innocent victims in war, but the number of civilian casualties at the hands of US troops seems hugely disproportionate. The careless, callous disregard of Iraqi casualties by the US is a lesson in how not to win hearts and minds and how not to win a war.

It can't be down to global warming - Camille Paglia says so. She says it's all just scaremongering (by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, among others).

I haven't got a lot of time for Hillary Clinton but that doesn't change the fact that Sidney Blumenthal wrote some of the most powerful and authoritative stuff I've seen about Bushworld and its denizens.

Farhad Manjoo seems to have a problem with J K Rowling.

This is the man who, just before the release of the Deathly Hallows book, wrote that Rowling and her publishers had, in this day and age, no right to be aggrieved at a copy of the book being leaked to the Internet prior to publication date. Manjoo then duly gave his readers pointers to the offending site and leaked some extracts himself.

So I don't think Rowling should take any lectures from Manjoo about whether 'she's on solid moral ground' (which, by the way, I believe she is) when he himself is so thoroughly amoral about abusing her material.

If the 380's going to carry us with a modicum more comfort and convenience than the other cattle trucks then that's fine by me.

And, as pointed out, bigger planes = fewer flights = a good thing.

Sarkozy has said that it may be necessary to use force against Iran. That is madness and I can't respect any politician who thinks this.

And if he thinks by sucking up to the US he'll get something in return, then he hasn't been paying attention. Just ask Tony Blair what he got out of sticking his neck out for Bush - opprobrium back home, loss of respect round the world, followed by the boot from the Labour Party.

It's easy to see how conspiracy theories grow.

You might think that US foreign policy over the last few years has been calculated to cause maximum global turmoil. Short of using nuclear weapons (yet to come in Iran maybe?), it's difficult to see how it could have made things worse.

The US has always had a blind spot over Israel/Palestine, but now it's managed to inflame the whole Muslim world while sucking in willing or unwilling collaborators like Pakistan, Britain, Australia and Turkey into the whole bloody mess as well.

And every time you think you see a chink of light the US seems wilfully to snuff it out again.

Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together could have predicted what the result of this would be so you can't help but wonder if it could possibly be that Bushco actually desired this? And if so, why? Who is this good for?

Can it really be that when the dust eventually settles they foresee an America astride the top of the heap by force of arms, reviled around the world maybe, but beating its chest in triumph having 'restored pride in America' and, incidentally, having control of the oil reserves?

Regarding rendition and black sites "much remains a deep secret".

This is not really true. There's plenty of information out there from innocent people who have since been released (sometimes after years of incarceration) and from some of the perpetrators.

It's more likely that people just don't want to hear the truth or refuse to comprehend the implications of what they are hearing.

I'm sure that if the US mainstream media really made an issue of this (which they won't) and brought it unavoidably to the attention of the public, things would change.

After all, this must go against so many things Americans claim to hold dear - individual rights and freedoms, respect for the law, etc - so why aren't we hearing more about this?

You can be sure that outside America, especially in the Muslim world, these acts are known about and discussed (and - sometimes - exaggerated), and have helped to comprehensively trash America's good reputation.

I'd just like to point out that Britain's 'socialized' healthcare applies to the whole of the UK, not just England. That is, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Too much to expect Rudy Giuliani to know that either.