Tom,

>One administration made progress towards peace only to be undone by future administrations.

That's true, and think the same is valid for the US.

You can notice that in all my messages I address the US government (Bush administration) and not the americam people. About two or three weeks ago I've learned the "real" meanining of an english word that, to me, now seems a synonim of "fear". That word is neo-conservative. Some say the neo-conservative are the 21st century nationalists and you, better than I, know how all ended in countries that employed such thoughts in their ideologies (the first one that comes to mind is Germany at the times of A. Hitler. Remember the "Deutschland über alles"?). I can be wrong, but think my fear is fundamented.

Coming to work this morning, listening on the radio one of the most proeminent political analists in Brazil (Alexandre Garcia) he was talking about the fear that the neo-conservatives in general AND the Bush administration in special represent to the world in general AND to Brazil in special.

Having said that there is an axis of evil (Iran, Iraq and N. Korea), President Bush can, at his will, "add" Brazil, because now it is governed by an old time leftist (President Lula is a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chaves and his party has some engagement with Colombian FARC), and decide to go into war with Brazil AND take the Amazon, for example. This was broadcasted this very morning in the Antena Um radio, by Alexandre Garcia, 7:00am Brasilia time! You may check it if you wish.

My point is that the so called neo-conservatives are a threat to the world (the US included), and is represented by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al.

You can also check, if you havent done before, the article "Is Blair a neo-Conservative?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2907115.stm)

Please let me copy some excerpts from that BBC News article:

'21st Century Nationalists'?

In 1997 they, along with Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and Dan Quayle, signed the founding document for the neo-conservative "Project for the New American Century".

They argued that America has to re-discover its "military strength and moral clarity" and needed to "challenge regimes hostile to our interest and values".

They had to wait, but they've got their way.

There's not much "neo" about them.

Better names might be "Pre-emptive Pragmatists", "Armed Might Paternalists" or perhaps "Imperialist Aggressors". Ha ha. Only joking.

They are at any rate full blooded 21st Century Nationalists. They believe that "American leadership is good for America and good for the world".

'High passion'

They think that American defence spending is too low, and that as the only super power America must remain militarily unchallenged.

In the heyday of the British Empire the navy had a formula that it must remain larger than the next two forces combined.

Some neo-cons have updated the doctrine to suggest that the US has the right to pre-emptively deal with any state that has the temerity to come close.

Think my concern is not a foolish one.

Fernando