ENGLISH MEDIA AND FANS HAD A GOOD WORLD CUP 2014 - LUIS SUAREZ HAS BEEN EXCESSIVELY PUNISHED FOR THE GLORY TAKEN AWAY FROM THE FALLEN EMPIRE

The whirlwinds blowing around Luis Suarez, the Uruguayan football player (or soccer player, if you are an American), do not seem to decrease in power. English football commentators, journalists, pundits and fans at large are satisfied with the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's ruling which imposed on the 27-year-old a ban of nine international matches as well as the four-month ban from all football and, in addition, a fine of 100,000 Swiss Francs. One might imagine that Luis Suarez will lose much more in advertising deals which would be either terminated or not renewed. Yet, there are present many voices protesting, if not the idea of punishment levied against the player, than its severity. Even the victim of Suarez's latest biting attack, Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini, has been offended by the severity of the punishment and making the player a celebrity pariah. As an attorney, I do not have a problem with disciplining Luis Suarez, although I have major problems with the severity of the punishment which would be unconstitutional, in my opinion, in the American legal system for it appears that various properties and/or rights were taken speedily away from Luis Suarez, without providing him with sufficient opportunity to be heard. The biting incident has brought a lot of sadness around the world, yet it seems that in England it resulted only with joy and satisfaction, judging by review of English press, comments to digital newspapers articles and blogs. Even though English national team has been eliminated from the World Cup in the first round (the group stage), without being able to win any match for the first time in history, the English football journalists, commentators and pundits, as well as the football fans, are quite happy and satisfied: Luis Suarez, a brilliant footballer and England national team's tormentor on the football pitch, has been punished not only for biting an Italian football player but, in English national psyche, for all their miseries including for daring to eliminate England from the World Cup, for ending another dream of World Cup glory for the Anglo-Saxon football empire, for 48 years of barren football years and mediocrity of England's national team, for having the temerity of being the best player in English Premier League, for being the top scorer in the Premier League, for his long known desire to abandon the riches of English Premier league for the Spanish football giants FC Barcelona or Real Madrid, for speaking Spanish, the language of hated former Spanish Empire and hated nowadays Argentines, crouching around, in English psyche, and awaiting for the best moment to pounce on the Falklands, which, oh my, they dare to call Malvinas, for the thorn of Scottish independence movement and the referendum, for Jean-Claude Juncker's presidency of the European Commission and for the European Union's existence, daring to silence, with cacophony of its everyday bureaucracy, the not so roaring lions of yesteryear British Empire.

Janusz Andrzejewski is a New York based attorney, writing on legal and other important community subjects. You can contact him by telephone (212) 634-4250 or through e-mail: janusz@januszandrzejewski.com

IS WAR WITH IRAN ON THE CARDS?

All the signs seem to indicate that the world order as we know it will not exist for long. The fight between the proponents of the new world order concepts and the conservative traditional nation state supporters is going on; in fact, it is becoming more intense. It seems that in an age of quickest movements of people in history of mankind, such terms as nation, state, homeland, traditions, religion, are being devalued whereas concepts of globalization, political correctness, free trade, world without borders are making headways constantly. However, the new world order has been in the making since the second half of 18th century, from the time when the ideas of enlightenment caught the imagination of people, and nothing substantial came out of it, notwithstanding that various efforts have been made to institutionalize transnational organizations governing various sectors of either continental or world affairs. League of Nations or present United Nations, and various offshoot organizations have been such attempts. However, these organizations are quite toothless when it comes to the most vital and contentious affairs of the contemporaneous world. Obviously, it concerns the sources of energy and possession of geostrategic masses of land. It seems that the United States at the time of neoconservatives heyday - during Gerge W. Bush's presidency - embraced an old Zbigniew Brzezinski's game plan, drawn in his book "The Grand Chessboard", regarding if not conquering Eurasia, than definitely not allowing any single power to dominate it. Obviously, Eurasia has 75% of the world population and it also has 75% of known sources of energy. If any of the world powers would succeed in achieving domination of Eurasia landmass, the United States would become a peripheral non-entity. Therefore, it does not matter who wins the 2012 presidential elections, whether it is Romney or Obama, the global policy of the United States will not get any major reset. Everything seems to confirm prediction that there will be next war in Middle East or Central Asia region. Currently, there are following powers with potential for domination of Eurasia region: Russia, China, India and European Union. Out of these four powers, only China and Russia must be considered by the United States, at this time, as the players in an expected future war. However, with each passing year, the Russian position will deteriorate, as Russia would still be preoccupied in keeping her vast territories in one piece, whereas China will be gaining in amassing its economic power as well as in capabilities of projection of that power by military means. Apparently, the US geostrategists must have realized that, and will have to preemptively use any pretext to make additional gains in Middle East and in Central Asia, before China's military power and capability to project that power has grown beyond control. The thinking must be that the US cannot afford to wait, if it is to remain a player on the world stage. For the foregoing, it seams that war with Iran is inevitable, no matter what is the pretext under international law. However, it appears that Zbigniew Brzezinski himself is now against his old "game plan" as he is afraid that war with Iran would ignite the whole world of islam against the United States. So, what is it going to be?