Hello to everybody...

I am a Syrian living in Syria ... I saw that you were discussing Iraq, and I thought that I would give my opinion on that...

Going into Iraq was a great idea that was poorly executed...

The Bush administration is one of the most courageous administrations that have ever been ... and history will show that, I have no doubt about it...

The Middle East region has always been a problem for the world. But all the western governments have always feared to interfere seriously in this swamp... they feared Islamic fundamentalism. So they chose to accept the presence of non-Islamic corrupt authoritarian regimes instead...

After 9/11 it appeared clearly that this problem can get deadly, and even with the horrible size of the tragedy, it could have been much worse, if the terrorists used WMD for example...

The problem wasn't at all just Afghanistan or usama benladin, this was the claim of the corrupt Arab regimes, or the authoritarian regimes shielding them like Russia and China...

Those terrorists weren't only Afghans. They were Muslims from all over the Islamic world. They didn't turn into terrorists in Afghanistan; they went there because they already had their terrorist ideology and wanted to turn it into something real...

This ideology was created in countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia...

It would have been a total nonsense to go after the terrorists who escaped from the factory and not to take a serious action against the factory that produced them itself...

Most of the current regimes of Islamic countries, notably those of Syria, Iran, and the one that was in Iraq are the true terror producers, and the real enemy to the entire civilized world...

The ideology of terror is not a fruit of Islamic belief. Violence in Islam is not any more than it is in many other religions .in fact; Islamic violent verses are obscure and debatable...

Terrorism is not a fruit of poverty or hard life conditions. Arab peoples aren't as poor as many other peoples like Indians or Africans. Saudi Arabia is of the richest countries in the world, and it is where most of the terrorists came from. The terrorists weren't of humble background.

The ideology of terrorism is an ideology that has been actively and consciously sponsored by the corrupt Arab regimes for decades.

Millions of people have been educated in both Iraq and Syria to hate the US as it is the source of all evils. Those corrupt regimes use the ideas of "imperialist conspiracies" and "the holy war against Israel and America" as excuses for there constant failure and corruption. And since the Muslim population is mainly ignorant and doesn't have access to free media, they fall for this anti-west propaganda. They really believe that all their problems are because of the US. And that is what makes most Syrians for example anti- America.

In Syria nearly 95% of the people believe that America is an evil regime that is trying to destroy the Arab nation and replace Arabs with Israelis in their land!

These ideas are being taught to students every year in a curriculum called:"National Socialist Education".

So what the Bush administration tried to do in Iraq was totally right and at the heart of the problem of terrorism.

I wouldn't waste much time questioning the way he achieved the liberation of Iraq... because there were many UN resolutions that the Iraqi regime had breached for years. And the opposition in the Security Council by Russia and France wasn't really an innocent care for international law; those countries were allies of Saddam against his own people's interests.

What went wrong in Iraq was poor planning. The planners for this campaign didn't take into account that they aren't facing Saddam alone; there are other tyrants like him in the neighborhood who won't be sitting and waiting their turn to be overthrown.

Syria and Iran, those two countries are fighting the US now in Iraq via indirect ways. The Sader militias in Iraq are sponsored by the Iranian regime, and the Sunni terrorist rebels are supported by the Syrian regime.

The Syrian strategy in the region is: total chaos. They are trying to bring about a civil war in Iraq and another one in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian territories too; so they would put the whole region on total chaos in order to undermine the US strategy. This regime has done that before in Lebanon in order to occupy that country under the claim of reunifying it.

The US had to do a substantial change in this region to stop the production of terrorists, and going into Iraq was a great and daring endeavor. Failure now means that those terrorists in Iraq would rule the whole Middle East. And America would have then to face them on its own land.

Going into Iraq was a great idea that was poorly executed...
No. It was a poor idea that was poorly executed. What did Iraq have to do with Islamic fundamentalism? Saddam had little truck with islamic terrorists, most of whom considered Saddam an enemy. Adopting a policy of preemption meant that other countries accelerated their pursuit of nuclear deterrents. Having committed so many troops to Iraq, the ability to deter nuclear proliferation was also impaired. Thus, the US has greatly reduced its power and influence in the region.


The US had to do a substantial change in this region to stop the production of terrorists, and going into Iraq was a great and daring endeavor.
No, it wasn't daring. The Bush administration was just ignorant of the challenges involved. Theoretically, how would invading Iraq stop the production of terrorists?

Hani:

My thanks for your wonderful input on the matter.

I agree with you: The war in Iraq was a profoundly good idea, but was poorly executed. Yet now that the US is in and committed, we must deal with the problem and stop those terrorists now.

Again: Thank you for providing an excellently presented Syrian perspective on the matter. Truly, this was an invaluable contribution.

Tell me, do you have any further input on how the US can achieve her aims in Iraq?

What did Iraq have to do with Islamic fundamentalism? Saddam had little truck with islamic terrorists, most of whom considered Saddam an enemy.

I hear this a lot in the American media ... believe me, this is totally false...

Who do you think those insurgents in Iraq are?

Most of them were part of Saddam's regime. They were members of his regime or soldiers in his army...

What do you call them? ... Aren't they Islamic fundamentalists?!

They aren't just any Islamic fundamentalists ... they are of a fierce type too...

What do you think would make a government official in a secular state go on slaughtering people?

This view presented in your comment is just the traditional western policy that was implemented for decades and eventually brought about 9/11...

You can't just believe the appearances ... those regimes look like secular regimes ... but they are in fact not...

Their oppression of their people, and their anti-America propaganda and education creates only Islamic extremism ... because people have no belief in their corrupt Fascist ideals ... so people turn to the most primitive idea; that is extreme religious one...

Saddam wasn't going to remain in power forever, and ultimately, those terrorists you're seeing in Iraq now would have gotten to the US with all their obvious hatred ... and may be with WMD...

Having committed so many troops to Iraq

I don't think about 150 000 troops are so many! ... If any thing we should say: too few...

Theoretically, how would invading Iraq stop the production of terrorists?

How could the invasion of Germany stop the production of Nazis?

Stopping the production of terrorists is by installing a state in where the education of young people doesn't teach them that all the atrocities that happened to them are because of America...

And a state where free media can show the people that Americans are just human beings and not monsters...

Oppression generates extremism ... this is the formula for terrorism production ... stopping this would stop terrorists' production...

So is it your view that the US should invade Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia as well? You mention all those as terror-producing countries. What about Palestine and Lebanon too? No point in leaving a job half-finished.

Prince James:

Many thanks to you for your reply...

do you have any further input on how the US can achieve her aims in Iraq?

I don't really know ... it's gotten really bad there now...

I believe that there is nothing could be done now other than what the administration is doing...

There is the "cut and run" idea ... but it won't solve anything...

Those terrorists are keeping on their rebellion because they think America is about to lose and leave...

When they get hopeless, or dead, I think it will be all right...

In all cases, facing them in Iraq now is much easier than facing their influence spreading throughout Muslim world...

Don't worry ... you are a strong and good nation ... and even though you have different leaders with different opinions, they're all good ones, because they don't rule alone by themselves; but with the aid of a good governing system.

So is it your view that the US should invade Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia as well? You mention all those as terror-producing countries. What about Palestine and Lebanon too? No point in leaving a job half-finished.

No dear ... it would be a disaster...

Change doesn't necessarily require military invasion...

There are certain regimes that are "reformable"... Saudi Arabia and Egypt are countries with regimes that could be reformed without force ...

The Iraqi case was very different. Saddam was a maniac who launched wars, used WMD against his own people, carried out mass massacres, he sponsored Palestinian terrorists, and defied the UN ... his regime was impossible to reform, and had to be overthrown ...

Don't forget that about 80% of the Iraqi people (Shiites and Kurds) accepted his overthrown gladly...

Iraq was an easy case really... but too many mistakes make a wining case lose...

Syria and Iran are apparently non-refomable regimes. But going into them won't work at all because, in Syria's example, most people are Sunni extremists, and many are pro-regime (brainwashed, like people are always in totalitarian regimes)...

sock puppet

Originally posted by Hani:

Who do you think those insurgents in Iraq are?

Pissed off Sunnis who have lost power. The majority have little religious inspiration: loss of power is what inspires.

The largest part of the violence (and these do not attack American soldiers, hence not insurgents) has to do with the war between Sunnis and Shiites. I guess you could call that seperation due to religion, but it has more to do with politics than belief. Iraq is nearing the break-up that is inevitable without a tyrant who violently holds the nation together, a nation that was artificial in the first place.

There are certain regimes that are "reformable"... Saudi Arabia and Egypt are countries with regimes that could be reformed without force ...

Saudi Arabia has contributed more to the development of terrorist organizations than any other nation in the world. Its monarchy has for decades brided its extremist religious mullahs in order to keep power, and then looked the other way.

This money has been used to set up a multitude of religious school and radical mosques, who then produce the fundamentalists you see today. The House of Saud has learned this lesson to late, and today you see the inevitable decline of its power. Extremism has grown exponetially, and the end result with be the overthrow of its government.

Egypt's government rules by an iron hand and faces its own insurgency, both violently and politically. It may end up that a more fanantical government takes its place, but through unviolent means. Both these countries are closer to gaining Islamic governments than to being "reformed" as you have suggested.

Ironically, Saddam probably had the strongest grip on his people than anyone else. Through constant fear and intimidation, he held insurgents in check. His sons were being primed to take over the next generation, so there was only a small threat of a switch to an extremist government.

Saddam made one mistake, for he was in good standing with the United States before the invasion of Kuwait. The United States even supplied him with many of his chemical weapons they accused him of having. The fact that he had turned on the U.S., and his nation had the second largest oil reserves in the world led to his invasion and the resulting occupation. If Saudi Arabia stopped supplying oil, they would probably be invaded based on false pretense, as well.

In defense, the idea was not a bad one if it was at all possible to carry out. I would have had no problems watching Iraqi's change over to a true democracy even if the real reason for this change was based on the countries oil reserves. Bush, however, ignored the obvious: the fact that an Arab and Muslim nation would never stand for a foreign occupation. This was obvious to everyone with any mental capacity at all, so I not sure how it alluded Bush.

The ideology of terror is not a fruit of Islamic belief. Violence in Islam is not any more than it is in many other religions .

Oh yes it is. Religions of many kinds foster a faith in the irrational. It is no excuse to compare the violence between Islam and other religions, they all do it, and it's all wrong, but Islam more than most.

Invading Iraq increased terrorism. Al Quida was not in Iraq before the invasion, and now they are. Now they have a training ground better than any jungle gym in Afghanistan. Our troops are now so stretched in Iraq, that we can't go after the terroist's real hideout, NW Pakistan. Bush is an idiot.

The "rebellion" is not just against America. Religious factions see an opportunity for dominance in their region. It's a civil war which will continue long after the US leaves. Around 600,000 Iraqis are dead because of this stupid invasion, and it's not worth it. We are not the slightest bit safer as a result.

To towards:

Are you telling me that the insurgency in Iraq is not on religious basis?!

I don't know what your sources are, but let me tell you some of the main insurgent groups' names:

The Islamic Army in Iraq
Patrons of Sunnis ("patrons" holds a religious sense)
Islamic National Resistance

And there is of course Al-Qaida

The rhetoric of those insurgents is entirely Islamic fundamentalist…

They call themselves "mujahedeen" and their rebellion a "jihad" against "the Crusaders and Persians" …

They issue statements and decrees that clearly show their extremist Islamic background…

The theory you are proposing is just an old theory with no proof …

Those insurgents have always maintained that they don't mind Shiite participation in rule …

There was no real conflict after the invasion between Iraqi insurgents and Shiite population … this conflict was provoked by Al-Qaida and by groups sponsored and directed by the Syrian and Iranian regimes… any one lives in Iraq knows that there is no such thing as religious war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq …

Those insurgents are fighting Americans and the new Iraqi state on fundamentalist ideological basis … it has little to do with frustration of losing power …

What you said about Saudi Arabia is true … but since 9/11 there has been enormous change in that country… I spent much of my life there and I know how hard it's to reform such a conservative society … but they are working on it …

Whereas in a country like Syria … it's just gotten worse … we can't use e-mail anymore because it's illegal … you go to prison for expressing your opinion … if they catch someone posting on this forum the stuff I am posting, he will end up in prison for a long time …

Egypt's government rules by an iron hand and faces its own insurgency, both violently and politically. It may end up that a more fanantical government takes its place, but through unviolent means. Both these countries are closer to gaining Islamic governments than to being "reformed" as you have suggested.

Ironically, Saddam probably had the strongest grip on his people than anyone else. Through constant fear and intimidation, he held insurgents in check. His sons were being primed to take over the next generation, so there was only a small threat of a switch to an extremist government.

You are indicating the treatment of cancer by painkillers !

Well … this is the traditional position as I mentioned before … but those iron grips didn't prevent many terrorist attacks that culminated in 9/11 …

Relying on Saddam's iron grip with his sons, and on more cruel tyrants than egypt's doesn't provide security … this has proved wrong in 9/11 …

Those iron grips cause festering . they increase the long-term danger and don't protect anyone … it's just a matter of time until the explosion occurs . and the more late the deadlier it would be … this logic is a move back … it won't achieve any thing …

Saddam made one mistake, for he was in good standing with the United States before the invasion of Kuwait. The United States even supplied him with many of his chemical weapons they accused him of having. The fact that he had turned on the U.S., and his nation had the second largest oil reserves in the world led to his invasion and the resulting occupation. If Saudi Arabia stopped supplying oil, they would probably be invaded based on false pretense, as well.

Conspiracy theory …

the fact that an Arab and Muslim nation would never stand for a foreign occupation.

Well that depends on whether you count Shiites and Kurds as Muslims … nobody is standing for foreign occupation … this was just a bitter last-chance medicine …

Religions of many kinds foster a faith in the irrational. It is no excuse to compare the violence between Islam and other religions, they all do it, and it's all wrong, but Islam more than most.

I don't want to start an argument about religion ... but all religions are formable to suit the society that nurtures them...

Horrible things were made in the name of Christianity when Christians were in similar conditions to which Muslims in today...

As I said, it is no excuse to point out the violence in other religions, it is religion that is the problem.

Society does create religion, and that religion controls that society, which becomes more amenable to that religion (especially through the means of religious abuse, the indoctrination of children), it is a viscious circle.

The solution is not to fight Islam, far from it. Our brothers and sisters deserve our compassion. The invasion of Iraq hurt our cause, which is to generate support for the eradication of one particular terrorist organization, not just physically, but in the minds of Muslims everywhere. We need to convince Muslims that secularism doesn't mean destroying their traditions.

sock puppet

Yup

Hello to everybody...

I am a Syrian living in Syria ... I saw that you were discussing Iraq, and I thought that I would give my opinion on that...

Going into Iraq was a great idea that was poorly executed...

The Bush administration is one of the most courageous administrations that have ever been ... and history will show that, I have no doubt about it...

The Middle East region has always been a problem for the world. But all the western governments have always feared to interfere seriously in this swamp... they feared Islamic fundamentalism. So they chose to accept the presence of non-Islamic corrupt authoritarian regimes instead...

After 9/11 it appeared clearly that this problem can get deadly, and even with the horrible size of the tragedy, it could have been much worse, if the terrorists used WMD for example...

The problem wasn't at all just Afghanistan or usama benladin, this was the claim of the corrupt Arab regimes, or the authoritarian regimes shielding them like Russia and China...

Those terrorists weren't only Afghans. They were Muslims from all over the Islamic world. They didn't turn into terrorists in Afghanistan; they went there because they already had their terrorist ideology and wanted to turn it into something real...

This ideology was created in countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia...

It would have been a total nonsense to go after the terrorists who escaped from the factory and not to take a serious action against the factory that produced them itself...

Most of the current regimes of Islamic countries, notably those of Syria, Iran, and the one that was in Iraq are the true terror producers, and the real enemy to the entire civilized world...

The ideology of terror is not a fruit of Islamic belief. Violence in Islam is not any more than it is in many other religions .in fact; Islamic violent verses are obscure and debatable...

Terrorism is not a fruit of poverty or hard life conditions. Arab peoples aren't as poor as many other peoples like Indians or Africans. Saudi Arabia is of the richest countries in the world, and it is where most of the terrorists came from. The terrorists weren't of humble background.

The ideology of terrorism is an ideology that has been actively and consciously sponsored by the corrupt Arab regimes for decades.

Millions of people have been educated in both Iraq and Syria to hate the US as it is the source of all evils. Those corrupt regimes use the ideas of "imperialist conspiracies" and "the holy war against Israel and America" as excuses for there constant failure and corruption. And since the Muslim population is mainly ignorant and doesn't have access to free media, they fall for this anti-west propaganda. They really believe that all their problems are because of the US. And that is what makes most Syrians for example anti- America.

In Syria nearly 95% of the people believe that America is an evil regime that is trying to destroy the Arab nation and replace Arabs with Israelis in their land!

These ideas are being taught to students every year in a curriculum called:"National Socialist Education".

So what the Bush administration tried to do in Iraq was totally right and at the heart of the problem of terrorism.

I wouldn't waste much time questioning the way he achieved the liberation of Iraq... because there were many UN resolutions that the Iraqi regime had breached for years. And the opposition in the Security Council by Russia and France wasn't really an innocent care for international law; those countries were allies of Saddam against his own people's interests.

What went wrong in Iraq was poor planning. The planners for this campaign didn't take into account that they aren't facing Saddam alone; there are other tyrants like him in the neighborhood who won't be sitting and waiting their turn to be overthrown.

Syria and Iran, those two countries are fighting the US now in Iraq via indirect ways. The Sader militias in Iraq are sponsored by the Iranian regime, and the Sunni terrorist rebels are supported by the Syrian regime.

The Syrian strategy in the region is: total chaos. They are trying to bring about a civil war in Iraq and another one in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian territories too; so they would put the whole region on total chaos in order to undermine the US strategy. This regime has done that before in Lebanon in order to occupy that country under the claim of reunifying it.

The US had to do a substantial change in this region to stop the production of terrorists, and going into Iraq was a great and daring endeavor. Failure now means that those terrorists in Iraq would rule the whole Middle East. And America would have then to face them on its own land.

It was bad idea from a bad president who used bad INTEL (WMD???) to do a bad thing to a country that posed no threat at all to the U.S. or it's allies.

Who do you think those insurgents in Iraq are?
There's the non sequiter. The insurgents weren't previously working against the US in many cases. The insurgents are:
- Sunnis. Pre-war, they weren't waging a war against the US.
- Foreign fighters. Would exist anyway, but now have a chance to attack americans in a country that is easy to enter, has a good support network, has loads of munitions lying around and has only fledging armed forces.
- Shiites. Were opposed and contained by the regime of Saddam.

You mention Jamaat Ansar Al-Sunna. They didn't even exist before the war. They certainly didn't stage operations against the US. Islamic National Resistance, it shouldn't be a surprise, is a national resistance movement. Again, it did not exist before the war. Again, its formation was a response to, and not a cause of, the Iraq war.

Hani,
Great post. I agree completely with you. I just hope the idiot Democrats don't manage to gain control and institute their brilliant "let's run away" strategy. They seem to forget that when someone runs away, it's only natural to chase him. Cowardice will only embolden the Islamofascists.

By the way, how did you come to hold such opinions living in Syria? Is such thinking common there?

Is such thinking common there?


You shouldn't count on this …

There is nothing absolute in life and everything has different aspects …

I just want to wrap up with this:

I am neither a republican nor democrat. In fact I've never been to America …so I don't care for any factional comments …

The problem of terrorism is not an issue of security; it is a cultural problem …Muslims are not Vietnamese; they are 1.5 billion, and they live everywhere …

Pursuing terrorists everywhere will not solve this problem nor will it contaminate the danger…

This is the "clash of civilizations" … it is a major problem that involves a whole civilization in an incredible situation…

Going into Iraq, in my modest opinion, was the only significant attempt at addressing the roots of the problem.

Relying on corrupt tyrants didn't and won't provide a solution…this actually makes the major clash inevitable.

What happened in Iraq may was for Americans: just another war … and probably an easy one …

For Arab Muslims that wasn't so at all …
It was a major historic event for Arab countries, and it has already set off a chain of reactions that have never happened since a long time …

Stirring up such a stagnant swamp as the Middle East wouldn't have ever been a totally safe job… but it was essential …

The world might look less safe now than it was before…but this is only for a superficial and short-sighted eye … and for tyrant-lovers too, like the Russians and French …

In the long term, it will appear how the creation of a free and proud Iraqi state would make the world a much much safer place …

Because this would create a new Muslim perspective of the world and of Muslims themselves, a one that does not advocate clash nor tolerates it.

I just want to wrap up with this:

I am neither a republican nor democrat. In fact I've never been to America …so I don't care for any factional comments …

The problem of terrorism is not an issue of security; it is a cultural problem …Muslims are not Vietnamese; they are 1.5 billion, and they live everywhere …

Pursuing terrorists everywhere will not solve this problem nor will it contaminate the danger…

This is the "clash of civilizations" … it is a major problem that involves a whole civilization in an incredible situation…

Going into Iraq, in my modest opinion, was the only significant attempt at addressing the roots of the problem.

Relying on corrupt tyrants didn't and won't provide a solution…this actually makes the major clash inevitable.

What happened in Iraq may was for Americans: just another war … and probably an easy one …

For Arab Muslims that wasn't so at all …
It was a major historic event for Arab countries, and it has already set off a chain of reactions that have never happened since a long time …

Stirring up such a stagnant swamp as the Middle East wouldn't have ever been a totally safe job… but it was essential …

The world might look less safe now than it was before…but this is only for a superficial and short-sighted eye … and for tyrant-lovers too, like the Russians and French …

In the long term, it will appear how the creation of a free and proud Iraqi state would make the world a much much safer place …

Because this would create a new Muslim perspective for the world and for Muslims themselves, a one that does not advocate clash nor tolerates it.

I think bombing and invading Iraq over the so-called 'Bad INTEL' (WMD???) will undoubtly go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes ever made by a U.S. president. And right now, sectarian violence is getting worst and worst everyday. What's going stop it? Bush can't. His actions started it.

The Middle East region has always been a problem for the world. But all the western governments have always feared to interfere seriously in this swamp... they feared Islamic fundamentalism. So they chose to accept the presence of non-Islamic corrupt authoritarian regimes instead...The span of your historical perspective is too narrow. Western governments have in fact been interfering in the Muslim region for almost a century.

Starting with the defeat of the Ottomans, the British "liberated" almost all of their territory except Turkey itself. "Nations" like Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Afghanistan have very little historical validity. They were created by drawing arbitrary lines on a map for the convenience of neo-colonial administrators. Arabic, Persian and Kurdish tribes were cut into fragments and various fragments were thrown together and told to create a nation. Sunni and Shia Muslims were expected to live together in harmony--by people who didn't even understand the cause of the enmity between them.

The Russians did no better with the Uzbeks, Chechens, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Turkmens, Azeris, etc., and made it worse by moving ethnic Russians into their now-subjugated states as the ruling class.

At the end of WWII Britain still "owned" Palestine and although the Palestinians hadn't even fought in that war they ended up being the losers as the Europeans "apologized" for centuries of antisemitism--by giving the Jews somebody else's country rather than one of their own.

Then the Cold War started and the Americans and Russians treated the Middle East like a giant chessboard. Installing and deposing leaders at their whim to try to maintain a political "balance" in the region that had nothing at all to do with the people who actually lived there. The American government supported the Shah, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud, and the entire series of pro-Western Israeli governments, with no concern for the will or the welfare of their subjects. The Russians attempted to get a foothold in Afghanistan by pulling together the Northern Alliance, and the Americans responded by creating the Taliban to oppose them.

The India-Pakistan conflict is so complicated, with the USA, Russia and China involved that I barely understand it, but somehow China made itself a player in the region by gobbling up Tibet, without a word of complaint from either the Russians or the Americans.

Perhaps now you can understand why many of us in the West are skeptical of our governments' ability to be a positive influence in the Middle East. With hindsight we can see that what they have been doing is wrong, but that doesn't automatically confer the ability to see what is right.

All I know for sure is that when Christian armies set foot on Muslim soil, the results have never been good.

The span of your historical perspective is too narrow. Western governments have in fact been interfering in the Muslim region for almost a century.

Starting with the defeat of the Ottomans, the British "liberated" almost all of their territory except Turkey itself. "Nations" like Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Afghanistan have very little historical validity. They were created by drawing arbitrary lines on a map for the convenience of neo-colonial administrators. Arabic, Persian and Kurdish tribes were cut into fragments and various fragments were thrown together and told to create a nation. Sunni and Shia Muslims were expected to live together in harmony--by people who didn't even understand the cause of the enmity between them.

The Russians did no better with the Uzbeks, Chechens, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Turkmens, Azeris, etc., and made it worse by moving ethnic Russians into their now-subjugated states as the ruling class.

At the end of WWII Britain still "owned" Palestine and although the Palestinians hadn't even fought in that war they ended up being the losers as the Europeans "apologized" for centuries of antisemitism--by giving the Jews somebody else's country rather than one of their own.

Then the Cold War started and the Americans and Russians treated the Middle East like a giant chessboard. Installing and deposing leaders at their whim to try to maintain a political "balance" in the region that had nothing at all to do with the people who actually lived there. The American government supported the Shah, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud, and the entire series of pro-Western Israeli governments, with no concern for the will or the welfare of their subjects. The Russians attempted to get a foothold in Afghanistan by pulling together the Northern Alliance, and the Americans responded by creating the Taliban to oppose them.

The India-Pakistan conflict is so complicated, with the USA, Russia and China involved that I barely understand it, but somehow China made itself a player in the region by gobbling up Tibet, without a word of complaint from either the Russians or the Americans.

Perhaps now you can understand why many of us in the West are skeptical of our governments' ability to be a positive influence in the Middle East. With hindsight we can see that what they have been doing is wrong, but that doesn't automatically confer the ability to see what is right.

All I know for sure is that when Christian armies set foot on Muslim soil, the results have never been good.

Actually the span of my historical perspective is rather wide ... but I was talking about a specific issue in a specific period of time. I don't look too wide so I lose the focus...

You were not totally comprehensive because you forgot to talk about the Greek invasion of the area under Alexander the Great!

you are talking about past epochs with different players and different circumstances ... it makes me rather happy that you are aware of all that bad history, since you say that you are a westerner, and I wonder if you westerners knew all that why haven't you influenced your governments to play a more positive role ...

Look ... all that which you talked about was bad ... but that which appears that Bush is trying to do in the Middle East is different from that bad past...

That was what I said in the first place ... I said that those old policies were bad and the new policy is good ... I said that western governments supported bad regimes. I hear people here talking about keeping tyrants and corrupt regimes in place...that what I am against...