Hello alli have baG with
.aarp insurance life term

Run a mile

Red in tooth and claw

Share and share alike

Share and share alike

Suspension of disbelief

Fellow traveller

Vicious circle

Backroom boy

Far be it from me

Run out of steam

Scot free

Camera cannot lie - The

Daylight robbery

Devil to pay - The

Devil to pay - The

Shot in the dark

In stitches

On the dole

Smart casual

Toe-curling

Bone up on

Moveable feast

auto insurance number phone usaa Put a damper on

auto insurance quote traveler Rabbit and pork

delta dental insurance usa The cut of your jib

traveler insurance new jersey Chalk and cheese

traveler insurance new jersey Chalk and cheese

faxless cash advance no fax payday loan Devil take the hindmost - The

faxless cash advance no fax payday loan Devil take the hindmost - The

I wonder at my good friend Mr Sabit's use of the word (geographical expression?) Europe... The British "experience of empire" (1500 onwards) was very different from the German (1885-1918), I would say, and add in Spanish (1492), French (1500), Italian (1880-1940), Portuguese, Dutch and Danish measures and you have a rum punch, not to mention a very different and not-at-all shared set of memories.

And lest we forget, the US took over a Spanish Empire a 100 years ago and has been in the game ever since. To presume European sophistication is to presume to much.

Mahmoud Sabit,

I like your piece. It is an elegant and concise summary of the European perspective of our Middle East policy addressed to an American audience.

Having said that, what interests me more is your third paragraph that speaks to our relatively recent “aggressive” foreign policy. In reality there have been several periods of “aggressive” foreign policy in our history, but never on such an extended global scale.

Personally, as an American, I don’t particularly care what the Europeans think about it. Europe is at a peculiar stage of development where its economy and population rank it in the very top tier of power, but, lacking any kind of real executive structure, is totally incapable of wielding it. Your notion that Europe might clean up our messes is a very attractive one, giving us an attractive rationale for getting our butts out of Iraq forthwith; unfortunately, no one thinks Europe actually has the wherewithal to do that, not even the Europeans.

As you present it, the Europeans are quite content that we are looking out for their interests, it is just that they would like us to do that their way rather than our way which they see as more dangerous.

I, on the other hand, would like to see us withdraw from such global issues as “Europe’s interests” and non-proliferation and the spread or imposition of democracy at least to the point where we are not dominant on those matters.

Ignoring the NPT (as North Korea showed us how to do), Iran has as valid a case for developing nuclear weapons for its defense as Israel, Pakistan, or India. For the life of me, I do not understand on what basis any nation can deny them that capability, least of all us who are nuclear armed, defensively and offensively, to the teeth. Seriously, we threaten them with “regime change”, and we are then surprised they want nuclear weapons? No. Nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands are no threat to us, they are a potential threat to Iran’s neighbors to include Israel, a good part of Europe, and a large chunk of the Sunni Muslim community. On the other hand, our nuclear weapons are a calamitous threat to Iran in all circumstances. That is known as deterrence and it has kept the nuclear peace for 60 odd years now and I fail to see why it should not continue doing so. It is also very hard to understand our negative rhetoric on their form of government. Of all of the Gulf states they are arguably the most democratic. They have a constitution ratified by the people, then modified and ratified again by the people. In actual fact their democratic roots go way back to the 1906 Constitution. Indeed, our CIA arranged the overthrow of their last fully elected Prime Minister, a fellow named Mossadeh (sp), in favor of the Shah who was something of an autocrat. It was a precursor of the Allende experience in Chile. Anyway, despite our propaganda over the last 25 years or so, Iran is a very civilized nation with a rich history going back centuries….and besides that, Christian Amanpour comes from there.

Iraq is a mysterious event. Personally, I never imagined that this idea could be sold to the American public, but it was. I was astonished at the range of politicians, editors, professors, etc. who bought into all of the sorry arguments offered. We still see the vestiges of it. Sen. Clinton bought it hook, line, and sinker. Now she defends her vote by attacking the awful way the war was managed and/or the faulty intelligence. So what! I say. Were the intelligence all true there was still no just cause for us to invade Iraq. They had not attacked us, nor were they capable of doing so. Neither were they a terrorist state. Since when does creating a new democracy justify military aggression? Since when does another country’s tyranny justify external military aggression to remove him? They lied to the UN for years you say, they flaunted UN resolutions? Shall we count the number ignored, flaunted by the Israelis?

We did not slip into this war semi-accidentally as we did in Viet Nam or self-defensively as we did in Afghanistan. We chose to do it by an authorization from the legislature for reasons debated at some length. It was a sorry precedent to go to war over such sloppy and silly reasons and reasoning. It is this for which we need a national debate.

I do not think the world, by and large, expected us to actually invade Iraq. I may be wrong in that, but I know of no precedent for us to take such action outside of our own hemisphere (other actions we need not be proud of). The world must now see us as more unpredictable and therefore dangerous. They are justified in that opinion.

Everyone seems to look towards us to settle the Israeli/Palestinian issue in some magical way. It’s not going to happen. As long as our politics are hostage to key lobbyists, as they are, we can’t get the parties moved to where they got to go. This is something that maybe Europe should assign to itself since it is more responsible than any others for manufacturing the problem in the first place. It is a point made by the Iranian President and, unlike some others, this one does have some substance to it, not so?

No matter what the Europeans think, I would like us to shed our “aggressive” foreign policy and replace it with one better founded in the opening paragraph of our Declaration of Independence. Fundamentally this holds that legitimate governance can only come from those who are governed and it is they who must decide the shape and powers such a government will have. Neither democracy or monarchy or theocracy or tyranny is preordained. No, it is whatever these people shall choose.

With that in mind we should at least accord Hamas the respect due a freely and fairly elected government and we should quit carping about the Iranian form of government which was ratified by its people as validly as our own. Perhaps from that kind of framework negotiations might be more productive.

Mahmoud Sabit, I appreciate your thoughtful answers. When I submit comments, they sometimes don't appear, even when short, and it seems often when long. Because of this I limit my self to short answers to the extent I can, else I would address each of your points to agree or not. I respect your arguments, please understand this limitation.

I agree with you on the issue that there was conflict on 2 sides. But Islam was the source. The Turks attacked the Greek and Christian world, which never attacked the Turks. The Turks came from Asia to kill and conquer the Greeks in Anatolia.

There is no equivlance between them. This is a war of conquest and democide from before 1300 AD to the present. The Greeks fought back, but basically lost over the last 700+ years.

The conquest and democide were justified by the Turks using the Quran. All through the 19th century and before, Christian Greeks had second class status in courts. Ottoman cruelty justified by the Quran has a long history with many explicit statements.

Old Atlantic
In reference to your comment regarding Turkey, your statistics about the pre-1914 populations of Christians and Moslems residing in Anatolia is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the context under which your post is presented. That the Moslems of Turkey are intolerant of other faiths, that they were constantly engaged in spontaneous pogroms to those of other belief systems, that their religion drives them to irrational acts of violence and terror. You use the example of pre-WWI and post WWI.

The statistics that you are selectively omitting are those that address the Moslem populations of Greece and the Balkans pre-WWI and post WWI. The results of the Balkan Wars in 1905 which caused the expulsion of 410,000 Moslems from the Balkans to the Ottoman State. The end of WWI saw which the expulsion of 200,000 Moslems from Greece, including the Moslem population of Crete in its entirety.
The agreement regarding the exchange of populations signed as part of the Treaty of Lausanne between Turkey and Greece 1922 which affected 1.5 million Greeks from Anatolia and an additional 500,000 Moslems from Greece.

We also have the episode when Western Anatolia Smyrna, (Izmir) was awarded the Greek Government by the victor powers in WWI, (Treaty of Sevres 1920) which result in the creation of 1.2 million Moslem refugees from Western Anatolia. The ensuing Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922, which results in the expulsion of the Greek population of Smyrna. (see above)

These demographic changes come as a result of war, atrocity and counter atrocity connected with armed conflict. Not from the spontaneous irrationality of religious fanaticism. I have not addressed the Armenian massacres because this is already the subject of intense debate between Armenian and Turkish scholars. I would only add that hundreds of thousands of Armenian refugees from these regions found a sanctuary and welcome in the Moslem Arab world; Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

In addition I would mention the more recent example of forced migration of Moslems from Bulgaria, in 1989. In 1989 the government of Bulgaria in a spasm of extreme nationalism caused the mass exodus of 300,000 Bulgarian Muslims, following a twenty year campaign to pressure the countries Muslims to abandon their religion, traditions and language. Their community had been residing in Western Thrace since the 14th century. Among other issues is the fact that this action contravened the terms of the Treaty of Adrianople (1913)

Wow this is fun! :)
This is the first time I have heard an overall denial that Nazis were Christian. You can say that they were not GOOD Christians and obviously used what they liked in Christianity and what they liked in other religions, but they saw themselves as Christians and still fall in that group. You can say the same thing for any leader out there who says they are [insert religion] and then go against basic teachings of that faith. (ex. Osama bin Laden/Taliban – dare I mention any US fundamentalists? :)] Thank goodness that God judges who the true followers of HIM are.
Also, I have to respond to some of the 'percentages' going around. We of course are familiar with dominate religions in society due to the face that 75% of the US identify themselves as "Christian." Likewise, we are familiar of peoples who feel 'pressured' to move out of neighborhoods due to their religion, race, sexual preference, etc. (And thankfully we have laws that try to correct these societal shortcomings) First, to go back to an earlier argument, it can be argued that Muslims have always been in the Middle East since Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon are prophets of Islam (this is a larger argument than my single sentence – feel free to discover more). Also, the Middle East has a very strong history of accepting (most especially) the religions of the Book (Jews, Christians, Muslims). Power struggles continue and complexities and perversions of religious thought towards those goals continue, but the laws concerning living together are very strong and continue in most places. We see the examples, even through conflicts, in Lebanon, Jordan, Jerusalem (ex. The keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, having been held by a single Muslim family since the 1100s), and Egypt -among others. Granted, it is easy to debate ways of life in these examples, however an easy understanding of rules and discussion by people in these areas will show the positives and negatives, and what they find likewise being in the US.
I enjoy reading this discussion, although I may not read again until tomorrow or thereafter.

It is the oil. US and the rest of industrialized world never cleaned up the oil mess. As long as US security relies on import of oil there will never be peace in the middle east. The culture of making car necessary to live as though it was one of the pillars for survival along with food, water and shelter, no doubt is the most destructive American invention. Why do we have to live the way we do? Big house. Powerful cars. Keeping the whole house warm instead of just the room you are sleeping. Keep the whole house cold, instead of the room you sleeping. It is all waste of resources and the tensions it creates in doing so. Industrialized world has to alter their way of living and wasting. Live on less, live happy.

Kohsar240

It is the oil. US and the rest of industrialized world never cleaned up the oil mess. As long as US security relies on import of oil there will never be peace in the middle east. The culture of making car necessary to live as though it was one of the pillars for survival along with food, water and shelter, no doubt is the most destructive American invention. Why do we have to live the way we do? Big house. Powerful cars. Keeping the whole house warm instead of just the room you are sleeping. Keep the whole house cold, instead of the room you sleeping. It is all waste of resources and the tensions it creates in doing so. Industrialized world has to alter their way of living and wasting. Live on less, live happy.

@Mahmoud Sabit

Don't get me wrong, but 'Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini' a.k.a. 'Yasser Arafat', a descendant of 'Amin Al Husseini', was a NAZI. And the NAZI 'Amin Al Husseini', the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a fan of 'Adolf Hitler' - and a mass murderer.

More information about Arafat and Husseini can be found at www.TellTheChildrenTheTruth.com and www.ict.org.il

Support Our Troops at www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil

Below is a census record from Turkey for population of Anatolia before 1915. This shows the high percentage of Christians.

http://www.agiasofia.com/horton/table.jpg

Search: Christian Constantinople 1914 New York Times. Or seach "Christians in peril" 1914. You can open pdf files with the NYT articles.

Detailed data on genocides, including source citations:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB5.1B.GIF

Mahmoud Sabit, first you are the most formidable of the group selected in debate. I was sloppy on the 99 percent, that applies to Turkey.

There was more than just displacement in Turkey.
Search on: Sultan Abdul Hamid 1892 massacres or Hamidian massacres or Hellenic genocide. There were approximately 200,000 killed in Turkey in the 1890's.

In 1914 there were massacres by the Young Turks. New York Times articles on it are available online. Constantinople was over 50 percent Christian in 1914, and Anatolia was at least 30 percent Christian by one census.

Old Atlantic, Barakahusseinobamalovesislam
For the region you mention, the Eastern Med; the population is more like 87% non Sunni Muslim. If you also include the North African coastline the figure is 91%. It should also be added that those Christian minorities that today exist in the Eastern Med have been Christian from the 2nd and 3d centuries AD. I would point out that these communities have been Christian since well before Christianity was adopted in Europe. In addition the present Christian population of Egypt is equal to the entire populations of Jordan and Kuwait combine.

I am not sure that you would find communities of the followers of Mithras, or Sol Invictus on the Northern shores of the Med today, and certainly not in communities who have practiced these faiths since their original adoption in the 2nd and 3d centuries. This is also true for the followers of the various ‘heresies’ such as the Cathars eradicated in their entirety during the Albigensian Crusade of 1229. I would also mention that following the Catholic reconquista of Spain in 1497, that by the year1580 the last vestiges of Islam had been uprooted from the Iberian peninsular either through expulsion or forced conversion.

It is misleading to suggest that such raw figures imply forced conversion, especially when seen in the light of modern perspective, and the culture of political correctness. But when the situation is understood contemporaneously within the context of the period it becomes clear that Islam was a tolerant faith.

In their period of expansion the Moslems offered the choice of either conversion or paying a tax, which included a security tax for exclusion from military service. In general these taxes were equivalent to or slightly less than the taxes formerly paid to the Byzantine authorities.

Turkey did have a larger proportion of Christians until 1922, at which time many were expelled, these were mostly from the Greek Orthodox faith in Western Asia Minor. This expulsion is as a result of the events following the partition of the Ottoman Empire (after WWI) and the allocation of Smyrna (Izmir) to Greek sovereignty under the terms of the Treaty of Sevres. The Turkish National Movement of Mustapha Kemal ‘Ataturk’ defeated the Greek forces in the field, and expelled the Greek population from Smyrna, many of whom had been in the area from early times. The expulsion has more to do with the political decision of the Turkish Republic than religious prejudice, and is analogous to the expulsion of the substantial German population from Czechoslovakia following WWII.

Barakahusseinobamalovesislam,
I believe a few facts might be helpful. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) contains 56 nations whose populations are in the majority either Sunni or Shia’a. They may adhere to the Moslem faith but are separate national sovereign entities. Of these, about four nations have retained Sharia’a laws; Saudi Arabia, Sudan, (limited to the North) Iran, and possibly one or two states in the Malaysian Federation. The rest are governed by a combination of either English Common Law or French Napoleonic Code. They have some provision of Sharia’a jurisprudence limited to family law, (marriage, divorce, inheritance)

It is estimated that the terrorist organization ‘Al Qaeda’ (AQ) contains about 7,500 active members, with a direct support (helpers, collaborators, etc) network of ten times that figure, or 75,000 persons. Those terrorist organizations who have a similar ideology to AQ, but may differ in their methods or their degree of violence are at the highest estimate about 750,000 persons, inclusive of their support networks. These people are scattered across a large geographic area, with some concentrations in certain countries. The world wide population of Muslims either Sunni or Shia’a is estimated at 1.3 billion.

Philspan
I though this might be useful for you.

Nobel Prize Recipients

Mohamed El Baradei 2005/Peace/Egypt
Mohamed Yunus 2006/Peace/Bangladesh
Shirin Ebadi/2003/Peace/Iran
Yasser Arafat/1994/Peace/Palestine
Mohamed Anwar el Sadat-1978/Peace/Egypt
Abou Salam – 1979/Physics/Pakistan
Ahmad Zuweil – 1999/Chemistry/Egypt
Orhan Pamuk – 2006/Literature/Turkey
Nequib Mahfouz – 1988/Literature/Egypt
Ferid Murad – 1998/Medecine/USA

R:

Hitler was not a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!Any educated person would know that! He was a self absorbed lunatic who hated all religions. He once talked of kidnapping the pope and trying to make Christianity into "Hitler worshipers."

The commys who created the AK47 were also not Christian.. Its important to understand that communism focuses directly around atheism and the oppression and destruction of religion. Even if the people who committed some of these atrocites were baptized Christians, they did not do it in the name of their religion. "would you explain the role of the catholic church supporting the nazis or were they also not christians?" This doesnt make any sense. The Catholic Church did more than any other organization to protect the Jews from the Nazis. Oskar Schindler was a born again Catholic who saved hundreds of Jews during WWII. The atomic bombs were created in order to end the costliest war in human history before millions more would be sacrificed if invaded mailand Japan rather than drop the bombs. The Christians who made the A-bombs, didn't make them to try and convert Japan, or wipe them out because they were not Christian. Unfortunately the muslim fanatics have finally caught up and are ready to wage a unlimited Jihad against all "non-beleivers" with nuclear weapons.

Old Atlantic:

Here's something for you.
Read Herman Melville : 'the civilised white man is the most ferocious animal on the face of the earth'.

Remember SALLY HEMMINGS.

Quote
The recent history of aggressive U.S. foreign policy which intimidates rather than persuades, which threatens rather than reaches compromise, which imposes a diktat rather than reaching a solution, has not been successful.
Enquote
This says it all.

Quote:
"The recent history of aggressive U.S. foreign policy which intimidates rather than persuades, which threatens rather than reaches compromise, which imposes a diktat rather than reaching a solution, has not been successful."
Enquote
This says it all

What happened to the Arab mind. Long ago the Moslems had the best minds. There were scholars of all kinds.
Today, Moslems have suicide bombers, stone throwers at women, heads cut off, etc.

And above all, how many Nobel prize winners are Moslems? Oh! I forgot Arafat got one for killing Israelis.

What happened to the Arab mind. Long ago the Moslems had the best minds. There were scholars of all kinds.
Today, Moslems have suicide bombers, stone throwers at women, heads cut off, etc.

And above all, how many Nobel prize winners are Moslems? Oh! I forgot Arafat got one for killing Isralis.

PERHAPS -- Thank you for pointing out the fact that America is not the "Bush administration". I used to be Gob-smacked that any nation could go along with that moronic (to use his own term) evildoer. It was only when I started reading the blogs on the WaPo that I realised there was a massive number of LIVID, FURIOUS liberals in America whose voice was not being heard in Europe (at least I wasn't hearing it). America's reputation has been absolutely destroyed by this administration and it will take God knows how long to restore it. I don't envy you the task!

bobster-- The only reason America came to Europe's aid was because it was in America's own self-interest. (as usual).

To Michael - A few more points to consider.

The United States entered the war only 6 months later than the Soviet Union. Both were drawn into the war in the same way, by an unprovoked attack. True, it was the Japanese that attacked the U.S., but Germany declared war soon afterwards making them a party to the attacks.

However, in reality, the U.S. involvement in the war in Europe began in 1940 with Lend-Lease. The U.S. government provided all of the help that it possibly could short of actually entering the war. Additionally, the U.S. began war preparations by reinstating the draft in 1940.

Finally, it is certain that Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union was a factor in the Soviet victory over Germany. Probably not decisive, but the victory would have been different without it.

yes it has nothing to do with islamics spending the last 1400 years hating anyone not islamic and trying to murder them. its all the fault of America, who saved europe twice and are saving it again now. but like all europeans and especiall you islamic ones - thank you is not part of yor vocabulary. but you can join with American democrats, who will gladly surrender and give you a victory you could not earn without their complicity and treason.

@Proud Kraut

You missed the line! German patriots have always been close friends of the United States of America! Maybe, you're too young to know that! Indeed, I'm ready to die in order to defend Liberty and Justice, because I believe in the idea of the Constitution of the United States of America! What's about you?

By the way, you asked, how the U.S. did help Germany? Are you serious? Well, the U.S. liberated my country from NAZI-dictatorship back in 1945! Therefore, I owe the U.S. my freedom! I guess, that's a pretty good reason to support the U.S. all the way! I will never forget all the brave U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in order to defend Liberty and Justice! What's about you?

Thanks to the finest and brightest men and women of the United States - Our Troops!

Support the Troops at www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil

God bless America, Our Troops and their Families!

" Mahmoud Sabit:

Old Atlantic
I would not agree with your version of the historical record. "

In 633 AD the Med world was 100 percent non-Muslim. In 2007, the southern shore and the Eastern shore and Turkey are almost 99 percent Muslim. So between 633 AD and 2007 AD there had to be intolerance that forced out, killed, or dhimmitude that forced conversions.

You can divide up the percentage points where you want, but you have to allocate the 99 percent sometime and that place will be times of intolerance.

Old Atlantic
I would not agree with your version of the historical record. Those serious historians who have written on this subject would also agree with me. I am here referring to those historians from an earlier time when objectivity was the norm and honesty was held in high regard.

Robert Rose
When armed conflict is decided upon, multi-lateral diplomacy and as broad a consensus as possible must be obtained. Otherwise our global relations become subject to the law of the jungle.

Bobster
Thank you for your kind words and response to my comment. Europe would have to engage in an expensive program to arm itself, but they would also engage in the sort of multi-lateral diplomacy necessary to stabilize the region. They are also aware that a solution must be implemented to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict which Europe realizes is central to bringing stability into the region. Europe may have to resort to coercion to bring this about, for the alternatives are dire. It is here that Europe may find itself at odds with the US and its support for Israel’s unsustainable policies. They may have to even develop closer political relations with Russia and possibly China, these are options they would prefer to avoid.
The US can be more effective through actions that actually address the concerns of the region, can actually still build a consensus through multi-lateral diplomatic and economic methods, the US is today still in a position to make this happen. Should they walk away, their place would be taken over by others, to the detriment of the US as a super-power.

Perhaps
Thank for your comment, for good or for bad, we are at a crossroads, and a clearer policy that serves US national interests and the interest of its European allies is critical.

WB T;
Your point is well taken, interference in the region by Europe and the victor powers following WWI have done much to create the present circumstances in the Middle East and Iran. For Europe these are the unintended consequences of their unilateral actions at that time. I would argue that they have learned from these blunders, and are therefore in a better position to propagate a more effective policy, but they are also aware that such policy solutions would be in conflict with US attitudes at this time, and that it would be very expensive to implement, and that is a path they are at present trying to avoid.

Dee Andrews
The question here asked is; ‘…Polls show that many people in Europe think the US is a greater threat than Iran. What should we make of this…’ My commentary is based on that premise, it is not that Europe disagrees with all these policies, it is more a question of the fact that they disagree with the manner in which these policies are being implemented. They disagreed with the Iraq policy, because the circumstances under which an invasion was to be executed were flawed, better preparation and diplomacy, a broader consensus of the regional states, including the use of a UN sponsored multi-national military effort, etc etc.

Support for US actions in Afghanistan had more backing from Europe than the later Iraq invasion. For Iraq, in the European perspective; the US did not build sufficient consensus with its allies and with the UN to undertake their assault. In addition they made no efforts to elicit support in the region for their actions. Would that support have been forthcoming? Yes, under the right circumstances. Part of the tacit understanding between the US and its regional allies in Gulf War I was that the US would break the deadlock in bringing about an equitable settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Oslo was the result, but Oslo is an unfulfilled promise, the US could have done a lot more to ensure the success of Oslo. Rabin was ready, following his assassination the US was faced with the prospect of putting pressure on the situation to bring about results, they preferred to avoid the real issues in solving the conflict. As such, support from the region was lacking when the Iraq invasion was undertaken in 2003. This is a failure in multi-lateral diplomacy, and the Europeans would concur on this point. The point of finishing the job in Afghanistan before undertaking another war was an issue that Europe was also concerned with, it was considered that going into Iraq with undue haste was a blunder.

Once the war was over, it was a ‘fait accompli’ and the primary goal would have been to win the Peace. The dissolution of the Iraqi army and the rapid de-Ba’athication of the Iraqi administration was a political mistake, despite that, the US still had a window of six months. In those six months they could have reduced their profile and handed the situation over to the UN, the US was unwilling to relinquish their military and political authority in Iraq, as such the UN was unwilling to become involved. Were the UN involved in Iraq, they could have developed the political and diplomatic consensus necessary to ensure a smooth transition. Fundamentally the object would have been to allay Iraqi fears that the US was not seeking to maintain a permanent occupation of their country. The Iraqi’s did not consider the US as impartial liberators, US policies in support of Israel was a factor in their suspicions, but they were willing to see through six months before they considered their fears justified. This should have been addressed by the US in the time available to them. The insurrection against the US presence begins approximately six months after the war ended.

Have these actions been a great success? no. What we see here is a series of miscalculations, lack of will to apply diplomatic solutions, lack of interest to both listen to advice and to take into consideration the core regional problems, in short a series of political mistakes. Talleyrand (diplomat 18th/19th century) once said that a political mistake was worse than a crime, partly due to the unintentional consequences that such mistakes provoke.

Steve M
Yes I would argue that the Middle East would be a garden of peace if the US were not involved. To make that statement I would have to remind you that formal US involvement with the Middle East begins after WWII, and its support of the partition of Mandate Palestine. US support at the UN was conclusive because it brought with it a number of allied and Latin American countries, just enough to carry the vote for partition.

In 1948, Egypt was a parliamentary democracy, with a constitutional monarchy, a viable economy and a capable, educated, liberal, political leadership. The region was undergoing a transition from British tutelage to de-colonization under responsible direction. The foundation of the state of Israel, ensured that these responsible, educated liberal political classes would be swept away by revolution and coup d’etat partly for their inability to solve the issue with Israel either through peace or war. The region has been undergoing spirals of violence, instability and extremism as a result of this policy ever since.
Both George C. Marshall and Secretary Forrestall were against the issue of partition and the resulting foundation of the State of Israel. Forrestal especially worked to ‘…lift the Palestine problem out of partisan American politics…’ He was later hounded out of office and committed suicide. Marshall was warned by the Secretary General of the Arab League that partition would result in strife and warfare in the region ‘…unto the generations…’ The Arab League supported a federal union of both Jewish and Arab populations, but indivisible as one nation and were therefore against partition.
When a nation becomes so closely involved in a region that it should affect the course of history for the worse in that region it bears a certain responsibility for the unintended consequences of its actions.

Is the US a greater threat to world peace and stability than Iran? Clearly, with policies of preemption and the power to exert its will largely unchecked, the US poses a much greater threat. With great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility the Bush administration, and Congress have shamefully shirked.

The US Congress is simply broken. The Constitution provides protections against such travesties, but Congress failed to exercise its Constitutional authority and reign in the administration.

I'm sick to death of hearing our representatives talking about how they "voted for the war", but how the administration bungled it. The vote in the fall of 2002 was not for "war", or an invasion of Iraq, or the changing of the regime. The vote was the authorizatoin of military force to uphold the UN Security Council resolution 1441, which was to ensure Iraq had no WMD. It included other restrictions about missile construction and recompense for looting in Kuwait in 1991. Furthermore, it was a *UN* resolution not a US one. There was clear consensus in the international community that a military attack or invasion was not warranted. Diplomatic means had not yet been exhausted. A fact that is painfully true today. There was no authorization for the virtually unilateral military action that was to come. And Congress just stood by with their collective head in the sand.

During the run-up to the US led invasion of Iraq, there was no serious debate in Congress. I personally wrote to my congressman imploring him to call for such a debate. (he's now in prison for corruption) At the same time, on our own C-SPAN, you could see the French Parliament in an open and intelligent debate about the situation in Iraq. And yet, Americans were all too quick to point the finger and sneer when France and other European nations expressed their concern. No one has the courage today to admit France, and the others opposing military action, were right.

Now the Congress can't even decide whether or not to debate a non-binding resolution against the expansion of military effort doomed to failure. Many say we can't leave now or there'll be further instability in the region. Well, that should have been debated back in 2002 and 2003. Actually, it was being discussed exhaustively by academics and analysts everywhere. But not by Congress. Now it's really too late. The question should not be what happens if we leave? It should have been instead, what happens if we go in? Any resulting expanded instability can only be blamed on the Bush Administration and Congress.

A nation with such power and such instability of its own is an enormous threat to the world.

The people are waking up. Perhaps Congress is beginning to, as well. It will be decades before American credibility will be recovered. And that's only assuming sane decisions can begin to be made about how to deal with the mess.

Oh really, the US came to Europe's aide in WW I.
Last time I checked, Germany and Austria lie in central Europe. How exactly did the US help Germany and Austria?
If the US would not have sent weapons to Europe and supported England and France, Germany would have won the war and we would have had the European Union 80 years earlier and without the Hitler epsiode that caused so much pain.
Let's not forget that almost all major Nazis and the whole Nazi movement developed from WW I veterans and their ideology was basically draped around the humiliation of Versaille. Even when the war was lost and Hitler knew it, he wanted to fight to the bitter end and kill off every German with him in order not to repeat the humiliation of Versaille.
The whole aftermath of WW I was another franco-anglo-american foreign policy disaster.
Why was WWII at the end different? The German people were terrorized into submission, afterwards humiliated and occupied and completely re-educated. Now, this newly trained one side Amerophile and on the other side Russo-Commie-Phile house pets pay incredible amounts to the EU, and back down on any issue that revolves around German national interests.

Just look at this "German Voise' house pet. I bet he would strip a bomb around his butt just to please his American occupiers. You will find the same own-opinion-free guys on the Russo-Commie-Side.

The fact of the matter is that Germans servived by frequently switching alliances over their 2,000-3,000 year old history.

What has this to do with the topic....hell yes Europe fears incompetent meangling in other people's affairs. Germany knows that best as a brutal occupier and as a country that was brutally occupied starting with the Thirty Year's war. Germany needs to stay away from the Anglo-American nonsense....as occupiers they can rely on Germany's infrastructure and technical support but that's about it.

cv