Karim

Yes USA was wrong in Vietnam. We Americans opposed it and we left. Many people were killed in Vietnam. America could have easily won the Vietnam war if it used Atom bomb. But having used it against Japan and having seen the carnage, America decided to lose the war than use the A bomb. Now Vietnamese people didn't come and destroy world trade center or any other place. They are now peaceful people who come to America and love America. Even people living in Vietnam have no animosity to America. Religion of Vietnam is Buddhism. Buddha taught forgiveness and peace. So vietnamese don't want to kill any one

Arabs are not like vietnamese. Arabs were never peaceful people. Before Muhammad invented Islam they were barbaric and after and during Mohammad's life they were organosed barbarians. They invaded other lands in the name of religion and converted to Islam at the point of a sword. They conquered and established empires. Under Islamic rule non Muslims were Dhimmis. I think you know how dhimmis lived under Islamic rule. The income for Islamic empire came from taxes paid by DHimmis.
"There is no equality for non Muslims in Islam. Islam is despotic to non Muslims." So equality for all people in Arab countries is out of the question as long as they remain Muslim. Another command in Islam is to go to war and convert all people to Islam. Christians also want to convert but not by war but by persuation. One who follows jesus can't do violence where as one who follows Mohammad has to commit voilence to spread Islam. So non Muslim world can't live in peace with a strong Arab Mulim state.

People with no historical sense think Jews were wrong in establishing a Jewish state. Jews lived in Arabia thousands of years longer than Muslims. Arabs and Jews lived side by side. Jews were in Babylone,Mecca, Medina, Seria, Egypt, Even Iran from the immemorial times. So Jews have as much right to Middle east as Arabs. It would be nice if they can live side by side. But as long as there is Islam in present form they can't live together. So Jews have to live in a separate state. I believe they Deserve more land than they have now. Palestinions have to be settled in other parts of Arabia.

I am ofraid there will be another holocost involving all Arabs, Iran and Jews living in the middle east. There will be no Arab or Jew in the middle east.

Chris,

"However, the fundamental belief held by radical muslims is that everyone else should be killed"

Perhaps you could explain to us why Al-Qaeda chose to attack America through Germany and other western nations, and not Germany itself.

Why go all the way to the North American continent when Europe is ONLY few miles from the Arab world?

You see, your analysis is quite inaccurate and self-centred. Al-Qaeda is a criminal group but it is now what you have described.

I see this type of analysis, which is quite frankly very common, as an attempt to whitewash crimes that were committed by various US governments with impunity.

Al-Qaeda is certainly brutal and inhumane, but so are many of your governments.

How many human beings were napalmed in Vietnam by your army? how many people were killed in Vietnam?

Over 2 million people.

No Arab dictator ever killed that many people with so much ease and impunity.

Since the end of WWII, no other western nation (along with many others) on this planet has more blood on its hands than the US government. Just count the number of people US armies killed since WWII.

Final note: Israel is a product of colonization. It is in some way comparable to what American settlers did to the native Indians. It is not about religion.

It is admirable to see a group of people stand together in peace, rather than war with eachother. However, when the "united front" presented is one of oppression (and I'm not talking of globalization, or importing of "Western" thought) the people can never be truly united in spirit, unless it is in a desire to change things they are near powerless to change. The brainwashing and brutality of Al-Quaeda, Taliban, or any other fundamentalist regime is what the world thinks when they conjure visions of an Arab Union. Is it possible for a peaceful union to really exist? Well, not as long as there is no tolerance, no desire for equality in the truest sense of the word! The western world is in the polishing stage of equality (still some rough edges, but it's come a long way), whereas there seems to be much coarse sanding in need where "freedom" is paid for at the wrong end of a gun. The West went through birth pains a couple hundred years ago. For civilizations with such a rich history as that of the Arabs, the road to freedom may take longer. Only when Muslim, Christian, and Jew can live at peace, openly being friends, trusting eachother, can such a union be made. When one small state (Israel)is forced to trade land for peace agreements that are soon violated by terrorists, there can be no progress. If the states where terrorists hide and breed were to actively put a stop to these groups, then peace could really be attained! "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." --Albert Einstein
If people with different views could sit down and discuss things without trying to kill one another, it would be nice. However, the fundamental belief held by radical muslims is that everyone else should be killed. Yes, Christianity has been twisted in the past, but not by true Christians. Jesus said the greatest two commandments were to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. Anyone starting a war in the name of Christianity is obviously not following the most fundamental teachings. That's all well and good for trying to sit down and talk... but not when the "religious teachings" of the people you want to talk with are to kill you because you don't believe what they do. History shows that appeasement of these types of people goes nowhere, and it is like building your own gallows. They are committed to your death, and will wait for it- if you give them land/things to lay down arms in the present, they will use that extra in the future against you! Again, until the states take a truly active approach to squashing terrorism instead of turning their heads (or sanctioning it!) there will only be disharmony, or a false peace imposed by a dictator, or a temporary cease-fire (which only serves to give the terrorists a chance to refresh themselves).
Should the West be involved? Only as a guide, only to try to lend a helping hand when absolutely necessary. It's necessary now, because the people aren't strong enough to fight the terrorists. Unfortunately, the west has a bad image. Only time can repair that image- and hopefully through continued friendly behavior it will. However, we cannot just "help" and leave all at once, or whatever infant democracy there is will die when it becomes vulnerable. It needs protected, but not obtrusively so, until it is old enough to protect itself- this is a lesson that should have been learned in Afghanistan.
Again, a union is possible, but it requires governments workign together to provide freedom from oppression and violence. Until people are able to do as they please without fear of violence, then it's not really peace. If a person does something not pleasing to God, or Allah, then let it be between that person and God. Who is anyone to judge that person for their actions, but God? If you think violence in response to what you call sin is acceptable, I ask this: What is your violence against your neighbor, but sin? People must be free to dress, worship, and experience the world how they please! If you believe that this freedom should be oppressed because it keeps people from sinning, then I ask: How can a life be measured? By keeping a person oppressed, it leads their heart to rebel even more, and it's by our hearts we should be judged anyway. If the opportunity for failure is not present, then what is success? What accomplishment? Far better to have a chance to make mistakes and learn lessons, than to live in a cave and pretend to be perfect! Governments need to ensure the true freedom of their people first, and once that is done they need to work together for peace amongst eachother.

A caliphate is not some sort of Nazi state. Al-Qaeda is interested in something else. Al-Qaeda's Caliphate has more in common with Western imperialism which is now lead by the US government and its allies.

If average Muslims want to unite under one nation (practically it is impossible today), then it is not the business of anyone. The "Christian West" is united on many levels (military, economically, etc). Most modern wars against Muslim nations were waged by a coalition of Western nations.

The late Islamic empire (Ottoman) only collapsed in the early 1900s. This is not something that existed 2000 years ago and then re-established in the 20th century, like it happened with Messianic Israel, with the full support of the West (we were told it was natural to re-establish Israel in its biblical lands!)

One must make a clear distinction between imperialist 'Westerners' and Middle Eastern Christians (who are mostly Arabs today).

Karim is right, Stegman is wrong. The Arab world should have formed such a union a long time ago. Were it not for geopolitiking by Western powers that are determined to keep Arabs divided so they can pick at Iraq, Lybia, Egypt, Jordan or whichever fiefdom misbehaves.

The Arab world has a long common history. From Morocco to Bahrain and from Lebanon to Sudan, the Arab world shares a common language, culture and religions (including Christianity, Islam and, yes, Judaism). To an Arab, lines between Jordan and Iraq or Sudan and Egypt seem arbitrary and so does allegiance to these entities but Arab nationalism is concrete, defensible and a powerful centralizing force. Unfortunately this evolution into a larger Arab Union can only occur after democratization of Arab states because the despots, Kings and Emirs of the region will not dilute their powers for the sake of an economically and politically stronger Arab world.

As for Stegman's comment, Arab nationalism can ensure that, while Islamic parties exist, the state is secular and that Arabs and non-Arabs (such as Berbers, Kurds, black Africans...) are equal before the state. What Al-Qaeda wants is regression to the 7th century, an Arab union is bringing to the Arab world an acceptable form of the modern nation-state.

In fact, Al Qaeda is working to establish just such a caliphate now.

Mr Vamos:

If it was left to the people's will, it would have happened a while ago.

Arabs have more in common among themselves than do Europeans among themselves.

Unfortunately, the Arab governments (and other external powers) do not want such unions to happen because it would mean they would lose their grip on power.

Israel will certainly do everything to stop it.

I think it is more correct to call it Arab Union, not Arabic.

More so than Europeans, many Arabs still dream of one united Arab nation.