No, it's absolutely ridiculous to think America is the biggest threat to world peace. I can only assume that someone who says such a thing is either an idiot plain and simple or a sheep caught up in the Bush hating movement and generalizing that to the entire country.

To take just two examples of what we're facing in the Middle East, and I say we because all of us regardless of whether we support America in any way are targets for these groups.

You've got Iran who's leader and supporters and law makers are actively seeking nuclear weapons and who have publicly, explicitly and repeatedly called for a nation and all it's people to be wiped off the map; are one of the worlds largest state sponsors of terrrorist groups and are eagerly awaiting the immenent return of their messiah who will usher in Armageddon and it's man's duty to bring that on. That is dangerous. Granted there are plenty of people in Israel and America (over 40% if polls are to be believed) who too would like nothing more then to see this take place aswell, so perhaps faith and irrationality regardless of where it is located is the biggest threat to world peace.

Leaving aside Iran, a nation state, there is just no possible way anyone with an ounce of common sense who has engaged in a seconds worth of thinking could think America is more a threat to world peace then the extreme Islamic fundamentalist movement. This is not a single organisation. It's not just Al Qaida or Osama Bin Laden, it's not confined to one part of the world, it's an ideolgy based on faith. It's not amenable to rational discussion or reason. These people, and collective groups, want to drag the entire human civillisation back to medieval pesantry and they have no quams about killing and being killed in order to achieve this goal. They seek to undo every single human advance ever achieved, and left untouched they could do a damn good job of achieving their goals. Just look at Iraq to see what the parties of God are doing to that country.

These people aren't fighting the US, they're fighting each other. You've got Sunni's killing Shiites and vice versa, Sunni's killing Sunni's and Shiites killing Shiites. This is not America's fault. However inept their execution of the liberation was, and that is primarally down to having an insanely inept, naive and stupid commander in chief, they went there to remove a horrendous dictator who had destroyed that nation and to offer freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. This was a right and just thing to do and an incredibly noble thing to do. What has happened is the parties of God have obliterated any chance of that happening, at least in the near future. George Bush and the planners of this war should be held responisble for the terrible execution of this war but they did not seek to cause this situation in Iraq. Their motives were noble. The parties of God wanted exactly this outcome. This is what they strove for and this is as ignoble a motive as one could imagine. This is what is perpetuating violence around the world by being just what is needed to recruit more and more people to strap on the suicide vest. Anyone who thinks this is the direct fault of America has forfeited the right to be taken seriously as far as I'm concerned.

Iraq had disintergrated long before America launched their invasion and this violence was going to happen even if America stayed out of Iraq. Saddam was on his way out and the Saudii's and Iranian would have flooded in and the sectarian violence we're seeing now would be nothing compared to what it would've been. But again I have to reiterate this point, the US did not actively intend to cause destablisation or unnecessary violence or suffering, and they are not the ones perpetraiting the violence nor are they the motivators or inspirors of all the violence taking place in the the Middle East. They are not the cause. Their intentions are just the opposite. The people who are committing these acts are responsible and are the dangerous ones.


I agree that every country in the world who opposed the war in Iraq can legitimately say "I told you so". So what, I say, that's incredibley childish. This effort has been a disaster, and it didn't have to be but that's beside the point. The point is Iraq is where it is and the question is what do we do now. What is the right, just and moral thing to do now?

Maybe you saw this situation coming but does that absolve you of the responsibility to do something to help the people who are suffering now when you have the ability to help them? I don't see how anyone can morally defend that position.

Can anyone really be so naive to think that defeat in Iraq will simply mean a defeat for the Bush administration? If we abandon Iraq tomorrow the country will turn into a state far, far worse then Afghanistan was under the Taliban. It will be an unimagionably catastrophic situation with terrorist organisations free to do as they wish. And that would be disastrous to world peace.

The fact is there are three wars going on in Iraq right now. The first is the fight between Sunni and Shiite's for dominance or Iraq. This is a tragic sectarian war. This isn't really our problem and there's not even a lot we can do about it other then trying to containing force but the truth is anyone who has died as a result of this war has in truth dies for nothing.

The second is a fight against Al Qaida. This is a war we must not lose. America shouldn't leave until Al Qaida is driven out of Iraq and completely desimated (and this is a concern for every country in the world and to ignore it is to prepetuate and bring violence upon ourselves). This is already happening to a great degree and it could only be benifited by the aid of other nations. And while targeting Saddam was certainly not part of the stupidly called "War on Terror", this fight most certainly is.

And the third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north. Kurdistan is the great success story of this effort and a shinning example of what could have been. Thankfully as Hillary Clinton has said (although it remains to be seen if this is still her position) we cannot abandon the Kurds to slaughter as we once did. America led this war and now as such they have responsibilities that they cannot absolve themselves of, and since a good or morally justifiable case can't be made for abandoning Iraq on the latter two fronts, anyone who has the ability to help on these fronts and does nothing is indirectly responsible for every life that will be lost as a result of their inaction. The ability to distinguish among these different definitions of the "war" is what ought to define the difference between a serious politician and a political opportunist, both in Iraq and in America (and the wider world).