Of course it's not just the Middle East either. There is a Mulsim insurgency in southern Thailand that has been simmering for quite some time. And of course the Philippines has similar issues. And wasn't there also an issue in Western China of Muslim groups trying to assert greater freedom for themselves? Of course in those cases it is the Muslims vs. the secular government not Sunni vs. Shiite. But this is an issue that is broader than the Middle East.

Let's get real here, it's already a civil war in Iraq, as anyone with any real counter-terrorism experience knows (I did a few ct ops myself).

The major question now is, is Bush insane enough to use nukes in Iran, after blessing India's and Pakistan's nukes?

Please do not hyphenate India-Pakistan. India is not a tin pot dictatorship nor does it claim anyone's real estate.
India is probably the most well adjusted democracy this planet has seen.
FYI- India has more muslims than the whole middle east out together and India has no islamic issues either.

The entire middle east is in upheaval. I suspect by now our president rues the day he ignored Colin Powell's advice on Iraq "You break it, you own it".

The region needs stability more than it needs democracy Mr. President. This war has put tremendous strains on our financial resources, a few glimpses of which were evident in the post-Katrina response, as well as recent cuts by Congress of our health and education programs. Damage on the politics has been equally devastating. A more limited focus on the elimination of Al Quaeda and Bin Laden would have had much greater domestic support, and been less divisive to our social fabric.

Most ordinary Americans want no more than to enjoy peace and freedom at home. We are a nation that leads by example, not by force. This planning for a nuclear attack on Iran's nuclear facilities scares most of us. We seem to be charting a course that has more in common with the history of the Soviet Union and China that our own.

it is a civil war.just because it is suicide for american press to use the word civil war,make no mistake it is.if 3 thousand orange people killed 3 thousand purple people and vice versa in the past months in the us you would be saying we are in the midst of civil war.

it wouldn't be a real post there weren't a token indian hating on pakistan. naturally it would have to be unprovoked and in no way germaine to the original discussion. but for what its worth, if the indians had such a well adjusted democracy, why would they need 500k troops in Kashmir? what other democracy has to actually occupy its "own" territory?

and since india has, "no islamic issues" either, i suppose the fact that the BJP leader of gujrat was at the head of a mob that slaughtered thousands of muslim citizen doesn't qualify. oh how simple life is!

well its the civilk war and its very good now we can see the traitor of the suny and arab gulf state give the red carpert to attack irq .NOW TEY DREAM HE SADAM HUSSEIN SHOUDL STAY IN POWER ,what a dream ,isnt it.this is the begining of the end of this crap kingdom and the down the US and UK power in the region , now were going ot see the oil will $300 AND IT WILL BE very cheap to buy it at the prices .its all about oil?? right ?now the oil field dry up the arab kings they may ask ayslum to UK, its good for them.the bomb is ticking so fast no one can stop it NO ONE CAN .

India & Pakistan

I do not know very much of the history of India & Pakistan conflict over Kashmir, but history is going to be India's side unless Pakistan's economic growth starts accelerating. We have a saying in US politics "It's the economy stupid".

Without a growing economy, Pakistan is moving to the periphery of US interests. China will soon follow the US example as it has much bigger ambitions in Southeast Asia and Iran.

Fortunately for now, a free Bin Laden keeps Pakistan in United States foreign policy focus and a beneficiary of US largesse. That could disappear if Al Quaeda and Bin Laden are destroyed. If I was the President of Pakistan, I would want to keep Bin Laden as an honored guest in my palace with a hospital nearby and my personal physician in call. Occasionally, I would insist he make a few videos, but nothing so strenous as to tax his health.

As for India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons... not much to that. Technology makes it inevitable that any country that wants it can develop it these days. Nuclear engineering is'nt what it used to be 30 years.

Geesh, noone in the rest of the world cares about your petty little feud in Kashmir, so just get over yourselves, Pakistan and India.

We were talking Iraq and Iran.

If you want to be treated as a modern nation, start acting like one, and threatening to nuke them, like we here do.

I thought it was an amazing spectacle, that a few words from the Egyptian and the reaction was 'How dare you say the Civil War word just because we have one? Don't you realize if everybody knows we definitely have one, then we might have one? So that, even though we have one, we now are more likely to have one even though we don't, because...well, I mean, like, you know...

The 3 Stooges of Iraq talkin' trash 'cause they can't do the new Valley Girl refinements like Paris and Nicole.

Iraq is in midst of civil war: Saudi FM

Riyadh, Apr 09: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said today that the violence in Iraq could only be described as a civil war and Arab states should try to bring Iraqis together to stop the strife.

"The definition of civil war is that the people (of a country) are fighting each other ... I don't know what we can call (what is happening) in Iraq except a civil war," he told reporters.

Prince Saud's remarks came a day after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war that threatened the Middle East, comments that sparked anger in Iraq and Iran.

"This what we hope to overcome by having an effort undertaken by the Arab League to bring Iraqi sides together in the hope of halting this war, which can only bring calamities to the Iraqi people and disaster for the region," Prince Saud said.

But only "Iraqis themselves can stop this fighting," he added during the joint news conference with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos who is accompanying the King of Spain on a visit to Saudi Arabia.

A wave of sectarian violence pitting Sunni Muslims against Shiites has left hundreds dead in Iraq since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad, on February 22.

Mubarak, however, infuriated both Iraq and Shiite-dominated Iran by claiming that Shiites in Arab countries were mostly loyal to Tehran, not their own countries.

Iraq: Arab Concerns Over the U.S.-Iranian Talks
April 10, 2006 21 45The Saudi leadership should act to prevent Iran from "exporting the revolution" to Iraq, said a report by a security adviser to the Saudi government made public April 10. By publicly expressing their fears over the U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq and an imminent U.S. troop drawdown in the region, the Middle East's major Arab players -- Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- are signaling Washington that they, too, deserve seats at the negotiating table. The United States could certainly benefit from bringing Cairo and Riyadh on board as it cautiously engages Tehran, but U.S. negotiators would risk being stretched too thin across the Persian-Arab divide as they attempt to balance a complex array of interests.

remember the old saying, "if you strike the king, you'd better kill him"? there is a corollary for the king too: "if struck, you better kill the offender." saddam's regime had to die, payment for the blow it struck to american hegemony in the gulf when it struck kuwait and threatened the rest of the oil flow. and what of a nuclear powered iran? ironically, it is owning the bomb itself that will make iran stop being a terrorist state. but it would then become a messianic state on steroids, with the aim to liberate enslaved shia (see hitler, liberation of polish germans), and not incidentally oil fields, in neighboring states.
in the process, that american hegemony in the gulf that saddam threatened unsuccessfully would be dealt a mortal blow. and that is why the current regime in iran, and its nuclear toolkit, must be anhiliated. a clintonian response to this threat would mean the end for the king; a bushistic response means he lives to defend his crown another day. do not doubt that the bombs will fall.

Is it really only Iran's nuclear program that has the Bush Administration studying contingency plans to bomb Iran, possibly even with tactical nuclear weapons? Or could contingency plans to bomb Iran be part of the calculations concerning an escalating Iraqi civil war with strong Iranian involvement supporting Iraqi Shiites, inflaming and spreading sectarian conflict to Gulf and Arabian Sunni dominated countries with Shiite populations? In such a scenario, the Bush administration maybe assuming that Sunni Islamic governments will be our allies. Would Sunni Muslims be allies with Western Christians against "heretical" Islamic Shiites?
The Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq both lead to civil war. With disregard to the history, culture and religion of the Islamic countries they invaded, both the Soviet Union and the US believed that part of their mission was to bestow their systems, that they and their Communism or Democracy would be embraced by the invaded populations.

Is it really only Iran's nuclear program that has the Bush Administration studying contingency plans to bomb Iran, possibly even with tactical nuclear weapons? Or could contingency plans to bomb Iran be part of the calculations concerning an escalating Iraqi civil war with strong Iranian involvement supporting Iraqi Shiites, inflaming and spreading sectarian conflict to Gulf and Arabian Sunni dominated countries with Shiite populations? In such a scenario, the Bush administration maybe assuming that Sunni Islamic governments will be our allies. Would Sunni Muslims be allies with Western Christians against "heretical" Islamic Shiites?
The Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq both lead to civil war. With disregard to the history, culture and religion of the Islamic countries they invaded, both the Soviet Union and the US believed that part of their mission was to bestow their systems, that they and their Communism or Democracy would be embraced by the invaded populations.

Trust George W. Bush to inflame the entire Middle East.
Thanks, George.
What war are you going to start next?

Face it Americans: you have put a moron, a dunce, at the helm, and the world is paying the price.

"April 10, 2006 21 45The Saudi leadership should act to prevent Iran from "exporting the revolution" to Iraq, said a report by a security adviser to the Saudi government made public April 10."

How utterly hypocritical. A country that allows its religious leaders free reign, to practice and enforce one of the most virulent and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, is concerned about a conservative Shiite ideology catching on amongst Shiites.
Ask any Shia' from Saudi Arabia (I have known a few), and he will tell you of treatment as a second class citizen. The Sunni Arab monarchies are complicit in the torture and murder of the Shia' of Iraq. They looked the other way because it fit in with keeping the support of the radical Sunni clergy in their own countries, as well as their own bigoted mindset.
Hosni Mubarak’s statement, that the Shia’ cannot be trusted, is tantamount to adding fuel to the sectarian fire burning in other Muslim societies. If the sectarian strife spreads to other Arab countries it will not be because of Iranian support, but because leaders like Mubarak have emboldened the Sunni bigots and fundamentalists in their societies. With power in the hands of the Sunni majority, in most Arab countries, I fail to see how and why a replay of the Iranian Revolution would take place anywhere other than, perhaps, Iraq (With a large Kurdish and Sunni minority, among other reasons, I find that extremely unlikely).

I don't think for one second America will use even tactical nukes when it bombs Iran sometime in the next two years. Even Bush isn't that crazy. Apparently a bigger conventional 'bunker buster' will be available to deal with hiding place Iran's nuclear programme has. The only delay to the attack is America needs to improve its intelligence about the location of Iran's nuclear programme.

An attack on Iran will critically destabilise the Shia dominated areas of Iraq though and could destroy any peace that may evolve there in the next 24 months.

As to the threat of a sectarian war, I don't know. But I do get the feeling there is going to be a shake-up politically in the region over the next few years and there is the potential for it go very wrong.

Saul: Face it Americans: you have put a moron, a dunce, at the helm, and the world is paying the price.

How could anyone display such ignorance?

It is becoming increasingly clear to the reading population that democracy has been destroyed in the USA since 2000.

Both instances of Bush being `elected' are hot topics of debate.

Have you ever heard of Florida and are you even aware of the Supreme Court stopping the vote count in 2000 and installing Bush?

Have you eve heard of Diebold, the electronic voting machine maker who was a fervent Bush supporter that guaranteed Bush would win?

http://www.votetrustusa.org/

http://www.votersunite.org/

Phone-Jamming Records Point to White House

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Mon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

DavidP: Even Bush isn't that crazy.

Do you have any evidence?

The debacle in Iraq is proof he's crazy.

It also proves he's incomptetent.

On 9/11, nearly 3000 people were murdered and hundreds of dollars in damage were incurred.

What was Bush's direct response?

He inadvertently fathered in Iraq a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic with extremely close ties to Iran which he infamously deemed an axis of evil.

Bush with his military men did not understood the Iraqi sitituaton and mismanaged the problems there .and gave Iraq to Iran just for nothing and we do not know why

FYI: Italy's new PM-elect confirms he will pull troops from Iraq:
www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Politica/2006/Notizie/Politiche2006/articoli/04_Aprile/12/prodi.shtml
One less ally for the States in its criminal war.