Don't mean to butt in, but with Madame Palin blowing her bags so much about the Surge, or rather the Bush victory in Iraq, thought a bit said to be from the Washington Post may be interesting.

The Surge?

Every picture tells a story – especially a news report, including a movie camera shot.

Getting close to the US election, the Surge is being portrayed as a wonderful victorious example of the near-ending of so-called terrorism in Iraq.

However, as it happened the first some of us new of the change, was the TV report apparently from the Washington Post of Iraqi government Shia troops about to arrest a group of known Sunni insurgents when in dropped a US gunship and ordered the Shias to let the Sunnis go free.

It seemed Paul Bremer talked about the above, over three years before. Many of us historians, knew that there was a connection between Saddam’s Sunnis of Iraq and the Saudi Sunnis – indeed all Sunnis, even bin Laden, have a historical record of dualism, or better still, multiple-ism.

On the other hand, the Shias, because their Ayotallahs must always be blood-related to Mahomet, while the Sunnis are not - the Shias are the more genuine Muslims.

It was thus not surprising to well read historians to learn that a certain American general was co-opted to do a deal last year with the Iraqi Sunni Shaiks, who naturally over the US occupation had been urging on the large amount left of Saddam’s former 250, 000 frontline troops, who had naturally become the insurgents, not part of Al Quida terrorism, which Saddam apparently had never been interested in.

Therefore could the above be called a US victory, or rather an armistice or arrangement with an enemy that might have Saddam smiling in his grave remembering how the US helped helped him have that fruitless go at Iran during the 1980's.

Much Obliged, BB, WA

David Singer do you realise your rants are merely attracting the worst type of racist a.......s aka Iam Joseph

Oh and by the way Iam. Jesus might have been Jewish but he started our great religion based on the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. Why don't you include them in your book and try including their lessons in your ... errrr ... 'thinking'.

DavidS/Bushbread,

“Yes, there was peace in the Middle East under the Ottomans”

Yes there was!

But it was the same sort of peace as you had under Saddam or Stalin (RIP).

And come to think of it...the descendants of the Ottomans’ are still generously bestowing their peace to the Kurds ( & Armenians).

Horus, you've got my drift. You could divide Palestine between Israel and Jordan or absorb Israel into neighbouring states (the Hamas line) or amalgamate Lebanon and Syria (used to be the case) or any other convenient border reconfiguration but you wouldn't have real peace. All you would have is a settlement that suits (often) unelected governments.

And yes, you're dead right about the oppression of the Kurds - in many ways worse than the Palestinians. The border settlement of 1919 has lead to peace for them.

Keith:

You really need to take a cold shower and cool down a bit.

Your suggestion that my proposal that Jordan, Israel and Egypt divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between them "is tantamount to a pogrom to evict Palestinians from their home lands" is a load of arrant nonsense.

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that my proposal need not involve the eviction of one single resident - Jew or Arab - from his current home.

Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent and distort my opinion? Disagree with it - certainly - with facts to support your view - and I will endeavour to deal with the issues you raise.

David JS

You fail to understand that the last recognised sovereign authority in the West Bank and Gaza was Great Britain in 1948. In international law the West Bank and Gaza are "no man's land" in which sovereignty has remained unallocated since then.

The Palestinian Authority (PA)has been given 15 years to reach an agreement with Israel on its allocation to enable the creation of the state the PA says it wants to establish. I think that is more than enough time to have reached an agreement. The PA hasn't got to first base in these negotiations since Israel is not prepared to meet the PA demands.

Assigning blame is a pointless and futile exercise.

A new direction is therefore now required to achieve allocation of sovereignty of the last remaining 6% of former Palestine that has not already been allocated between Israel and Jordan.

Your proposal to get rid of Israel certainly has the support of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The problem however is that this can only be achieved by war. I am interested in seeking peaceful outcomes without resorting to war.

Iam Joseph:

I am not interested in shooting the messangers - only in anwering their messages in the most honest way I can. Hopefully they might be better informed as a result

David, If they had a strong UN force in Palestine/Israel, rather than Israel having the latest in nuclear weapons making her hated by the whole Middle East and much of the world, there would be much more contentment.

It is said time and time again by historians that the Kantian philosophy backed by not one single strong power, but by a Federation of Nations, is the only way to promote perpetual peace.

The trouble with the last couple of centuries the world has been under the heels of the two Anglophile powers Great Britain and America, the whole thing spoilt by arrant colonialism and economic greed - that Maynard Keynes gave such warnings about before he died near the end of WW2.

Why is it right now that we have more billionaires than ever while the world is so troubled about going broke?

I