Poirot.

Sunni v Shite fighting has been going on for over 1,000 years. It didn't start with US, or even the earlier colonial involvement. So for you and CSteele to imply it results from, or even largely results from, outside involvement is mischievous. Though I --in no way put the entire blame on-- either of you, knowing as I do that you both glean most of your info from lefty sites and such sites are not big on history beyond the "colonial era"

And not only has in-fighting been a feature of the Islamic ME for over 1,000 years, it has now opened a new theatre of operations in the Western suburbs of Sydney. Thanks in no small part to big hearted people like you and CSteele --though I in no way put the entire blame on-- either of you,you had a lot of outside helpers and those lefty sources, again, played a part.

SPQR,

This latest round of Sunni vs Shiite violence in Iraq is directly attributable to the invasion.

Bush and Co were repeatedly warned that it would happen....and it has unfolded almost exactly as was predicted.

So, it doesn't surprise me that a decade down the track that Iraq is still unstable.

It's what I thought would happen.

Bush was a dolt.....unbelievably so for a US leader.

Poirot,

<<This latest round of Sunni vs Shiite violence in Iraq is directly attributable to the invasion>>

Only in the sense that while Saddam ruled the roost no one was brave enough to start anything. He made short work of anyone who did.

The actually death toll under Saddam was likely to have been higher than anything we are currently seeing.

But as Saddam marinated his victims in acid baths or buried them in the desert it was NOT reported much in your sources--and anyway your sources just louuuve to kick the West.

SPQR,

While Saddam was doing all sorts of things, The US was doing business with him.

Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.

The US didn't go into Iraq for altruistic reasons.

You know that.

They went in because of the fiction that Saddam had WMD's. Despite the fact that inspectors had correctly deduced that they had none.

Huge folly - and apologists for the invasion always hark back to altruistic motives.

Poirot,

<<Rumsfeld was shaking his hand>>

Surely the issue is not who colluded with him (I'm surprised you didn't indite Lord Monckton!)

But whether the Arab winter --and cases like Saddam - are the result of outside interference or part and parcel of the Islamic heritage.

I favor the later. You seem to think that none of the bad things would have happen in only the nasty Westerners had left them alone to develop the garden of Eden.

Don't be puerile, SPQR,

We're discussing the post-invasion instance regarding Iraq.

That's what happened.