Bobert, by way of a reply:

"Teribus: I guess it is your opinion that mankind will never take a serious step toward peaceful coexhistence because they are inately not able to do so. I that your position?"

That most definitely is NOT my position.

"I am suggesting that as you say that the "journey begins with a single step" that mankind must find alternatives to war, especially in a planet whose inhabitants are very much tribalized in the larger sense, more dependent on one another and armed to the teeth. The planet is more dangerous now than at anytime in history becasue of the number of countries that do have WMD."

By and large mankind has progressed since the end of the Second World War. The United Nations is a far better and more effective organisation than its predecessor The League of Nations. At times however it needs a nudge in the right direction. You express your opinion above that, "The planet is more dangerous now than at any time in history because of the number of countries that do have WMD." I believe it would be more correct to add the word "potentially" between "is" and "more". The existence of WMD is a reality that mankind has to live with and be aware of. That awareness by its nature should include the evaluation of any regime's likely use of such weapons combined with a collective response by the world community to deter any potential aggressor from using them.

"I believe that, if a Emergency Middle East Summit" were convened, that every invited nation would attend and if the goal was to not leave until the many differences were hashed out and resolved that Isreal would indedd be a safer place to live five years hence. I can't understand your logic that it would be more vulnerable."

Bobert, if you read through the rhetoric of Arab leaders in years gone by, you will find many references to the ultimate goal of the total destruction of the State of Israel. Gradually that has undergone a change (Totally absent from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - very much muted from Syria). Only from Iraq and Iran are those calls still heard. The differences with Syria could, I believe, be resolved by negotiation based on good faith by both parties. But I also believe that your proposed summit would stand a far greater chance of success if the rhetoric coming from within Iraq and Iran was modified. Of the countries in the region, these are the only two that pose any threat (Iraq a great deal more than Iran). They do so in the full knowledge that they are not geographically front-line nations and as such are less likely to suffer from any retaliatory strike by Israel (undoubtedly the most powerful military presence in the area - but that is qualified in that it is a defence force and is not geared for offensive operations unless the country goes on a war footing). The first step is to bring about that change in attitude in Iraq. Iran has its own internal problems wrt the continuing political struggles between the moderates and the fundamentalists. At the moment Iran is rather introspective. No such problems for the Ba'ath Party rulers in Iraq. IF, note IF, the "Dossier" presented to the British Parliament is correct in its content and evaluation - Your proposed Middle East Summit would be doomed to failure from the outset. History has also proved that bi-lateral talks between nations in this region are more effective.

"Perhaps you could better explain your theories."

On the basis that I believe Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq does pose a threat to the stability of the region. My theory is that that regime should be disarmed, this would lead to Saddam Hussein being replaced, most likely by a more moderate faction from within the Ba'ath Party (Unlike Karzia, in Afghanistan, no alternative candidate has appeared from any other political faction within Iraq). As with Afghanistan, this will require massive aid and active involvement by the western democracies to rebuild Iraq. As that work progresses full attention can be given to the Israeli/Palestinian question. Using the precendent of action over ignored sanctions wrt Iraq. Tremendous pressure can be brought to bear on Israel. But the two cannot be done at the same time - it must be one followed by the other. And Bobert, none of the above, requires military action on the part of anyone. The key is the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq in a manner that the current regime in power knows that no interference will be tolerated, no prevarication accepted, no evasion countenanced. To get those conditions the USA and Britain want a new resolution that clearly spells that out.