Once again, Dhalgren the king of unfair strawman arguments strikes again. I never implied that the several empires of the middle east were utopias nor did I imply that war and bloodshed did not exist. I said today there are "hot conflicts" and they are spiraling out of control because of the unnatural borders that they were confined to by the Great Powers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Iraq for example was forced to become a national entity after the British forced the three culturally, ethnically and religious incompatible Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Basra and Baghdad to become one national entity. Needless today, unity was never found under this national construct. Further, the British and French signed a myriad of treaties that basically sold the regions resources to Europe while empowering Arab notables that were completely out of touch with the peasant and working populations of the region. This has created a hundred years of revolt, poverty and despotism. This kind of violence in which the populations of the ex-Ottoman region never existed in such a way that mass pockets of society have starved to death by the millions. Don't be such an ass with your assumptions about me.

>So... the only reason there's violence and oppression in the
>Middle East is because of modern artificial boundaries?
>
>So... the Ottoman, Persian, Byzantine, Carthaginian,
>Babylonian, Kemetic, and Sumerian civilizations in the
>region were UTOPIAS?!
>
>Wow. Your 2-dimensional answers are getting REAL thin.