>> Divide et impera may be a good tactical game for the duration of an empire, and may be profitable for a few decades afterwards, but sooner or later the divided and ruled over get pis*ed off.
>
>I alluded to that in the lower paragraph. But, heh, the UK can't take all the blame. It's the US that's been propping up Isral's defences for decades.

True - the US haven't helped much, either, unless we count installing friendly governments in both Iraq and Iran (yes, Saddam was a friendly regime in his time, until he nationalised the oil), and generally using the situation to increase profits. Then adjusting the situation some more to gain more profits.

>>That's why I think Srđan mentioned "mending fences" a couple of times. Can't be undone, but good will to fix should be shown. Instead, we get any country which gives the wrong answer to "who owns your oil" labeled as rogue. Russia is currently badmouthed because of that, Venezuela too, before that it was Libya and Iraq.
>
>I don't think the US or UK are up to "mending fences" with terrorists who slay large numbers of their citizens in acts of cowardice and barbarity.

That's the typical answer I'd expect from a right-wing-nut hawk, generalizing the whole Mid East as "terrorists". Still, labeling them so won't make the problem go away. These nations will still be there in ten, twenty, fifty years. And, to differ from the public in Serbia and US (the ones I know), their memory stretches far more into the past than just today's news spin.