"we didn't cause the majority of world problems." Certainly not. Although, British imperial and colonial policy did cause quite a few, including some still not well understood or documented. But, I am not a major critic of Britain, for the most part, because I tend to judge against the record of history and realistic alternatives. And, so, for all the many legitimate criticisms to be levelled, I generally argue that serious criticism must show that the alternative would have been significantly better. Britain was the least bad of all the European colonial empires. And, certainly, no other culture which had imperial tendencies would have done nearly as well. Can we imagine Islamic conquest? Japanese? "No one like's being ruled over." True, but, I think, you misapply this observation. The real distinction between the British Empire(s) and American policy in the 20th century was that America - with the exception of Panama - didn't build an empire. It freed peoples. It freed peoples it conquered and ruled - the Phillipines and Cuba, notably, in the early years, and freed a lot more peoples it never controlled save in obviously temporary military conquest of their foreign rulers. It's too easy, I'm afraid, to overlook the history of the harsh feelings between Britain and America in the 20th century on this issue. Most modernists like to invent an Imperial America. While there is some basis for the thesis, there isn't much. In fact, the direction of American culture and a large part of official American policy in the 20th century was in opposition to Empire, both American, and, more significantly, anyone elses. There were a LOT of hard feelings in the UK for generations over the nasty American public criticims of the British imperial and colonial policies. Over the American official pressure on Britain to free colonial peoples. In the earlier years, to end to growth of the Empire. Some of the worst strains on AngloAmerican relations in the second part of the 19th century and into the 20th century were caused by American opposition to Europe's attempt to carve up and subdue China. European activities in China, in the preWW1 era, looked rather like Anglo-French activities in India, in the 18th Century, in the era when the foundation of the later Raj was being laid. Perhaps the only really bad differences between Churchill and America apart from tactical issues relating to conduct of WW2, were over Churchill's correct perception that America was hostile to the Empire - as opposed to the UK, towards which America was friendly - and that given the change in the balance of power which was coming about, America would have the power to begin to force the Empire to break up. And, indeed, some of us are old enough to remember a rather loud element among older British folk which was not just resentful, but quite angry over what they saw as America's war against the Empire. An element in British politics on the right was opposed to the Cold War alliance based on this.

""No one like's being ruled over." True, but, I think, you misapply this observation. The real distinction between the British Empire(s) and American policy in the 20th century was that America - with the exception of Panama - didn't build an empire." No you misunderstand. By no means is the US imperial, however to the people of Iraq it makes no difference that the US will eventually leave, they still want to the US out quicker than it will be. My point is that despite the harsh feelings about the occupation the benifits are still there. It was the same case with much/most of the British Empire, yes many didn't like it but they still benifited from it in the long term.

Ehran, I believe the diversity comment simply is directed at the fact that the US contains a more diverse and larger permanent minority base than the various European countries.

to which i would answer that the american melting pot makes 2nd and 3rd gen immigrants much more uniform in their "culture" as americans. they may have different skin colours but if you scratch the surface at all they bleed red white and blue. not that this makes him any less of an annoying git.

But the UK also has large numbers of minority groups. In my area alone we have indians, pakistanis, africans, other europeans, americans, chinese etc etc. Europe is very diverse.

i very much doubt there is the same pressure on immigrants to become english that there is in the states to become americans.

Thanks for such astute observations & commentary.

"however to the people of Iraq it makes no difference that the US will eventually leave, they still want to the US out quicker than it will be." This is nonsense. I've written, at length, about the cultural dynamics in the region which tend to lead to violent opposition coalescing around "foreign" occupation. However, to simply speak of "the people of Iraq" as if there was such a unified group, or to blithely assert that they are united in opposition to Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is to completely misunderstand what's going on in Iraq. Most Sunni, almost everyone closely associated with the Hussein regime in local eyes, and some Shi'a working with the Iranian mullahs feel as you assert. Many more are quite satisfied to have Americans present to help stamp out the efforts to restore a Baathist type regime, or install a Shi'a theocracy, or to allow the Sunni, the traditional ruling group, to suppress the majority population, who are NOT Sunni Arabs.

This is an interesting matter and it's not simple. For the last few hundred years, until a couple of generations back, there was simply no basis to compare America and Europe on this. America took in an ever larger number and assortment of peoples, while Europe remained quite homegeneous in comparison. Over the postWW2 years, Europe began to take vastly larger number of foriegn immigrants than it had at any time in the modern era. It hasn't quite reached the American rate, in this; some countries have, but, on average, the continent has not. HOWEVER, the more important question seems to have changed from whether or not a country takes in signigicant numbers of immigrants to what happens to those immigrants over time. America has 300 years of successful integration of people from all over the world into a common culture. What is happening in Europe is an open question. Or, to put all the cards on the table, it's not at all clear whether Europe can absorb muslim immigrants, or whether they will form an indigestible lump in European craws. France, for instance, is a pathetic mess, with immense slums and ghettos having grown up in less than 50 years. Britain has done somewhat better, but, like several other European countries, is beginning to face what looks like real challenges to a national culture by a growing mass of muslims who are not happy with the dominant culture, not successful in it, not sure they want to be part of it.

Not being actually IN Iraq subjects us all to the unfortunate problem of getting our info through the media. And according to the media, almost EVERYBODY, including the Shiites, wants us out NOW. Of course, I do undertand that A)They could be under pressure not to say anything pro-US or risk retaliation or B)The media only picking out the sources who present the juicy negative side but I'm just throwing that out there.