unified force for Arab States

I think none of the participating countries is trustworthy in any respect. And Pakistan, for sure, has to sort out its own problems first. It would be a joke if they could achieve anything decent.

As per the latest news, Pakistan is making a diplomatic push to bring an end to this conflict. If successful, it would prove to be good move in bringing harmony and understanding among the nations in the region leading to peace in this part of the world.

Power and Money...They are both aphrodisiacs

Not only in the East, accha. Look at Italy: Berlusconi. And also South America: Venezuela, for example. In the end it turns out that it's all about money.

Wild Turkey: Agree with you. My educational background does not allow me to look at a person from his religious, sectarian, cultural or political background. I firmly believe all nations and religions have good and bad people. They include my nation and religion as well. True, Democracy requires educated and thinking people. However, democracy requires more than just that. It requires educated, thinking, broad-minded people with a clean record to become leaders of a nation. Unfortunately, at least in the east and several third world countries. such people are totally missing on the stage of leadership.

Acchabaccha, here is a saying: A benign dictator is better than a corrupt elected president. That may be true in some cases. However, democracy, as it was inaugurated in Athens 2,300 years ago still is the worst form of government - except all others. As a man I want to make my own decisions following only one rule: don't hurt yourself or anybody else. With that rule I neither need a religion to tell me right from wrong nor laws. I also take responsibility for my decisions. Such a democracy requires educated and thinking people. Why now? Because they are all idiots.

Wild Turkey: What we are witnessing is just a game of power politics on the political chess board. As for dictatorship, I have found what the west labels as "dictators" better than many rulers who have come into power through "democracy." S Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar are among the most progressive and peaceful countries in the world. True, in dictatorship there are shortfalls. But that is also true in a democratic setup. In comparison, leaders of several countries who have come into power through the "democratic process", have always carried a bagful of stories of crime and corrupt practices into their offices. Just look at the current leaders of two such countries, India and Pakistan. The common man on the street wants to live in peace free from the fear of terrorist attacks, free from the fear of sectarian or religious conflicts irrespective of which system governs his country. "Dictatorship" cannot be blamed for the current political developments in the region. It is the intervention of foreign players from across the borders who are to blame and this may include countries from the west also, as they gain from conflicts in other regions. Conflicts grease their arms industries and keep the wheels of such industries turning. Just two decades back, there were no Sunni-Shia strife in existence anywhere in the world and both the groups lived side by side in complete peace and harmony. Why now?

More people will die so that the "leaders" can stay on their thrones. It's all about securing their dictatorships. It's not for the good of the people and the countries.

Wishful thinking . Everyone has their own agenda

It would have been better if all the sides could sit together and work out a solution to the issues that the region is currently facing. It is a sad sight to see Muslims killing Muslims. Both Iran and the Arab leaders should come to the peace table and work out a solution that could usher a long-lasting peace in the region. This would definitely free up the energy which is currently being utilized to destroy each other and channel it toward constructive goals that would be beneficial to all parties in the region.

The problem with such forces is that you need concensus to deploy them. One moment you are freinds, the next moment you could be enemies.

in my opinion , it cannot work

Solid input by Acchabaccha as always .....................

Things need to be seen in a broader perspective. Since the Ayatollahs in came into power, Iran has become the "caretaker" of the Shia's across the globe. It appears they eventually want to become the dominant power in the region by fomenting trouble in countries where they have a population of Shias present. In the northern areas of this region, they are In Iraq and in Syria. In the west, they are in Lebanon. In the east they are in Bahrain where some years back, they had fomented trouble. Now they are in the South and have supported the Shias to take over the controls in Yemen. Their latest move to support the Shias in Yemen allowing them to take over the government by force, reflects broader plans of controlling the region, and due to the geographical location of Yemen, the all-important Red Sea shipping routes. One does not need to be a political wizard to understand this game of political chess that is being played in the region. There is also a sizable number of Shias in S Arabia itself mostly located in the Eastern Province of the country in the cities of Qatif and AlAhsa. In the 80's when the Iraq-Iran was taking place, the Shia's in S Arabia did carry out some terrorist activities in the kingdom in support of Iran, as S Arabia was then providing financial support to Iraq in its war with Iran. The leaders at the Arab Summit are realizing this new, developing, potential threat in the region and this is what has forced them to huddle together and chalk out plans to thwart the growing menace.

A civilian needs a soldier for protection from trouble makers ............. but not knowing exactly who is the trouble maker & who is the protector ........

I saw interviews of common people in Yemen .. they seem to hate Saudi Arabia .. so if its not for the people of Yemen then who this war is for ? its more of Shia vs Sunni

Too late, and unify in term of forces not enough to come out from eveils

The question is what are "common threats"? It can be anything including saying what you think. It seems to be a further step to protect the rulers. Not the people.

Will this bring peace or further divide ?

The parcticality is more difficult. Where is the force based? Who heads it ? Can soldiers of another nation take orders from someone else ?

We need peace ........... It's leaders responsibilty to go for the best options .............. ............