Hi Anne, > If there were no oil there I doubt we'd focus on the region the way we do.
But my question is why does the U.S. need to focus on the region with regard to oil when we reduced our dependancy on middle east oil by about 75% years ago (I think the U.S. did this in the 70s as a reaction to being held up by OPEC). I've read that we get about 10% from Iraq, but that is through the UN program, i.e,. we get some oil in exchange for humanitarian services in light of the sanctions on the country. Who benefits the most, from a purely economic standpoint, from middle eastern oil - it is overwhelmingly Europe and Asia. Those are the regions who need the middle east to be stabilized as far as keeping the flow going to them. The U.S. has many other sources and has for years, plus the oil men are far more interested in tapping into Russia's reserves at this point. If it were only about oil for the U.S., I'd think we would choose to drill the hell out of our own country before we would ever have a war solely based on getting oil from a region that we have not been dependent on for years. The theory that the Bushes and Cheney, et al could personally benefit financially from was in Iraq just doesn't add up to me. They are already mega rich - they don't have a personal motivation to get even richer. Bush I is old and Cheney has been in fragile and precarious health for years now. It just doesn't add up to me that they would be pursuing this out of personal greed when their days on this earth are fairly numbered. So what stance does one take? If it is only about access to the oil, should the U.S. back off completely and tell Europe and Asia to deal with Saddam in whatever way that may lead? Part of me has no problem with that at all. I'm beyond sick of the U.S. going in to help other countries and then bearing the brunt of the backlash. Shall we adopt the idealistic humanitarian stance and support Saddam's removal because he is, by all evidence and longstanding accounts, as bad as Hitler and Stalin combined, and is a menace not only in his own country but potentially to all the surrounding countries in the mid-east? When he invaded Kuwait, the U.S. did not decide on its own to go and turn him back - the U.S. was asked by the UN and many countries to step in. Now today, we have the UN Security Council in unanimous agreement on the latest resolution to demand that he allow full inspection of his weapons. >Suddenly the wealthy sheiks were driving fancy Western cars on new wide roads. In the > meantime, the general population wasn't getting the > benefit of the wealth. Yet, culturally, it's taboo to > fault one's own people, one's own "tribe." So, who do > you blame? Those who caused this schism, the outsiders. Oh so true. What makes it even more gnarly is that the sheiks have been funding all their madrassas to keep the people focused on hating the west so that they won't turn and attack the real source of their oppression - the shieks. > I believe this explains the appeal of Osama bin Laden. > He did split with his family, or so it seemed. He also > seemed to champion the cause of the average person, but > did so while calling upon the centuries old traditions > of his religion. But I can't see anything noble at all in what OBL has spawned. I don't see them as freedom fighters in a romantic way as we may look at our own history of freedom fighters. The people are barbarically repressed with little ways of finding joy in their lives. OBL offers them the excitement of warrior-hood as a release for their anger and coats it with a religious pretense so that they feel somehow they are being called to a higher purpose. It's pure demonic psychology devised by a sociopath. How can the U.S. in any way deal with such a stew? Do we have the qualified psychologists and diplomats to effectively turn this around? You say the Bushes should have given the moderate moslems a seat at the table but I recall back to Nixon and Kissinger efforts on the part of the U.S. to do just that. Look at our efforts and alliances with men like King Hussein of Jordan, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and even Saddam himself way back in the late 70s - early 80s before he turned mad. For Al Gore to say Bush squandered a lot of goodwill in just a year just leaves me going "huh?" Pretty disingenous considering all the terrorist attacks on the U.S. and failed progress in the Israel/Palestinian peace accords during his years of tenure. I don't have answers but there are a lot of questions. Kakki
