> 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'm hoping someone else will be able to answer this more concretely than I can at the moment. Part of my opinon on this stems from the lack of attention we pay to other regions that have little or nothing to offer our economy. I guess the question is "why pay so much attention to certain dictators and certain human rights violators, to the exclusion of others." The answer has to involve some sort of self interest. Is there anything the area around the Persian Gulf offers that other regions (like parts of Africa, for example, or even the Balkans) don't. The answer is oil. Perhaps this sounds convaluted. We court China, in spite of an abysmal human rights record. Why? The promise of trade with millions of Chinese. The U.S. government is acting in the interest of its people and corporations. As it should. BUT we're part of the U.N., which can be a source of conflicted interests. President Bush appears to be putting the interests of U.S. corporations (and even multi-national corporations with some interested U.S. shareholders) first. > But I can't see anything noble at all in what OBL has spawned. Oh, I agree with you entirely. I'm just trying to explain the rationale some of the fanatical and even some middle-of-the-road Muslims might use to explain his appeal. The logic is twisted, but I think I see where it comes from. > 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. I agree entirely. I hope you don't think I consider OBL anything but the most demented of criminals. > 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? Good questions. If I knew the answers... > 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. Sadly, I think we've changed alliances as it's suited our needs instead of looking at the bigger and longer range picture. We even back the Taliban at one point because we were so anti-Soviet. If President Bush really means it when he says he wants to wage war against terrorism, then he's got to stick to principles that are very difficult. We even have to inform our allies when we think they engage in acts of terrorism. And, yes, that includes Israel. Demolishing the home of the family when one member is a suspected terrorist is in itself an act of terror. It's not just (meaning fair) punishment and smacks of revenge, not justice. > For Al Gore to say Bush squandered a lot of goodwill in just a year just leaves me going "huh?" Well, the world was mourning for us, grieving with us. There was a moment when we could have said, "Enough." We could have called a summit of all the Arab nations and Israel. "Please, help us solve this problem." We could have used the opportunity to begin to forge alliances. And we could have done so even though we took military action in Afghanistan. Mind you, I don't believe we could have implicitly trusted anyone involved, but we could have taken that first small step towards inclusion and understanding. We didn't. And now most of the world hates us. It was an opportunity missed. lots of love Anne
