Sarah, > I would say that's a legitimate reason not to go to war - the isolationist position.
I think it's more of just weariness of having to be on the front end of these conflicts so often and taking all the backlash for it. Everyone I talk to is so fed up with it all. No one has the wish for the US to be the great leader or be the most powerful. If world opinion or consensus is so much against the US, why should it continue to put itself out on the line? Look at so many of the countries that say they will help the US with Iraq. Yet they all want huge pay-offs or deals first to assist us. > I'm not sure I agree that America often gets pulled into conflicts it didn't initiate (or in some way sustain). I think some look at the main examples of WWI and WWII and Vietnam. All conflicts started by other countries. The mid-east? All arranged and redrawn by other countries. The US had smaller direct involvements in countries when they were fighting the Cold War by proxy with the USSR > To give two examples: it's because of the support for Israel of American > Jews that no American administration will cut the aid given to > Israel. Yes that has always been the complaint going back most of my life. Yet the US has also tried on numerous occasions to help them work out the problem, but it never seems to stick. > And it's America that keeps vetoing attempts to get Israel to stick to UN resolutions, and > this is something that really upsets the Arab world - why sanctions > are imposed aganst them (or even invasion) for ignoring UN > resolutions, yet nothing happens to Israel for doing the same. I'm not clear on all of that. The only thing I have heard is that the US has protested trying Sharon as a war criminal. The take on the conflict the past few years has been muddied, I think, by the question of whether Israel is defending itself against attack. I don't know how anyone in that region can live under that constant conflict. > I'm just saying that, in so doing and without exerting much political pressure to reach a > settlement - they're fueling the fire, and causing the Arabs to hate them. I think there have been attempts but the US's plate has been full during the time, too. I saw some article today about renewed pressure from both the UK and US on Israel to go back to settlement talks. At some point, these people need to do something to resolve their own problems, and not wait on the cue or lead from the US. > And a second example: it was Irish Americans giving money and > political support to Sinn Fein/IRA that, in part, kept the violence > in Northern Ireland going. Yes, I learned a bit about this here on the list a few years ago. I never knew that such support was so significant to the IRA. But again, this was not official US policy to support them. The IRA has long been on the list of terrorist organizations here and I believe it has been a crime here for many years to send them money. I have never known of anyone personally who would support them in any way. > The thing is that Americans want to be powerful in the world - want > to have influence - and the price of that is you end up involved in > issues that lead to America being seen as the villain of the piece, > which it sometimes is, but not always. But I don't see that the Americans want to be kings of the world, so to speak. They probably mainly want to keep competitive in the world economy. So many other countries in the world have competed to establish economic or political dominance in the world, too. It's not like every other country is all so pure and the US is the only country out there with foreign influence. But perception is 90% of everything. I think your analysis of the Saudi situation is right. They are really jammed. Kakki
