[hetron]

I'll try to reply as best I can to each segment of your post:
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Hetron,

You will notice that I expressed that scenario conditionally. Actually, quite a parlay of adverse trends and developments would have to occur before I would actually advocate such a course of action. It could happen, though.

[ QUOTE ]
it is so very INTERESTING to me that you propose going in and "molding" the middle east instead of just suggesting leaving the whole region alone. Do you feel that Islamic fanaticists would lose their preoccupation with the west if we lost our preoccupation with their oil?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Islamic fanatics would not lose their preoccupation with the West if we lost our preoccupation with their oil.

Firstly, the only reason they have any sort of substantial economy at all, is because we buy their oil. Otherwise their GDP would be just terribly, terribly small--and even with the massive oil sales, it is not large compared to other Western countries or regions. So we do help their economies tremendously. Of course, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. And yes, much of those revenues are concentrated amongst the ruling powers in the Middle East. Yet without those revenues the region would be far poorer still.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I won't debate that.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, the principal reason the Islamists hate the West is for religious reasons. The words of Zarqawi and bin-Laden make very clear the religious component to all of this, and this undercurrent is ever present. Their specific stated grievances are just add-ons to the basically religious fanatical theme of hating infidels, democracy, and anything that runs contrary to prely Islamic religious rule.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is unclear if they could garner any support for these ideas if the common folk didn't seem to think that the US was a supreme meddler in the region.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with just "leaving the Middle East alone" is threefold: 1) if left alone it will continue to fester and produce more virulent anti-Western propaganda and hatred, a la the Saudi Arabia worldwide ideological campaign, 2) Nuclear weapons in the future hands our fanataical enemies such as Iran, could be disastrous, and 3) the current state of the Middle East is entirely deplorable with regard to human rights and especially women's rights. I can't feel morally OK with just allowing many millions to be so oppressed if there is anything within reason which we can do to help the causes of freedom and human rights--and I would hope that you can't, either.


[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, if the united states was so concerned about human rights, it would do more to help stop human rights abuses in parts of the world that were less economically important, eg, africa. Of course, our silence when it comes to the massacre in darfur is deafening.
[ QUOTE ]

However, as mentioned above, quite a parlay would have to occur before I would actually advocate a Western war against, and occupation of, such countries as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]