blaming Clinton

[Terrance]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> The moral dilemma is in dealing with the authoritarian regimes (their being
> no NONauthoritarian ones except Israel) but the practical problem of the
> moment  for the U.S seems to arise from being in the Middle East at all.

Obviously the  moral dilemma that Richard mentions is not a priority,
for the West or the regimes. It's the practical facts that denominate
policy. 


> Desecrating holy Islamic ground. An issue that can really stir up the masses
> in the hands of a bin Laden. It might be nice to alleviate at least the
> moral dilemma but can anyone imagine the authoritarian regimes' being
> democratized at the insistence of the U.S. 

No way. They will not be democratized. 

But the holy Islamic ground problem is a big one. It's being Holy ground
won't prevent Iraq from marching on it, controlling the oil supplies or
blowing up the oil supplies, as he tried to  in 1990. If the UN lifts
the sanctions Iraq will bring in huge sums of money and put it into the
military.  He can wage war w/o restraint. 

Am I being too paranoid in
> thinking that under more freedom fundamentalist rabble rousers would  be
> able to stir things up more than ever. Look what getting rid of the Shah
> did. The friendly authoritarian regimes and the U.S.  and Israel very much
> have something  in common. They don't want to see more Islamic
> fundamentalism.

That's for sure. 


> 
> So is the answer to forget the Middle East and the World Economy's need for
> its oil. There's always Alaska and other sources to supply the U.S. for a
> while but what about Europe and Japan. And wouldn't Israel be pushed into
> the sea. Maybe not but it would be touch and go.

Oil is controlled not by big oil companies, not even by Nations and
Cartels, but by consumers and alliances between producers and consumers.
Remember Kuwait and Saudi Arabia squeezed the pipes on the USA and the
West when they were not threatened, but the threat of Islamic
fundamentalism and militaristic regimes (Iraq) makes these producers
more dependent on the consumers than the consumers are on the producers.
Nations can grow modern economies w/o a drop of domestic oil--Japan. The
USA is a big consumer, but it also has oil and coal. The problem is not
what it once was and the moderate state recognize this fact. The USA has
tremendous leverage here, it's possible that some democratizing may be
implemented (I forget what it's called now, but the USA has tried this
with trade and human rights), but I doubt democratizing is in the cards.