Foreign policy is driven by what benefits the country (or what they think does). Dictators are fine. As you might recall, Saddam was still a dictator in 1985, but he was OUR kind of dictator, so it was OK. Our economy runs on oil. No oil, no economy. We need Saudi oil. Therefore, it's fine.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Exactly.

__________________
lambaste me not

You are preaching to the choir here...non-democracies have no right to exist.

Defense. Everyone...including Bush, has been saying this for some time.

Our resources are finite. We have to order threats by which one is the most oppressive/dangerous. Saddam > Saudi Arabia. It's pretty simple IMO.

Saudi Arabia is a useful tool we can use against a much more dangerous enemy. Once they have outlived their usefulness, we will turn on them as well. Actually, you can already see this sentiment now...even many conservatives are turning on them already.

Probably. I think it is worth noting, military threat to us aside, that the human rights violations of the Saudis are FAR less severe than what Saddam did.

The nessecity is self-evident IMO. We need their land as a base of operations. Their clout allows us to manipulate regimes that might otherwise be hostile to us (making our job more costly and difficult).

I dont nessecerily agree with this, but from a pragmatic point of view, it does make sense. This is a war of attrition.

We should not be cooperating or trading with non-democracies IMO...period.

It was not ok, even then. It is gratifying to see that the nation is moving more in-line with my world view in this respect. Too bad it took 911 to do that.

We do not "need" Saudi oil. It is a convenience. Only 15% or 20% of our oil comes from the middle east and the Saudis are not the only source of Middle East oil.

We could live without it if we had to. The majority of americans dont want to though (it aint just Bush). Thats the sad fact.

Actually, it is a known fact that the US government has friends among the all time greatest criminals. Let's not forget such classic relationships like "America as the man that made Saddam who is" and "Uncle Sam(uel) supporting Pinochet 100%" and who can forget the fact that it was the CIA that learned Bin Ladin and his thugs how to be a bad guy.

__________________
They know... Saddam Hussein is no threat to the US. But at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. Gen.W.Clark

Oh, I agree. The PRC comes to mind (Thank you President Clinton/Carter).

Fortunately that seems to be changing. Not quite fast enough for me, but it is changing.

Oh, how sweet, you try to neutralize the bad things I said about Uncle Sam(uel) by attacking China.

__________________
They know... Saddam Hussein is no threat to the US. But at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. Gen.W.Clark

Ummm.....didn't he implicate Clinton and modern day Carter as well as China? It's is right there in the quote you tried to use to support your point.

__________________
lambaste me not

Is it an attack if it's true? How does the PRC oppress it's citizens less than Saddam or OBL?

I am agreeing with you...we should not legitimize despots by dealing with them on a political/economic level. Why do you make an exception for the PRC?

I am not saying the PRC should be an exception.

__________________
They know... Saddam Hussein is no threat to the US. But at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. Gen.W.Clark

So...you seem to like some oppressive regimes, but not others. How is the PRC different from Saddam and OBL? Please explain.

I mean, I am assuming you like them because you use their flag as their symbol. Am I wrong to assume this? If so, why do you use their flag as your avatar?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, heh heh