There is nothing recent in any of these "offences". How does the US pick it's targets?

Does America go back in time to try to redress every crime committed by every bad guy? Clearly that's not reasonable.

If it were, why not Africa, where in very recent times there has been genocide on a scale not really comprehensible anywhere else in the last 50 years? Is it because they are black, or don't have oil? Why?

Ah, you say, just because you can't get 'em all, doesn't mean you shouldn't get some of them. Which some, then? Should we pick the places where we could save the largest number of people? That would be Africa. But, no oil.

Out of all the situations in the world, we pick the people to "save" from despotism by how much oil they have. And Bush and Cheney are not "owned" by oil interests, they are oil interests.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Do we go after everyone who has those? How about the world's largest democracy, India? Or Pakistan, a military dictatorship? They aren't a threat to us, you say. OK. Pakistan certainly is a threat - there is a powerful anti-US sentiment among the very people guarding their arsenal. But again, no oil.

Why aren't we talking about invading North Korea? Because it borders China and they might get interested? Or because they don't have oil? Or both?

It is very hard to realistically justify situational issues on moral grounds.

It's very hard to see America's foreign policy hijacked by Bush and Cheney's oil interests.

Arf