Raoul, you hit it on the head. It's all about money, and is as serious as money is.

Except for the Saddam thing. That's the kid trying to get one for the old man. Any Saddam follow-on will be less stable, and cause more trouble, than Saddam.

Y'see, the easiest way for a leader to consolidate their position is to find an outside threat. Get rid of Saddam, with his stability and no need to prove himself to retain control of the country, and there'll be hell to pay, unless the US occupies the entire country for a long time.

The Arabs are allies, as long as they see the light, and don't imagine themselves having any interest which isn't in line with the current American foreign policy.

In the US press, the Pakistani dictatorship was good, then not so good, then good again as they came into line. Right now, we like 'em - after all a military dictatorship is stable, can control things, even if not "democratic".

If they decide to be Pakistani rather than American, we'll try to install a "democracy".

Same with the Middle East. As long as Saudi Arabia bought airplanes and sold oil cheap, they were wonderful. Now, getting a bit independent, they are a corrupt, family ridden sheikdom hellbent on oppressing people.

After you've seen it a while you can see it coming.

Believe it or not, at one time I had a talk show on the radio, sounded a bit to the right of the folks on this board.

But, if you keep your eyes open, you see things, grow up.

And, you're right. If there were any values operating besides money, and GHWBs pride, there wouldn't be all these shifting allegiances, so slavishly followed by some.