[George W. Bush]

Paul repeatedly states that U.S. involvement in the Middle East is all about oil, not Islamic radicalism, and that they are essentially justified in attacking us.

He's right. Our interest in the region has always been about oil. Gulf War I was fought to keep Saddam from seizing Kuwait's oil. James Baker, SoS at the time, came right out and said it very plainly.

Why should anyone care about the Mideast if it wasn't for oil? Are you suggesting that we are there only because of Islamic fundamentalism? Did you notice in Gulf War I, we were fighting to restore Kuwait's oil? Were we talking about the threat of "Islamic radicalism" back then? Of course not. The Kuwaitis and Saddam killed those types out of hand because the Islamic radicals posed a threat to their own corrupt regimes.

It's a medieval region whose inhabitants practice a sixth-century moon-god cult with murderous devotion. They have a dreadful history of barbarism which is the bane of the entire region. It's best to let them be occupied with murdering one another and living under the iron fist of their despots rather than to provide our soldieers as targets which can unify them against us. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we've been doing.

[flintsilver7]

It’s almost like you’re beginning to get it.

I long ago realized that the economic security of this country is heavily dependent on oil. It is actually necessary for this country to protect its economic interests on foreign soil. Of course, there is the curious fact that our economic interests seem to need a lot more protecting in Muslim states. Canada, Brazil, and Norway produce more oil than Iraq, yet we don’t have to depose their leaders. Why? Because they have relatively stable governments and essentially free people. Somehow, it seems strangely like the Muslim countries in the Middle East are the ones who are most prone to explode.