  Wow, a debate with more than me and Mr. Wigglepants involved. First, the easy ones Miriam - rest, drink fluids, and don't read Salon (Oh, sorry, that would make me feel better) Chris - Good luck with the interview. Let us know how it went. Also, congrats on the birth of your niece. Ok, here is a very simplistic solution. Develop real, practical, cheap, alternative energy sources. Face it, why did we originally get involved in the Middle East? To protect our oil interests from the Soviets. Now we are there and can't or won't back out and let the people solve there own problems, in part, because we are dependent on the bubbling crude. If you develop a hydrogen car (very easy in theory, tough in execution because of no infrastructure to deliver the H2), our oild demands would drop. I would think that you could also use that technology to heat homes (reducing the need for fuel oil). It would probably lower our nationwide demand for oil to the point that we could provide our own national requirements, or get it from non-OPEC countries.
Imagine what that would do for air quality. If that happens, why would we stay in areas that we are not wanted and that don't serve our national interests. That would allow us to pull out of Saudi Arabia, supposedly making the Islamic extremists happy (I'll believe that when I see it), since we would no longer be on Holy ground.
BTW, the last I knew, Prince Sultan airbase is out in the middle of the desert, not surrounding Mecca or Medina, but hey, what do I know, I'm just a Christian infidel. Now, to reality. Johnathan, in this case, I don't think we can negotiate on one side and use military force on the other. Concerning Israel, we have limited military presence in Israel, probably just in the form of observers and exchange officers. We (the US) became a target because of our support for Israel. The option of abandoning Isreal and letting things go as the two sides want, would, to me, give the message that we will let the Arabs finish the job Hitler started.
I know that is not what you are proposing, but that is how *I* see a change in our stance playing out. As for giving the Palestinians there own country, that sounds good in theory. But, will Arafat or whoever is the leader use all his resources to prevent Palestine from becoming the launching point and safe haven for organizations like Hamaas and Islamic Jihad in their effort to destroy Israel?
His track record is not great so far, thus Isreal's stance on the issue, and I don't see where we can tell Isreal that they have to give up territory to an enemy that is sworn to destroy them. Concerning Saudi Arabia, at this point, we don't have any choice but to have troops there. Prince Sultan is an established base that is currently critical to the implending conflict. The ironic thing is that the base was closed and our troops were removed after the Gulf War. Then, circa 1995, the base was reopened.
You know why? Because Iraq was proving to be less than compliant with UN requirements. So, if Iraq becomes democratic, or, as tangentially suggested by my esteemed colleague from the great region of NOVA, the 51st state, we won't need to have troops on what is considered by some to be holy ground. Either because they won't be needed at all or because they will be able to operate from Iraq. In summary, I don't think we can negotiate and retaliate in this case.
Imperialist America. I am pretty much a Hawk, but that idea does not sit well with me. If we ever are going to have a world wide government, it must be done through peaceful means if it is to last. Military conquest will not work, because enough people will feel oppressed to overthrow the imperialist aggressors. Lovely Angie, you mean that there is more to America the Mickey D's and Swoosh shoes? Man, I have been living in cave. Seriously though, could you or Chris explain the basis of the "arrogant conservative President" comment. There are lots of adjectives I would agree with when describing President Bush, but arrogant is not one of them. He expects our allies to either support us (Britain and many other European countries) or get out of the way (Canada), but definitely not stand in the wat (France-Germany). Given all that the US has done for the world and Europe specifically in the last century (led the Allies in defeating Hitler, defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot), I think we are entitled to at least expect the main benefactors of the US to not get in our way.
I don't care if they choose to not get involved for internal political or other reasons. Just step aside. I don't see that as arrogant. Chris, there are many people around the world and quite a few in the US who don't believe that capitalism will help the raise the qulity of life in the world. Many people still dream of socialist or communist states. Enough rambling for now. Lunch was supposed to be over half an hour ago. 
