So lets not let the hot heads get us off topic. If terrorism isn't the problem but it is the symptom, what are the problems and what are the solutions.
I say the Saudi Kings and the Iraqi rulers keep their people dirt poor and they are angry. Angry at the kings and the countries that do business with the kings.
Well, yeah, you are correct there. The Saudi Kings have always been propped up by the US, pretty much like Saddam was at the beginning. If they have kept their people poor it has been with the complete compliance of the West... so long as they're on the payroll, of course. So statements like "The Saudi Kings make us the bad guys to their population" are completely outlandish. The Saudi Monarchy is basically the US's only ally in the region, and it's precisely because that monarchy is in power. The people hate the monarchy, and hate even more that the US supports it to the very end. Hence, they hate the US. Sounds reasonable, no?
Likewise, Iraq's former leader, Saddam Hussein was the sweetheart of US foreign policy in West Asia in the 1980s (keep in mind, while he was committing his worst attrocities, like gassing the Kurds, etc. Saddam only became 'the bad guy' once he felt the US betrayed him by selling weapons to the Iranians during the very war they urged him to start and went on to invade Kuwait when he realized he had become totally irrelevant). In fact, even after the war, George I urged the Shia uprisings that might have toppled the Saddam regime from within... and then conviniently decided to NOT enforce the no-fly zone, allowing Saddam to absolutely crush the rebellion. Not very cool to be stabbed in the back, you know? Doesn't get you the hearts and minds of the population.
So what are the problems here? The US gets nice and close to brutal regimes that prevent democracy and development so that they can keep relying on these Rent States to collect their natural resource (oil) surpluses for exploitation by American Interests (See: Early Saddam Iraq, Shah-era Iran, Monarchist Arabia). Once they stop doing this (allowing access), they 'become the bad guys' (See: Saddam after getting cozy with the USSR, Iran after the revolution).
What are some solutions? It gets tricky, but how about
not supporting brutal regimes that prevent democracy and development and keep their populations dirt-poor? Well, then you get into the problem that the populations might vote into power leaders who favor natural resource exploitation that directly benefits the majorities of their own countries. That might mean... Oh my god, having to share "OUR" natural resources with the people who live around there. What's another solution? Respect democratically elected governments even if they don't agree with us? Supporting internal democratic movements with soft power?
But then there is Iran. Their people seem to be westernizing themselves, yet their leaders are a bit nuts, like Amadenijad. Maybe the citizens of Iran don't follow his wacky beliefs, just like most of us don't approve of Bush. Maybe he's brainwashing them like we were brainwashed. He's making Israel the problem. Maybe only 40% of iranians are wacko like him, just like here, 40% follow Bush. The young generation here and in Iran aren't buying it.
But both Bush and Amadenijad are fanning the flames. I'm so glad the youth in America are showing up to vote. If we don't bomb Iran, then I think Amadenijad is done. He is appealing to the old people, the dumb, the racists. Sound familiar?
That's probably a good analogy. It does seem that Bush and Ahmedinejad share many similar characteristics like ridiculous rhetoric, low approval, far right conservatives from both sides, etc. The one thing with Iran is that they also have a history with the States and Britain that goes way back. Why are there nutjobs like Ahmedinejad in power, with a very limited 'democracy', in reality a harsh theocracy hardly in disguise? Well, the West might have forgotten about it, but the Iranians probably didn't. As much as they dislike Ahmedinejad and a great big chunk probably dislike the theocracy in general, the fact that is that the Iranian Revolution was by all means a popular revolution 30 years ago. It might have something to do with the fact that some 25 years before the revolution Iran DID have a parliamentary democracy, before it was obliterated by the US and Britain for trying to nationalize the oil industry, and setting up the absolute dictator Reza Pahlavi, whom the Iranians hated but the West drooled over- to the point they wanted him to start developing nuclear power (imagine that, Iran was like a second Israel... until the 'bad guys' took over!). It ties into the history of imperial oppression over West Asia above. And it's just one piece of a long story.
But of course, that history of oppression has nothing to do with radicals who hate the US. It's all about those McDonalds burgers and hollywood stars, and their jealousy over the Great American Way of Life. American foreign policy causing hatred in the middle east? Bah, commie-talk.
