[CaptainHaplo]

caspofungin - thanks for the questions!

Since your mentioned your not a US Citizen - let me answer question #2 first as it has helps put the next answer in context.

The role of the US in the world SHOULD be much more hands off than what we are currently. At least in the short term. That does not mean abandoning our allies or turning our backs on serious problems, but it also means that we should not be running, guns drawn into every situation. I would by no means support isolationism, but the fact is that the next decade or so the US faces serious internal issues that must be addressed. Our engagment in every problem the rest of the world faces is simply not feasible for this country to continue to do. While we would stand with our allies and continue to be a leading voice for what is right, the US needs to get out of the business of "spreading freedom" and country building. While we do need to remain active in protecting our friends and insuring the safety of our interests, the facts are that past history has required our intervention due to our economic dependence on assets. For example - oil and the middle east. If the US were to focus on removing that dependence - we would be much more free with our ability to exert influence and leadership for the good of mankind - without there being a question as to the motive. We should no longer be the "world policeman" with force, but still be willing to step in when human dignity is thrown aside.

With that said - the Israel/Palestinian question is more than a simple nugget. But the fact is neither side has really had a need to sit down and make real progress. They sit, they talk, they agree, and then neither side follows through and points the finger at the other instead. No peace process is going to work until both sides WANT it to. Look, I am not going to give you some fairy foo foo answer - the fact is it isn't likely to get solved anytime soon. However - recent events really have presented an opportunity that is sadly likely to be missed. With the fracturing of the Palestinian governement between the PLO and Hamas, and the combat actions of Israel, real change could have been effected. The first problem is neither side trusts the other. Since Israel had planned on going in and seriously crippling Hamas, it was the time for the PLO to follow up - with ISRAELI support - to retake Gaza. That would have allowed both to have a common enemy that, upon withdrawel by Israel, they both could have worked together to continue to fight. After all, the PLO wouldn't want Hamas regrouping in the GS, so could work with Israel to stop it. Doing so would not only have devastated Hamas, but opened the door for both the PLO and Israel to begin to find a way to work together on settling the real stumbling block - Jerusalem. Unfortunately - this chance has apparently passed. However, I would look at the situation at the time to see if such opportunities presented themselves, and encouraged and facilitated both sides to find a common goal in which they could work together on - to develop that trust in stages. If any person tells you they could solve the Israel/Palestinian problem - run. What we should do however is show and encourage both sides to develop the trust, and the reasons - to work together to solve these issues. After all - once they can work together, they can begin to see how true peace would benefit them both.

As for the Middle East in general - we need to stop being namby pamby with states that sponsor terrorism. However, we would have to work within the framework of agreements already in place. For example - Lebanon is suffering greatly trying its best to get out from under the bootheel of Syria. While we have no agreements in place with Lebanon - offering to head a multinational contingent to assist them in securing their border with Syria so that it can no longer interfere - allowing Lebanon to govern itself, would be a reasonable act. If they don't accept - ok. But by showing support without taking a HOSTILE action - is the kind of role this country should have in helping to stabilize the Middle East. Such actions would be short term so that each country could establish themselves without interference.

This would also send a message - and yes - dare - sponsors of terrorism to act aggressively to protect their terror tendrils. Either they act and get seen as aggressors by the world, or the car bombings and such that kill innocents stop because there are no more explosives smuggled over and no more training of said terrorists.

This then ties to the answer of fighting global terror. Trying to stamp out or find every car bomb or terror cell isn't going to work. You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled. We cannot be rid of terrorists as you can never know what goes on in the mind of another. But we can limit what resources they have to carry out their deeds. No - I am not saying invade Syria or Iran or anything - but by limiting their ability to export the tools and training of terror, you limit the problem. In addition, it puts those same states under even more internal pressure from their own citizenry since they can no longer trumpet about how many victories they scored based on how many Jews they killed or whatnot. *And yes - they do actually do this....* Not to mention the economic pressure and world view pressure that would accompany such action.

Its time the US stopped preaching from on high like a tv evangilist and started acting more like the old time prairie pastor - approachable and honest, willing to hold wrong up to the light of day.