primarily for oil. In fact the U.S. is the world's largest oil consumer taking in 26 percent of world's oil production in 1994. And who is the world's largest oil producer? You guessed it, the Middle Eastern country of Saudia Arabia (The Guinness Book Of Records). So when the question is asked as to what the U.S. role of peace in the Middle East is, the initial answers seems to easy, simple economics. However, it is not that clear cut and dry. As mentioned above, the US donated over four billion dollars to Israel in 1994. If simple economics is the answer, than this donation makes no economic sense.
             The United States of America has always been a proponent of communism and supporter of democracy. After World War II, the US government basically made a commitment to Israel. Hitler's slaughter of the Jewish people and the economic turmoil that Israel was in, it was evident they would need foreign support/aid. The aid had to come from abroad because all of Israel's neighboring countries are less than friendly with them. The US has tried to stick to their commitment and support Israel and their democracy even though it could probably greater benefit economically by not supporting them.
             The United States needs the oil of the Middle East and will go to great lengths to protect their supplier of black gold. Does the U.S. have to continue in this role of world policeman? And what are the alternatives to warring with every Middle Eastern nation that threatens to monopolize the oil industry? These are the questions I hope to answer.
             "Peace, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting" (The Devil's Dictionary). Though Ambrose Bierce is simply poking fun at the idea of sustained peace with this definition it seems to contain a lot of truth within it when talking about the Middle East. It is arguably the most war stricken region on the planet. Why is it ...