It might just be time to start talks instead of wars.

A friend wrote how the events in London yesterday had turned his day into shards and how it is time to start talking to Islamic leaders. Another responded that the current situation in Iraq is in keeping with centuries of economic self interest in the West where currently we have no leaders and that America was intent on speading democracy.

Can democracy be spread or is it just smoke to cover other agendas?

If it can be spread, the methods we've seen so far aren't working.

One of the basic principles of leadership is to lead by example.

What example has the developed world shown the resource rich underdeveloped world over the last hundred years, and particularly oil rich countries in the last sixty or so years? Is the current situation any surprise? Where has the developed western world led the rest of the world?

There are no real leaders in developed countries and it is a two edged sword that cuts to the heart of the neo-con nonsense since there are also no good examples either for undeveloped countries to follow in terms of national aspirations other than ubridled consumerism.

For leaders we substitute spokesmen who serve up spin and ideology instead of inspiring rhetoric and firm principle. For cooperation, encouragement and support we substitute rigid foreign policy, hideously one sided economic development programs and domination, by military occupation if necessary.

Some offer that it is a capitalist conspiracy to dominate the world that causes all the trouble and others cite moral decadence as exemplified in culture and business.

Some posit an Islamic conspiracy that causes all the trouble with its roots in a flawed fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

It would be nice for all sides if it were a conspiracy, then perhaps the conspirators could be identified and defeated and at least one side would be victorious.

Value systems are not conspiracies. Value systems that are broadly shared and deeply ingrained in a society are not defeated by war, they are only suppressed, unless the war is a war of annihilation.

The developed world no longer seems to have the will nor the taste for effective warfare, to kill and kill again with such ferocity and scope that the enemy no longer resists.

War is killing and lots of it. Appeals to such civilities as the Geneva Conventions and definitions of combatants and noncombatants only cloud the issue, war is taking the gloves off, life or death, losing or winning by any means. Rules of procedure are purely strategic not moral, restraint enters only when both sides are equally or nearly equally capable of atrocity.

Value systems are not subject to declarations of war.

War on Terrorism has a nice ring to it, but that's all it is, just sound, hollow sound, no substance.

So unless your up for a bloodbath it just might be time to rethink the current situation, perhaps war is not an appropriate answer.

An answer implies a question. Maybe the wrong questions got the wrong answers.

Could the questions have been, 'What do we do if the Saudis fall, where can we insert troops in the Middle East, where can we get boots on the ground now to protect our oil interests when the Saudis fall?' Nah, no one could be that dumb. 'Can we fake major maintenance requirements to shut down huge power plants so that we can drive up the price of electricity and make more money? Can we do this cheaply, you know draw the troop strength down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands quickly after occupation so that it doesn't cost so much? Can I rent a Greek island for my wife's birthday party, where would I get the money? Do we really need all those armored vehicles?' Don't be silly, no one would ask questions like that.

Maybe, just maybe, the United States should examine its relationship with Saudi Arabia, specifically the hideous economic development and military hardware programs that serve little purpose other than to enrich, beyond all reasonable expectation in some cases, the Saudi Royal Family at the expense of the bulk of the Saudi population and to recycle petro dollars back to United States and other Western business interests. Maybe the Brits and the rest of the G8 folks could think along similar lines productively for a number of other countries, as well.

The brutally simple economics of commodity markets which have been distorted in the world oil market until recently by western oil companies and governments will come more to the fore everyday. There is no longer enough excess oil production capacity in the world, nor the real prospect of any significant excess capacity, to prevent simple market forces from coming into play, especially with exponentially increasing demand in China and South Asia.

Maybe the questions should be, 'How are we going to replace oil as an energy source? Which countries are best able to implement high technology replacement options now so that other countries can continue to use low technology oil energy solutions until high technology solutions become broadly available? Can we bridge the gap with nuclear, solar, wind, or other energy sources? Can we envision a world society that is less energy dependent, not just oil energy reduction but overall energy reduction? How can food stuffs, pharmaceuticals and health care services be more evenly distributed across the world? Can we find equitable ways, both in large and small groups, to deal with each other in ways that tend to reduce rather than increase tensions and disputes? Is there an alternative to consumerism on a grand scale?'

It might just be time to start talks instead of wars.