[okie01]

This is essentially what we are have been doing in the ME since Bush I went in to ‘help’ the Kuwaitis (who were ever so ungrateful for us sparing them from Sadaam). I realize we had other geo-strategic reasons for doing so ... but still, why would we bother to save the Kuwaitis from Sadaam? Even if it is only in hindsight, we must acknowledge now that was a stupid move.

You are conflating the message of Schall's piece with the true nature of Gulf War I -- which was strictly political and economic, having nothing to do with Islam, at all.

The Iraqis and the Kuwaitis weren't going to slaughter each other, not would the Iraqis have slaughtered the Saudis -- who were next in line. Oil and, thus, economic leverage were the only stakes for these then-secular regimes.

Thus, we weren't taking sides in a religious war -- as you're suggesting -- we were intervening in favor of "the free flow of oil, at market prices", just as GHWB pronounced.

[Lorianne]

I didn’t say we were taking sides in a religious war. The reasons given at the time were that the poor Kuwaiti’s were being overrun and slaughtered and we just had to go in and save them. (I remember the rhetoric back then)

I’m saying, economic interests or not, we should stay out of there and they should stay out of here.

It’s not religious for us, but it is for them.