> I didn't mean to single you out at all Anne, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
No worries. I didn't take it personally at all. > Maybe it is "all about oil" as far as the oil being an important part of the region Yes, I really do think so. If there were no oil there I doubt we'd focus on the region the way we do. > the whole situation goes back way before the Bushes and before U.S. involvement. I just can't get > my head around thinking it all somehow started with the Bushes or that they somehow > orchestrate all the middle east oil transactions. Yes, the religious tension is centuries old. Certainly there's something of a crisis within the Moslem religion about how to live in the modern world. I often consider the fact that the Western world has evolved from medieval times through the Renaissance, the industrial revolution etc. (not to mention the American revolution, which spawned a new way of thinking about people's involvement in government.) In many Arab countries, there were no such revolutions, cultural or political. So starting around the 1920s, the Western world began to encroach upon what was basically a medieval-era culture. Suddenly the wealthy sheiks were driving fancy Western cars on new wide roads. In the meantime, the general population wasn't getting the benefit of the wealth. Yet, culturally, it's taboo to fault one's own people, one's own "tribe." So, who do you blame? Those who caused this schism, the outsiders. I believe this explains the appeal of Osama bin Laden. He did split with his family, or so it seemed. He also seemed to champion the cause of the average person, but did so while calling upon the centuries old traditions of his religion. All this to say, the Bush family didn't start the tension. However, their handling (both father and son) of the Moslem world shows a lack of true understanding of the cultural complexity of the history of the region. Rather than being confrontational and saying "You're evil because you're not like us," both missed an opportunity to appeal to the mainstream Moslem and to give them a metaphorical "seat at the table." Had that been done, we would have much more widespread support worldwide. I don't think it's too late, but it's certainly getting there. I believe Al Gore said it correctly when he stated that George W. squandered a world of goodwill in just a year. The > I've looked at Bush I's and Cheney's bios - they are not what I would characaterize as oil men. You and Jenny Goodspeed have inspired me to look at this again. Thank you to Jenny for adding more information to this discussion. > I essentially don't think the US should be involved in any other countries. > I'm philosophically a non-interventionist. I only think we should intervene out of direct self-defense. I understand your position, although I think that being the most powerful nation carries some world responsibilities with it. However, whenever possible, I believe we should act through the U.N., in alliance with other nations. I'm enjoying this thoughtful discussion. Carefully considering your position makes me rethink mine. In some cases it reaffirms for me what I originally thought and in others makes me go back and do more reading. lots of love Anne
