Poll: Was it worth Protecting Saudi Arabia From Iraq?

[Hard Attack]

Hello Everyone, I put together 3 Questions Regarding our Friends over in Saudi Arabia, pass it around if you find it interesting.

http://www.hardnewsnow.com/POLLS.html

Questions:

1) Have You Heard this Saudi Whipping Story Reported on any Radio or TV Station?

2) Do You think it was worth Protecting Saudi Arabia in 1990 from any possible invasion from Iraq considering that just 17 years earlier Saudi Arabia along with other opec nations cut off oil supplies to America?

3)Do You think the Saudis Investments in US Corporations somehow influenced a bias against Iraq in the lead up to War depicting Saddam as a Brutal Leader when in fact Saudi Arabia appears to be just as Brutal to its Own People?

[pinto]

1. Saudi Arabia's always been the elephant in the room. It has never been

about Iraq's oil, per se......it's the Kingdom's oil that is the concern.

Simplistic, I know, but the House of Saud has always been the key.

[Hard Attack]

7. So you think its worth protecting them?

[imenja]

2. Kuwait? It was about US interests, not Saudi Arabia

It's mistaken to assume the US went to war to protect Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait. The US acts out of it's own geopolitical and economic interests. A strong Saddam presiding over even more oil and building an Arab empire was seen as a threat to US interests in the area. I protested the war at the time, but in retrospect I think I was wrong. There were legitimate reasons and a reasonable military goal for that war, unlike our present quagmire.

[sandnsea]

8. Wow, that's bizarre

If oil was a justification for Kuwait, it's a justification for the current fiasco. Same oil, same region, same US interests.

[imenja]

9. nothing is as simple as being about just "oil"

Foreign policy interests are always more complicated than that. The left does a disservice by relying on overly simplistic explanations. There is no question that oil is part of the story. The fact that the US considers the region to be important relates in no small part to oil deposits, but it's geopolitical concerns are broader. It's historical relationship with the Baath party emerged as part of the Cold War. The Baathists replaced a socialist government, and Iraq stood as an American ally in a region where the Soviets had significant support. The Bush II administration's policies likewise extend beyond simple economic interest. The most frightening element of the neo-conservative/ Bush agenda, is that they actually believe they are spreading democracy through war. That is perhaps the most dangerous element of the policy. At least the Cold Warriors knew their rhetoric about democracy was false and were quite happy to replace socialist governments with military dictatorships favorable to the US. Bush is naive enough to believe we can actually create democracies, and untold numbers of Americans and Iraqis have died as a result.
Two key differences between this and the first Gulf War was that 1) Saddam had invaded Kuwait and might have continued to spread his military power further if not stopped 2) Bush I knew better than to try to conquer or occupy Iraq. He pushed back Saddam's forces and settled for containment. Bush II is far more grandiose in his aspirations, and the world suffers as a result.

Most importantly, the invasion had nothing to do with "helping" Saudi Arabia, as the poster of this thread suggests. The US helps itself. If it goes to the aide of another nation, it's because it sees it's own interests as threatened.

[sandnsea]

10. Red Line Agreement - 1914

It's always been about the oil. You don't honestly think anybody would care what happened over if they were all just living in a pile of sand, do you?

[imenja]

11. no, I don't

and I would ask you to please read the post before criticizing it.
Thank you.

[sandnsea]

12. I did read it

It's the oil. Sorry, it always has been. The politics are just inconvient bumps in the road on the way to the oil. Their "spread democracy" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Corporations prefer dictatorships. Democracies in third world nations that support the US are almost always puppet governments. Look at Saudi Arabia. These neocons don't care about spreading democracy or any geopolitical regional goal. They care about setting up another puppet government. We wanted the Iran/Iraq war, that was geopolitical too. To spread democracy? Or to make the region stable so we could pump the oil? It's the oil. That's all.

[imenja]

13. well, obviously I disagree

as I imagine every foreign policy expert across the political spectrum would. Oil is obviously a key interest of the US, but the world is just a tad bit more complicated than a t-shirt slogan.

[sandnsea]

16. Just curiously

How upset would you be if it weren't more complicated than that? Venezuela, oil. Nigeria, oil. Sudan, oil. The stans, oil. And when it's not oil, it's gold or some other resource. Start looking at the map and resources. Look at the "hot spots" and see how many started up as Soviet/US proxy wars. What was that fight about? Capitalism. To make money from resources, like oil.

[rman]

14. but oil is a major factor

it's about global geo-political dominance (the neocons don't exactly make a secret of it) ; which is about things like the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, military bases in strategic places, secure routes for oil pipelines - and of course oil, especially now that global oil production is going to decline.

[imenja]

17. I agree

that oil is a major factor. In fact, my post says so. What I object to is the simplistic idea that it's a simple oil grab, as though we need consider nothing else. Presenting simplistic explanations for this and other foreign policy engagements doesn't help the cause of opposition to the war. In fact, I believe it diminishes it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. I don't think it has been worth protecting the Saudi Royals from their

own people all these years.... they must be quite popular though, what with the 30% unemployment....

[madrchsod]

4. just before the war the iraqi`s and saudia`s signed

trade agreements and opened a long closed border crossing. it seems they were moving to restore full relations...no wonder bush wanted to go in when he did. the two largest oil nations joining forces? no way could the klan let that happen.

[leesa]

5. You don't actually think we built a base in SA to protect them from Iraq,

do you? How cute!

#3 Ya think? Perhaps Israel had a hand in it too.

[rman]

15. US military presence in SA was about protecting against SA population

(was, because the US is now retreating from SA)

remember the bomb attack in Ryad? it was an attack on the building of a US corporation that was training SA guards to protect SA royalty against the suppressed SA population.

[Lefty48197]

6. Hell no. Saddam is far more rational than the Saudi royal family

.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. Sure it was worth it!

The longer we prop up the Saudi royal family, the longer they will prop up the Bush family and the longer we will live under an aristocracy in both countries. Viva Democracy!

[XemaSab]

19. Screw the middle east

The number one reason for reducing dependence on oil is to tell the entire middle east to go to hell.

At least until they learn to live on the same planet with the rest of us.

(I don't hate all the people there per se, just the ridiculously oppressive governments we're propping up with our dollars).

[oppositionmember]

20. I have to say oil is the underlying factor - no play on words intended.

The Bush administration was predisposed to taking out Saddam Hussein - I think that is indisputable. September 11 came as a shock to the country and an opportunity to the neoconservatives who saw an invasion of Iraq as desirable and inevitable. But this administration was so intimately connected with big business, most particularly oil given the incestuous network of Texans winding through the entire Bush organization, that the petroleum factor simply made the invasion of Iraq an irresistable adventure. The intensely pro-Israeli bias of nearly all of the neoconservatives further intensified the desire to project American force into the Mideast.

Saddam Hussein could have been taken out without invading Iraq, through assiduous and insidious covert operations combined with the application of large amounts of cash - though far less than has been spent on the Iraq fiasco to date. But that would not have left the United States in effective possession and total control of the Iraqi oil reserves, which was established through the 2003 invasion. It is significant that the oil reserves are concentrated in the north and the south, whereas the bloodshed is concentrated in the center of the country. The Bush administration is probably prepared to continue to lose American lives at the current rate - not to mention the Iraqi lives about which the White House is supremely unconcerned - simply to maintain the stranglehold on Iraqi oil production.

That is the prize and if one looks at it logically there can be no other policy for this administration than to remain in place and keep hold of those energy resources - at whatever cost. No matter that the occupation of Iraq makes another September 11 on U.S. soil almost inevitable - and one of the September 11ths in our future may be the mushroom cloud of which George Bush, Condoleeza Rice and all of the others so presciently warned. Only it will be a self-fulfilling prophesy and history will place the blame on them as much as the Islamic zealots who will carry out the attack.

Meanwhile oil is nearly $50 a barrel and will probably go even higher before all is said and done. The dollar is sliding and will probably reach $1.50 to the euro - maybe even $2.00 in time. The consequences of the invasion of Iraq are only beginning to be seen. For the large oil companies these price increases are a windfall, but the rest of us - and especially the Iraqis - will be paying in blood.