Posted on 01/31/2003 8:03:41 AM PST by Rummyfan
I'm not sure, but I think the Saudis may have nationalized our wells as well.
Clean your own home before visiting ours and telling us to tidy up.
There are many such places in the world...too many.
No. Feel free to double-check the dates on the following events, but...
...Iraq nationalized its oil industry in 1972 (following the earlier examples of Iran '51, Egypt '56, and Libya '70, etc). Saddam Hussein seized power until 1979 so he can hardly be blamed for a Oil Nationalization which occurred 7 years before his time.
By contrast, the Royal families of Kuwait and Saudi nationalized their Oil Industries in 1974 and 1975, respectively (so sorry about that 60-year contract which was supposed to last through 1993, eh Chevron?).
So, considering that the Royal Families of Kuwait and Saudi have embargoed US oil shipments, nationalized US Oil assets, and shoveled hundreds of millions of dollars to their home-grown Wahhabist Islam Murder-Cult for decades...
...Exactly why were we defending these fat terrorists from Saddam's "threat" in 1990?
We're now caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place -- having made an Enemy of an (unsavory) former 1980's ally, we now have a choice between destroying the only Islamic Government in the world which is at least internally sufficiently tolerant of Religious minorities to accept a Christian (Chaldean Catholic) as it's second-most-powerful Politician -- that being Iraq; OR... leave that Government in power, despite the fact that the Feds certainly must know that Iraq was up to their necks in at least two post-Gulf-War bombing attacks on the US -- WTC 1993 and OKC 1995 (though probably not 9/11, at least not directly). Saddam has a murderous grudge against the US now, sure -- and we'd be fools to ignore that fact.
We'd also be fools not to learn from history.
It's best not to get involved in intra-Arab squabbles in the first place, seeing as there is no right choice between a tin-pot military dictator in Iraq and a bunch of slave-running, terrorist-funding Shari'ah Sheikhs in Kuwait and Saudi.
The only "right" choice in 1990 was either to not get embroiled in the mess at all; or, if you're cynical enough -- air-drop ammunition to both sides.
Thanks!
I think we all agree that after you chain a dog and kick him every day for 12 years, the only way you let him off the chain is with a bullet in his head.
I think that is a darn good summation of both Burkeman1's and my views of past Bush/Clinton foreign policy errors regarding Iraq ("500,000 dead Iraqi children are 'worth it'" -- Clinton sec'y of state "Mad-Bomber Albright")...
...and the position which GW Bush unfortunately finds himself in.
As far as the discussion on whether Saddam would/wouldn't have embargoed us in the intervening years: Feeding a megalomaniac more power doesn't stabilize them.
True. Hussein always wanted to rule (well, dominate, anyway) the Middle East, and I would not have put it past him to attempt a 9/11 towards that goal. As it happens, the Taliban and Wahhabist Saudis beat him to the punch.
Sadly, it's true of the entire Middle East, excepting Turkey, Israel, Jordan and (sometimes) Egypt. Our "friend" King Fahd and his cronies, our so-called "stable allies" in Saudi Arabia, have been bankrolling Wahhabist terrorists and Taliban Mujaheddin with Oil Money for decades... cash that earned its profit in blood on 9/11.
Meanwhile, when King Fahd -- our "dependable" Saudi client -- passes on to meet Allah (be that in Heaven or Hell, I leave the gentle reader to decide)... his USA-hating successor Prince Abdullah has been measuring our rib cage for a crescent-shaped stiletto for a long time.
The entire region is a snake-pit.
Choosing sides is a tricky game where there are no good guys.
To which I can only say... Drill Alaska. Saudi Oil is not worth one drop of US blood... not because US national interests aren't worth our Defense, but because the Saudis aren't.
A pox on all their houses.
If not for that whole "mass genocide is terribly impolite" thing, I admit that I would otherwise find your idea a good bit more appealing than trying to pick sides and fight each one in turn (Iran then Lebanon then Libya then Iraq then Afghanistan then Iraq again then... Pakistan? Saudi, even?), sometimes succeeding and sometimes not...
After all, oil rigs can still drill through parking lots.
Just say, "Carolus Magnus".
That'll loosen your tongue, although it may leave a sour taste in the current geopolitical climate.
Not if Chirac and Schroeder are the bastardized result thereof.
Carolus Magnus they ain't; they're just trying to position themselves to remain "Players" in the 21st century.
By Comparison to US-Britain, China, and Russia... Germany and France don't seem to think that they can manage this Status on their own. They're probably right. But in combination... Germany supplies the Population and the Industry, and France supplies the (carefully-cultivated) diplomatic network and the unique UN Veto.
Merging their Citizenships is a way for them to stay in the "Great Game", IMHO.
LOL! No, they certainly wouldn't qualify! My (bad) joke alluded to the alleged newborn cloned babies she said are hidden somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.