Saudi Oil (Re: Gulf War Wimps?)
Ben's Dad
In article <CE7M5...@unix.portal.com>, my...@shell.portal.com (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> Ron Williams (ron...@sierra.es.com) wrote:
> : In article <1993Sep30.1...@ll.mit.edu>, ll...@ll.mit.edu (Brad Polant) writes:
>
> : > I heard we did so well against Iraq, that we are going to move up to
> : > a third rate opponent next time. besides I'm still waiting for a reason
> : > we went to war.
>
> : Ahhhhhhhh, very simple. Oil, oil, oil. In spite of what King George
> : said, it had nothing to do with concern for the people of Kuwait.
> : It was because we had to watch out for our own greed and make sure
> : we could continue with our lifestyle of over-consumption.
>
> Oil was an indirect reason at best. Iraqi oil accounted for < 5% of
> our oil imports. However, Iraqi oil was indeed a much larger percentage
> of Japan and Brittain's oil imports. On the other hand, the real fear
> was that if we didn't move to stop Saddaam at the Saudi border that he
> would have just kept on going. And Saudi oil is indeed important to
> our economy.
So? The implication seems to be that Sadam would somehow interrupt
the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia, driving up the price and disrupting
our economy. Why would Sadam want to do that? The Saudi's realized in
the late-70's that reducing the flow of oil, driving up the price,
encourages competiton (ie North Sea crude) and *reduces* Saudi revenues.
As the lowest cost producer, Saudi Arabia maximizes revenues by increased
production, driving down the price, making the competition unprofitable.
The Saudis have followed that stratigy since the early-80's.
So if Sadam did capture the Saudi oil supplies, he would make sure that
the oil continued to flow, to maximize his revenues. (Ironicly, the US/UN
is punishing Sadam by refusing to let him sell Iraq oil.)
Now you could argue that the US had to stop Sadam from getting the Saudi
oil to prevent Sadam from receiving the revenue to fund further military
conquests, but that is a much different argument than the access to oil
argument.
--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Greg Otts
Your logic is true to an extent: there are supply/demand reasons which
limit the profitability of driving up oil prices too high. However,
Sadam had invaded Kuwait to a large extent because Kuwait refused to
keep their oil production down and thus caused the price Iraq could
get for oil to be lower than what Iraq wanted.
>So if Sadam did capture the Saudi oil supplies, he would make sure that
>the oil continued to flow, to maximize his revenues. (Ironicly, the US/UN
>is punishing Sadam by refusing to let him sell Iraq oil.)
>
>Now you could argue that the US had to stop Sadam from getting the Saudi
>oil to prevent Sadam from receiving the revenue to fund further military
>conquests, but that is a much different argument than the access to oil
>argument.
Is it really worth it to the U.S. to defend the small Gulf States
from Iraqi or Iranian dominance? From what I gather our oil import
bill is only $50 billion. (My numbers are a few years out of
date.) Suppose the price of oil doubled. That means about $50billion
more in oil imports. (Maybe less if it causes oil exploration
in Alaska, the coasts, and in the interior of the U.S.) The U.S.
now spends close to 150 billion a year on foreign troop commitments
- much of it in Europe - whose sole justification right now is
keeping the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. in charge of their large oil
reserves. That doesn't sound like a wise U.S. investment policy.
Let the nations that are much more dependent on foreign oil -
Japan, Germany, France, Italy, etc. - defend lower oil prices
with their own armies if they want to.
>
>--
>Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
- Greg Otts
Kurt Ludwick
(Ben's Dad) says:
>So if Sadam did capture the Saudi oil supplies, he would make sure that
>the oil continued to flow, to maximize his revenues. (Ironicly, the US/UN
>is punishing Sadam by refusing to let him sell Iraq oil.)
>Now you could argue that the US had to stop Sadam from getting the Saudi
>oil to prevent Sadam from receiving the revenue to fund further military
>conquests, but that is a much different argument than the access to oil
>argument.
Why do you assume that Saddam wasn't looking to seize control of all the
Middle East oil, so that he could wreck the world's economy? That would
be more profitable to him, in a sense, then the money he would have made.
(Don't forget, he IS So-Damn Insane... :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt E. Ludwick | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
- - - - - - - -|
kel...@psuvm.psu.edu | what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Bass - The Ham Sandwich
>In article <1993Oct1.1...@hemlock.cray.com>, r...@mahogany126.cray.com
>(Ben's Dad) says:
>
>>So if Sadam did capture the Saudi oil supplies, he would make sure that
>>the oil continued to flow, to maximize his revenues. (Ironicly, the US/UN
>>is punishing Sadam by refusing to let him sell Iraq oil.)
>
>>Now you could argue that the US had to stop Sadam from getting the Saudi
>>oil to prevent Sadam from receiving the revenue to fund further military
>>conquests, but that is a much different argument than the access to oil
>>argument.
>
>Why do you assume that Saddam wasn't looking to seize control of all the
>Middle East oil, so that he could wreck the world's economy? That would
>be more profitable to him, in a sense, then the money he would have made.
>(Don't forget, he IS So-Damn Insane... :-)
>
This really is so funny to me. Three years after the U.S. was going to
get Hitler-incarnate himself (Saddam Hussian) out of Iraq, we find
he's still in power. I called it then (we had no intentions of getting
him out) and time has shown what I've said to be true.
Anyway, I just wanted to comment about the "So-Damn Insane" reference
above. While Bush and Co. were having fun at his name he was having
(and still having) fun with Bush's name. He mispronounces it --
calling the ex-pres as "Bosch" (roughly) which means impotent. Check
out some shortwave broadcasts out of Iraq (or our "friends" the Saudis,
they give lots of coverage to his speeches.)
(I wonder if the CIA taught him the play on words thing.)
Jamie Bass - The Ham Sandwich
B W Moll
>In article <93274.132...@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <1993Oct1.1...@hemlock.cray.com>, r...@mahogany126.cray.com
>>(Ben's Dad) says:
>>
>>>So if Sadam did capture the Saudi oil supplies, he would make sure that
>>>the oil continued to flow, to maximize his revenues. (Ironicly, the US/UN
>>>is punishing Sadam by refusing to let him sell Iraq oil.)
>>
>>>Now you could argue that the US had to stop Sadam from getting the Saudi
>>>oil to prevent Sadam from receiving the revenue to fund further military
>>>conquests, but that is a much different argument than the access to oil
>>>argument.
>>
>>Why do you assume that Saddam wasn't looking to seize control of all the
>>Middle East oil, so that he could wreck the world's economy? That would
>>be more profitable to him, in a sense, then the money he would have made.
>>(Don't forget, he IS So-Damn Insane... :-)
>>
>
> This really is so funny to me. Three years after the U.S. was going to
> get Hitler-incarnate himself (Saddam Hussian) out of Iraq, we find
> he's still in power. I called it then (we had no intentions of getting
> him out) and time has shown what I've said to be true.
>
We didn't. No matter how bad Hussein is to his own people, a de-fanged Hussein
in power is better than another radical Islamic fundamentalist state, or a
fragmented Iraq embroiled in civil war.
Regards-
Brent-
---
disclaimer: The views represented here are my own. Any similarity
between my views and the views of my employer is purely coincidence.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind
is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Dan Quayle
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent W. Moll Internet o...@mahler.ctd.ornl.gov
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge TN Phone: 615-574-6335 (USA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Bass - The Ham Sandwich
>In article 43...@midway.uchicago.edu, sy...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jamie Bass - The Ham Sandwich) writes:
>>
>> This really is so funny to me. Three years after the U.S. was going to
>> get Hitler-incarnate himself (Saddam Hussian) out of Iraq, we find
>> he's still in power. I called it then (we had no intentions of getting
>> him out) and time has shown what I've said to be true.
>>
>
>We didn't. No matter how bad Hussein is to his own people, a
>defanged Hussein in power is better than another radical Islamic
>fundamentalist state, or a fragmented Iraq embroiled in civil war.
And then America (or more like Americans from the highest echelons
on down) wonder why there is so much hatered of Americans. Sigh.
Really though we could have won much adulation from Iraqis
if we had done what Pat Buchanan said in one of his editorials,
"(If you say) your going to kill him, then kill him [Saddam Hussian.]
Don't destroy a country." [sic]
Frankly, I think it's our actions/reactions that cultivate
the radical, extreme behavior in certain types of peoples.
I don't believe that a extremist spontaneously forms, I
think that that evolutionary path is selected out of frustration
and a sense of being unable to control what is happening without
resorting to extreme, distorted religious beliefs. Heck, it
happens in this country albeit in a much smaller way, (at
roadside McDonald's, for example.)
Why do you not give credit to the Iraqi people to choose some-
thing other than an extremist and radical Islamic government?
That is, how do we know that with Saddam Hussian out of the way
that they will not choose a democratic Islamic government?
>Regards-
>
>Brent-
Cheers,
Jamie Bass
Lawrence Hammond u
between Sadam and the US ambasador to Iraq in May or June before the invasion
of Kuwait. The ambassador basically gave Sadam permission to use whatever
means he chose to drive up the price of oil, and that he would get US support.
By driving up the price, the Texans could then make a higher profit on the
oil THEY were selling, and they did. The GULF WAR was, in fact, a profitable
venture for the US. It artifiacially increased the price of oil. Isn't
Bush an oil man? Hmmm....
--Larry
Mark O. Wilson
Which conversation was this? I remember congressional inquiries into
a meeting in which the ambassador stated that the US felt that the border
dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was one that they should settle themselves.
The US did not want to get involved. This though is a far cry from
giving Saddam blanket permission to do what he wants. What show was this,
did it give any references?
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Lance Visser
+> I saw a special on t.v. a while ago that outlined a conversation
+>between Sadam and the US ambasador to Iraq in May or June before the invasion
+>of Kuwait. The ambassador basically gave Sadam permission to use whatever
+>means he chose to drive up the price of oil, and that he would get US support.
This is a warped view of events. The conversation was probably
the one between April Gilespe(sp) who was an ambassador to Iraq before
the gulf war and Saddam Hussien.
The contents of the conversation have been twisted by Iraq and
those people who want to believe that Iraq was "tricked" into war
by "evil" america into something it is not. They have taken the
ambassidor's statement that the US had no opinion on the dispute
between Iraq and Kuwait over borders as being a "green light" for
an attack by Iraq on Kuwait.
The misunderstanding stems from not being able to understand
that the US government CAN take a neutral stand in a conflict between
two other countries for many reasons. If the US says that it has
no opinion on lets say a conflict between Argentina and Paraguay over
borders, that does not say that the US will do nothing if Argentina
invades and annexes paraguay.
+>By driving up the price, the Texans could then make a higher profit on the
+>oil THEY were selling, and they did. The GULF WAR was, in fact, a profitable
+>venture for the US. It artifiacially increased the price of oil. Isn't
+>Bush an oil man? Hmmm....
You have been watching too many reruns of Dallas.
High oil prices did not last long and even if they did, HOW did George
Bush directly benefit from it?
There are the stories that Bush sent the army into Somilia
for "oil" as well....along with the story that he was involved in
the JFK assasination, the bay of pigs landings and keeping Iran
from releasing the hostages until after the 1980 election.
David S.A. Stine
> This is a warped view of events. The conversation was probably
>the one between April Gilespe(sp) who was an ambassador to Iraq before
>the gulf war and Saddam Hussien.
Yes, this was. The question which Iraq's government asked us via our
ambassador was basically this:
"We're in deep, deep debt from the Iran-Iraq war. Both
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait owe us a couple billion each. The
Saudis have coughed up some bucks to keep us quiet, but
those Kuwaities are refusing to cough up anything more
than a few hundred million. We want to force them to pay
up. Do you mignd if we lean on them real hard to get a few
billion out of them?"
The US, via Gillepsi, said essentially, "We're not taking a position on
this issue -- we're not going to interfere in what is essentially a Arab
situation."
What Gillespi didn't seem to realize (and the CIA didn't either for several
days) is that when Iraq was talking about "leaning on Kuwait" they meant
using a blitzkrieg to scare them into coughing up the gold in a hell of a
hurry.
> The contents of the conversation have been twisted by Iraq and
>those people who want to believe that Iraq was "tricked" into war
>by "evil" america into something it is not. They have taken the
>ambassidor's statement that the US had no opinion on the dispute
>between Iraq and Kuwait over borders as being a "green light" for
>an attack by Iraq on Kuwait.
Correct, _BUT_, we were essentially clueless as to what they mean when they
said that they were going to "force" the issue. The troop movements and
buildup along the border was easily seen from satellite images for a couple
of weeks ahead of time -- the NRO and CIA were just caught with their pants
around their ankles. It wasn't until a day AFTER Iraq went into Kuwait that
they started getting some images and analysis coming into the national
decision making process.
> The misunderstanding stems from not being able to understand
>that the US government CAN take a neutral stand in a conflict between
>two other countries for many reasons. If the US says that it has
>no opinion on lets say a conflict between Argentina and Paraguay over
>borders, that does not say that the US will do nothing if Argentina
>invades and annexes paraguay.
While this is true, we fucked up and fucked up big time by:
1. Not really asking what the hell Saddam meant.
2. Not knowing what was going on in the area.
3. By not listening to the Saudis on the issue. They had prior knowledge
of what Saddam meant.
I'm not apologising for Saddam. His moves were those of naked
aggression. However, we _did_ fuck up in the diplomatic handling of the
conditions which led up to the war.
dsa
Lance Visser
+>In article <visser.7...@convex.convex.com> vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
+>> This is a warped view of events. The conversation was probably
+>>the one between April Gilespe(sp) who was an ambassador to Iraq before
+>>the gulf war and Saddam Hussien.
+>Yes, this was. The question which Iraq's government asked us via our
+>ambassador was basically this:
+> "We're in deep, deep debt from the Iran-Iraq war. Both
+> Saudi Arabia and Kuwait owe us a couple billion each. The
+> Saudis have coughed up some bucks to keep us quiet, but
+> those Kuwaities are refusing to cough up anything more
+> than a few hundred million. We want to force them to pay
+> up. Do you mignd if we lean on them real hard to get a few
+> billion out of them?"
Your making up a quote here that is not supported by any
real material. The dispute with Kuwait was over territory, in
addition to the loan repayment schedule.
+>The US, via Gillepsi, said essentially, "We're not taking a position on
+>this issue -- we're not going to interfere in what is essentially a Arab
+>situation."
+>What Gillespi didn't seem to realize (and the CIA didn't either for several
+>days) is that when Iraq was talking about "leaning on Kuwait" they meant
+>using a blitzkrieg to scare them into coughing up the gold in a hell of a
+>hurry.
Then Iraq is ruled by mentally unstable idiots. For anyone to
take what the ambassidor said as a green light to invasion and annexation
of Kuwait is absurd.
The iraqi invasion had nothing to do with "scaring" anyone. If
you scare someone, you move troops up to the border and maybe attack
a few positions along the border. Iraq invaded with the intent to annex
Kuwait.
+>> The contents of the conversation have been twisted by Iraq and
+>>those people who want to believe that Iraq was "tricked" into war
+>>by "evil" america into something it is not. They have taken the
+>>ambassidor's statement that the US had no opinion on the dispute
+>>between Iraq and Kuwait over borders as being a "green light" for
+>>an attack by Iraq on Kuwait.
+>Correct, _BUT_, we were essentially clueless as to what they mean when they
+>said that they were going to "force" the issue. The troop movements and
+>buildup along the border was easily seen from satellite images for a couple
+>of weeks ahead of time -- the NRO and CIA were just caught with their pants
+>around their ankles. It wasn't until a day AFTER Iraq went into Kuwait that
+>they started getting some images and analysis coming into the national
+>decision making process.
And what would they have done at the time anyway? If the Iraqi
movements toward the border had been bluff as was assumed at the time,
the government (and CIA) would have looked silly for "blowing the
situation out of all proportion". The same people who claim the
US tricked Iraq into war would have been screaming that the US
was "threatening poor Iraq."
Any attempt to land troops in the gulf before the Iraqi invasion
would have been resisted by the Saudis and the congress. Remember all
the resistance to the reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers?
+>> The misunderstanding stems from not being able to understand
+>>that the US government CAN take a neutral stand in a conflict between
+>>two other countries for many reasons. If the US says that it has
+>>no opinion on lets say a conflict between Argentina and Paraguay over
+>>borders, that does not say that the US will do nothing if Argentina
+>>invades and annexes paraguay.
+>While this is true, we fucked up and fucked up big time by:
+>1. Not really asking what the hell Saddam meant.
To believe this, you have to believe that the Iraqi foriegn
service and Saddam were naive enough to believe that the
conversation they had was a green light to annex Kuwait.
>2. Not knowing what was going on in the area.
+>3. By not listening to the Saudis on the issue. They had prior knowledge
+> of what Saddam meant.
Whats the basis for this? Is this Saudi experts talking after-the
-fact about how "smart" they were?
+>I'm not apologising for Saddam. His moves were those of naked
+>aggression. However, we _did_ fuck up in the diplomatic handling of the
+>conditions which led up to the war.
I believe that Iraq was gambling on the US not fighting and
they would have invaded regardless of anything the US said. The
political options for the US government BEFORE Iraq crossed into
Kuwait prevented any real action anyway.
The miscalcuation if there was any, was in trying to treat Iraq
like a rationally run country between the end of Iran/Iraq and
the start of the gulf war.
David S.A. Stine
>In <dsaCEG...@netcom.com> d...@netcom.com (David S.A. Stine) writes:
>
>+>In article <visser.7...@convex.convex.com> vis...@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>+>> This is a warped view of events. The conversation was probably
>+>>the one between April Gilespe(sp) who was an ambassador to Iraq before
>+>>the gulf war and Saddam Hussien.
>
>+>Yes, this was. The question which Iraq's government asked us via our
>+>ambassador was basically this:
>
>+> "We're in deep, deep debt from the Iran-Iraq war. Both
>+> Saudi Arabia and Kuwait owe us a couple billion each. The
>+> Saudis have coughed up some bucks to keep us quiet, but
>+> those Kuwaities are refusing to cough up anything more
>+> than a few hundred million. We want to force them to pay
>+> up. Do you mignd if we lean on them real hard to get a few
>+> billion out of them?"
>
> Your making up a quote here that is not supported by any
>real material. The dispute with Kuwait was over territory, in
>addition to the loan repayment schedule.
Please note that I said "...was basically this..." -- ie, a summary of what
the press reported the Iraqi government as asking Gillespi. I'm not going
to attempt to claim this as a real quote; it's basicaly a paraphrase.
As for supporting material: yes, this is supported by what little press there
was given to the issue of April Gillespi and the blame being hung on her in
the second week or so after Iraq invaded Kuwait. This was reported in the
LA Times, reprints from the NYT wire services in the second week after the
invasion.
Now, WRT to the territory dispute: as I understood it, that issue had been
around for quite some time before Iraq starting touting it and was used as
a cover story by Iraq once they went in and the West went "Whoa! What the
_hell_ are you doing?!" That's when the "province 19" (or whatever number
they assigned) issue was bandied about.
>+>The US, via Gillepsi, said essentially, "We're not taking a position on
>+>this issue -- we're not going to interfere in what is essentially a Arab
>+>situation."
>
>+>What Gillespi didn't seem to realize (and the CIA didn't either for several
>+>days) is that when Iraq was talking about "leaning on Kuwait" they meant
>+>using a blitzkrieg to scare them into coughing up the gold in a hell of a
>+>hurry.
>
> Then Iraq is ruled by mentally unstable idiots. For anyone to
>take what the ambassidor said as a green light to invasion and annexation
>of Kuwait is absurd.
I'm not disputing your assertion for a hot second. My assessment of Hussein
during the whole affair was that he was very crafty (in the same way that a
fox is) but strategically very short-sighted and dumb.
> The iraqi invasion had nothing to do with "scaring" anyone. If
>you scare someone, you move troops up to the border and maybe attack
>a few positions along the border. Iraq invaded with the intent to annex
>Kuwait.
Perhaps I was a bit unclear or oversimplifying: Iraq was intimidating
Kuwait earlier that year, threatening military action, grabbing of oil
output, etc. The build-up along the border could have been seen as
fufilling their earlier threats right up to the point when they crossed the
border; then it was obviously an invasion.
>+>Correct, _BUT_, we were essentially clueless as to what they mean when they
>+>said that they were going to "force" the issue. The troop movements and
>+>buildup along the border was easily seen from satellite images for a couple
>+>of weeks ahead of time -- the NRO and CIA were just caught with their pants
>+>around their ankles. It wasn't until a day AFTER Iraq went into Kuwait that
>+>they started getting some images and analysis coming into the national
>+>decision making process.
>
> And what would they have done at the time anyway?
Do what they are supposed to do: provide intelligence to the executive
branch and the national security council. That's their stated function; to
provide intelligence to the people who make policy and decisions. They
failed utterly at this job.
>If the Iraqi
>movements toward the border had been bluff as was assumed at the time,
>the government (and CIA) would have looked silly for "blowing the
>situation out of all proportion".
The CIA and NRO have looked very silly several times in the last 20 years,
and the times they've looks real silly on pure intel issues, it hasn't been
for blowing something out of proportion, it's been for not noticing
something very obvious which we should have noticed. As a matter of fact,
the US military command complained to on high about how thin the
intelligence coming via CIA/NRO/NSA was during the war and as a result, the
US military command started doing its own analysis.
>The same people who claim the
>US tricked Iraq into war would have been screaming that the US
>was "threatening poor Iraq."
With what?
> Any attempt to land troops in the gulf before the Iraqi invasion
>would have been resisted by the Saudis and the congress. Remember all
>the resistance to the reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers?
Sure I remember. I'm not suggesting that we should have been landing
troops. Threatening Hussein with a force in response would have been a good
start.
>
>+>> The misunderstanding stems from not being able to understand
>+>>that the US government CAN take a neutral stand in a conflict between
>+>>two other countries for many reasons. If the US says that it has
>+>>no opinion on lets say a conflict between Argentina and Paraguay over
>+>>borders, that does not say that the US will do nothing if Argentina
>+>>invades and annexes paraguay.
>
>+>While this is true, we fucked up and fucked up big time by:
>
>+>1. Not really asking what the hell Saddam meant.
>
> To believe this, you have to believe that the Iraqi foriegn
> service and Saddam were naive enough to believe that the
> conversation they had was a green light to annex Kuwait.
They weren't naive -- they were probably probing for a forceful rebuke and
we pussy-footed it. If we had taken the time to remember who we were
talking to and what his track record is, we would have told him in essence
"cross that border and you'll regret it and regret it big." Think about how
different history might be is the Brits hadn't been whimps when responding
to Hitler; if they had told Hitler "Cross that border and we're going to
come after you. No." instead of "We have achieve peace in our time."
>>2. Not knowing what was going on in the area.
>
>+>3. By not listening to the Saudis on the issue. They had prior knowledge
>+> of what Saddam meant.
>
> Whats the basis for this? Is this Saudi experts talking after-the
>-fact about how "smart" they were?
No, not really -- this was the assesment of the Saudis that Hussein is/was:
a) a few cards short of a full deck
b) considered ruthless by his neighbors
c) how badly he was in debt with the rest of the middle east and how
he was getting into a tight spot with other oil exporting countries
by busting quotas left, right and center.
Basically, the Saudis knew that Hussein thought himself to be backed up
against the wall by his war debt and his need for enough money in his
economy to prop up his dictatorship. Despiration makes people do less than
wholly rational things.
And in any event, the Israelies certainly had this same assessment,
especially since they took the action of a pre-emptive strike on his
reactor in '82.
> I believe that Iraq was gambling on the US not fighting and
>they would have invaded regardless of anything the US said. The
>political options for the US government BEFORE Iraq crossed into
>Kuwait prevented any real action anyway.
Well, here we're both speculating in hindsight. I don't know if Hussein
would have listened to any threat we might have made, since no one has seen
a credible projection of US force since WWII.
> The miscalcuation if there was any, was in trying to treat Iraq
>like a rationally run country between the end of Iran/Iraq and
>the start of the gulf war.
Absolutely NO argument here. Another sterling example of our foreign policy
wonks taking a short-term gain (backing Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war) for a
huge long-term loss (the Iraqi war).
dsa
John R. Moore
This is crap. The conversation was between Sadam and April Gillespie, US
Ambassador to Iraq. It occurred with 1 hour notice and without time for
her to consult with the US State Department. The only thing she said that
could be construed as giving Sadam permission for anything was that
she said the US didn't want to be involved in border disputes. Saddam
used that as an excuse to annex Kuwait, which clearly was not her
meaning.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 USA (602-951-9326)
jo...@anasazi.com Amateur call:NJ7E Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
- - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
dave c jarzabek
|> In <CEEHx...@mach1.wlu.ca> hamm...@mach1.wlu.ca (Lawrence Hammond u) writes:
|>
|> | I saw a special on t.v. a while ago that outlined a conversation
|> |between Sadam and the US ambasador to Iraq in May or June before the invasion
|> |of Kuwait. The ambassador basically gave Sadam permission to use whatever
|> |means he chose to drive up the price of oil, and that he would get US support.
|> |By driving up the price, the Texans could then make a higher profit on the
|> |oil THEY were selling, and they did. The GULF WAR was, in fact, a profitable
|> |venture for the US. It artifiacially increased the price of oil. Isn't
|> |Bush an oil man? Hmmm....
1984 - 1992 saw a 60% reduction in the size of the Oil and Gas industry
in the US (in terms of people being employed). Does that sound like
Bush and Reagan were out to help "big oil"? The industry is still
collapsing with the help of Clinton and the environMentals. If foreign
oil is considered a national interest, you have to spread the blame,
you can't just say it's because "big oil" wants to make a buck!
|>
|> Which conversation was this? I remember congressional inquiries into
|> a meeting in which the ambassador stated that the US felt that the border
|> dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was one that they should settle themselves.
|> The US did not want to get involved. This though is a far cry from
|> giving Saddam blanket permission to do what he wants. What show was this,
|> did it give any references?
|> --
|> Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
|> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
|> Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
|> Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
-------- dave.j...@oryx.com -----