Skip to comments.
Invading Iraq sure wasn't about oil
National Post ^
| March 19 2002
| George Jonas, National Post
Posted on 03/19/2002 2:55:59 PM PST by knighthawk
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: golitely; rebdov; Nix 2; viadexter; green lantern; BeOSUser; itsahoot; Brad's Gramma; Barset
Ping
To: knighthawk; aculeus; Orual
Hmmm, an interesting and unusual point of view. Good post.
3
posted on
03/19/2002 3:11:36 PM PST
by
dighton
To: *Energy_list;*Geopolitics;Black Jade
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: knighthawk
Dang, that's a pretty good article. I see it makes sense and would be to the US' best interest to ally itself with Iraq against the islamist regimes in the region. Let Saddam have the entire Gulf region - in exchange for steady oil and peace with Israel.
Dang! Why didn't I think of it before?
To: Edward Watson
Well, classic balance-of-power politics says that it's dangerous to do business with the strongest nations and to help build them up further. Rather, you undermine the strong nations and build up the weaker ones. Kissinger and Machiavelli would agree on that, and so would the ancient Romans.
As it is, Saddam is hard enough to deal with. If he controlled all the oil in the Middle East he would, to say the least, be insufferable.
6
posted on
03/19/2002 3:47:18 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: knighthawk
Interesting perspective........
7
posted on
03/19/2002 4:01:37 PM PST
by
Mat_Helm
To: dighton
Hmmm, an interesting and unusual point of view. Good post. Hmmm is right. Personally I think Saddam is too unstable to be trusted. Not to mention his psychotic son.
Or is the author just making the point that the 'it's all about oil' argument is all wet?
8
posted on
03/19/2002 4:48:42 PM PST
by
aculeus
To: aculeus; Orual
IMHO, his main point is: If Americans were really as the Guardianistas and Raimondistas libel us -- ruthless imperialists, etc. -- we'd back Saddam.
9
posted on
03/19/2002 5:01:36 PM PST
by
dighton
To: knighthawk
I detect a little touch of Jonathan Swift in this.
To: knighthawk
I detect a little touch of Jonathan Swift in this.
To: knighthawk
I give up. If it weren't for the oil, why did Bush Sr. attack Iraq?
12
posted on
03/19/2002 8:32:40 PM PST
by
DentsRun
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
To: Black Jade
Appreciate the ping.
14
posted on
03/30/2002 6:51:38 PM PST
by
mafree
To: Turk2
ping!
To: knighthawk
Interesting
16
posted on
03/30/2002 6:56:15 PM PST
by
A. Pole
To: Turk2
http://idex.janes.com/landforces_data/aapcdetails.shtml
To: knighthawk
We should be entirely guided by( enlightened of course) self interest if we were we would have made a deal with Hussein we get cheap oil and he wipes out the Wahabbi sect in return he gets to keep the Arabian peninsula. Saddam ain't the enemy its the Saudis.
18
posted on
03/30/2002 7:55:59 PM PST
by
weikel
To: knighthawk
In fact if it is still possible to make that same deal now we shouldn't hesitate to make it.
19
posted on
03/30/2002 7:58:39 PM PST
by
weikel
To: Cicero
He'd still be too weak to fight us if he doublecrossed us( and I maintain that he would be less likely to then the Saudis realpolitik guys are more predictable then religious fanatics like the Sauds) we could destroy him easily.
20
posted on
03/30/2002 8:00:48 PM PST
by
weikel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson