Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: appeal2

It depends. The Bush family has always had a close connection to the Saudis. I wondered after 9/11 how Bush would handle the problem.

One reason why I figured he went into Iraq early, rather than, say, Syria, was that he wanted to secure an assured oil supply before tackling the Saudis.

But as far as I can see, the Saudis are causing as much mischief as ever, and with complete impunity.

It was not in our national interest to confront them directly, until we had secured a base in the middle east and a backup source of oil, because if we invaded we would probably need a few years to rebuild the oil infrastructure. But it looks as if our further pursuit of those behind the terrorists has pretty much been abandoned, for the moment at least.


30 posted on 12/07/2007 11:56:09 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Cicero

“One reason why I figured he went into Iraq early, rather than, say, Syria, was that he wanted to secure an assured oil supply before tackling the Saudis.”

I assumed the small amount of oil Iraq would put onto the market in any reasonable timeframe was secondary to having (multiple) land-based air bases and other logistic support near Iran (and syria), given that part of the deal of saudi support for invading iraq was leaving prince sultan air base and any others we had. I think the qatar air base was coming on line about this time too.

There is no government we (or they) can put in saudi arabia that will be any better for US interests than the one there already, unfortunately.


31 posted on 12/07/2007 12:24:26 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson