Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    The Great Eight Ocotillo's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    4,029
    Something to chew on. Saddam rolled into Kuwait because he felt (or so he said) it was part of Iraq. One of the fears was that he might not stop there and would go onto take Saudi Arabia.

    If he had, would we be better off? Saddam enjoyed decent relations with the U.S. prior to his invasion of Kuwait. Would it be better to have a secular tyrant running the Saudi pennisula rather than the shaky royal family that is there now? The royal family is ripe for violent revolution with the extreme wahabbis they have tolerated and allowed to grow. If the extremist take over Saudi Arabia, wouldn't that do more to destabalize world oil markets rather than some dictator who we could work with?

    Maybe 9/11 doesn't even happen because Bin Laden is obsessed with Saddam and likely our military bases wouldn't be on the penninsula.

    Too late now but an interesting acadmenic discussion.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    29,564
    Saddam would be the most powerful man in the World and would be able to set World Oil prices all by himself...he probably would have control of the entire middle east by now and he'd definitely have a nuclear arsenal, and the willingness to use it.

    His people would still be starving and we'd still be hated by Militant Islam because we are the worlds biggest Oil Consumer, they'd still claim we are supporting an opressive regime...Most of Western Europe would be economically depressed(more than their socialists have them depressed right now) and there would be a bunch of ethnic infighting like Pre Marshall plan Europe.


    Usama would still hate Americs and still be tyring to gain control of the middle east...

    You don't actually think his reasons for hating America are legitimate do you?

    What are his reasons again?

    That we defended Saudi Arabia from Saddam?

    That we give the Israelis the ability to defend themselves from the 300 million Arabs surrounding them?

    That we, along with the rest of the World liberated an Arab country from an Arab dictator? And sanctioned the dicatator?


    Sheer politics...this guy doesn't give two s about innocent Arabs and Muslims...he doesn't give a about the Palestinians(none of the Arab countries do, that's why they expelled them in the first place)...

    He's just a different version of Saddam...

    He wants the rebirth of the Ottoman Empire with himself as ruler...


    Same thing as Saddam wanted basically...

    Same thing they all want basically...

    To be king of the middle east.

  3. #3
    Multimedia Spurs
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    6,659
    "Saddam would be the most powerful man in the World and would be able to set World Oil prices all by himself...he probably would have control of the entire middle east by now and he'd definitely have a nuclear arsenal, and the willingness to use it."

    Where do you score your acid?

  4. #4
    The Last Good Sport samikeyp's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    28,298
    then we wouldn't have these.


  5. #5
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Something to chew on. Saddam rolled into Kuwait because he felt (or so he said) it was part of Iraq. One of the fears was that he might not stop there and would go onto take Saudi Arabia.

    If he had, would we be better off? Saddam enjoyed decent relations with the U.S. prior to his invasion of Kuwait. Would it be better to have a secular tyrant running the Saudi pennisula rather than the shaky royal family that is there now? The royal family is ripe for violent revolution with the extreme wahabbis they have tolerated and allowed to grow. If the extremist take over Saudi Arabia, wouldn't that do more to destabalize world oil markets rather than some dictator who we could work with?

    Maybe 9/11 doesn't even happen because Bin Laden is obsessed with Saddam and likely our military bases wouldn't be on the penninsula.

    Too late now but an interesting acadmenic discussion.
    Whott is a lunatic, but he is right this time. Letting Saddam take control of Saudi Arabia would have been disastrous for the US and the Western world. Yes, Saudi Arabia's political instability may someday lead to the overthrow of its outdated feudal system, but the oil will never be part of the equation because it is in the US strategic and economic best interest to make sure that the oil keeps flowing into the world markets. Since the Saudi's have separated the oil wells from its population centers, and American companies run the Saudi wells, it would not be difficult for the U.S. to justify interfering on what would appear to be a internal Saudi matter.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •