<kakki wrote: But my question is why does the U.S. need to focus on the region with regard to oil when we reduced our dependancy on middle east oil by about 75% years ago (I think the U.S. did this in the 70s as a reaction to being held up by OPEC). > The U.S. has been focusing on this region for decades because of oil. This is why we originally became involved and why we stay involved. We are not dependent on Iraq for oil, but if it's reserves were fully tapped and exported it would have a tremendous influence on world oil prices - which now are greatly influenced by Saudi Arabia and OPEC - and the stability of our relationship with S.A. was called into question after 9/11. This is only one scenario - my point is that U.S. Energy policy goes beyond whether or not we are currently dependent on Iraqi oil. But there is no question that the U.S. has a great stake in the stability of the Middle East. <kakki wrote>The theory that the Bushes and Cheney, et al could personally benefit financially from was in Iraq just doesn't add up to me.> I agree - though Cheney personally benefitted from the Gulf War - Bush and Cheney are not looking to personally strike it rich by launching an unprecedented attack. But it is impossible to not acknowledge the former and present ties they have to the energy industry. And Cheneys commission on energy policy recommended that the United States "conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq" that includes "military ... assessments."
<kakki wrote>When he invaded Kuwait, the U.S. did not decide on its own to go and turn him back - the U.S. was asked by the UN and many countries to step in. Now today, we have the UN Security Council in unanimous agreement on the latest resolution to demand that he allow full inspection of his weapons.> Was the U.S. asked to step in when Saddam invaded Kuwait? I remember that differently. I remember us spear-heading the cobbling together of a coalition and doing lots of wheeling and dealing for votes - with Russia in particular. But I'm relying on memory here. True the U.N. passed a resolution unanimously, but the language was changed to so the U.S. and Britain did not secure the automatic authority to attack if Saddam does not cooperate with weapons inspectors. Syria is saying they approved it precisely because of this. We are not privy to the deals, financial and aid-wise that were made to secure votes. I'm not saying this 100% why the resolution was passed - I'm just saying you have to remember the types of maneuvering and negotiations that are part of such a vote. Jenny U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
