Jenny wrote: > 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.
That may be why we were originally involved (U.S. involvement goes back to WWII because S.A. was a source of oil for the allies) but it is still Europe and Asia and *their* oil companies that have the most at stake in keeping the region stabilized. The U.S. to get away from its dependency has for years now been importing from South America, Mexico and Canada and I think even some regions in Asia. The oil guys are especially eyeing oil production in Russia next now that we are not Cold War adversaries any more. Which begs my question - with so many other sources and opportunities why would the U.S., as opposed to the primary customers such as Europe and Asia, want to tangle with a volatile situation and madman if it were only for oil? I know that Iraq has big reserves and that if the western customers had better access the prices would go down (not neccessarily good for the oil companies, though). If it is all about money and oil, the prudent oil guys (in order to save money) would just concentrate on making deals with friendlier, more stable countries, no? And of course another reason for U.S. involvement has been to help protect the countries of Israel and Kuwait and help be some kind of mediator in peace negotiations in the entire region gong back to Nixon. >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. Indeed. Like I've always said - if it were up to me we'd leave the entire region on it's own. But part of me also thinks that if we did that and the whole region disintergrated into war, genocide and chaos, I don't know how good I'd feel about myself for turning the other way, either. > But it is impossible to not acknowledge the former and present ties they have to the energy industry. Of course, but saying because they were involved in the energy industry that they are only confronting Iraq because of the oil is kind of like saying JFK only confrtonted Cuba and launched the Bay of Pigs invasion because his family wanted to get its monopoly on Havana rums and casinos back. > And Cheneys commission on energy policy recommended that the United States "conduct an immediate policy >review toward Iraq" that includes "military ... assessments." But Cheney's not the only one concerned. Many countries are concerned about Saddam's bio, chemical and nuclear weapons. Someone from Canada just sent me the UK's report on Saddam's weapons and how he has used them on his own people - it is long and I haven't had the chance to read it but he tells me it is absolutely chilling. > 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. The U.S. headed up the coalition but was definitely asked by S.A., Kuwait, the UN and many other countries to step in because those other countries did not have the military capability to stop Saddam. S.A. feared he was coming directly for them. > 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. Someone sent me the entire resolution which I also have not yet read. I'll have to take a look at it.
