kakki wrote: > The oil motive does not hold up for many people, either. If that were true > "Bushie I" and the US could have just wormed their way in and taken over > Kuwait after it was liberated from Saddam.
"Bushie I" and the Emir royal family/rulers of Kuwait, like the bin laden family, have been business associates. The US taxpayers and soldiers came to the rescue of Kuwait, which was drilling diagonal oil wells under Iraqi soil (where all the oil was, and which was Hussein's cheif complaint). A US ambassador told Hussein, who had been our ally and whose rise to power we funded, that, were he to invade Kuwait, we would not become involved. > Or could have kept going and > taken out Saddam and installed its "oil empire" 14 years ago. Well, if there is one thing more profitable (for some) than oil, it is war. Turns out we can have two wars, and the oil. Today on the (?major) network news, they mentioned: US oil reserves are the lowest they have been in 27 years. They also mentioned that we should expect gas prices to rise by 50 cents a gallon. (In Iraq two dollars will get you 25 gallons). Who will profit from all this? George Bush Sr. works for The Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor. The more I have looked into the ties between the Bush administration and the oil and defense interests in the region, the more the oil angle makes sense. RR
