<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by benoit:
Sorry I hadn't heard of the university.
</font>
No problem. The trouble is that most Americans haven't heard of any universities outside the U.S. other than a few famous ones.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Turkey was asked to be a land base for us and explicitly refused. So again we are back to the "experts" absurd claim that being in Saudi Arabia served no "military efficiency". Since his thesis rests fully on this point, it rather collapses rapidly from there. It was a nice try.
</font>
Some were calling for strong sanctions to be imposed. Kuwait is no good to Saddam Hussein if he cannot sell the oil. Anyway, an invasion of Iraq from the north would not be necessary to facilitate the liberation of Kuwait, which is what the U.N. resolution was. Not for a conquest of Iraq (which would have seen the Arab members of the coalition leave).
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The other flawed point that remains is the idea that if we didn't have a presence in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden and ilk wouldn't hate us. Doh.
</font>
A lot less reason to, and fewer followers, I would imagine.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
You say Iraq's military has been shattered, I'd say he's a proven threat who openly seeks the downfall of the Saudi regime.
Our being there is the best deterrant, and our presence is radically reduced from war levels.
</font>
A naval and air presence, offshore, can be sufficient deterrence, with a rapid deployment force used if necessary.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I admit our being there doesn't help the average Saudi vote, but them being toppled by radicals probably wouldn't get them a vote either, would it?
</font>
I would venture to say that the U.S. would be in a more credible (and popular) position with the Saudi and Kuwaiti populace if they forced the respective regimes to give the common people a greater say in government. In fact, the U.S. could concievably be viewed as a liberator in the region if it forced the regimes to adopt some form of popular democracy.
Right now, I would imagine most of the Arab and Islamic world (and a lot of others outside it too) see the Gulf war fought solely to secure a cheap source of oil and not freedom. I (facetiously) love the popular notion than that is was for freedom for U.S. citizens. Freedom to have cheap oil at best.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The idea that the primary threat to the Saudis is internal is interesting? Lot of wealthy people with strong feelings I'm sure. Same thing outside of the country, though.
</font>
Poor people who can't do anything. They're currently brought off by whatever wealth the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families choose to distribute rather than spend in themselves.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
By the way yes Iran is a threat, a factory and haven for the most extreme and successful terrorists in the world. They're building reactors, so maybe they'll be more of a threat later on.
</font>
Methinks your country should attack those who are supplying them the reactors. However, fighting the Russians isn't a totally riskles s proposition. Alternatively, lift sanctions and sell them reactors which cannot be converted to military uses. The Canadian Candu reactor is a good one.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The theocracy still calls us great satan, and would love to topple the Saudi royal family. But the average people are pretty mellow these days.
</font>
You forget one thing. Iranians do have a vote/voice. Not one as strong as ours but they do have a voice. The mullahs do not hold all reins of power as a result.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Would have been nice if the author mentioned excessive reliance on foreign oil and some alternatives instead of vaguely blaming "oil policy" without a proposed solution.
</font>
Again, read the last 3 paragraphs. It's implied. Addressing the whole issue would take most of a newspaper.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The real irony is that the people most vocal about getting us out of the middle east, are often the same ones sabotaging our efforts to increase domestic oil production and nuclear power.</font>
On that point, we come to agreement, a small one, but still an agreement.
