Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
But Gulf War I was fought because Saddam had his army invade Kuwait, and we counter-invaded because Kuwait had a lot of oil and the invasion made a lot of other Gulf Oil Nations very nervous about what would happen to them if the precedent stood.

And, indeed, even if we counter-invaded because that's what we always do when an authoritarian monarchical state is invaded by an authoritarian fascist state somewhere around the world (stay with me here, I said even if) ... Saddam invaded because Kuwait had oil.

Whilst I agree with the second paragraph 100% in that the re-invasion would never have happened without the oil, I still feel that it was more about how the USA (and world opinion) was bounced into doing the right thing against their will. After all, Iraq was a US asset. Saddam was their guy to the extent that he'd already asked permission to invade and received it beforehand.

The US officially didn't care cos they knew that they would be sold the oil whoever controlled it. So why should they go to war ? It doesn't make sense. Sure Cheney was in cahoots with the House of Saud who were nervous about the precedent of Saddam taking over a neighbour with impunity but that in itself wasn't enough. They'd already expressed indifference.

so, the presence of oil was irrelevant to the decision cos the US would have got the oil anyway and inaction would have been cheaper. No, the Senate was bounced by a clever pr campaign and an ambassador's daughter who lied.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 02:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows: