DN List - 26-03-2003 - 11:00

[Ivo Skoric]

Saudi Arabia is the real goal, as I believe, but you are correct it 
cannot be attacked directly - besides, the regime is a US ally...

SA is a country with 2/3 of population beloiw 25. This 
demographics is simply telling that in next 5-10 years we shall see 
a turmoil there, a revolution, and the fall of regime. Given the wierd 
SA political spectrum, the US is scared that some religious 
fanatics may take over. This all reminds me so much of Dune - the 
dessert planet, only there the guys in the dessert were the good 
guys...

If US manages to take over Iraq, it will not need Saudi oil, so 
whatever happens in SA, would not really affect US. Also, with 
strong military foothold in Iraq, Israel, Kuwait and Oman, US would 
have SA boxed in, vulnerable to US attack. If US captures Iraq, 
Kuwait and SA together, SUV owners have nothing to fear...
(I saw a bumper sticker in NYC on one SUV: "I brake for family 
falues & I kill for oil.")

I bet that's the rationale. If those pesky Arabs would just cooperate! 
Come on: we are bringing them democracy, freedom, and what 
else? Oh, yeah, Coca-Cola and Mc Donalds (since those 
franchises will soon have to close in Europe due to the wide and 
succesful popular boycott.) 

Of course, this is all a speculation, and as Uri Avnery wrote, the 
first casualty of war is usually the perfect war plan. Arabs will not 
let them be ruled by US easily, and the US is simply not and will 
never be prepared to absorb costs of such occupation, since those 
may be quantitatively bigger and qualitatively more gruesome than 
those associated with Vietnam war.

ivo

Date sent:      	Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:55:45 +0100
From:           	Frank Tiggelaar <domovina at xs4all.nl>
Send reply to:  	domovina at xs4all.nl
Organization:   	Domovina Net
To:             	vijesti at xs4all.nl
Subject:        	DN List - 26-03-2003 - 11:00

DN List - 26-03-2003 - 11:00


Many reasons have been given for the US/UK war against Iraq, but I found 
most of them rather implausible.  It has become popular to accuse the US 
administration of stupidity, but is it really so stupid?

Bear with me while I launch this one:  most of the 9/11 attackers were 
Saudi Arab citizens.  Therefore it would have been logical for the US to 
direct its actions against that country.  But... Islam's most holy 
places, Mecca and Medina, happen to be located in Saudi Arabia.  It is 
obvious that an occupation of these cities by Western countries would 
have sparked an uprising in the whole Muslim world, and therefore was no 
option.

Next best thing, the US administration's planners must have thought, is 
to bring secular regimes to one or more of Saudi Arabia's neighbouring 
countries as a warning for that country's dictatorial rulers not to give 
in to the anti-American views rampant amongst the disgruntled Saudi 
middle-classes.

An added benefit of this scenario is the future US/UK supremacy over 
Iraq's oil production.  The ability to flood markets with 'Oil for Food' 
must be a stark reminder to the Saudi rulers that their 'raison d'etre' 
isn't secure if their country isn't more forthcoming to US political 
demands, the most important of which is to suppress its fundamendalist 
clergy.

Interested in your thoughts.

Frank