Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia what would have happened?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:56 PM
Original message
If Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia what would have happened?
Discuss...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Shitstorm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Same Thing As Happened When He Invaded Kuwait
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Precisely. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. When?
In '90/91 or more recently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. '90/'91
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. Had that happened
We would have had to drive him out of two countries instead of just one. Saddam's army did cross over into Saudi territory at the battle of Kafji, and that turned out to be a disaster for the column that participated in the fighting. Ultimately, things would have ended up the same, although the Saudis might have been even more hostile to Saddam down the line and might not have reconciled with him 10 years later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
easy_b94 Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nothing would have happen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well we saw what happened when he invaded Kuwait
would it be any different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well, I guess Saudi Arabia's military would have had to fight them
I don't know. It's not my problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. They Would Have Been Inept As The Kuwaitis
Edited on Sun Mar-30-08 03:01 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. We have a defense pact with the Sauds
Saddam would never have invaded, as that would have meant war with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Do We Have A Formal One Like We Have With NATO?
I don't think so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Yes, a longstanding formal and binding one.
Going back to the Nixon years, I believe, and a part of the whole petro-dollar arrangement that was coincident with taking US currency off of a precious metals peg.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oil would have gone up.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. Is there a point to this? I don't mean to be an ass but this is the Primaries board
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Obama's recent comments have sparked a Gulf War discussion in GD:P
So I thought I'd throw this angle of it out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. AQ would control the oil in both Iraq and Saudi Arabia
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. He would have had most of the oil reserves in his possession
and we would have had to invade before he could prevent it be restricting oil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Couldn't we have just bought oil from him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. He'd have gotten his ass handed to him in less than 3 days....
Only difference would have been we didn't have to track his army down, they'd have come straight at us like sick target practice. Outcome would have been the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. I guess it depends on when?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0204quest.htm
In Quest for Energy Security,
US Makes New Bet: on Democracy
By Andrew Higgins
Wall Street Journal
February 4, 2004

In April 1975, America's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, sent a confidential cable to Washington denouncing as "criminally insane" an idea then being floated in the media: America should seize Saudi oil fields to break an Arab oil cartel and ensure a supply of cheap energy to fuel the U.S. economy.

Scoffing at the bravado of what he called America's "New Hawks," he warned that any attempt to take Arab oil by force would lead to world-wide fury and a protracted guerrilla war. This "could bring only disaster to the United States and to the world," he wrote.
-----------------
FDR and the King

America has been fretting about dependence on foreign oil since the early 1940s, when Interior Secretary Harold Ickes wrote a gloomy article titled "We're Running out of Oil!" It warned: "If there should be a World War III, it would have to be fought with someone else's petroleum." Soon thereafter, geologist Everette Lee DeGolyer returned to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and reported that "the center of gravity of world oil production is shifting ... to the Middle East."

With this in mind, Franklin D. Roosevelt, though seriously ill, made a stop on his journey home from the 1945 Yalta conference to meet the Saudi king, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. Their encounter on a battleship in the Suez Canal established bonds that, for more than half a century, would tie the two countries: oil and security. It also raised an issue that would divide them for just as long -- establishment of a Jewish state. Roosevelt wanted it in Palestine. The king suggested Jews get land in Germany.

-------------------------------------------------
Saudi Arabia also disappointed. On Oct. 17, 1973, Mr. Kissinger met with other top U.S. officials to discuss the Yom Kippur Arab-Israeli war and possibility of oil-supply disruptions. Reporting on a meeting held earlier in the day with Arab envoys, he described the Saudi foreign minister as a "good little boy," according to recently released transcripts, and predicted confidently: "We don't expect an oil cutoff in the next few days." Minutes later, an aide rushed in with a bulletin: Saudi and other Arab oil producers had announced an immediate cut in output. Prices leapt 70% overnight and later quadrupled. The U.S. sank into a recession. Mr. Nixon launched a plan to end all imports by 1980. It flopped: Imports rose 40% by the target date. Mr. Kissinger turned to the Soviet Union for help, offering wheat in return for oil. The "bushels for barrels" plan fizzled.

The Military Option

Behind the scenes, officials mulled a more robust response to Arab cuts. Ambassador Akins says he knew something was afoot after a barrage of articles appeared championing war against Saudi Arabia. Particularly belligerent was one that appeared in Harper's under the byline Miles Ignotus, a pen name. Titled "Seizing Arab Oil," it argued that "the only countervailing power to OPEC's control of oil is power itself -- military power."


Britain's National Archives last month released several secret reports on America's likely response to the oil crisis. A December 1973 assessment by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee said Washington might use subversion to "replace the existing rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi with more amenable men" or try "gun-boat diplomacy" to intimidate existing rulers. But an invasion to seize Arab oil fields was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking," the report added. It said Mr. Schlesinger had told Britain's ambassador "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."


Relations With Iraq

When Mr. Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, Washington initially stayed aloof, but grew worried when the tide turned and Iraq faced defeat. The U.S. then provided Iraq with satellite pictures and other help. Donald Rumsfeld, as President Reagan's special Mideast envoy, visited Baghdad twice. He discussed the idea, never followed up, of building a pipeline out of Iraq through Jordan. "I noted that Iraq's oil exports were important," Mr. Rumsfeld reported after a 1983 meeting with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, according to a cable obtained by the National Security Archive. Mr. Rumsfeld visited again the following year, despite an uproar over Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran.

A 1988 national-security directive enshrined the wooing of Iraq as policy. "Normal relations" with the Hussein regime, it said, "would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East." But this courtship, too, ended in tears: Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, seized its oil fields and began moving troops toward Saudi Arabia. Once again, a partner had become an enemy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC