5 ms·
If the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to establish democracy you'd have a point on #3. I'm still waiting for a leader of Iraq to be elected by its people.
by genwin 13y ago
If the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to establish democracy you'd have a point on #3. I'm still waiting for a leader of Iraq to be elected by its people.
- mpyne 13y agoI'm not sure that even the neocons could tell you the actual reason they went to war. Only the WMD thing even made a bit of sense (in the aftermath of 9/11). But even most of the normal tinfoil theories (e.g. blood for oil) wouldn't have made practical sense. Puzzles me to this day.
- genwin 13y ago$Trillions in war spending is sufficiently plausible reason for me.
- mixmastamyk 13y agoSaudi Arabia (like Kuwait) doesn't have much of a military, but it is absolutely crucial to the world energy market. The US will apparently spare no expense to protect it. That and genwin's reason.
- neurotech1 13y agoSaudi Arabia has one of the largest and well supported Air Forces in the middle east, other than Israeli AF. The RSAF has 250+ fighter/attack aircraft in service. F-15s and Tornado's mainly. Also another 120 F-5E/F fighter "trainers" available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_aircraft_inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force#Current_a...
- mixmastamyk 13y agoThat's fine. It would still have been quite vulnerable to a ~1990 Iraq. Even a ~2000 era Iraq wouldn't need to conquer the country, but merely strike critical oil infrastructure. They were thought to have chemical weapons, etc. If you don't believe the US cares much about such things, I recommend the book (unfortunately titled) "Blood and Oil" by M. Klare.
- pekk 13y agoIt sure helped their domestic politics and justified military spending
- ryanhuff 13y agoDo you mean their prime minister?