USA will snatch Saudi oil fields if revolution takes place...

[tedzbear]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1112-05.htm


Read this interesting op-ed by Robert Fisk. It ends with a fascinating scenario: the USA would be quite happy to see the Saudi royal family eliminated by an Al Qaeda led popular revolution. Such an incident would allow Bush to invade the Saudi oil fields from Iraq and hold them under his control. Learning from his mistake in Iraq, Bush would let bin Laden's faction have Riyadh. Who cares about controlling the cities? It's the oil wells that matter.
Wow. That would put 90 % of middle eastern oil in the hands of Bush/Cheney just in time for elections in 2004. Plus, letting bin Laden have Riyadh gives Bush a perfect enemy to present to the American people. The beat of the war drum would intensify just in time for the election.

:kick: Bush

[Ficus]

1. I saw something similar

about a year or so ago. Maybe longer. The PNAC has a plan and briefed the Pentagon on a plan to invade the oilfields of Saudi Arabia and sieze them. Then they would set up a sham nation called the "Republic of East Arabia" or something equally stupid. This seems to have been in the works for a long time, but PNAC needs a reason to invade.

Just what we need, another guerilla war. sheesh.

[arcane1]

8. the ONLY released documents from Cheney's energy meetings

were maps of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, carved up into sectors like a roast, with the names of oil corporations associated to each sector

the PNAC plan working perfectly

and of course, we pull the troops from SA so that al Qaeda has an easier time working there...

[ramblin_dave]

2. Are we going to make a "revolution" happen?

That's what I want to know.

[ozymandius]

3. Just another reason for the Russians to be there.

As I understand, they are establishing a base in northern Saudi Arabia that could support nuclear-tipped missiles.

[Minstrel Boy]

4. Like it or not,

for the sake of the world, for all of us and our children, if the United States will not give up its "prize" of Iraq, then Iraqi resistence is the red line that must stop this madness. If it doesn't, it won't be stopped until we're cinders.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Wow, look at the bizarre Lyndon Larouche connection!

Murawiec, a somewhat mysterious figure who works with the Rand Corp. and has been an executive editor of Executive Intelligence Revue (owned by Lyndon La Rouche Jr.), presented a slide show to the Pentagon last year with titles that included "taking 'Saudi' out of Arabia." He claimed that since 1745, 58 percent of all Saudi rulers have met a violent demise, that Saudis are seen by other Arabs as "lazy, overbearing, dishonest, corrupt" and that they are "active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheer leader."


...

I knew there had to be more to that organization than just the bizarre cult group it seems to be - the editor of their flagship "serious" publication, EIR, is working with RAND corporation and giving briefings to the Pentagon?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. aint gonna happen

full blown f'in daydream. As much as I would like to see the Saudi monarchy systematically guillotined, the alternatives are much worse. As for the assertion that Bush would like to see the monarchy gone, I doubt the veracity of that argument as well. The Saudi monarchy has been very good to our U.S. elites, and any instability there would wind up costing our King Bush dearly.

Perhaps the Saudis understand something that has escaped them for so long. The only reason we were based in Saudi Arabia in the first place was to buffer them from Saddam Hussein, whose army could have annihilated the Saudi's. With Iraq no longer an external threat to Saudi Arabia, and with the U.S. engaged in a war against Al-Qaeda, who is the house of Saud's defender?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

7. aint gonna happen

full blown f'in daydream. As much as I would like to see the Saudi monarchy systematically guillotined, the alternatives are much worse. As for the assertion that Bush would like to see the monarchy gone, I doubt the veracity of that argument as well. The Saudi monarchy has been very good to our U.S. elites, and any instability there would wind up costing our King Bush dearly.

Perhaps the Saudis understand something that has escaped them for so long. The only reason we were based in Saudi Arabia in the first place was to buffer them from Saddam Hussein, whose army could have annihilated the Saudi's. With Iraq no longer an external threat to Saudi Arabia, and with the U.S. engaged in a war against Al-Qaeda, who is the house of Saud's defender?

[tedzbear]

9. You say Bush is loyal to the Saudis? Think again!

A revolution is the perfect excuse for our army to plow into the Saudi oil fields and carve them up into Exxon-ARCO fiefdoms.
If Bush is to choose between direct control of the oil and a subservient royal family, I would think he would pick the first choice.
The only drawback is the American casualties defending the "taken" oil wells.
I do think Rove could manipulate this scenario to make it acceptable to the American people.