To: carranza2 who wrote (131011 ) 5/2/2004 4:49:48 PM From: Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 I would have ended the sentence with the phrase "..with Saddam at the helm enriched (and therefore armed) by money skimmed from the oil-for-food program." Well, I'm not so sure that Saddam could have resisted the building Islamists pressures within his society. I certainly believe he was feeling the need to cloak himself in more and more Islamic Militant rhetoric and to pander to those supported it in the Sunni community.. He was essentially isolated from his previous patrons, France and Russia. And I believe that he would have been interested in forming some kind of working relationship with the Islamists, as we have seen from Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Qaida (visits by Iraqi intelligence to Afghanistan)...The suggestion that we have endangered the Saudi royals and therefore our oil supply becausewe invaded Iraq strikes me as odd. Well, everyone here probably understands that I consider the Saudis, and their elitist and corrupt regime, to be a major part of the problem. They a divided regime, some militant (or seeking support from the Wahhabists), while some are modernist. But the fact that they have 30% unemployment, while still employing approx 5 million foreigners to run their infrastructure, should give anyone pause to revealing the true state of their society. They are, at heart, elitists who believe they can buy off anyone who opposes their regime. They certainly have been trying to buy off the Wahhabists, but now the price is getting a bit too high for them to bear. But as for oil, it threatens the entire global economy. We all know what will happen if the Islamists gain control over the world's two largert reserves of it.. No one would dare to truly confront them. But apparently there are those amongst us who think the US, and not Islamic militancy, is the greatest threat to the world today... Which really causes me to question their actual moral fiber, or at least their cognitive capabilities. Hawk