Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (195915)	8/7/2006 10:26:03 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The whole dispute started because Kuwait was slant-drilling. Using equipment bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft's old company, Kuwait was pumping out some $14-billion worth of oil from underneath Iraqi territory. Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq's. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it's certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast. Even so, this dispute could have been negotiated. But it's hard to avoid a war when what you're actually doing is trying to provoke a war. The most famous example of that is the meeting between Saddam and the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, five days before Iraq invaded Kuwait. As CIA satellite photos showed an Iraqi invasion force massing on the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie told Hussein that "the US takes no position" on Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. A few days later, during last-minute negotiations, Kuwait's foreign minister said: "We are not going to respond to [Iraq]....If they don't like it, let them occupy our territory....We are going to bring in the Americans." The US reportedly encouraged Kuwait's attitude. Pitting the two countries against each other was nothing new. Back in 1989, CIA Director William Webster advised Kuwait's security chief to "take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq to put pressure on Iraq.'' At the same time, a CIA-linked think tank was advising Saddam to put pressure on the Kuwaitis. A month earlier, the Bush administration issued a secret directive that called for greater economic cooperation with Iraq. This ultimately resulted in billions of dollars of illegal arms sales to Saddam. The Gulf War further destabilized the region and made Kuwait more dependent on us. US oil companies can now exert more control over oil prices (and thus boost their profits). The US military got an excuse to build more bases in the region (which Saudi Arabia, for one, didn't want) and the war also helped justify the "need" to continue exorbitant levels of military spending. Finally, it sent a message to Third World leaders about what they could expect if they dared to step out of line." thirdworldtraveler.com

To: TimF who wrote (195915)	8/8/2006 3:47:29 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is true that Iraq claimed that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq. What is missed, is that part of the oil field in question, the Rumaila field, lies within Kuwait so slant drilling may not have been necessary. Further, I do not recall actual proof that Kuwait did slant drill (though it wouldn't have surprised me that Iraq allowed Kuwait to slant drill during the Iran Iraq War, as Iraq's side of the field were vulnerable to Iranian attack, and as Kuwait was loaning Iraq BILLIONS, loaning far more than they were probably pumping out of the field). Originally, there was an agreement between Iraq and Kuwait in how much each could draw from the field. After the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq wanted possession of ALL of the Rumaila field. While the Kuwaitis probably felt that they could draw all they wanted out of the field (as Iraq owed Kuwait 12 billion dollars). So Iraq wanted all of the Rumaila Field, two Islands, its loans from Kuwait eliminated, and wanted almost $3 billion for the oil Kuwait "over" pumped from the Rumiala fields. Kuwait said no, and was invaded.