2006-07-21 01:09:38 · 12 answers · asked by mouthbreather77 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not a chance. Lok how much he is doing for Myanmar, which has no oil.
2006-07-21 01:12:41 · answer #1 · answered by Gungnir 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are two completely separate nations. America defended Kuwait not because another country near them sold the US some commodities at inflated prices, but because the US had a commitment to help defend Kuwait via treaties. Besides, the US is more dependent on Texas than Saudi Arabia.
2006-07-21 02:01:46 · answer #2 · answered by what? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well asked, my friend. No way. If America, Dick Cheney and George Bush weren't addicted to Saudi oil, then Saddam could have taken over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the USA would have not said a thing.
2006-07-21 01:25:27 · answer #3 · answered by Silent Kninja 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course, Kuwait was considered a friend of the USA's long before oil an issue and we're NOT dependent on Saudi oil, please do a search about this, you'll find less than 15% of our oil comes from that region of the world.
2006-07-21 01:15:15 · answer #4 · answered by sealss3006 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it is widely accepted that it was in fact Margaret Thatcher who was most influential in President Bush's decision to 'draw the line in the sand' rather than any economic beliefs. Bush had been thinking to accept the result as standing, but Thatcher convinced him that he had to stand up to Hussein.
Thatcher, of course, was very experienced in this sort of thing. In 1982, when her Cabinet was facing a losing vote of 'no confidence' from Parliament because of her actions on the English economy (throw 60,000 miners out of work and sell national assets at fire sale prices to her politically connected friends!), she withdrew the Royal Navy from the South Atlantic and Argentina just happened to invade the Falklands Islands. Her standing up to the Argentine junta definitely saved not only her political career but also conservative economics worldwide.
2006-07-21 02:41:57 · answer #5 · answered by sdvwallingford 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! The corridor of Shat-el-Arab is probably the most strategic
place in the middle east, at least so far as oil is concerned,and the nearest place to it where US-of-A CAN have a foothold,is
Kuwait...
2006-07-21 01:23:55 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I believe these will be known as the Oil Wars in the history annals to follow this generation.
2006-07-21 03:06:36 · answer #7 · answered by Teacher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who knows? You can ask any stupid question for which there is no answer.
For example, "If it wasn't for the fear of going to jail, would your mother have smothered you in your crib?" I'd say yes, but who knows?
But if I were you, I'd make sure that the door to your nursery was locked tonight.
2006-07-21 08:11:52 · answer #8 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know.....I'm getting a little bored with you people. The US is not acting alone. There are 30 other countries. Actually I think you are insulting them by not recognizing their participation.
2006-07-21 01:34:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe we would not be so dependent if we were getting the oil from the alaskan pipeline like we were supposed to
2006-07-21 01:13:19 · answer #10 · answered by CALLIE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋