 |
|
The Mad Monk
|
 |
of Ice Cream
Mar 2000 time: 23:30
|
|
The report matters only in that it publicly declares what we already know.
We couldn't release that information until we could move the bases, and we couldn't move the bases until we removed Hussein.
edit: please don't think I'm saying all this just because of this report; I've been writing about this here since before the Iraq war.
Last edited by The Mad Monk on 04-08-2003 at 01:42
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:30
|
|
Actually, the Mad Monk has a point. The Sauds may fall victim of a rebellion, which will hugely weaken Saudi Arabia. I think the US doesn't want it, because the likely outcome of this rebellion is a more hostile regime.
During such rebellion, Saud's militery might will wither, making the country more fragile to foreign attacks. Neighbouring countries would want the anarchy not to spread within their borders, so that's only normal if they send expeditionary forces to secure zones beyond the Saudian border.
However, I differ with TMM on one point: in a rebellion scenarion, the borders will not change. Once the situation has calmed downed, the neighbouring countries won't push their borders as far as to where their army went. They may keep an authority over the 'secured' territories, but it should be a military governance at most, i.e something that will end at some point when the new Riyadh regime will agree on the specifics with its neighbours. But Saudi Arabia will end up being the same geographic expression, with probably another name.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|