It was clear very early on that there was going to be a response from the US and others. He went into a defensive mode.
To answer Doug's original question, I have no handy published source for this. Maybe it is false. I can say, however, that it was widely believed in Saudi Arabia for a lot of reasons that I shall not go into here.
So, anyone who does not wish to believe it, feel free to disbelieve it. But, if one feels that invading Kuwait was a progressive wonderful thing to do should also think the same of invading Saudi Arabia, a much more reactionary country. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Rkmickey at aol.com <Rkmickey at aol.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 7:24 PM Subject: Re: East Timor, Kosovo, and Kuwait
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>>It is fairly clear that Saddam's
>>original plan was not to stop at the borders of
>>Kuwait but to keep going on down the coast
>>of the Persian Gulf to get the really big pools of
>>oil such as al-Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, then under
>>the control of a reactionary power in cahoots
>>with the United States.
>
>If this was the case, why didn't Saddam keep going and take all of Saudi
>Arabia? And anything else in the region he wanted (other than Iran)?There
>was nothing in the way of the Iraqi army until 6 months after the initial
>invasion of Kuwait.
>
>K. Mickey
>