Quote:
Originally Posted by Splum
Haha woah for a minute there I almost thought you had a clue until that last part. 
You do realize Iraq attacked Kuwait which was Sunni? He also annexed the UN mandated buffer zone between Saudi Arabia and Iraq without the Saudis approval. The Saudis BEGGED for us to protect them after Saddam attacked Kuwait. Saddam was more dangerous to Saudi Arabia than Iran that is a fact, hell Iraqs military decimated and beat the Iranians. Saddam was dangerous for EVERYONE, Bush did the Saudis a favor by removing Saddam. |
You are right and wrong. Saddam WAS a threat to Saudi Arabia back in the day. The keyword being WAS. Saddam was desperate for money back then and probably would have gone into Saudi Arabia had we not stepped in. He had the 5th strongest army in the world at the time I believe.
But that was then. After the first Gulf War, his army was decimated and not allowed to build up again. They were not allowed to fly outside the "no-fly zone" and posed zero threat to Saudi Arabia (especially considering our position out there and ability to step in immediately). He simply didn't have the military power to pose any threat to Saudi Arabia.
So this move is actually bad for Saudi Arabia who will now have to deal with a Shia controlled country. It is why the Saudi Prince came out the other day to bash the occupation of Iraq. I don't think either poses a threat to them, especially with the fact that we'd step in to protect them in a second. But I think their concern is that Iraq will become a breeding ground for anti-Sunni groups that can slowly infiltrate the country and cause trouble.