Saudi Envoy: Iraq War Was 'Colonial' and About Oil

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) was a colonial war and there were some in the United States who saw it as a means of getting their hands on Iraqi oil, a senior Saudi ambassador was quoted as saying Monday.


Prince Turki al-Faisal, ambassador to Britain and Ireland, told the Irish Independent newspaper Washington's stated aims in going to war in Iraq masked a more cynical reality.

"No matter how exalted the aims of the U.S. in that war, in the final analysis it was a colonial war very similar to the wars conducted by the ex-colonial powers when they went out to conquer the rest of the world ...," Prince Turki said.

"What we have heard from American sources they were there to remove the weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was supposed to have acquired."


EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040524/ts_nm/iraq_saudi_alfaisal_dc

I don't want their lame criticism when they sponsor global terror. They can tell someone else.

The Saudis are jumping off the sinking Bushcon bandwagon just like the GOPers in Congress are!

war all about getting our hands on Iraqi oil for after all we are the good guys who wear white hats and our purposes are noble: that of the good guys vs. the bad guys, our quest to stamp out evil throughout the world.

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.

DU Moderator

this guy would not be a senior Saudi Ambassador.

It would have been a lot easier for us to conquer and colonize Saudi Arabia than Iraq and Saudi Arabia has a lot more oil.

Same with Kuwait. If we just wanted an oil colony, we just could have annexed Kuwait. We could have called it a potectorate.