Saudi Arabia gets no aid from the US. It is a donor nation. Kuwait was as well, at least before the Iraq war; haven't found any numbers since.
Egypt has been given US aid and lots of it. They don't have the oil money and I think they were rewarded because Jimmy Carter got Sadat to shake hands with Begin. IMO, the massive aid and friendship to Egypt was theoretically going to show some other area nations that leaving Israel alone could be beneficial.
The Suadi royal family or the kuwaitis or the egyptians are terror regimes in there own right. They torture and kill and oppress as many of their own as hussien. The Saudi's, Kuwaitis and Egyptians are certainly not democracies, nor are they "terror regimes". Please supply data showing that they kill or oppress anywhere near as many as Hussein. Otherwise this is just a piece of BS rhetoric.
For starters, just match this one number:
http://slate.msn.com/Gist/96-09-26/Gist.asp "In 1988, Saddam Hussein savaged the Kurds. His troops razed hundreds of Kurdish villages, massacred thousands of Kurdish fighters and civilians, and forcibly relocated many more to southern Iraq.
A poison-gas attack on the town of Halabja killed as many as 7,000 Kurds."
When have the Saudis, Kuwaitis or Egyptians killed 7,000 of their citizens in one attack on them by military force?
Try checking Human Rights Watch and comparing the reports on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt against Iraq. HRW isn't a real right wing organization but they seem to be able to differentiate between Iraq and the rest.
http://www.hrw.org/index.html It seems to me that what you have missed is this: BOTH the UN and/or the US are very reluctant to militarily interfere in the INTERNAL affairs of any nation. That is if they are abusing their own people it has to be extremely egregious to warrant intervention.
The creation of UN mandated "no fly zones" over Northern & Southern Iraq would be an example. Even at this, it's not designed as an aggressive military operation.
The Balkan situation is another example of military intervention. However, this happened in a nation that basically came apart and split into opposing entities. Internal or not? Could be argued both ways, I suppose.
OTOH, when a nation acts outside its borders, threatening the existence of its neighbors both the UN and the US will and do act militarily. The Prime example of this recently is the Gulf War.
Now, imagine if you will Saudi Arabia attacking Kuwait. Hmmm, pretty far fetched, isn't it?
Kuwait attacking anyone at all?
Egypt? Yeah, possibly. They were in on all the anti-Israel wars. However, it appears that political engagement, massive aid and military exchanges with the US _may_ have made a difference in Egypt. They haven't rattled a saber at any external potential foe since the famous handshake. That may change, but for now at least things seem to be much better than they were in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. And, like it or not, that the result of being "propped up by the West".
Bottom line is the US/UN WILL militarily engage a nation that is acting aggressively outside its own borders. I think that may have been the lesson taken from WW2.
The US/UN WILL NOT militarily engage a nation that acts aggressively within its own borders against its own citizens.
Other means are used to try and evolve the situation to a more suitable one. These include sanctions, aid, political engagement, etc...
How would YOU change Saudi Arabia? Yes, it's a harsh government is some respects and certainly not a democracy (Who says all governments must be a democracy? What right does any outsider have to demand that?).
Will you invade? They aren't attacking anyone outside their borders.
Will you try to secretly destablize thier government so that it changes to something else? Economic Sanctions? They get NO Foreign Aid from the US and they have plenty of oil.
Or will you try to befriend them and show them a better way?
So what's your solution Wotan? It's always far easier to "tear down" than to "build up". What should be the US/UN position vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?
