Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TigerPaw who wrote (23337)	7/25/2003 9:44:15 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) of 89467

without the oil the attack would have happened elsewhere. In that sense, it is all about oil. Hmmm...still not buying the "all about oil" argument. Yes, as a first step toward hegemony, you need to secure your oil supply (Just ask Hitler). A glance at the Middle East map revels the geoploitical significance of Iraq. Simultaneously bordering Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Iraq fulfills the neo-con dream of dominating the Middle East, in a way that no other country would. It's not that I'm trying to belittle the significance of oil. Rather, I'm just trying see how the "pieces" fit. Oil as a "lubricant" for the hegemony, sure. Oil having a primacy over hegemony? For the neo-cons that seem to be "running the show", that just isn't consistent with my observations. Ever watch Wolfowitz, when he discusses Iraq? This is a man laser focused on a mission. And that mission isn't primarily oil. Oil as a component of the mission, yes. But as a means, not an end. That doesn't mean that there aren't members of this admin for whom oil is the end. But are they driving policy like the neo-cons? Or are they part of that "convergence"? BTW, doesn't Libya have oil? JMO lurqer

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next