doug> and futures traders. I think Chomsky is right that the U.S. is hot
doug> to "control" the oil for strategic reasons - for leverage over
doug> Japan and the EU, mainly.
This is also a point he made, repeatedly, in his talk in Austin yesterday.
It occured to me when he made it, though, that it runs counter to the common assertion, mostly by Greens in my experience, that development of viable alternative fuel sources (air, solar, electric-combustion hybrid car engines seem the most popular) would have a positive effect on US foreign policy, especially in the ME. Especially ironic since this *is* a common refrain of Texas Greens, one of whom, Rahul Mahajan, introduced Chomsky. (I've stopped paying attention to the Greens here, so I don't know if this is a point Rahul makes, but it is a point Greens made during the 2000 electoral cycle.)
If Chomsky is right that Washington wants to control ME oil resources, but doesn't *need* those resources presently (or historically) for US energy needs, then part of the Green linkage of enviromentalism to US foreign policy is dead wrong.
Kendall Clark