Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> John K. Taber wrote:
>
> >Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> asks:
> >
> >> Ok, so does anyone understand the pressure for U.S.
> >intervention in
> >> Liberia?
> >
> >Noblesse oblige?
>
> Daphne Wysham of the Institute for Policy Studies has a press release
> out today saying it's all about - you guessed it - oil. In Nigeria.
>
The trouble with saying that it's "about oil" is that it can be about oil in so many different ways, but the phrase suggests mere profit grubbing. As a thought experiment, would WW I have occurred had there not been knowledge of oil in Persia? Would the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad ever have been projected except for the same reason? Would such a railroad have raised such consternation in London & Paris had there been no oil in Persia?
For that matter, would Germany have invaded the SU had there been plenty of oil in central Europe?
And how important was Indonesian oil as a background for Pearl Harbor?
Oil has been at the center of geopolitics for over a century, but I still agree with you that saying it's "about oil" is in specific instances not very illuminating.
Carrol