>Apologies for not having specific references handy but
>I believe the best argument (as in the most coherent,
>not necessarily the most correct) put forward to link
>'oil', understood broadly, to the invasion of Iraq is
>the desire of neocons to ensure US dominance well into
>the 21st century by placing a powerful American
>military presence at the hub of world oil extraction
>and shipment.
Yes, we've discussed this before. And as I've said, I don't see how this makes much sense - what really is gained by this "control" that couldn't be accomplished by other means? It would be far more efficient to cut off oil supplies to China, say, by blockading China or attacking tankers heading there than it would be to turn off some taps in Iraq, which would cause lots of collateral economic damage. It may be that they really think this way, but it seems like a holdover from some other time, when control of resources and real estate was more important.
Doug