> 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.
There is a difference between actually cutting off supplies (by blockade or by some other means) and a permanent threat to do so that provides leverage to the US. (e.g. The threat to use nukes has been more frequently used than the actual use of nukes. Such threats are very effective.)
> 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.
Apparently, Karzai and Khalilzad were Unocal employees. But I don't know if it's true.
Ulhas