No, I read it as an ad hominen. Hence the "Saddam's supporters." It was a PR smear against those with a veto. They oppose us because the other side has bought their support with oil contracts.
> If it wasn't about securing a favorable geo-political
> position from which to force Europeans to ingratiate
> themselves to the "new" Iraqi government, then
> what was it about? And why would anyone ingratiate
> themselves to that government if it weren't for oil?
> Do you disagree what I said to Doug in the post prior
> to the one you've responded to?
I was not defending the neo-cons. I was not denying their push for hegemony, nor that they desire this on their own terms with a profound distrust, and even contempt, for most of the rest of the world. I was simply confounded by the post I responded to. I did not and do not understand how it demonstrated that this was a war for oil. That's what I took to be the topic at hand: _how_ is this a war for oil?
There seem to be several issues entangled here. One is how the war's architects understand the global economics and politics of oil. Second is whether a war for oil is possible in any meaningful sense. Doug seems to suggest that it could be the case that a) a war for oil doesn't make sense, and b) these guys think it does, and are willing to go to war with the entire Middle East to achieve it. As I just said, my interest in this thread is with "a." I don't have a definitive answer, but am not confident in the answers usually given.
I was not accusing you of being reductive and saying it's all about the oil. I know that is not your position. Apologies if I gave such an impression.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!