>John Thornton wrote:
>
>>Attacking China (or whoever) or blockading France doesn't fit that idea
>>as neatly.
>
>Not now, of course, but neither would the U.S. ever use an oil lever
>against either right now. Whether done at the source or destination,
>turning off the oil supply is an act of war. This is all about
>hypotheticals and credibility, isn't it? isn't a major reason the U.S. is
>boss that we can blow everyone up?
>
>Doug
Not completely. Mexico for example generally does what the US wants but I doubt they fear being blown up. I also think that if the US could control the flow of oil that they could use this threat against France more readily than the threat of a blockade. A blockade in this instance would prevent France from acquiring oil but refusing to sell them oil and telling them that they can shop around on the "free market" for oil at a greatly inflated price seems like it would be more palatable to most Americans. Good guys wouldn't blockade France (a NATO friend) but telling France we won't sell them cheap oil could be spun as "just business", a much easier sell at home. The French would see it differently but we all know the French see everything differently, right? I know some countries justifiably fear becoming the targets of US military aggression but for many more I doubt it really seems like a plausible threat. Ann Coulter may want to bomb France but I doubt anyone in this administration would be so inclined. However I could see them putting a little squeeze (or a big one) on their oil supply if they could.
John Thornton