>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> >And in any event, isnt control of the worlds energy resources worth
>> >something?
>>
>> It might, if someone could explain to me what "control" means.
>
>Control only makes sense in time of war. Then it does make sense. Or it
>did -- back when we had enemies that could conceivably threaten us. We're
>still acting like we do.
>
>You're totally right about the economic argument. But you can't disprove
>a strategic argument with an economic one.
>
>I tried to furnish the strategic disproof in my earlier post
>
>URL: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2003/2003-March/008879.html
>
>for every possible meaning of "strategic control."
Megadittoes on this. It's like the neocons have a 19th century sense of imperial real estate combined with a Cold War understanding of strategic threats.
Doug