> >But the broader goal of US strategic control over the world supply
> >of oil seems to be achieved at this point.
>
> We've been here before, but just what does that get the U.S.? Are the
> Bushies operating on some antique model of empire, in which control
> over land and resources confers some economic advantage? Just what
> would that advantage be? They're not going to cut off Japan or
> France, are they?
It's a question of threat to use certain weapons or instruments, rather than their actual use. Like nuclear weapons, e.g. They are useful to keep your allies in check and deter potential emerging powers.
If your logic is applicable, why does the US need the veto power in the UNSC, the US could blockade any nation that opposed it in the UN. I think there is a ladder of escalation in a conflict, actual and potential and the US (like any other power) needs weapons and instruments at each step on the ladder.
>If they wanted to, they could just blockade them
> anyway.
They could blockade Japan, but at what cost? I would be much cheaper in terms casualties and money to block or threaten to block the Straits of Hormuz and/or Straits of Malacca. These are faraway from Japan and Japan lacks that kind blue water navy to call the bluff. The same is true of France or China.
Ulhas
.