Seth Sandronsky wrote:
One question. With the world oil supply crunch causing price hikes, why’s
there no move to increase Iraq’s oil production? Iraq has the world’s
second-largest estimated crude oil reserves. The Economist says, "What the
overheated market needs is lots of new oil, now."
I tend to dismiss offhand any claim that the U.S. government ever acts out
of concern for people or principle. There is a need to explain the
continuing policy towards Iraq, and I think that my initial response to the
Gulf War may still hold some weight in explaining its continuance. My
initial feeling that the "enemy" under attack in the Gulf War was at home --
it was the so-called Vietnam-Syndrome.
The goal is to maintain the right and the political capacity of the U.S. to
use military power where, when, and for whatever reason it chooses. Iraqi
children die to illustrate and give force to that right and that capacity.
Carrol
Carrol,
I agree with you that US foreign and domestic policy serves the ruling elite
from Serbia to Sing Sing.
What I'm still unclear about is the rhetoric for more oil production by the
mouthpiece of British capital and the reality of continued UN sanctions
against Iraq, which has the potential capacity to help meet the rising world
oil demand. Not that more oil consumption is the answer to the
energy-environment crisis.
What's the benefit to US rulers and their British attack dogs of keeping
Iraq's oil production at the current level under the sanctions? At what
point does preventing Iraq from having normal economic relations with other
nations become a self-defeating policy for the global system? It has to do
well for US elites to prosper, no?
Seth
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
