Isn't is straightforward to assume that the Bushwhackers invaded Iraq because they wanted to
(1) control a strategic oil source so that they could make sure that oil prices wouldn't fall too low (for, e.g., the profits of their friends) _or_ rise too high (for, e.g., the health of the US economy). (2) control a country with a strategic location vis-a-vis a bunch of other countries that produce oil. (3) deal with an enemy of a loyal ally of the US, Israel. (4) get rid of a former ally and replace him with a "team player." and/or (5) encourage the spread of neo-liberalism around the world, along with the concomitant profit opportunities for their cronies. This list may not be complete (and may not be in order of importance). But why in heck does the invasion have to be justified by a _single_ motive? The way I understand politics, on the other hand, is that people rule a country and attain their personal goals only if they form coalitions with other interest groups. This means that they may have to compromise and that things get done when they serve a variety of different overlapping and mutually-reinforcing goals. The current crop of GOPsters have united a coalition of several different groups, in no particular order of importance and some of which overlap: (1) the fundamentalist Protestant conservatives and other "cultural conservatives" (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.) (2) the hard-core Zionists and neo-conservatives. (3) the oil industry and other energy companies. (4) companies that wanted to avoid law-suits and the like, including the obligations associated with asbestos (this includes Halliburton, I believe). (5) privateers, who want to profit by skimming the cream from the public sector via "privatization" (of profit, but not risk). Again, the list may not be complete. But this kind of list suggests something that we should all know: in a coalition of this sort, there will always be internal tensions. Sometimes there will be a conflict between "what's good for a group _now_" and their long-term interest. The Democrats/liberals don't seem to be able to develop a strong coalition at all, being torn between the modern yuppie "lifestyle" liberals and the old-fashioned New Deal coalition. On 6/14/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any comment? Carrol Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground Did the U.S. invade Iraq to tap its oil reserves or to make sure they stayed under the sand? By Greg Palast 06/14/06 "AlterNet" -- -- World oil production today stands at more than twice the 15-billion a-year maximum projected by Shell Oil in 1956 -- and reserves are climbing at a faster clip yet. That leaves the question, Why this war? Did Dick Cheney send us in to seize the last dwindling supplies? Unlikely. Our world's petroleum reserves have doubled in just twenty-five years -- and it is in Shell's and the rest of the industry's interest that this doubling doesn't happen again. The neo-cons were hell-bent on raising Iraq's oil production. Big Oil's interest was in suppressing production, that is, keeping Iraq to its OPEC quota or less. This raises the question, did the petroleum industry, which had a direct, if hidden, hand, in promoting invasion, cheerlead for a takeover of Iraq to prevent overproduction? It wouldn't be the first time. If oil is what we're looking for, there are, indeed, extra helpings in Iraq. On paper, Iraq, at 112 billion proven barrels, has the second largest reserves in OPEC after Saudi Arabia. That does not make Saudi Arabia happy. Even more important is that Iraq has fewer than three thousand operating wells... compared to one million in Texas. Full at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13625.htm
-- Jim Devine / "Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." -- Bertrand Russell
