On 8/6/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The theory Cole puts out is an impressive hypothesis. I would reject the implications of his final paragraphs, however, which switch from geopolitical to domestic concerns, implying that the 'ultimate' cause is the u.s. need for oil at home. But the bulk of the argument, focusing on u.s. control (and _blocking_ Chinese or Indian (and I would add, EU and Russian) control makes a good deal of sense. I have argued for a couple of years that this war was different from the Vietnam or Korean Wars -- that the U.S. was more serious about it and would not so easily be forced to withdraw as in Vietnam.
"more serious"? the US had many more troops in VN and Korea than in Iraq. It suffered many more deaths and may have used more fire-power (against VN). These were very serious affairs, part of the fight with the Communist Other. That doesn't seem any less serious than a fight over oil. -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in economics, it's the exact opposite." --- Paul Dirac [edited]
