On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Jeff G. wrote: > > > Sure it is. Korea isn't near any countries that produce oil, thus can't > > affect profits for the oil companies. > > On a slightly less tinfoil note, NK does happen to hold the entire city of > Seoul hostage, and the state serves an important buffer purpose between > the Westernized SK and China. Saying 'LOL OIL LOL' is all well and good > when you're trying to keep the beat with the rest of Team Lefty, but it > does tend to obscure a goodly amount of geopolitical realities. Can't. Get. Away. Of course we can't waltz into NK. But, anyway, even if I think that those on the pro-torture side of the aisle (see the Gonzalez confirmation or http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/02/like_something_.html) will acknowledge that we would have been much less likely to have gone into Iraq if it weren't for its oil and its proximity to a lot more oil, I don't think oil was high on the list of reasons we went in. That list would be to establish permanent bases there (since OBL forced us to abandon our positions in SA) with an eye towards Iran etc, to show our willingness to use force post-9/11, to get the illusory WMDs, to establish a friendly govt in a critical region, to establish a friendly democracy in a critical region as a way of spreading democracy, to stop the less-than-ideal permanent state of siege and quash a horrible dictator, and to support our democratic ally Israel. Insuring access to oil was probably somewhere towards the end of the list. The whole mess wouldn't have arisen without the oil though.