On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Philip Hart wrote: > 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. Oh, by all means. I don't consider securing vital resources an inappropriate US priority. As you say, it's pretty far down the list, but it's on it. pe