I'd be interested in any evidence, and I use the term
loosely here to include a coherent thought process,
that supports the assertion that this is all a ruse to
seize a control of the oil markets. No one provided
such an argument in 1990. And I still have yet to hear
one. You could be the first.
--- Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >the argument
> >for war seems fairly uncomplicated and does not
> >conditional on bold scientific claims.
> I agree, the argument for war is fairly
> uncomplicated. The US
> government wants to seize control of Iraqi oil
> supplies, redraw the
> map of the Middle East in its own interests, and use
> its massive
> military superiority to maintain and extend US
> global dominance. As
> the now infamous September 2000 Project for the New
> American Century
> report put it: ""While the unresolved conflict with
> Iraq provides the
> immediate justification, the need for a substantial
> American force
> presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the
> regime of Saddam
> Hussein, " with the goal being "maintaining global
> preeminence...and shaping the international security
> order in line
> with American principles and interests." Or as Colin
> Powell told the
> House Armed Services Committee, the U.S. needs to be
> "the bully on
> the block" in order to "deter any challenger from
> ever dreaming of
> challenging the U.S. on the world stage."
> Perhaps we should have explained that "the people"
> doesn't mean "the
> privileged classes".
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more