>>
By offering an implausible rationale, the administration raises suspicion, particularly outside the United States, that it must have a secret agenda for ousting Hussein. Many people think that President George W. Bush wants to control Iraq's oil fields on behalf of U.S. companies. In mid-January, the German weekly Der Spiegel ran a cover story titled, "Blood for Oil." But anyone familiar with positions taken by American oil companies knows that this is implausible. In the late 1990s, oil companies lobbied to remove sanctions on Iraq. And most oil executives are extremely wary about the Bush policies toward Iraq, which they fear will destabilize the region.
<<


Some of us here have devoted a lot of input to the issue of oil. We have also made both serious comments and jokes about Bush admins relationship to the oil industry.

The above paragraph is a naive in stating ...

>>
George W. Bush wants to control Iraq's oil fields on behalf of U.S. companies.
<<

That is a *rather weak* argument but it is one that can be debated (as is being done by this journalist).

What some of us here keep *hammering* is the need for the US to control the supply of oil, a substance that is (as has been stated many times in govt policy docs) the lifeblood of the US economy. Oil is *critical* to US stability and health. Strategically and economically US does not want to have to rely on other countries controlling that suppy and always being *good friends*, that doesn't always happen. It doesn't matter if it is th Dutch, Russians, French or even British. US wants to ensure it has the military power in place to step in should any other country attempt to manipulate control of oil until such time as US can free itself of need for cheap M.E. oil & that we all know is decades away.

US does not want a dictator in M.E. who has the potential via Nukes WMD etc: to get tempted to use those weapons to change the power base of the M.E. This is what Saddam Hussien is feared for. He had the charisma among Arabs, to unite them & to use Arab oil to control other countries.

Just watch what happens with Iran as it moves toward nuke capability - it will replace Saddam as the badman of the M.E. (once Saddam has been properly neutralized).

So this 'its all about oil' argument keeps getting warped & twisted & in some forms it comes across as weak whereas the issue of *control* is the strong case and exactly why a charade of reasons to attack Iraq, are being played out. US just cannot state point-blank that 'control of oil' is the reason. There are too many peoples & countries that would not understand nor care & many would see it as naked imperialism of the highest order whereas 'we' tend to see it as hearalding a new opportunity for world peace - but on *our* (US) terms.

Cheers

Doug Marker