Suppose that Oil was necessary for National Defense…

[Junkdrawer]

And suppose that hegemony of the Middle East was a US foreign policy goal since at least WWII…

Further suppose that, although very underhanded things like installing dictators and supporting the use of WMD to suppress uprisings were done to pursue this foreign policy goal, members of the Senate, the Administration and the Armed Services were strictly forbidden from disclosing these things because of National Secrecy Laws.

Now, suppose that, in order to place troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, we allowed a radical Arab group a free shot on the homeland – but that this “free shot’ went horribly, horribly wrong.

Do you think the Senate and Armed Services would keep such a secret? Do you think that may go a long way towards explaining why so many top government officials, both Democrat and Republican, go so far out of their way to find innocent explanations for 9-11?

[Toots]

1. Suppose it was Gold (money) instead

Should we take it from every country so we could buy more bullets to kill them with. What's the difference? Money.. oil.. neither would belong to us and stealing it in the name of National Defense is absurd.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Well, between WWII and 1990, the excuse was: If we don't, the USSR...

will. And after that, I'd refer you to the PNAC website. Now, make no mistake, I disagree with this brand of Realpolitik, but I'm trying to understand why people go so far out of their way to cover for BushCo.

[jimshoes]

2. It certainly makes one wonder...

I just can't see the 9-11 commission coming to the same conclusion had Al Gore been sworn in as President in 2001. I suspect it would have been a scathing rebuke of the Dem administration, with blame going to every past dem admin all the way back to Carter. But the pukes get a pass instead. Lack of imagination is such an understatement.

[stavka]

4. Clearly there are faults in this "suppose"

We would have never propped up the French and British post 1945 the way we did if this was a strategic goal going back that far.

Secondly - we don't need the oil for national defense, only economic reasons. In a real defense situation i.e. a real war. We could manage just fine without imports for many years.

Even the Germans fought a war with no oil imports for a full year.

[htuttle]

5. You misunderstand the full breadth of 'National Defense'

The well-being of US (and formerly US) corporations is the reason for the global nature of the US military. The ultimate goal of any US military action is almost always benefit to one or more US corporations.

There is no such thing as 'only economic reasons' as far as US foreign policy is concerned, and it's been this way for at least a century.

[stavka]

8. ...I disagree

there is no other explanation for repeated invasions and coups by the US in this hemisphere, other than preserving corporate economic interests.

We haven't been endangered by anybody in this hemisphere since 1812

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. Sure. Nicaragua.

It was only 2 days drive from Texas!
Or so said the not so dearly departed Reagan.

/end sarcasm

[Junkdrawer]

6. Jimmy Carter, in his last State of the Union address said...

any "attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States," and pledged to defend that interest by "any means necessary, including military force."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_Security_War.html

[stavka]

7. ...and he said that

In the context of the Soviet Union (and her allies) gaining control of the resources in the region back when we painted the world in three colors.