devil writes
Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way
of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the
only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise
makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it.

What do you make of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the
Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to
British government documents just made public.

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British
government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed
assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations
in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same
in Abu Dhabi.

--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/