Simon Elliott wrote in message ...
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?
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.
So? Did they do it? No. A lot of things get "considered". Nixon and
Johnson both "considered" using nukes in Vietnam.
Part of every analysis is to look at all the options and decide what
The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so
(in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As
has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things.
Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it.