OK, smart guy, if you're so convinced Iraq and Iran are about OIL, how come we didn't invade the Middle East in the 70's when OPEC cut production? The effects then were far more severe and uncertain.

You make a good point about China's and India's increased consumption. But then our response is to invade and occupy Iraq? Bomb Iran's infrastructure? Why not just do what we've done with Saudi Arabia? Or why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? They have more oil there, and it's a more sparsely inhabited place. Saudi Arabia was also home to most of the bastards that attacked us on 9/11, right? You'd think that would've been an easy sell.

The course of action taken only makes sense as an act of desperation when the barrels are totally empty. The occupation of Iraq has cost (follow the money) more money on a day-to-day basis than WWII.

What is the point of hording oil when your economy is ruined in the process? This is not a stable long term solution. Our country's financial ability to maintain such a costly occupation is not endless.

And do you really that if we control Iraq (and somehow therefore "enough" oil) China and India are just going to let us have it? Oil-starved people are not going to go out without a fight.

Yes, I am well aware of the Eisenhower-sanctioned 1953 CIA coup that overthrew the Iranian President (Mossadegh?) and put the Shah in power.

That was definitely motivated by OIL, as Iran had just nationalized its reserves.

OK. I am not denying that US policy is in part directed by OIL.

However, I am saying I am skeptical that our current occupation of Iraq is motivated by OIL. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why a full-scale invasion of Iraq? Why not a CIA coup to topple his regime? Was Husseins grip on power more solid than in Iran? Why Iraq then? Why not Iran in 2003? Or why not Saudi Arabia? They are a less densely populated nation that has even MORE OIL than Iraq. Seems like that would make a better strategic target than Iraq if you're after OIL. And they even had the war gift-wrapped: 19 of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi citizens if I remember correctly.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe the Bush administration really is that stupid... to think that the American public & the rest of the world would tolerate such a naked grab for resources in the form of an unending occupation of Iraqi territory.

As incompetent as they are, they know exactly what the bottom line is in Iraq: War for profit's sake.

Hey, if history proves me wrong, I'll admit it. But it's like Lenin said, (thinking of the Big Lebowski here) you look to see who profits, and there is your culprit.

Adm. George Stephen Morrison, father of Lizard King JIM MORRISON, had his naval career cut short because he apparently advocated a military response to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. From the wiki...

Some believe his Naval career may have been slowed by political undertones surrounding his analysis of the USS Liberty incident which occurred in 1967. Morrison opposed the official US Navy response to the attack, and proposed an immediate and swift economic and military response against Israel for the attack on an official US Navy ship.

Morrison's analysis and political motivation was at odds with the soft non-militaristic response ultimately taken by the US State Department and US Navy. Morrison asserted Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty, trying to disguise Israel torpedo boats as Syrian vessels in an attempt to provoke a war between the United States and Syria. This would have increased United States military and financial assistance during the Six Day War.

Come on baby, light my fire...

...are increasingly apt.

We have our Pravda, our Gulag, and the "Party." Membership in which guarantees Pravda will write gushing stories about you and you will not end up in the Gulag as long as you toe the party line.

Remember what Nietzche said about fighting monsters?

I agree with everything you said, however, this is a matter of substance over form.

Certainly, not every American gets their news from the MSM. The MSM is not nominally one monolithic entity. However, enough do that by carefully controlling the line transmitted by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, NYT, etc., they can garner *enough* support (or deter enough dissent) to do exactly what they want to do.

I wasn't making the comparison to the USSR in a political sense; in many ways, a comparison to NAZI Germany can be equally apt.

My point is that the Pentagon's tactics are more akin to the practices of a One-Party, Totalitarian gov't, than we like to think. They are not the what you'd expect in a Democracy that values it's "freedom of the press."

I can only hope that the dwindling ratings received by MSM TV news are evidence that the people are starting to wake up. I think the burdgeoning assault on the "blogosphere" is further evidence of this. They are beginning to sense that their magic spell isn't working anymore.