Our warships were there in I-I war to protect the flow of oil, Iraqi oil. Specifically, Iraqi oil being shipped in Saudi and Kuwaiti tankers. Our initial presence in the Gulf was minimal, mainly as observers and later as escorts for the tanker convoys. The buildup of US naval presence in the gulf leading to the shelling of Iranian drilling platforms was in response to two specific incidents, an attack by an Iraqi fighter plane on a US warship and a tanker collision with an Iranian mine. We shelled, bombed, and in one case sent commandos to set demo charges on two Iranian drilling platforms in direct response to a collision with an Iranian mine by a US warship, the USS Samuel B. Roberts. The Iranian Navy responded by shooting up a few tankers flying the American flag. The reaction was swift and severe, comprised of the destruction of the offending Iranian gunship and two Iranian Frigate groups, in accordance with the military doctrines: the Weinberger Doctrine, which stated that the use of force should be reluctant but overwhelming, and the Reagan administration proclamation following Vietnam, that "henceforth the U.S. would only fight when its national interests were clearly at stake, and it would apply overwhelming force rather than commit a limited force in increments"

Remember that this was a war, and there were two sides to that war. Think about this: The Iraqi's bombed one of our ships, and we still supported Iraq. We were against Iran from the start, following the Embassy raid. Even so, we did not attack ONE Iranian tanker or refinery, only two relatively small-production platforms.

Then there's the first Gulf War. That war was to protect, suprise, the flow of oil from Kuwait, and the sanctions following the war did not limit Iraqi oil on the market, it restricted the compensation for that oil, under the UN's 'Oil for Food' regime. In this way Saddam could be punished financially without depriving the Iraqi people of food- a win-win for US policy. We still got their oil, and we punished Saddam and looked as though we had humanitarian concerns all at the same time. It was an adaptation of the cold war 'Isolation' tactic, modified to keep the oil flowing- and to mitigate the criticisms of Isolationism and its negative effects on the populace, as demonstrated in Cuba.

While there is certainly market manipulation practiced and coordinated between governments and Big Oil, vast conspiracy theories about oil motives in global conflict are ill founded. Correlations between price fluctuations and conflict in oil-producing regions are natural in a futures-driven commodity market. And again, conflicts arise over who controls oil , not how much oil is being produced.

As for your thoughts on a Chinese invasion, I never mentioned anything like that. I said that instability in Iraq will spill over to become regional instability. The very delicate balance of power in the middle east is the single greatest threat to American security, and has been for a century. Actions taken in the past to preserve the flow of oil at that time have resulted in greater catastrophe and conflict today. If that balance is broken you can be sure that America and every other nation will do whatever it takes to secure energy resources.

As for your comparison between China and Japan- the Japanese 'dominance' you are talking about was driven almost entirely on the innovation/production side, there was no complimentary consumer strength behind their ascendancy- a fact belied by the market crash of the early nineties. What you saw there was a natural market correction resulting from the inflationary 'bubble' of Japanese innovation in the emerging electronics market during the late eighties. The same thing happened to the American market in 2000, after a decade of Internet and e-commerce innovation proved unsustainable. The main difference between China and Japan is the strength of their consumer market. A comparison between the United States during the end of the Inustrial Revolution and China now is more appropriate- an emerging power with immense human resources and the inherent market advantage that comes from the disarray and lower wages of a developing nation. The Chinese also have a national dream much like the American dream, and that is what is driving their ascendancy in the world economy- the motivational power and innovation of a 'new era' matched with the widespread exploitation of untapped resources, in this case cheap labor.

The world is a complicated place, but it is not complicated by vast shadow conspiracies and omniscient tycoons playing games- these men simply take advantage of the larger evolution of world culture and commerce. We want to buy middle-east oil and they want to sell it to us.

What you are missing and keep assuming is that we are fighting to keep oil from Iraq flowing. We do not.

For as much of an argument as can be made that this war is to control Iraq's oil, since 1980 every effort we've made has been to keep it and Iran's oil off the market. The last thing our petro leaders seem to want is Iran or Iraq (or Venezuala lately) from dumping oil on the world market at cheap prices. During the Iran Iraq war, oil was being torpedoed in ships off the gulf. Our ships, ostensibly sent to protect oil deliveries, spent most of their time shelling oil platforms. Following Desert Storm I, Iraq's oil deliveries were severly restricted, allegedly to punish Saddam. Since Desert Storm II, oil production is now less than what it was during the boycott of the 1990s.

What this has meant for our petro-politicions is a huge jump in the value of the oil reserves they do control. It also opens up their vast holdings in oil sands and shale for development. This isn't about keeping oil cheap and available, its about keeping it expensive and out of other's hands.

Worst case scenario: Iraq pumps oil like rum for a drunken sailor and ships it all to China. China becomes a dominant economic power, like Japan in the 80's. We get our oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigerio, Norway, Alaska, Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. It may cost us oh about 3.50 a gallon, still cheap compared to Europe and we may be forced to conserve and shift to enviromental friendly alternative energy.

Of course, you can drink the kool aid and think China will use all that oil to build huge oil powered arks to send their million man army across the pacific to conquer us and force us to worship Confucious. (or nuke us for no apparant reason, just like that new reality show Jericho - I mean really, has anyone actually heard from Nebraska lately?)

Bottom line, this isn't about cheap oil. Its about generals playing with tanks, and captains of industry playing with tankers.