(Note to literalists: the Watched column presently contains only a smattering of 'warblogs' because the facilitator of the template-change--Dr. Menlo--is not very familiar with them, and will be adding more as they are sent to him. Also, this blog may contain areas of allusion, satire, subtext, context and possibly even a dash of the surreal: wannabe lit-crits beware.)
Control
[Watch this space for: Pentagon and Petroleum, The Media is only as Liberal as the Corporations Who Own Them, Wash Down With, and Recalcify]
WARBLOGGER WATCH
Saturday, September 28, 2002
I'm still troubled by the Hitchens piece in Mirror, particularly these lines:
Just on the material aspect - I love it when people darkly describe the coming intervention as "blood for oil", or equivalent gibberish.
Does this mean what it appears to mean, namely that oil is not worth fighting over?
Or that it's no cause for alarm that the oil resources of the region are permanently menaced by a crazy sadist who has already invaded two of his neighbours?
Hitchens is of course too smart to take labored exception to the above, so he simply dismisses it as a question unworthy of attention. Given the resources present in the area, oil would be a factor - be it primary, tertiary, or introduced post facto by opportunists - in any conflict. Hitchens knows this. But when he asks if "oil is not worth fighting over," would he likewise condone America's disgraceful behavior in the Philippines, perpetrated when rubber and other commodities were of key value to the country. He has registered his opinion against such acts in the past. Why is he so cavalier in the face of such concerns today? posted by Anonymous12:32 AM
The Watchers
WBW: Keeping track of the war exhortations of the warbloggers.