<<If the US does not use Iriqui Oil why is the priority of controll for it very high?>>
Because some of its rivals are much more dependent on it. Japan, for example. Because the consumption of oil is going to skyrocket as the Indian and Chinese economies grow into their natural sizes and they too, as economic rivals of the U.S.A., will need that stuff. Because as the global need for oil expands, everybody will need all they can get and sources like the Mid-East, currently not a large portion of the U.S. imports, will become increasingly more important.
<<We would definately use Cuban sugar, and the reduction of sugar cost might be very good for food and beverage industries .>>
I don't know if that's true or not. There's a substantial potential in the U.S. for growing both sugar cane and sugar beets, although I don't know to what extent that is actualized at present. In any event, let me know when the clout of your food and beverage industries reaches the level of clout of your energy and transportation industries. Also when the need for sugar in the food and bev industries reaches the level of the need for oil in your transportation industry.
<<Our need for controll of oil ,as far as antagonists getting it, is an accomplishment of WWII ever sinse then the open seas have been patrolled by the USN and all skys by the USAF. In time of War our enemys can depend on running short of oil quickly , even Iran or China would. So there is no reason to think that "controll' of oil would be anything like a high priority . >>
I wasn't and Chomsky wasn't referring to the need to control oil in time of war. The obvious connotation of the Chomsky article is control of oil in economic contests. It's inconceivable that in peacetime, the U.S. Navy would interdict oil shipments to India and/or China. That would be like declaring war on them. Furthermore, if you read the article, you will see that Chomsky gives another reason for blockading or making war on Iran (and Iraq) having nothing to do with oil, and that is the Mafia idea of punishment of disobedient satellites. Countries that think they can suddenly take an independent stance in their foreign policies after years or decades of subservience to the U.S.A. or another Western power are a direct threat to the world dominance that the U.S. would like to establish. These countries must be taught a lesson. The disobedience of Iran is clear - - they threw off the tyrannical Shah, whom the "democratic, freedom-loving" U.S.A. had forced upon them and from then to now have shown their hatred of their former oppressors, and struck out on an independent path. This cannot be permitted to continue. The U.S. first convinced Saddam Hussein, their then loyal satrap, to invade Iran, in a disastrous war that took a million lives, and has been trying to undermine the Islamic Republic ever since. This goes beyond oil - - it is disobedience from a bunch of olive-skinned infidels which must be crushed out forever, lest others take up the example.
<<The establishment of democracy is a very high priority . . .>>
Why? Because you say it is? Because your "President" after first claiming the non-existent "danger" of WMD was a very high priority, now claims that the establishment of democracy is the new "very high priority?" That is pure bullshit. It is not a priority of any level in Egypt, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia but suddenly (after the failure to find any WMD in Iraq) it suddenly becomes, in Iraq only, a "very high priority?" The "concern" of the Bush administration for "democracy" in Iraq is bullshit and obvious bullshit at that. It goes against all recent history and all common sense. I really can't see how any intelligent observer of the facts can even consider the possibility that Bush and his associates have even a shred of concern for "democracy" in Iraq, in fact I am positive that alone amongst themselves, they would laugh themselves silly over the idea of any poor sucker being dumb enough to believe their crude lies about "democracy" in Iraq.
<<Mr Chomsky's dismissal of it as a priority at all prevents him from understanding the situation .>>
He understands the situation perfectly. He dismisses it becuase he knows it doesn't fit with any other action of the U.S.A. anywhere else in the Middle East or in the world. Chomsky takes the trouble to show in detail the absurdity of the Bush administration claiming to support "democracy" in Iraq when they won't tolerate the results of it in either Palestine or Lebanon or Venezueala. Here's a quote from the article:
<<In fact, if you look at our policies they're the opposite. Take Palestine. There was a free election in Palestine, but it came out the wrong way. So instantly, the United States and Israel with Europe tagging along, moved to punish the Palestinian people, and punish them harshly, because they voted the wrong way in a free election. That's accepted here in the West as perfectly normal. That illustrates the deep hatred and contempt for democracy among western elites, so deep-seated they can't even perceive it when it's in front of their eyes. You punish people severely if they vote the wrong way in a free election. There's a pretext for that too, repeated every day: Hamas must agree to first recognize Israel, second to end all violence, third to accept past agreements. Try to find a mention of the fact that the United States and Israel reject all three of those. They obviously don't recognize Palestine, they certainly don't withdraw the use of violence or the threat of it -- in fact they insist on it -- and they don't accept past agreements, including the road map. >>
To claim that the U.S. - - which supports virtually every dictatorship in the region with the exception of Iran, a country which DOES hold relatively free elections compared to the U.S. supported regimes - - pursues a democratic policy in Iraq while it supports undemocratic regimes everywhere else is simply to deny reality and common sense.