thank you for the response, roachboy.
I think, if I interpret your statements correctly, that you, Chomsky, and myself do not differ on our persectives regarding whatever linkages between our foreign policies and oil interests, among other factors.
Chomsky said something very similar to you, according to my reading: that our oil interests are present, important, but not sufficient to explain the timing.
What I do see as a difference, however, is this notion that buttressing our status as a nation-state is a primary motivator, which Chomsky doesn't seem to outline very well in that interview. He seems to hinge it upon establishing power and unraveling social systems (which, I'd like to point out, we are seeing and have seen come into fruition since his analysis). I suspect you agree with these ramifications as do I.
I think your analysis fits with some of his other writings, I was just trying to discern where the critical differences were between his position and yours. I wasn't trying to present an either/or fallacy, although I recognized my response to you implied some implicit assumptions I didn't mean it to carry. Such is the medium and the result of forming viewpoints of one another from our posts' residuals
.
I thought, too late to worry about it, that a better way to phrase my nutshell question would have been: in what ways, if at all, do you distinguish your views regarding oil interests and geopolitics from Chomsky's?
But that's answered enough for me to move on.
I don't really know where to move it to, however, for it appears that not much substance is coming from people who might otherwise present alternate interpretations/critiques of this piece.