And I wouldn't say that the whole idea of gold was to bribe favors from the powerful.  I'd say it was a tangible manifestation of something of agreed upon value that could be used to back up pieces of paper that we would trade -- something to show so it wasn't all just trust.

But, if a monarch or country printed pieces of paper based on gold that was hidden somewhere, but in reality that gold had been looted -- would the rulers still fight to protect the hiding spot?  It's been shown throughout history that they'll fight harder to protect the revelation that there's no gold than they would to protect the actual gold.

So at what point does it make a difference?  And when one thing is a symbol of something else that may or may not even exist, does that make the subsequent warring any less real?  Because I'd argue that much of the behavior we're witnessing right now is a result of something like gold fever, even though there's no gold involved.  

The oil, having some useful purpose, actually clouds our vision when we're trying to understand what's going on.  Just because we have a fiat currency, doesn't eliminate the human impulses behind certain behaviors we've seen in the past.  That's why I think some things can be about the oil and have nothing to do with oil at the same time.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes