A good and timely article.

Now that Bush, Rice, Cheney and other habituals of the oil industry no longer control the US and, by association, Australia, the true magnitude of oil as a determinant of US behavior, might be revealed.

Then again it might not. The continuing importance of Middle East oil to the US economy means that the same US tendency to veil its policy of securing oil through military might will continue. And Australia will continue to do its bit to assist.

On my website in June 2006 I wrote:

"The Left writes of the oil connection...but their thoughts are unacceptable to the mainstream of conventional opinionaters. The rightwing oil industry is also aware of the connection but dare not shed light on oil Realpolitik. I am not of the Left or the Right.

This is not to deny that other reasons for invading Iraq were also significant. It is just that mention of oil and America's utilization of its military dominance to secure oil supplies is a no-go zone for mainstream discussion.

Perhaps some learned scholar from Harvard will “discover” the oil reason in 2009 (by some coincidence). People will then nod wisely in agreement “of course”."

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-unspeakable-foreign-policy-factor.html

Peter Coates

Look, there are about 4.2 million biological forms on this planet, and they are all hungry.

Likewise, one of those biological species, us, has created thousands of social organisms, and guess what? They are all hungry too. The biggest, fastest and most powerful get the most control and best pickings. That’s the way the real world is, get over it and move on.

Rehashing history won’t change anything, fact. Might it change the future? Only if you can convince consumers in the developed nations to stop buying, reduce their growth and their dependency resources and fossil based energy. I suppose you would make the case that this would be good. You would of course, need to factor in that 65% of the worlds wealth and production capacity is owned and operated by the G8 nations. The G8 nations shrink and the other 230 nations do what exactly, become extinct?

Now we can see what Saddam's real sin was: selling oil in Euros
Now we can also see why Iran is being villified: they too want to sell oil in Euros.
America, land of the free will do practically *anything* (kill, villify, destroy!) to keep the market in their favour.
spindoc: You are too cynical. The Truth matters.
Politicians lying is one thing: we expect it. Lying and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents while saying "God backs me", however is just insanity.
The press completely avoiding the obvious truth and pushing a false agenda that enriched a few and killed many...No, I will not "get over it" I will fight thank-you-very-much! We should never have let the press get controlled by folks in bed with terrorist business. Our political and business leaders have been/(are?) glorified mobsters, nothing more and you want us all to just ignore it?!! Civilisation ends that way mate!
If anyone on the street contemplates the approach of lie, kill, destroy to make profit they would rightly be considered criminal, but Bush/Howard? Noooo, they are statesmen!
What is *really* bad about all this is that the population is quite willing to accept "leaders" rotten to the core because they throw a few bones in their direction. Howard sparked up generational warfare and wedged every traditional Australian social issue. By "dog whisteling" in all directions he got support from people who only realised later that it was just *talk*.
Bush used stupid religious people to vote against their very principles by branding himself "one of them". People in herds are so dumb!
Hitler/Bush and far worse can and will reappear because people don't care about truth and will follow a criminal if they dress right, praise their particular herd and chastise their social foes.
Anyone who *still* believes the Iraq war was anything but an economic ploy is truly, tragically, lost to the real world, and a tool of evil to boot.
Sorry folks, but I cannot gather even a skerrik of respect for fools that enable mass-murdering profiteers.

Sorry spindoc but I have to follow this up:
You agree that it was all about oil?
You know that the whole "regime change" was because Saddam was no longer a lapdog (You *do* know about Iran/Iraq war and the US involvement I assume)
So you probably also know that the Iran hoo-ha is all about oil in Euros...the other stuff is just smoke. You remember the CIA selling cocaine to arm subversives to undermine a government...
Basically all this is OK because..."its a jungle out there and ethics are for losers".
This appears to be the official position of the Neo-Lib/Far Right and you are still proud of this? Do you not see the danger of this "unrepentant schoolyard bully" approach?
Trouble with being rich and powerful and displaying that sort of arrogance is that it only works in a crowd of rich and powerful.
The US (and by association Australia) will never be trusted on the world stage. We can never say "play fair" and be taken seriously. If you are to continue with this approach then the war will be brought to us, but not when we want it to. No more berating the Chinese for human rights abuses: that would be hypocritical as *we* mass murder thousands for profit. If we are branded "evil" enough by activities and attitudes like this then it will justify all sorts attacks on the West in future. Like everything else the Neo-Libs did there was a small gain in the short term for the very few, at a massive cost to the rest of us for a long time.
Short term profiteering is *not* wise and can be very destructive.
I do not believe in God, but I do believe in Good. Seems the religious
Right is fine with God the fantasy but won't have a bar of Good for people.

What can I say Ozandy? Your post is one long “hissy fit”, multiple raw nerves held together with the vilification of the individual leaders that you choose to hate.

When you personalize your hatred you will be locked into a time when that person was relevant. By maintaining your Bush Rage you are stopping yourself from moving on.

Ozandy, George W. Bush has gone!! Get over it and move on.

Our western politicians each reflect their nation, the American people voted for their president and that is their business not yours. You have to stop throwing the guilt and confusion you feel at someone else’s leader. At the very least you need to pick on someone new, or are you destined to be forever stuck in the Bush era?

In defence of Ozandy, maybe it's reasonable to keep reminding people of where they have just come from so they will recognise some warning signs when they are being led back down the same route by new rulers.

The last crowd were just the culmination of all the misdeeds of previous administrations, except that modern communications have made many things more obvious to a lot more people.

Hi all,

Was reading an interesting book some months ago 'All the Shah's men' by Stephen Kinzer.

It documents the historical events from the British down to the present US policy on the Middle East.

Well worth the effort.

spindoc would have us not discuss the legacy of the Bush administration simply because he was removed from office two and a half months ago.

In fact the evil, destructive legacy of the rule of Bush, and the PNAC for which he was the public face, will endure for years, or decades, unless President Barack Obama were to decide to break decisively with that legacy. So far he hasn't.

Obama has largely continued with Bush's policy of throwing public money to prop up the parasitic finance sector instead of focusing on building the real economy.

Most critically, Obama has not made any moves to conduct a proper investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Vice President Joe Biden continues to utter the Big Lie of the Bush years that Islamic extremists in Afghanistan orchestrated the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and uses that to justify the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and its extension into Pakistan.

For more information, see http://911oz.com, http://911blogger.com, http://911truth.org, "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82 etc.

Democracy is an ugly business, but it's the best anyone has come up with. If Ralph Nader hadn't siphoned votes away from the democrats in Florida in 2000, President Gore would've been the one responding to September 11, and Dick Cheney would be an obscure millionaire. Of course, even as we continue to wring our hands about the American invasion of Iraq, Iraqis are increasingly happy about their Saddam-free country (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=7058272&page=1).

So yes, there's no question that with Bush and Cheney running the show, it was all about oil and dollars and economic hegemony. The US (and its allies like Australia) have never shown much interest invading countries run by murderous dictators who don't control vast reserves of lucrative commodities. But as long as OzAndy and the rest of us want oil, our governments and the rapacious corporate interests that we allow to influence them will continue to do economically sensible, morally reprehensible things. President Nader and Prime Minister Milne would shake things up. But we better change the way political parties (and therefore democratic elections) are funded.

See you at the bowser, Andy.

WebVox's post is a dishonest attempt to shift moral culpability for the crimes of Bush and his allies onto the shoulders of ordinary people.

He is implying that by invading Iraq, in order to seize its oil, Bush and Howard were doing no more ordinary folks like you, me and Ozandy secretly deep down wanted them to do.

I would suggest to WebVox that he speak for himself. He may find it morally acceptably for countries like the US and Australia, whose rulers allowed their own oil wealth to be squandered, to seize the oil of other people, but I certainly don't, and I very much doubt that Ozandy does either.

I think any claims of support by Iraqis themselves for the invasion coming from that article linked to by WebVOx should be taken with a grain of salt.

First, ask yourself: If the war actually was fought fought for oil as even WebVox acknowledges in his peculiar twisted amoral way, then how many ordinary Iraqis are likely to find that acceptable?

According to credible sources perhaps over 1,000,000 Iraqis may have died as a result of the 2003 invasion and 5 million are internal refugees. It may cost US taxpayers $3.2trillion (see http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2185813.htm)

Does anyone seriously maintain that Bush really squandered that much money, caused so many deaths and so much destruction for the benefit of Iraqis, or even US citizens?

Whatever veneer of democratic consent appears to have been erected, how many believe that democracy can be guaranteed by an occupation force that has resorted to staging 'false flag' terrorist attacks on Iraqi citizens made to look like sectarian attacks (as the British SAS were caught red-handed trying to do in Basra in September 2005)?

BTW, If Bush and PNAC had not stolen the 2000 elections from the rightful victor Al Gore (even in spite of Ralph Nader standing) the September 11 terrorist attacks simply would not have occurred. I suggest you make yourself familiar with the case, backed up by overwhelming evidence, of the 9/11 Truth Movement, links to some of which I have provided above.

Daggett, Bush was re-elected.

Are U.S. voters not responsible for this?

Of course, if you're a believer in the 9/11 Truth Movement, you believe that governments are unbelievably sophisticated organisations able to plan and implement massive byzantine conspiracies for nefarious goals.

In my experience, most government leaders are a bunch of posturing dumbfuc*s primarily concerned with keeping their jobs.

I note that WebVox has avoided answering much of the substance of my previous post and instead focused on what the hopes will be the Achilles heel of my case, that is that I hold that 9/11 was a 'false flag' terrorist attack orchestrated by elements within the Bush administration and therefore can be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

---

WebVox wrote, "Bush was re-elected."

No he wasn't.

Why don't you check these broadcasts to find out how the Diebold electronic voting machines can be and were rigged to change the vote. See:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/145.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/466.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/467.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/271.html

Also, those who still voted for Bush were lied to relentlessly, particularly by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.

Ask yourself this question:

What voter, in his/her right mind would vote for a leader, who, as America faced its most serious terrorist attack, behaved like this:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Why weren't the American people reminded by Fox News, when Bush faced re-election in 2004?, of the fact that Bush sat in front of a class for seven minutes reading children a book after he had learnt that the second tower had been hit?

---

Webvox wrote, "In my experience, most government leaders are a bunch of posturing dumbfuc*s ..."

This is the time-worn incompetence theory.

Ask yourself: if you were one of those leaders, would you rather be viewed as incompetent or criminal?

In any case, the above example showed that even when incontrovertible evidence that a leader (i.e. Bush) had to be either grossly incompetent or criminal, that that evidence can easily be buried by the corporate newmedia the time that leader faces re-election.

This happened again and again and again with John Howard in Australia.

In Australia, according to this incompetence theory, we were led by leaders, who just didn't realise that AU$296 million was being paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein that months later we were to learn was a mortal threat to mortal peace.

Daggett- Bush sat in front of a class for seven minutes reading a children's book after he learnt that the second tower had been hit.

Read your phycologists reports on the reactions of people who have just been given shock news or been involved in truama. The first reaction is always numbness. This is the way the body protects people from too much shock to soon. Forget your hollywood and T.V. movies when they show someone reacting to shock, screaming and carrying on, it has been reported on many occasions that there has just been a deadly calm silence before say a car accident or something when people realise it is imminent. Also to news of the death of a loved one.

They may scream or cry later on but not always at the first realisation.

There is a documented progression of reactions following bad life events and it goes like this -:
Numbness; Denial; Shock; Anger; Depression;
Philosophical Reflection; Acceptance.

Even people who always thought they were strong will react like this.

>Gage, became Skeptical of the idea that people living in Afghan caves could possibly have brought down the World Trade Centre.

Maybe Gage should read up on it a bit more and he would know that it was Osama Bin Laden, Princely son of one of the Sudi Arabian Sheiks to whom money was no problem who conspired with educated men one of whom at least to my recollection was an educated muslim living in Germany to hijack the planes that were flown into the twin towers.
The Taliban who came from Pakistan and had set up an extremely cruel religious Muslim government in Afghanistan gave Osama assylum after the event.

The Taliban were hardly illiterates living in caves, they were found to have very modern computers and were living in luxury by Afghanistan standards. It was at this point that Osama Bin Laden was tracked by satellite by the Americans and was known to be hiding in caves with some supporters of his cause in the Afghanistan mountains. The Taliban would not hand him over. Gage needs to read up on it a bit more he seems to be lacking knowledge on the sequence of events.

Sharkfin,

It is an indisputable fact that Osama bin Laden began his terrorist career as a CIA asset nurtured by the US to defeat a leftist Government in Afghanistan in the late 1970's.

In July 2001, when he was wanted by the FBI on charges of terrorism, he went to the American hospital in Dubai fro treatment. During his stay he was met by the Dubai station chief. This has been discussed in the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#50161

For a man who has supposedly been hunted for years by the US, he has had an astonishing number of lucky escapes. This is discussed in the "War: not in my name" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8306&page=0#130548

Sharkfin wrote, "The Taliban would not hand him over."

Rubbish!

The Taliban did offer to hand him over.

I showed this in the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#59233

---

Sharkfin,

It wasn't just Bush who failed to do anything after he learnt of, not the first, but the second attack, but his whole entourage of minders as well as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, the whole of NORAD, etc., etc.

And as those paid so generously by the US public to defend them from attack by domestic and foreign enemies appeared comatose the rest of America sprang into action to try to mitigate the disaster, and that included Battalion Chief Oreo Palmer who ran most of the way up to the 78th floor of the South Tower, the floor below where the second aircraft (supposedly Flight 175 hit). Had the whole building not been rigged with massive quantities of demolition charges by people working for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al, he would have been able to save many lives on that day. (See http://candobetter.org/node/966)

The kindest possible interpretation of the conduct of Bush and his entourage -- and only by people ignorant of the full picture -- would be unprecedented monumental incompetence.

Again, why did the newsmedia fail to inform the American public in the 2004 re-election campaign of what could only have been either that or actual collusion in the attack?