Apart from extracting laughter from me about the notion of any honesty in Australian politics this item is simply a waste of space.

Honesty? What next? Integrity? From Howard or Rudd? Give me a break.

Holy mackerel, pegasus.

We spend endless hours complaining about heartless, brainless politicians. Yet when a pollie with both a heart and brain steps up to the plate - er, you complain! Please explain.

(Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Democrats, nor even a Democrat voter. But I do receive Lyn's E-mailouts and they make good reading. Highly recommended)

Part of the subject matter for historians is to argue over the precise causes of a particular conflict. We know for a fact that centuries after the event there will be no academic consensus.

Philosophically the reasons for going or not going to war can be placed into three broad groupings: Realism, Just War Theory, and Pacifism.

Pacifists argue that war is always morally wrong or else the consequence of war is always bad. Pacifism is a respectable position, although how well it would have worked against Nazi Germany or Al qaeda is open for discussion.

Realists argue that there are no moral principals apart from national interest. Realists may dress their arguments in just war theory to get public support.

Just war people argue long the lines: cause must be just, the aggressor must have the right intention, the decision to go to war is made by a proper authority, war is a last resort, must have high probability of success, benefits must outweigh the cost.

An extension is the concept of a “legal war.” Were the resolutions of the Security Council sufficient justification or otherwise?

To an extreme realist the UN is a dysfunctional body and the Security Council a farce. Legal opinions, untested in proper court are two a penny. The international court of justice would to some be a proper judicial body capable of adjudicating the rival claims. To others it is another three ringed circus as demonstrated by the Slobodan Milosevic trial.

If, oil was the main cause of the war, a deal with Saddam would realistically have been the most cost effective path. Now we are in Iraq, realism suggests we should stay in an endeavour to stabilise the region, attempt energy security. It is likely that world peace and prosperity and the end to the Islamic terrorist threat is dependent on a successful outcome in the Middle East. Unfortunately success is not guaranteed.

I have a better idea. What if all those involved in making the decision to go to war had to fall upon their swords as a consequence of their failed diplomacy in avoiding war?

Sure would sort out the chicken hawks who conspire to send other people's kids to war.

From Cheney's speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999 when he was chairman of Haliburton:

"From the standpoint of the oil industry...obviously for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is true for companies as well in the broader economic sense as it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It?s like making one hundred per cent interest discovery in another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year.

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?

Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world?s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."

Seems that, when he became vice-president, he tried to solve the access problem.

See the following site for maps of Iraq's oil fields and details of "foreign suitors" (i.e. US competitors) drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force six months before the 911 attacks:

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-12-05/discussion.cgi.46.html

That site contains an excerpt from "It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet" by Linda McQuaig,

"What makes these documents particularly striking is the fact that, as we now know from several insider accounts, the Bush administration was actively focused from its first days in office on overthrowing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. So, at the same time that the White House was considering toppling Saddam, it was also keenly studying Iraq's oil fields and assessing how far along foreign companies were in their negotiations with Saddam for a piece of Iraq's oil. Dick Cheney, former CEO of oil services giant Halliburton Company, was masterminding both the task force deliberations and the push to invade Iraq.

Cheney's central role in these two initiatives both launched with a sense of urgency almost immediately after the Bush administration took office is noteworthy, particularly given Cheney's extremely influential role within the administration. The fact that Cheney is focused on both invading Iraq and, at the same time, energy policy, is certainly suggestive of a possible connection between the invasion and adesire for Iraq's oil the very thing that is always vehemently denied."

Senator Lyn Allison makes some astute points about Australia's dangerous reliance on foreign oil. Brazil, for example, has already largely weaned itself off imported oil using sugar cane-derived ethanol. Unfortunately for us here in arid Australia, sugar cane is a water intensive crop. Yet, some experts believe that the future of ethanol resides not in sugar, but in cellulosic ethanol, a biofuel that theoretically could be extracted from almost anything from bunch grasses to scrap paper.

On the issues of energy security and sustainability, I am somewhat perplexed by Senator Allison and her fellow Democrats. How can the Democrats argue for a national reduction in oil demand while still supporting mass immigration-driven population growth? More people = more demand for imported oil.

In response to Michael,

Read "U.S. Government Objectives in Iraq" by Erich Marquardt.

Link:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=28&language_id=1

Lynn Allison a politician with a heart and a brain, Chris Shaw?

I don’t know the woman, so cannot comment on her heart; but her public ravings and those on OLO certainly rule out the presence of a brain

Oligarch asked the question......

"On the issues of energy security and sustainability, I am somewhat perplexed by Senator Allison and her fellow Democrats. How can the Democrats argue for a national reduction in oil demand while still supporting mass immigration-driven population growth? More people = more demand for imported oil."

And it's a very good question, one I'd dearly like Senator Allison to answer. Or, any of our political leaders for that matter. I haven't heard our aspiring Prime Minister once mention the prospect of peak oil, apart from perhaps a minor contribution from the ALP during the Senate Committee into the future of Australian oil supplies, however anybody may feel free to correct me on that point.

It seems politicians of all persuasions have been infected with the ideals of "higher immigration equals increased wealth" and it works rather well for the "big end of town," but the effect it's having on urbanites struggling to hold down a poorly paid job and pay off a mortgage is nothing short of devastating.

Comments so far indicate that many assume that new migrants used virtually no oil before migrating. That may be true for a small proportion but I doubt if that is so for the majority.
If all the world grain and sugar production (about 1.7 billion tonnes per year) was converted to ethanol or bio diesel the world could only supply a small proportion of the liquid fuel demand and many more people would starve to death. Possibly Australia could follow Brazil's lead and increase its sugar production using the fertile areas of the far noth and the seasonal rainfall in those areas.
Too many of our politicians are lawyers or commercially trained and too few of them understand anything requiring knowledge of physics and chemistry or indeed anything technical.

Your argument is as serious as saying that while one's life is at stake-as it was of the U.S. in the aftermath 9/11-one is more concerned that HIS SALAD IS OILED than his life is protected.

Indeed for you, is oil for your "greenery" salad and not blood for nurturing the tree of freedom.

See:Australia Calls America--http://australiacalls.blogspot.com

I feel that Anti-Green has basicly hit the nail on the head when asking why the U.S. didn't just buy the oil (at $15 a barrel in those days, using very long term contracts) instead of invading? Anyone care to tell us why this would not have been a simpler course of action if it was blood for oil?

As for Cornflowers idea regarding pollies falling on swords (figuirativly or literally?); totally impractical, but interesting. It could only work if all nations were bound by it, and (if literal) all leaders were afraid of death. To make it work, I'd suggest the US invade every non-democratic nation on earth; rule them for one or two generations a la post WW2 Germany/Japan, and instill in these nations a respect for human life and others opinions, especially those they disagree with. A little more problematic would be internal/civil wars, but maybe Cornflower has a suggestion here too.

Further to Cornflower's post; it has always been difficult to "send other people's kids" to possible death; war or otherwise. I well recall the feelings of guilt I had when reading that a truck driver had been killed on the highway, en route to MY local supermarket to deliver my groceries. Do you feel this too, Cornflower, when you read that a Firefighter has died to save "our" property, or a cop to enforce "our" laws; or a seaman who went down with the ship, bringing YOUR needs from China? Yes? No? Doesn't bother you because they are someone else's kids or fathers? Let us know; or are you not part of society? Cheers.

Instead of emotive illogical headlines Lynn Allison should look at the practical realities.We are all free to convert our cars to natural gas since we have enormous quantities of it.We cannot at the present,technically produce enough renewable energy to anywhere near satisfy world demands or our own.

If the US was not in the Middle East some other country would be ensuring that stability there would be ensuring vital energy to the world.Would China do a better job?Chances China would possess the oil forcibly and sell it to us at inflated prices.

It is not that simple and thank your god the US is there,even if George Bush did stuff up.We should not leave Iraq because the consequences for world peace will be dire if Islamic fundies take control of the oil.

That link for the maps of the Iraqi oil fields that leaked out of Cheney's 2001 energy taskforce meetings doesn't work.

Try this one instead :

http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

As for the Iraq war being about oil, we all know that is a ridiculous proposition. Its all about WMD !

And overthrowing an Islamic fundamentalist regime !

And because Saddam was behind 9/11 !

And because we want to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Pakistan !

And something or other - ask George and Johnny - I'm sure they can explain the original strategy when the invasion was dreamt up back in 2001.

It certainly isn't about the last 100 years of Anglo-American middle east policy being about controlling the region's oil reserves - heaven forbid. What possible use would that serve ? Where is the financial payoff ?

I know all the simpletons would just love to believe that the war in Iraq was about one issue only. "No Blood for Oil" is such a beautifully concise idea that it appeals to those brought up in the modern age with attention spans of a goldfish. This leaves them feeling smug that they've got the whole thing worked out, without having to use their brain delving into the complex nature of why the US decided to go to war in Iraq.

Some of these simpletons believe Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction, ever. Just ask the kurds about that one.

These people hailed the defender of peace Jacques Chirac, known also as Shah Iraq in some places due to his close connections with Hussein, as a champion of the peace movement. Just don’t mention the Pacific.

I’m not suggesting oil played no part, just that it was not THE defining reason for going to war.

Personally, I believe that weapons was the main reason for the invasion
of Iraq. It is certain that Saddam had nuclear weapons in mind but it
looks like there had not been significant progress on that path.

That Iraq had chemical weapons is indisputable, they used them.

However it is not true that governments do not understand peak oil.
Why else is the government giving you $2000 to convert your car to LPG ?
Why else is the NSW government mothballing 500 older busses as they
are replaced instead of their previous practise of scrapping or selling ?

No government is going to run a campaign on petrol rationing and increased
unemployment. It just won't happen.

Hey Biggav, I already asked once for anyone believing the war to have been all about oil, to explain why BUYING it at $15 a barrel wasn't the preferred method of getting it. This is not some trick question to make you look like fools, but just a "friendly" enquiry. Anyone at all got an answer?

You win OLO.

I haven't commented on OLO articles for some time but you appear to be censoring a comment I'm attempting to make with a fictitious (perhaps politically motivated?) Error Message.

I'll publish this relevant pre election theory for Nelson's comments elsewhere.

Regards

Pete

OK PaulL,

What was THE defining reason for going to war then?

Your devoted goldfish,

Michael
(P.S. NOTHING is more important to the economy and life as we know it than energy)

"Pacifists argue that war is always morally wrong or else the consequence of war is always bad. Pacifism is a respectable position, although how well it would have worked against Nazi Germany or Al qaeda is open for discussion."

The first thing to make a distinction about anti-green is starting a war as an act of aggression and then joining a war as an act of defence.

Aggressive wars are illegal in international war. Dialogue and negotiation was noe used fully before teh Iraq war. Talking is the only way to GUARANTEE saving lives - you can't guarantee to do so whent he bombs start dropping!

NELSON's COMMENTS ELECTORALLY APPEALING

Just returning to the reason for the article (Brendan Nelson's admission that oil is/was an important reason for Australia's involvement in Iraq). Nelson should be commended for finally telling part of the truth.

While Howard and Costello quickly distanced themselves form Nelson's oil comments this may all be part of the Government's pre-election maneuvering. Nelson is a good guy but he also act politically. By giving a real reason for our Iraq policy Nelson has placed himself in the political (wet) middle ground that can attract votes.

The key electoral group (swinging voters) have been given the opportunity to accept the appealing logic that our involvement in Iraq serves to strengthen our oil security and presumably suppress oil price increases. Howard and Costello can distance themselves but a key member of the Government has said Iraq (partly) = oil security and thats good for the economy/hip pocket.

Voters considering Rudd's withdrawal might be left with the worry that Australia unilaterally withdrawing from Iraq will put oil prices at risk in some way.

ALP and LIBS WILL LOOK TO US (for good or otherwise):

BTW - Rudd know's that the 120 man army grouping that protects the Australian embassy in Baghdad must remain even if other Australian units withdraw from Iraq. Australian combat losses in Iraq have been minimal and Australia will still be in Afghanistan (on a larger scale) anyway. So Australia’s Iraq withdrawal will only be partial under Labor.

If the above comments on Nelson and Rudd look a little different note my previous comments (from September 2005) on OLO that oil is/was a compelling reason, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=182#15059 and many times since.

The occupation of Iraq for oil (for the oil industry and oil price based consumer confidence) is continuing as expected no matter the human costs to the US or Iraqis.

Pete

“Dialogue and negotiation was noe used fully before teh Iraq war."

What!! How many years of sanctions did Saddam Hussein defy? 10 or 12. Anyway, you are assuming that any dialogue/negotiation would be in good faith. When you negotiate with someone who never intends to implement your agreements, what do you do? Negotiate some more? Sanctions? Sanctions only affected the ordinary people of Iraq.

Unless the Israelis had acted when they did, Iraq would have had nuclear technology. Thanks to Jacques Chirac (Shah Iraq) for that mess. Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people, yet people still make jokes as though Saddam never had any WMD’s.

As for International law. That’s a joke. Saddam ignored international law whenever it suited him. Without consequence, law is useless

"Talking is the only way to GUARANTEE saving lives - you can't guarantee to do so whent he bombs start dropping!"

Just tell that to the Poles and the Czechs and the rest of Eastern Europe. Nevill Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” worked well for them didn’t it. I know you pacifists like to believe that violence is never the answer but sometimes peace comes at too high a price. Appeasement is never an acceptable position for a liberal democracy. It just encourages the person being appeased as well as any other crazies with an agenda.

plantaganet

If its only about the oil then why didn't the US invade Saudi Arbia? Iraqs oil is a trickle compared with that in Saudi. Saudi has a much smaller army than Iraq.

Why didn't US invade Saudi ? The US already had troops in Saudi at the time - it withdrew them after Iraq was occupied (as per Osama's demands - so much for Bush not appeasing terrorists).

In any case, the Saudi government is the strongest US ally going (and has been since world war 2), so what purpose would invasion have served ? Things are already just as US policy would like.

BTW - Iraq has greater oil reserves than Saudi - like I said, read up on come oil industry history - back when supply was plentiful (1910 - 2000), efforts had to be made to "encourage" countries not to produce. Iraq was always the "non producer" of last resort.

As a result it now has the world's largest reserves (and by far the lowest cost to produce ones, if security costs are not included).

There isn't a single more valuable resource on the planet...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Saddams genocidal acts towards Marsh Arabs and Kurds called for intervention by others under moral and UN auspices. Many Shia in Iraq "lived on their knees".

Reading this thread reminds me of something I read a few years ago. A US general asked Iraqi tribal leaders what they required. "water and power back on, and as many statues of George Bush as you can spare". I can't vouch for the authenticity of this exchange, but the invaders have failed on the first two, and the third was never going to happen.

Religious, cultural and historical reasons have left many Iraqis with an Absolutist vision of society, apparently, where they are happy to vote in free elections, but only on partisan (religious/tribal/familial) lines.

In 1879 the French Rev. saw the end of Absolute rule. And again after Napoleon, and again in 1830, and again in 1848. (hope I've got my dates right). Their current Republic is only some 50 years old. There are only a few lucky countries that have not had to fight for their freedoms and their democracy.

Maybe, in 50 years time, we will look back at this horror and see it as the birth of democracy in the Arab world after all.

Biggav, are you suggesting that US pulled troops out of Saudi because Bin Laden demanded it? The Saudis asked them to do it. American presence in the so called Holy Land offends Saudi citizens. The Saudi leadership needed to do this in order to maintain control of their country. Do you really think that the US was doing Bin Laden’s bidding?

So tell me do you think that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Do you think he had given up all thought of acquiring more of them in the future? How do you suggest we deal with dictators who massacre/starve/terrorize their people? The armchair critics never put up reasonable alternatives. They’d be happy to just do nothing and ignore the problem.

So why are they staying in Iraq? Very little oil is getting out. It costs an absolute fortune, since in the real world security costs can’t be ignored. How do the “US oil robber barons” benefit from the current state of affairs?

Do you not think that perhaps the US stays in Iraq because it is THE front in the war against Al Qaeda and global Islamo Fasciscm. ( It always makes me laugh when I think of the anti-capitalists apologizing for/aligning with Islamo Fascists) Or that to leave Iraq to become a failed state would give a safe haven to terrorists

Paul L.

You asked "So why are they staying in Iraq? Very little oil is getting out. It costs an absolute fortune, since in the real world security costs can’t be ignored. How do the “US oil robber barons” benefit from the current state of affairs?"

The US/UK occupation of Iraq has effectively and literally kept the price of oil up. This has made the extraction of US oil (largely in Gulf of Mexico) and UK oil (North Sea) more economical and profitable. The higher world oil price also means that US and UK oil companies rake off higher profits for refining, distributing and rretailing Middle Eastern oil (particularly from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait).

The personal stakes of Bush, Cheney and Rice in the oil industry should not be underestimated. They will likely return to their oil based careers after 2008. Being on good terms with the largest producers (the Saudis) continues to be personally essential for these American political leaders - hence the Saudis were not hammered after 9/11.

I'm not writing this from a leftwing perspective. I'm a frankly cynical capitalist with (inter alia) shares and contacts in oil and shipping corporations.

However the occupation of Iraq has turned into a tragic super power bloodfest. Bush's Vietnam. No way out for him. Around 100 Muslims die for every US soldier killed. Surely the US/UK (and lackeys) can either cause less damage than Saddam or use their brains - leave - and rely on the marketplace rather than military might.

Pete

Good on the Senator for calling a spade a spade, but theres no hope of reform in Howards neoliberals. The very credible count estimating 650,000+ Iraqis killed since invasion makes the Father Knows Best optimism of Bush, Howard, Punter57 & Anti-green frankly revolting.

Why invade when purchase is cheaper? Who says cheaper is good, and cheaper for who? If you’re CEO of a corp makes megabucks providing arms & privatised services to government (Halliburton, Carlyle Group, BAE, Raytheon, Boeing, Bechtel, Halliburton, KBR..), war is a bonanza, no matter where.
Also, talking up a war premium in the market is a very easy way for a host of middlemen to milk consumers.
Also, Saddams oil was different to Saudi oil because you couldn’t pay for the former in $US, not after 2000 anyway http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
If all the US has going for it is a printing press and a military to enforce ‘free trade’ in exchange for ever more funny money, then Saddams Iraq exiting the $US oil market was a very bad example and a threat to energy security. And he used to be such a pal!

Howards “the market will supply” dogma avoids talking about how the market gets its supply, much like he avoids talking about the gutting of veterans healthcare entitlements. No wonder nobody wants to join the army, killing to keep ourselves auto-erotically obese seems flawed somehow.

@PauL said - "are you suggesting that US pulled troops out of Saudi because Bin Laden demanded it? The Saudis asked them to do it. American presence in the so called Holy Land offends Saudi citizens. The Saudi leadership needed to do this in order to maintain control of their country. Do you really think that the US was doing Bin Laden’s bidding?"

I think if you read that paragraph again you'll answer your own question. Bin Laden demanded the removal of American troops and Bush complied. By the standards used to accuse most people of "appeasement" whenever the Iraq war is mentioned, this seems as good an example as you will ever find.

Appeasement is different to "doing bin Laden's bidding" of course. I don't think any ever accused Chamberlain of doing Hitler's bidding when they discuss his appeasement - he made what he thought was an intelligent decision given the circumstances.

On the positive side, Bush's capitulation seems to have worked - no more Al Qaeda attacks on the US even though the Americans have failed to catch bin Laden, which they might have been successful at if they'd concentrated their efforts on Afghanistan instead of making a grab for Iraq's oil.

@pauLL said - "So tell me do you think that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Do you think he had given up all thought of acquiring more of them in the future? How do you suggest we deal with dictators who massacre/starve/terrorize their people? The armchair critics never put up reasonable alternatives. They’d be happy to just do nothing and ignore the problem."

The only WMD Saddam ever had were the ones the Americans and the French sold him to use on the Iranians (and the Kurds at Hallabja). These were destroyed after the first gulf war - something the UN weapons inspectors said repeatedly (study the reports of Butler, Ritter and Blix if you don't believe me).

If Saddam had allowed US companies to develop Iraqi oil fields in the 1980's he would still be in power today with the full approval of the US government. His mistake was not doing that and then being doubly foolish by thinking he could also get away with invading Kuwait.

I advocate (1) converting our transport systems away from oil and thus having no geopolitical or economic interest in the middle east and (2) supporting democracy movements in all countries rules by dictatorships.

Don't try and box me in with some bogus strawman neoconservative argument that panders to your prejudices about the left - I'm not a left winger - I just don't believe in following courses of action that are immoral, doomed to fail and violate the principles of the free market.

I think Paul Wolfowitz said it best when asked why the US invaded Iraq and not North Korea - "Iraq floats on a sea of oil and North Korea doesn't".

The recent problem with Iraq is rather in economic than any other area: locals feel betrayed because their living level is neither matching the Coalition countries nor even of pre-war Iraq. That is what happened worldwide wherever democracy had been endured in.

The question remains to what extent expectations of the Coalition has been met, and a stable affordable petrol supply to electorate is a point of an imminent visual benefit for still in-numbers vehicle-owners.

Plantaganet

“The US/UK occupation of Iraq has effectively and literally kept the price of oil up.”

You are talking rubbish. First you say that US invades Iraq to ensure their cheap oil supply. Now you say that that it was really a ruse to drive up the price of oil. Good for oil companies but rather bad for the rest of the US/World economies.

“However the occupation of Iraq has turned into a tragic super power bloodfest. Bush's Vietnam. No way out for him. Around 100 Muslims die for every US soldier killed.”

Most of the casualties in Iraq are, have been for quite a while, the result of a power struggle between the different sects. Iraqis killing Iraqis. Its basically a low level civil war that could become a regional conflagration if the US/allies just up and left. Iran, Syria, Turkey and many others have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak and are supporting/arming their favourite protagonists. Those of you who assume that leaving Iraq will improve matters are dreaming.

“Also, talking up a war premium in the market is a very easy way for a host of middlemen to milk consumers.
Also, Saddams oil was different to Saudi oil because you couldn’t pay for the former in $US, not after 2000 anyway “

Again this doesn’t make sense. If US was interested in energy security they would never have invaded in the first place. Just look at the cosy deal that Chirac organized with Saddam to supply POL at below the market price. And if all the Americans wanted to do was drive up the price of oil, ( A ridiculous idea by the way) they could have just accidentally bombed the major refinery in Iraq whilst the No Fly Zone was still in effect.

“No wonder nobody wants to join the army, killing to keep ourselves auto-erotically obese seems flawed somehow.”

The army is the largest it has been since the Vietnam war. Some people actually feel that WE are under attack from the Islamo Fascists and wish to defend us

biggav,
Your suggestion that the US has made a deal with Osama Bin laden in order to keep the US mainland safe is ridiculous. The Saudi royal family, among Americas few allies in the Middle East, were facing open revolt in some quarters of their kingdom. Once America was in Iraq, there was no point in alienating an ally by insisting on retaining bases it doesn’t really need.

“Appeasement is different to "doing bin Laden's bidding" of course. I don't think any ever accused Chamberlain of doing Hitler's bidding when they discuss his appeasement - he made what he thought was an intelligent decision given the circumstances”

What? Chamberlain gave Hitler his assurance that the UK would not stand in his way when he invaded Czechoslovakia etc. He sold out his principles for a flawed peace initiative and the rest of Europe had to pay. You swing from the position where the US Gov’t only cares about keeping the Oil/military companies happy at the expense of everyone else, to one where Bush would happily negotiate with Osama Bin Laden if it could keep his people safe. Surely attacks on the American mainland are good business for Raytheon, Halliburton etc.

I mean really people. I don’t pretend oil security isn’t part of the US policy. But to make a complex issue simple for the sake of making a point is intellectually dishonest.

The question was, why would the US invade to get what it could buy? There are two answers to this: security, and money. But the real answers is that countries start wars because they think they can win.

Given that the USA has 4% the world's population and uses 25% its oil, secure access to oil reserves without money flowing out of the USA is of vital importance in maintaining its way of life.

"Energy security" for the USA means that whoever sells you oil today must be willing to sell to you tomorrow. Countries can change their minds about who they're friends with, after all. As world demand for oil rises faster than supply, the time may come when countries will stop selling oil to the USA and sell it to China and India instead. Only by physically controlling the oil reserves, and indirectly threatening some others, can the USA ensure energy security.

As for money, if the USA pays $15 a barrel to the Iraqi National Oil Company, that's $15 that leaves the USA forever. But if the USA pays $80 a barrel to Haliburton to pump out Iraqi oil, that's $80 that comes straight back to the USA. Invading was a way to make sure that US money would stay in the USA. With a record current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and the largest debt in human history, keeping money in the USA is important to them.

Of course, now their energy is not secure and the war is very expensive. But they didn't EXPECT to be losing.

Paul.L, mixing up quotes and repeatedly calling all ridiculous does not an argument make.

There is no conflict between invasion of Iraq and energy security, cos Big Oils energy security was hurt by peace, if the ten years of seige/sanctions preceding Iraq invasion can be called peace. National Oil Co's in less-industrialised nations have for years been increasingly locking out or limiting foriegn oil co's, Saddam was doing that AND not accepting US$ for oil, a practice dangerous for the hyper-indebted US government (fyi's, 'Iran asks Japan to pay for oil with yen, not dollars' http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20070715a1.html).

Paul.Ls unwritten assertion that Bush-Cheney administration is making decisions for US citizens energy security goes against all the evidence: demand management? renewable fuels? regulation for engine efficiency? great support for PT? No, no, just barely, and no.

Whereas Big Oil love high prices, love wars (US military is the biggest single oil consumer on planet), still salivate over prospect of control of Iraqs oil and are right now still trying to ram laws thru Iraqs misbegotten parliament, and funded Bush II to the hilt.

@pauL - "Very little oil is getting out. It costs an absolute fortune ... How do the “US oil robber barons” benefit from the current state of affairs?"

Are you kidding me ? It is about controlling the oil, not about producing it cheaply.

Look at where Bush/Cheney get their money from - both directly and through the people who support them. Oil companies, oil service companies, military contracting companies (Halliburton being the classic example).

Look at the market cap numbers for the big players in each of these market segments from 2001 to today and you will see how spectacularly successful they have been at enriching themselves and their backers (and look at the US budget deficit to see how spectacularly the US taxpayer has been done over) - its one the greatest financial plays in history.

This isn't about producing or buying oil cheaply - its about controlling supply and extracting maximum financial advantage - same as it always has been. Like I said, study some oil industry history.

http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools
http://www.gregpalast.com/its-still-the-oilsecret-condi-meeting-on-oil-before-invasion/
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/37371/?comments=view&cID=137609&pID=136933

For that matter, do a little reading about the oil law the Americans want the Iraqi parliament to pass - the number one benchmark of their "success" from Bush's point of view - something he has stated repeatedly in recent months. This law hands over development of any "undiscovered" oil fields to foreign companies - and if you read those links about Iraq oil history you'll learn that the amount of "undiscovered" oil in Iraq equals all the Saudi oil reserves.

The point you should try and understand is that what is in the oil industry' interest isn't in our national interest as a whole - we'd be much better off letting the technology industry switch us over to an electrified transport system - lots of money to be made, and no "war on terror" nonsense to deal with for the next 30 years or so, which is what happens if we stay the present course...

“This isn't about producing or buying oil cheaply - its about controlling supply and extracting maximum financial advantage - same as it always has been. Like I said, study some oil industry history” by bygavv.

It is about SECURING supply of a strategic product in order to avoid bowling to islamists, of whom ideology is a whole world under their allah as once again was stated on Iraq’s flag just prior to taking Basra under a British control.

The question remains, to what extent the USA should contribute to their former royal master most recently

Biggav,

You must be joking. You patronizingly tell me to get some schooling about oil history and help me out by giving me three Greg Palast articles. You regurgitate the basic tenets of his argument as if they came from the mouth of God himself. But who is Greg Palast? An oil geologist or historian?. Nope Greg Palast is a sensationalist lefty journo/author who’s trying to sell books. Next you will be giving me quotes from Michael Moore’s fanzine. An equivalent act on my behalf would be to back up my argument by referring to Bill O’Reilly from FOX networks O’Reilly Factor.
Here is a debunking of some of Greg Palasts’ ideas about OIL and from a fellow lefty to boot.

http://energybulletin.net/17914.html

Almost every other industry in the world suffers under higher oil prices including US budget. Yet you would have us believe that the US sat down with so called BIG OIL and decided on invading Iraq to limit its oil production, thereby enriching BIG OIL at the expense of blowing out the federal budget. So it’s basically a transfer of taxpayer’s money to BIG OIL. This is what’s called a CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the US/UN were the ones deciding how much oil Iraq was allowed to sell. So if they were already controlling Iraq’s production where is the need to invade? Before that OPEC limited Iraq’s oil production. By the way, higher OIL prices are also helping Russia rearm their forces in order to challenge the US and the rest of the west. It also benefits Iran and Saudi who use the money to support the Islamo Fascists.

The US intervention in Yugoslavia was about oil as well? What about in Somalia.? I suppose BIG OIL arranged for Al Qaeda to be based in Afghanistan?

Paul L , those last few lines were a bit petulant. No one has said that oil was behind every single invasion ever.

However, if you consider the major geopolitical alliances others have already commented on, such as the history of the American relationship with Saudi Arabia, and how this is played out in world history and the causes for 9/11 etc, then you'll see that oil wasn’t only behind the Iraq war — it's simply one of the most important geopolitical factors affecting WORLD politics and modern history.

Has the potential for the "Carter Doctrine" to throw us into world conflict been mentioned yet? Setting up a "Police Station" in the middle east is entirely consistent with preparing for further activity in support of this doctrine. See Wikipedia...

"Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

I like Biggav's comment, full of irony. :-)

“It certainly isn't about the last 100 years of Anglo-American middle east policy being about controlling the region's oil reserves - heaven forbid. What possible use would that serve ? Where is the financial payoff?”

There couldn’t possibly be a financial payoff in keeping industrial agriculture running, or the airlines in the sky, or the petro-chemical industry going, or the trucks bringing the food 2000km on average from where we grow it to where we eat it... in other words, there couldn’t possibly be a financial payoff for keeping civilization ticking over. Not at all.

Peak oil is going to revolutionize everything we do. Our only hope of making it through this is to avoid further oil wars. It's time to stop being so naive that Iraq was about WMD's... and get ready to take action to prevent the "Carter Doctrine" sending America and her allies flying into a complete maelstrom.

"It's time to stop being so naive that Iraq was about WMD's... and get ready to take action to prevent the "Carter Doctrine" sending America and her allies flying into a complete maelstrom."
Amen.

"It's time to stop being so naive that Iraq was about WMD's... and get ready to take action to prevent the "Carter Doctrine" sending America and her allies flying into a complete maelstrom."
Amen!

I apologize to all if I appeared petulant. I was a little annoyed to be patronized by someone about a topic they are clearly not an expert on themselves. I don’t claim expertise myself either by the way.

You seem to think that Biggav has hit the nail on the head, so to speak. However Biggav follows the Greg Palast school. Palast claims the invasion of Iraq was arranged so that Iraqi oil could be kept in the ground, thus limiting the flow of oil and thereby increasing BIG OIL profits.

The mainstream lefty position is that we seized Iraq to feed our addiction to cheap oil. That is, we invaded Iraq to ensure our future oil supply. Not to restrict flow but to enhance flow. I think this is your position. However Biggav is saying that George Bush isn’t interested in those industries you mentioned, nor is he interested in the severe economic repercussions for the US budget. He is saying that George Bush is making policy at the expense of virtually every organization/stakeholder on earth in order to enhance the already enormous profits of BIG OIL, by inflating the price of oil. Seems rather far fetched to me. Anyone?

The Carter Doctrine was aimed at preventing communist takeover of the middle east and their oil. The Regan Corollary extended the concept to prevent the Iranian revolutionaries from doing the same thing. Neither doctrine suggests seizing the oil in the Middle East. On the contrary, the theme of both doctrines is to prevent our enemies holding the world hostage by overrunning the middle east and turning off the flow of oil.

As for WMD’s I know it suits your argument to pretend that there never were any. But no one at the time of the war seriously believed that. Inspectors found evidence of chemical, biological and nuclear programs during the decade of inspections. All the inspectors reported that Iraq was actively subverting the inspection process. Saddam even funded suicide bombers in Palestine. If he had defeated Bush do you really believe he wouldn’t have taken up these programs again?

@PaulL:

Stop calling me a lefty - I'm a Libertarian. If you keep it up I'll start calling you a Nazi, even though I know 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I'd already given you the oil history link before those links to Palast's "war to slow the flow of oil" theory. Its this one :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

If you'd like a detailed history of the industry, read this book I reviewed a few years back - its by one of Senator Church's staffers and details all the findings of the Church Committee hearings into the oil industry (a lesser known investigation compared to his intelligence community investigations) in the wake of the 1970's oil shocks. It tells you everything you need to know.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/05/control-of-oil.html

As for the Carter doctrine, it's fundamentally immoral - the middle east should be left to decide its own destiny, and we should ditch oil as an energy source so we are immune to what happens in the region.

Lastly - if you'd like to see what conspiracy theory actually looks like read this - plenty of oil history in between the right wing conspiracy theory.

http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X

One final note - the British first occupied southern Iraq less than a week after world war 1 broke out. They took 2 months to get there. The BEF didn't make it to france until months later. Understand ?

@PauL:

Please stop repeating the lie about Saddam having WMD - the UN inspectors repeatedly said there were no such weapons.

Would you like a massive flurry of links to articles from Richard Butler, Scott Ritter and Hans Blix (the inspectors themselves) pointing this out ?

Or do you just want to keep repeating neocon propaganda points that everyone knows are untrue ?

Mate, I agree that Saddam was up to no good, and at the time supported the war! I did not have a lot of time for online reading, did not know about peak oil, and undervalued the role of the UN weapons inspectors. I now wish we'd relaxed sanctions somewhat, increased the UN Inspectors program immensely, and proceeded to woo Saddam over like we kind of did with Gaddaffi. Cheaper than a war!

You may have misunderstood Big Gav's writing.

The main point is control. Whether you believe they intended to release more oil now (for lower prices and an improved economy) or oil saved for later (to just plain SURVIVE peak oil when the global price gets gnarly), control over oil is the point.

Guardian: The real casus belli: peak oil

"Britain's and the US's fears were secretly formalised during the planning for Iraq. It is widely accepted that Blair's commitment to support the attack dates back to his summit with Bush in Texas in April 2002. What is less well known is that at the same summit, Blair proposed and Bush agreed to set up the US-UK Energy Dialogue, a permanent liaison dedicated to "energy security and diversity". Its existence was only later exposed through a freedom of information inquiry.

Both governments refuse to release minutes of Dialogue meetings, but one paper dated February 2003 notes that to meet projected demand, oil production in the Middle East would have to double by 2030 to more than 50m barrels a day. So on the eve of the invasion, UK and US officials were discussing how to raise production from the region - and we are invited to believe this is coincidence. The bitterest irony is, of course, that the invasion has created conditions that guarantee oil production will remain hobbled for years to come, bringing the global oil peak that much closer. So if that was plan A, what on earth is plan B?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2111400,00.html

Also

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/US-expert-calls-for-peal-oil-study/2007/06/26/1182623886838.html

Why did America start war? Perhaps, because England is short of energy resources with all her Northern Sea fields disputed.

Why Iraq-because too deep English interest in, a lesser defensive country and much more pro-terrorist pro-public-ownership unpopular regime practically supporting terrorists and gaining a success in producing both forbidden military chemical compounds and suspicious nuclear substances.

And Butler... Speaking of him, give us a break, please. The plenty was written already.

Are you insane? Are you suggesting Iraq NEVER had any WMD? Richard Butler has said hundreds of time that Saddam had WMD’s or WMD programs and that it was actively hiding them.

Here is what Richard Butler had to say in 2002

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4687/testimony_by_richard_butler_on_iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html

heres more
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980611-in.htm
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000928rb.pdf

I also can provide hundreds of links where butler talks about Iraqi WMD and they are from the horse’s mouth. Giving me links to blatantly left wing sites is hardly evidence of anything except bias. As I said before, its like me quoting the Bill O’Reilly. Are you one of those people who thinks the mainstream media are the stooges of the bourgeoisie?
Eclipse Now, pls don’t quote the guardian as it’s probably one of the most far left newspapers written in the English language.
“I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program”
This is a direct quote from Ritter.

The issue isn’t whether Saddam ever had WMD but whether he had them at the time of the Iraq war. If the US hadn’t invaded it would have been Saddam’s greatest triumph. There is no way he would not have rearmed.

Finally will those people who think that just saying Peak Oil makes their argument, please desist. There is no consensus on when Peak Oil will occur, and no consensus on how quickly it will run out after that. Hubbert’s predictions are most valid when discussing American oil production, less so elsewhere

Lyn,

So many politicians and so many of them talking but little or no deeds.

Why is it that not a single Member of Parliament requested the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and/or the Australian Federal Police to investigate John Howard for authorising the armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq?
I even , on the day of the invasion, had on 19 March 2003, the High Court of Australia yet again refusing my application for writs within Section 75(v) of the Constitution to be heard upon its merits. No wonder considering their political appointments.
Now, my issue wasn’t if the late President Saddam Hussein did or didn’t have WMD’s but was that only the Minister for Defence could authorise such an invasion and only AFTER the Governor-General used prerogative powers and had published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. This never occurred.
Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) makes it treachery to attack a “friendly” nation!

It seems we have politicians complaining but themselves do not act as they can. Are you now going to ask for a formal investigation as to the invasion, or perhaps it is not that important to you for a Minister of the Crown to act in blatant breach of constitutional limitations?

And, if you were to read material on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH you may also find that the conduct against the Aboriginals is unconstitutional. In fact so the detention of Dr. Haneef.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the RULE OF LAW should prevail and DUE PROCESS OF LAW must be applied within the constitutional framework.

My concern is why politicians allow other politicians to act unconstitutionally/unlawfully!

Howards welfare reform might just now see that age pensioners also may be dictated how they can spend their money, etc. As where it is unconstitutionally to do it regarding others and you allow it to happen then what stop old age pensionrs to be next?
When will politicians be held accountable, I ask?

Paul L,
I admired the work of Richard Butler in Iraq. I agree that Saddam tried to thwart him at every turn. Yet an ABC report years ago stated Butler’s team destroyed more illegal weapons than the first Iraq war! Though the regime tried to stall inspectors, ultimately the process was successful — until Saddam stopped co-operating to the point where Butler’s team decided to leave in protest.

Yet international pressure was so great that a second round of inspectors was allowed back in. History has shown that the 2nd inspection process was working. There simply were no WMD’s. One does not invade a country on the potential hypothetical future actions of a leader. EG: “There is no way he would not have rearmed.”

Paul, I will continue to quote peak oil as a prime factor in all geo-political debate as it is quite simply, “The Greatest Story Never Told”. The very reason that there is uncertainty over the date of peak oil is a terrible concern. Are we to blunder along in the dark on our most important resource!? From the Senate inquiry:-

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/report/c03.htm

3.133 'Early peak' commentators have criticised what they regard as overoptimistic official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut peak oil arguments in similar detail.

3.134 Affordable oil is fundamental to modern economies. The risks involved are high if peak oil comes earlier than expected, or if economies cannot adapt quickly enough to the post-peak decline. The 2005 ‘Hirsch report’ for the US Department of Energy argues that peak oil has the potential to cause dramatically higher oil prices and protracted economic hardship, and that this is a problem ‘unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society.’ It argues that timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives will be needed:

Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive that delayed mitigation.[113]

Anti-Green, as a retired old cockie and a middle-road observer who has gained Honours in his retirement in International Relations, reckon it is about time you big league followers got with it.

Unfortunately, the big league or the proven winner through history is often the most powerful, as when the Roman writer Tactitus wrote how peace to his Roman leaders was always assured when the whole of the enemy was either enslaved or put to the sword.

Even the so-called Good Lord gave the same assurance when he told the Israelites on the way to the Promised Land to put all the PL occupants to the sword because they were unbelievers.

And so it went on, even by-passing the young Jesus who taught that He had come on earth to decry the tale of the Promised Land and its unfortunate thievery and cruelty to other humankind.

But the unkind Promised Land lurk has gone on and still going on, Romanised Christians telling lies and eagerly supporting it right to this very day.

We don't need to be God-followers to believe in such philosophies, Anti-Green, but just plain commonsense coupled with wisdom and understanding should tell us sport lovers it has broken far too many rules.

The trouble with the Big League today thererore, is it can't define whether its motives are for peace and democracy or just a return to the old colonial grab for contraband which in all truth is still well part of how we got where we are.

The trouble is the Islamics or terrorists as we call them, are back on the same old track too, us reborn Crusader Westerners only adding fuel to their also reborn flames.

Not that I totally back the Greenies, mate, but reckon as far as a future fair go is concerned they are mentally on the more honest track.

Dear Bushbred,

As I understand your argument, you are making the suggesting that the theoretical causes for war should include “divine orders?

Of course, a non believer one can always substitute “priestly whim” for “devine command.”

War is always a serious and complex matter, always with loss of life, destruction of property and livelihood. Therefore the objectives of war should be realistic, achievable and worthwhile. Unfortunately what is worthwhile at the beginning of a conflict may not turn out that way, Alternatively new aims and objectives may arise in the course of the war.

In short war is a totally unpredictable exercise and is best avoided.

Reality is that we ourselves (as a society) cannot manage our own affairs within the RULE OF LAW as permissible within the constitutional framework. We had John Howard making up any kind of nonsense to justify the murderous invasion, to detail unconstitutionally refugees without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, to unlawfully tow unseaworthy boats back into open sea leaving the occupants at the perils of the sea, we had the Australian Federal Police unconstitutionally funding people (aliens) to prevent “refugees” coming to the Commonwealth of Australia, we have John Howard & Co being the TERRORIST upon the parliament to force voting without all members have a copy of the Bill they are to vote upon and without being allowed sufficient time to debate, and on and on its goes, and then we are, so to say, taking the high grounds as to claim about everyone in the world is a TERRORIST but us!
We had no business to invade Iraq, and those who as like G. W. Bush relies on that God told him in my view are lacking what is commonly referred to as “brains”.
(I avoid explicit words being used that might be offensive, but you can guess them).

During WWII people who were fighting the invaders, such as the Dutch in The Netherlands, were “verzet strijders” (resistants fighters/freedom fighters) and those from aboard (other countries) who assisted in this were likewise praised. However, because we invaded another “friendly” country (as we never declared war against Iraq) we have the gall to call the resistants fighters “TERRORIST”.
We declared war at “INDIVIDUALS” where the Framers of the Constitution themselves made clear you could not declare war against an imaginary enemy
What we did was declare war against anyone in the world by this. I oppose any form of violence, but can UNDERSTAND that where we went crazy to declare WAR against anyone, we just get back their response we asked for.
Our TERRORIST are-those-in-the-Federal-Government who caused this all in the first place and they have the blood on their hands, such as the 88 Australians killed in Bali!

As a qualified philosophical historian, Anti-Green, I am probably less religious than you.

But reckon International Relations is much about commonsense, as I mentioned. The trouble is that when the Big League piles up munitions big enough to knock out anyone or anything, it does tend to leave commonsense behind, relying too much personally on the part of the brain that's just behind the eyes and ears.

To be sure, seemingly the problem with the mentality of
George W Bush.

Modern technics are making it so much worse. Better to maybe bring back the belief that From Deserts the Prophets Come.

And that's not religion, matey, but a heading from a book by
Geoffrey Serle in praise to 19th century Australian poets and writers.

Cheers - BB

So, blood for Muslim oil and just money for Australian gas and uranium sold on discounted prices to China and Russia for ages oncoming, by national-liberal pseudo-economists Costello&Howard examplify.