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?