“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?