@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?