I have long maintained there are two Peak Oil moments.

1. Peak Oil

2. The preceding moment when everyone realised that Peak Oil was due.

Mr Cheney's Damascene revelation was essentially the driver for building a huge Embassy on the banks of the Euphrates.

The motive ...if you haven't got the oil...go and steal it.

http://politics.reddit.com/info/2i1ry/comments

if you are so inclined...(posted to reddit 8/23, 2p EDT)

I know Robert is going to scold me, but this is just what is meant in the NPC report that energy independence is silly and we need to concentrate on energy security. In fact, the US once had energy independence and it also had a foreign policy of its own. Now, it is completely reactive, breathlessly following the whims of those who have the oil. Well, real security is not possible with an energy security mindset, but it is just that mindset which has put us in this war. Oil companies are a part this and their efforts to control our policies have harmed us a great deal.

Chris

What do you think is going to happen with Iran?

What do you think Col Feehan is going to do?

What do you think the Persians are going to do?

And what do you think judge Armijo is going to do?

cheers

David wrote

"Blair too had reason to be anxious about oil: British North Sea output had peaked in 1999 - and has been falling ever since - while the petrol protests of 2000 had made the importance of maintaining the fuel supply excruciatingly obvious."

I was brand new into Aberdeen Scotland in August 2000, when the tax protest took place in Sept. My wife and I, driving back to Peterculter after an evening at the theatre, saw long lines at the petrol stations. We didn't know what was going on, having been in the UK for only 2 weeks. By the time we realized what was happening, the petrol was gone! A week later so was the food in the grocery stores. What a welcome to Scotland! That event made me accutely aware of how dependent society is upon oil. Modern society will collapse in about 3 weeks if oil were suddenly shut off. Police, fire and ambulances had trouble moving in a week and a half.

For my part, I DO hope the Iraq war was about the oil. Unfortunately, I don't think there is as much in Iraq as the media suggests.

Glenn Morton
Now retired and working as a Geophysical Consultant (formerly geophysical manager for Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and Dir. of Technology and Exploration Director for China)

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Oilcrisis.htm

Dick Cheney made the video in 1993

BEFORE OCTOBER OF 1995 CHENEY NEVER HAD A JOB IN THE OIL BUSINESS. He spent his entire adult life as a bureaucrat, and as a George H.W. Bush crony and toady.G.H.W Bush's grandfather, the wall street financier George Herbert Walker was the Chairman of the Board of Dresser Industries, and Brown Bros. Harriman and George H.W. Bush inherited and owned a large part of the voting stock of Haliburton after the merger. Through the Carlysle Group stock and their own stock the Bush family controled Haliburton. They had Cheney hired as a reward for years of loyal service at the CIA, with Iran Contra, and as a general hatchet man. They had Cheney buy Brown and Root for Haliburton, the engineering firm that profited most in Viet Nam and that set them up to be the main profiteers from the Haliburton contracts in Iraq. With the Bush family its always about the money.

If Cheney became peak oil aware, which I still havent seen proven, it was through the CIA analysis. The Bush administrations are kleptocracies.

Then, after James Baker, Cheney and George H.W. Bush got young George W. Bush nominated for president, Cheney was put in as V.P. to be his handler. But after 9/11, young George got the funny idea he was president and Dick Cheney switched loyalties because young George really was the President and Cheney always sucks up to power, but in the mean time he kept all the no-bid contracts going to Haliburton.

Paul Chefurka has an interesting interpretation of all this in http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Iraq%20and%20Saudi%20Arabia.html

Basically the idea is that the US needed the Iraqi oil to hide the decline in Saudi production, using the IPSA pipeline between Iraq and SA. This is, of course, a conspiracy theory. But an interesting one :-)

Jay from Finland

Personally I don't think the invasion of Iraq and subsequente occupation was "all about oil." Though history will probably write it up that way. It's what most people agree on and the simple, understandable, explanation.

Clearly none of the official explanations and justifications ever made much sense, and subsequent events have almost totally undermined them; bordering on ridicule, contempt and incredulity.

I believe the reasons for invading Iraq were far from simple, varied and almost contradictory; however, in the words of Paul Wolfewitz, the threat of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" was what most people came around to agreeing on for the benefit of public consumption. One could hardly have expected the Whitehouse to admit they were invading Iraq because of the dire and worsesoning oil situation. Historically the economic arguments for going to war have never really played well amongst the poor sods that have to do the fighting and dying! Wars are usually about lots of things, but never about money.

One can argue that the United States could just have purchased Iraq's oil, so why bother to invade, putting a hefty war-tax premium on top of the market price? Anyway the US only gets a relatively small proportion of its oil from the Middle East, were not that desparate, are we?

However, the United States is becoming increasingly dependent on Middle East oil and that growing dependency is part of the problem.

I believe the crucial point in relation to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is strategic. It's about unfettered access and investment to ramp up production and simply put - control. The country that controls the oil of the Middle East has a strangle-hold on the world; at least that's the theory. I think the Whitehouse buys into this theory right down the line. In their eyes and brains the very future prosperity and even existance of the United States as a world power, rests on control of the Middle East and its energy resources.

I believe Iraq was a point of agreement between differing interest groups (Oil, Pentagon, Corporatists, various lobby groups, etc) and was therefore doable. So depending upon which interest group your talking about the reason will be different, the only thing tying them together was the wish to do something regarding Iraq.

The problem for Iraq was that the interest groups held no consensus on what to do afterwards, hence the directionless mishmash of policies. The Pentagon is building its bases as it planned, the oil interests are trying to get their hands on the oil, the corporatists are trying to craft the Country's laws, others are making sure the Iraqis remain in a state of powerlessness, etc.

In terms of the US empire, Iraq and Afghanistan was just a small part of a much larger strategic plan. Anyone looking at a globe of the World will immediately see that it is dominated by the landmass of Asia (Europe in the West; Russia and India in the centre; China in the East). No world empire can exist without controlling Asia and all attempts at world empire have foundered in Asia.

Can you imagine what would happen in Washington if Europe, Russia, India and China joined together as a unified world power. If Europe is ever invited to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) I'd imagine blood pressure in Washington will go off the scale.

I believe that Europe's future is with the East. A first step in that direction will be Europe acquiescing to come under Russia's protective energy blanket. This will mean a systemic disengagement from the US, which will not happen overnight, but over an extend period of time. This will prove particularilly difficult for Britain.

Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy

As I think I have posted several times before here, this is the beginning of the policy that I believe the US has developed - call it "US First".

1) To secure oil supplies by military force (Iraq, Iran) or overt control (Saudi Arabia, Canada)

2) To shift and position forces in the middle east (from europe) to affect that control, permanently.

3) To ensure the distribution of the declining resource becomes more unequal and the US survives another decade as others crumble.

Thus the fact that the US is still in Iraq is no mistake, it was policy - to extend the opportunity to invade Iraq that 11th Sept presented until such point as the american public recognised peak oil, and thus the rationale for maintaining and strengthening US control in the region.

It should also be recognised that other countries can do the same analysis and thus understand the US game plan. Given that the US approach requires others to suffer, it is to be expected that they have alternative mechanisms to protect themselves (eg China's financial grip on the US). The UK support of US actions can be seen in this light.

Producers are currently taking more and more control of national oil reserves as the peak nears - but that is only temporary. If they do not have the power to defend themselves against motivated opponents it is to be expected their reserves will be 'liberated' - negating much of the exportland calculations.

The movements that precede the "Grand Game" are taking place now, with the game starting in earnest once the peak becomes obvious. This is at least part of the reason for the lack of attention paid in public to the concept - countries are jockeying for position, using the time to prepare and refine and delaying the kick off as long as possible.

When the game starts, it starts in earnest. It will be a shock.

Reasons why Bush took out Saddam - any more anyone can think of?:

1. Sanctions were coming to an end (2million civilians had died and the UN were going to end them). They weren't stopping him something had to replace them, somebody had to replace Saddam.
2. Saddam destabilised the middle east, and indirectly threatened Israel the neocons (Wolfowitz, Cheney) (which like Israel) did not want this.
3. Bush and many of the companies that got elected make more money the more expensive oil is. Prices were down as low as 10 bucks in the late 1990s. Oil companies in the US can't make money at those levels.
4. Saudi Arabia's GDP/person is down from $30,000 to $10,000 due to a massively booming population and the falling oil price (down to $12 in 2001). Saudi Arabia was having to CUT it's 10million barrel a day production in half to prop up prices! The country was actually in deficit. Saudi Arabia was becoming less stable/reliable.
5. Iraq (like Iran currently and Chavez) wanted to trade oil in Euros instead of $. With all oil traded in $ (even between say Korea and Iran) all countries had to hold massive $ reserves so propping up the massive debts of the US ($9 trillion).
6. US bases in Saudi Arabia - they'd been there since Gulf War One. The US said they were temporary (expecting Saddam to topple) but he didn't so they stayed in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom were under great pressure from their population to kick the "infidels" out. Those PERMENANT bases are now in Iraq.
7. Bush said, quote "he tried to kill my daddy".
8. "Beware the military industrial complex" Boeing, etc. don't make money on domestic aeroplanes (thanks to cutthroat Airbus competition) they make their money on government contracts. Same for all the arms companies. So no opposition from any lobbyists then!
9. Cheney stood to make a packet from lucrative government contracts, he still has share in his old company.
10.Vengence for 9/11 (though no links) even though Saddam hated Al Qaida and did not support them.
11.Iraq had oil contracts with France and Russia (ironically or not the 2 countries most opposed to the war). The US was frozen out.
12.The US was forbidden to sell lucrative arms contracts to Iraq
13. Bush and Co as PNAC had drawn up plans in 1999. They had planned to topple Saddam at the earliest opportunity but had said short of "another Pearl Harbour" there wouldn't be much willingness to do so. 9/11 was just an excuse.

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, Remember the HUGE interest in the Caspian Sea area in the mid90's? Remember the headlines of "It's bigger than Saudi Arabia" and such talk?

We started building bases, seizing control as best they could, THEN around 2000ish, it became known that it was a bust by mega standards and would NOT recue US(us).

It was THEN I believe that the focus shifted to Iraq as the last place to grab lots of oil.

Dick's 180degree shift happened under THAT unfolding reality.

john

Iraq, to - grab bag::

1) control energy resources, transport routes

2) take over a country in the center of a vitally strategic area

3) serve the interests of Israel, or the us-isr entity

4) break up / destroy a socialist, secular, nationalist type Gvmt.

5) take over the economy (corps with guns)

6) give georgie an easy military victory

7) feed (or just use) the military-industrial complex, care of the tax payer

8) test new weapons and methods, legitimize torture, etc.

9) unite Americans, make them pro war, etc. (It’s the long war, remember.)

10) use war / ‘terrorism’ as an excuse for internal control

11) Get revenge on Saddam, who proved to be a unreliable lackey and very tough

12) show that the US will use its force, its threats are real

13) Cement the Anglo alliance, position the spheres of domination more clearly, clarify the EU-US alliance (this has France-Germany pointed to Algeria, Morocco, Lybia, the USuk in the ME, all of them in Afghanistan, etc.) (note.)

14) cement, consolidate, the US puppets Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Turkey (this last is also an ally of Israel.)

15) threaten Syria and Iran. (About Iran, the situation is more complicated. The threat(s) can be seen as posturing.)

16) have a Republican war. (it was the Dems who destroyed Yugoslavia.)

18) steal a march on Russia.

19) augment *the arc of instability,* see what happens

20) stop the Iraqis using their own oil (sanctions and oil for food had the same aim.)

21) commit genocide under the radar (that can be questioned or interpreted different ways)

22) ........and more

note. Ostensibly, the Iraq war created a rift between the EU (France-Germany, two of the big three, the other being GB), with the US showing strength and doing a ‘go it alone’. The divide was rather superficial, concerned internal power relations and tactics. The EU and the UN agreed to sanctions and Billy C’s bombing, but dragged their feet on outright invasion (except Britain.) With Merkel and Sarkozy in power, these differences have largely been washed away, as it was certain they would be. Much more could be said.

^------------- Dick told me to tell everyone here that each and everyone of you something... His main point is at the end of this paragraph. Aside from that, our mission is spreading freedom and democracy, that's all. We're just there to help the Iraqi people and make sure genocide doesn't take place. Jesus, when will you guys understand? We are at war with an enemy that will stop at no end. I mean, a genocide somewhere else would be "OK", but this is the cradle of civilization we're talking about here! I must plunder its museums and drop permanent bases all over it--for it deserves our most sustained efforts. I've even thrown in a beautiful multi billion dollar embassy. Why are people so ungrateful? We just can't give up and cut and run. After working in the oil industry for a few years I realized we just have to help the Iraqis... and...

go fuck yourself.

This message brought to you by the executive and legislative branches of Mr. Cheney's office. Have a nice day.

US Casualties By Calendar Year
Year US Deaths US Wounded
2003 486 2408
2004 849 8002
2005 846 5948
2006 822 6398
2007 721 4430
Total 3724 27186

Deaths Since April 28, 2005
(Shiite-led government announced):
Police/Mil: 5572
Civilians: 36389
Total: 41961
Deaths Since February 22, 2006
(Al Askari Mosque bombing):
Police/Mil: 3274
Civilians: 30281
Total: 33555

In view of the fact that the world's oil companies control about 15% of the world's oil resources, they trumped up a reason to invade Iraq, WMD. The original intent was to grab the oil and break OPEC. When they figured out that was not possible, they said that it was the "Iraqi people's oil". Then they set about getting the government they wanted elected and now that they have one, they want them to vote to hand over all their oil to the world's oil companies or they will cut off aid.

Iraq may be trying to work a deal with Iran to fund the country and bring their oil fields back on line, then they do not need the U.S. After all, we DID invade their country, destroy it and kill their people. We obviously do NOT want Iraq and Iran to be friends, but that is where they are headed. So much for the master strategy.

The reason the deal went sour (in which Condi Rice was of great help in setting up , as was Khalilzad BTW) is that Clinton lobbed some Tomahawks into Afghanistan (20/8/98) to deflect the attention from the public laundering of his cocksucking intern's blue dress.

Remember (7/8/98) 2 weeks earlier the bombing of US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

21st August Unocal pulled out of the deal... also remember CNOC 3 yrs wanted to buy Unocal and it ended up that Chevron bought them - maybe Chinese wanted to resurrect eastern directed pipelines.