Why Dick changed his mind

This is a guest article by David Strahan, author of The Last Oil Shock.

In a widely viewed You Tube clip, taken from a C-Span interview conducted in 1994, Dick Cheney argues persuasively that the United States was right not to topple Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. He cites the potential disintegration of the country and the risk of American casualties as good reasons for the decision not to take Baghdad. So what was it that changed his mind by the turn of the century? An acute awareness of impending peak oil.

In a world of looming oil shortage, Iraq represented a unique opportunity. With 115 billion barrels (officially) Iraq had the world’s third biggest reserves, and after years of war and sanctions they were also the most underexploited. In the late 1990s Iraqi oil production averaged about 2 million barrels per day, but with the necessary investment it was thought its reserves could support three times that output. Not only were sanctions stopping Iraqi production from growing, but also actively damaging the country’s petroleum geology by denying the national oil company access to essential chemicals and equipment. In one of a series of reports to the Security Council, UN specialist inspectors warned in January 2000 that sanctions had already caused irreversible damage to Iraq’s reservoirs, and would continue to lead to “the permanent loss of huge reserves of oil”. But sanctions could not be lifted with Saddam still in place, so if Iraq’s oil was to help defer the onset of global decline, the monster so long supported by the West would have to go.

As I reveal in The Last Oil Shock, the CIA was also well aware of Iraq’s unique value, having secretly paid for new maps of its petroleum geology to be drawn as early as 1998. Cheney also knew, fretting publicly about global oil depletion at a speech in London the following year, where he noted that “the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies”. 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.

Britain and America’s shared energy 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 at Crawford in April 2002. The Times headline was typical that weekend: Iraq Action Is Delayed But ‘Certain’. 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 diplomatic liason dedicated to “energy security and diversity”. No announcement was made, and the Dialogue’s existence was only later exposed through a US Freedom of Information enquiry by Rob Evans and David Hencke of the Guardian.

Both governments continue to refuse to release minutes of meetings between ministers and officials held under the Dialogue, but among some papers that have been released, one dated February 2003 notes that to meet projected world demand, oil production in the Middle East would have to double by 2030 to over 50 million barrels per day, and proposed “a targeted study to examine the capital and investment requirements of key Gulf countries”. So on the eve of the invasion British and American officials were secretly discussing how to raise oil production from the region and we are invited to believe this is mere coincidence. Iraq was evidently not just about corporate greed but strategic desperation.

The bitterest irony is of course that Dick was right in 1994. The invasion has been a disaster not only for the people of Iraq but also in terms of its hidden agenda - creating conditions that guarantee Iraqi oil production will remain hobbled for years to come.


David Strahan is the author of The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man. www.lastoilshock.com

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.

And of course this has received "zero" attention in the MSM (Main Stream Media). I haven't even seen the usually brilliant Daily Show (weekdays Mon-Fri, 8.30pm, More4) pick up on this Cheney video clip. Unfortunately that show seems to be veering away from outright (deserved) political attacks on the Bush administration to go for the more jokey story at the expensive of truly explosive stories such as this one. Shame on the MSM :(

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

So it didn't occur to them that the oil could be bought?

Maybe they thought there would come a time when it couldn't just be bought - remember winter 05/06 when the UK tried to buy gas from the continent?

Hello TODers,

Yep, as I have posted many times before: instead of Bush/Cheney expecting to be showered with candies and flowers for invading Iraq, they should have instead gone for Maximum Iraqi Peakoil Outreach.

If a FF-exporting country goes to Maximum Biosolar Conversion, then they will peacefully sell their depleting FFs to further leverage for this change in direction and long term advantage.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

On 60 minutes Geoge Tenet was interviewed about his book. He said that the Bush adminstration had been warned by the CIA repeatidely that Sadaam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons capability before the 2003 invasion.

It seems like Cheney and Powell took orders from Bush, but it is difficult to discern what special interests were involved.

I mean the Bush administration was warned that the Niger uranium documents were forged. There was no evidence that Sadaam had acquired uranium from Niger.

Very good point.

The 1,000,000 lb of refined yellowcake found in nuclear research center of Al—Tuwaitha in Iraq came most likely from Russia.

Upon further research, I was wrong.
~260 tons of Uranium dioxide came from Portugal
~200 tons from Nigeria
~ 28 tons from Brazil
~ 12 tons from Italy


All those aquisitions were quite old. Early 80's... From the IAEA's Fact Sheet above we can see the following.

As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:

There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.

Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon

There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.

There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material

All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.

There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.


Now that's a brilliant idea. The only world leader with that kind of leadership is Hugo Chavez, and he's just kinky enough to try, or at least announce that's what he's doing.
It would sure beat selling gasoline to his people for $0.25 a gallon and giving away free oil to the poor of other countries as a message.

Sure, but what if it's the Chinese that buy it? China is investing heavily in aid for oil programs in Africa and successfully exploiting African resources (see, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/). The U.S. government couldn't let that happen to a country sitting on the world's third largest reserves. Could the U.S. have maintained enough pressure in the UN to keep Iraq locked up with sanctions forever? At some point China with its deep pockets, could have purchased a good piece of the action in Iraq in return for aid and arms. China's support of Iran for oil concessions has created a strategic nightmare for the administration. Imagine what a Saddam Hussein/China partnership for Iraqi economic development would have meant for U.S. strategic interests as understood by Cheney and company.

Actually Stewart did a piece on the 1994 video. I believe he called it "Dick doesn't know dick." And you are right, it does appear that the Daily Show has lost some of its edge or cockiness. It seems simply more "slapstick" than anything else. I am watching it less.

Stewart talked again about the Cheney Iraq Quagmire video tonight, August 22 2007. This video is mainstream.

I agree with you about The Daily Show, but I don't think it got any dumber over the years - I think we got smarter.

For a while it was easy fun to scapegoat Bush & Cheney for all our problems. But if you're peak-fuels aware, and if you look back at the history of America and Europe, Bush & Cheney are nothing new, and the Republicans aren't the only bad guys.

In fact it was President Carter who in 1980 established the doctrine of securing oil imports by military force. He was a Democrat.

The sad truth is that you and I are complicit in these crimes. We are guilty each time we fill up on ridiculously cheap $3.00 gasoline, or enjoy foods that are insanely cheap by historical standards.

"The sad truth is that you and I are complicit in these crimes. We are guilty each time we fill up on ridiculously cheap $3.00 gasoline, or enjoy foods that are insanely cheap by historical standards."

Very, very, VERY true. We are complicit. Not doing our utmost as individuals to cut our individual consumption of fossil fuels make us BAD PEOPLE.

And that's horrible. I want to be a good person. Still, I eat meat. Because it's so nice. I drive an electric scooter, but I'm still an immoral person. And that's horrible.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not trying to establish that you and I are "bad people," it's not that simple.

We do, however, each play our part causing the problems discussed here at The Oil Drum. We each consume more than the planet can sustainably produce, particularly fossil fuels.

Maybe we're nice guys in person, but our participation in a bad system perpetuates it. We don't need to feel depressed about this fact all the time, but we shouldn't forget it.

Because people forget this fact, they are capable of talking back and forth about whether some Cheney TV clip broadcast everywhere ten years ago, which now plays on YouTube and Jon Stewart, has been "buried by the media" and whether if it "came out" the hypocrisy of the war would finally be exposed, and the bad times in the Middle East might end.

This sort of talk is possible only when people forget their role creating the problem and focus attention on a charismatic "bad guy" like Cheney. It is a kind of entertainment that clouds understanding of what's really going on in the world.

"In fact it was President Carter who in 1980 established the doctrine of securing oil imports by military force. He was a Democrat."

On the whole I agree that the Carter Doctrine was a mistake, but as you note, he was simply being honest about a bi-partisan policy pursued by the US for 60 years.

More importantly, at the same time he laid the groundwork for developing alternatives, and eliminating our dependence on the Middle East. Groundwork which was partially dismantled by Reagan & Bush administrations.

He was also willing to risk "stability" in the ME when he withdrew support for the Shah.

He wasn't perfect, but he was by far the best president we've had in recent history on energy matters.

Quoting SilentPatriot at Crooksandliars:

In perhaps the most brilliant segment on “The Daily Show” I’ve ever seen, last night Jon ran through the last three decades of United States intervention in the Middle East to show how incoherent, ass-backwards and counter-productive it has been.

I agree--it was brilliant. And included the 1994 Cheney video.

Find it on the Comedy Central site by scrolling down the Most Recent Videos column to "America to the Rescue," or find it on Crooksandliars here.

Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com

Yep, somehow I missed the episode with the hilarious "Dick doesn't know Dick" section. Also the way he went after the guy that had done the Dick Cheney book in the interview segment after that was brilliant and brutal...
I have renewed faith in The Daily Show having seen that :)

I'll repeat my advice to The Daily Show: get Kunstler!

Jon Stewart has certainly dumbed it down this year. During an interview with Nikolas Kozloff on 20 Aug., Stewart remarks "what is Chavez going to do when the price of oil goes down... like it did in the 70's". I don't believe Stewart understands peak oil, today's production limits and the increased demand worldwide. Colbert is a more independent thinker for sure.

Charlie, Chicago

It seems that 100% of the time when someone screams that the MSM isn't picking up a story (shame on them), either they did pick up the story or it wasn't worth covering.

In this case the first link to the video on TOD was through the New York Times. Now it seems to have appeared on the daily show twice. There may be other instances. The MSM is all over this story and in fact was the initial source for TOD!

Could people please search Google or something before I assuming that "I have't seen it" means "The MSM is burying it"?

I record every episode shown on Freeview in the UK via my HDD recorder so was suprised I'd missed it. However I had found it linked on Michael Moore's site (via a reddit link) days before the date of the airing.
Cheney lying should have been a bigger story than the bridge falling down.
MSM should be calling for impeachment for any number of things (at least 5). I think the line "Clinton lied but nobody died" sums up the difference between one set of impeachment rules and another!
I think we can BLAME the MSM for ignoring certain stories. It's well known how they pretty well ignored the infamous "Downing Street Memo" story. The Times in the UK unearthed it as I recall. It was virtually ignored in the US and most of the UK papers / TV didn't pick it up either. Channel 4 and Newsnight were the only ones I recall.
It showed that the "US was fixing the evidence around the policy", and had a date "penciled in" for the attack.
So proving it was a lie that they were doing all they could to prevent war.
Also I like the way when Hans Blix says "we haven't found anything" Bush & Co said Saddam's very smart he keeps moving things around.
ie. there was NO way we weren't going to invade... if Blix found anything then we could say "look he's got weapons" invade. If they didnt find anything "youve wasted our time Saddam - stop hiding them".
Even if it was chemical weapons they found - the US sold them to him when Saddam was an ally (during his fight with Iran).
If the MSM were responsible they would go after the administration for the countless lies and when the administration says something without clear evidence point out every time they lied before that.
The latest angle seems to be blaming Iran or Al Qaida for "every" attak in Iraq even if it's Sunni vs Shia or vice versa.

After Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niel resigned, he said that Bush was trying to find a way to invade Iraq before 9/11.


After 9/11 Bush tried to blame Sadaam for having ties to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission later concluded that these assertions were false.


GoogledPO - agree with virtually all you said but Jack is right, the shorthand 'MSM' should not be used to tar everyone in the MSM.

One needs to recognize there are individuals, news divisions, and media companies, that don't tow the line. It's a disservice to the likes of, here in the States, Murray Waas of the National Journal, Thomas Ricks of the WaPo, all of the editorial board and columnists of the NYT (don't remind me about J Miller, a 'reporter'), Tom Whipple of the Falls Church News-Press, the list goes on, and a slew of others I should list but my life is short and my brain feeble.

Not all of life revolves around the Daily Show, as good as it often is.

Even if it was chemical weapons they found - the US sold them to him when Saddam was an ally (during his fight with Iran).

Do you think message was received?

And as mentioned to Col. Feehan

Failure to bring Brzezinski to justice casts a dark shadow of corruption on judicial and government branches.

Further, a failure to bring Brzezinski, and others, to justice may be an invitation for retaliation by those aggrieved by what Brzezinski and others have done.


Actually I did see The Daily Show cover the Cheney clip in a segment titled "Even Dick doesn't know Dick" parodied from his earlier "You don't know Dick" segments.


Try this - six words, starts with "Project" - ends with "Century".

Note the names of the bottom of the statement of principles page.

BTW, anyone conjecturing the current mess was in fact a strategic decision to obtain long-term presence: Gross incompetence, so unbelievable, often looks like sly genius.

Folks - it's not. It's not even hubris. It's just gross stupid incompetence.

Not that I feel strongly one way or the other.


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.


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?

What is this utter gibberish? Particularly on The Oil Drum:EUROPE (my emphasis) why have links to some byzantinely complicated US legal case without any context or introduction?


I've read about these judges and it's scary. Before an empire falls it gets pretty bad. Where's the MSM on this story? If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

I tried to pay attention, but it was legalese gibberish. And one link was a number conversions table? WTF?


Remember that the next time General Electric or WestingHouse has a news story .... Ah Did I say GE/Westinghouse? I'm sorry I should have said MSNBC or CBS has a news story on YOUR nightly news program.

Want a quick dose of reality TV? Hit this link before reading the article, to find out who owns your news source.


<<< Here's a taste of the info...

--(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.

* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.

* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%) (The CORRECT History that is) .

The "MS" in MSNBC means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.


Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)

Who's #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group)

Don;t love it, The Carlyle Group (Bush Sr is a director) has policy control over your news on CBS... What a great country or what?

What do you think the GE or Westinghouse corporate stance is on GLobalism?

How (for example) do you think Anti-Globalism demonstations would be portrayed in THEIR orgainzation's News (society's) Programming?

Here's a taste of how your opinion can be... er... controlled. At the Canadian US/Canada/Mexico SPP NAU summit.

Police accused of using provocateurs at summit
Aug 21, 2007 09:14 PM
Canadian Press

This is a video they are talking about. You gotta watch it. It's SOO funny.
Google 'Montebello police dressing like protesters'

People, WAKE UP !

I'm The Slime Lyrics (Frank Zappa)
[backing vocals Tina Turner & The Ikettes]

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks . . .
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I've said it before, here it is again:

gov't = corporations = media.

Print this around the edge of a circular piece of paper, stick a push pin in the middle, and SPIN! Now you're gettin' it...

(Thanks for the Frank)

"Nuthin' left to do but Smile, Smile, Smile"

I'm sure this is all very clever, and yes, printing out Frank Zappa lyrics is really on-topic in a blog discussing 'energy and our future' I'm sure. But what the hell is all this about?



Did you read the message I was responding to?

"Where's the MSM on this story?"

Have you read TOD for any length of time?

We are involved in(among other things) getting the message out about Peak Oil(I have been trying to everyone I know since 2001, How about you?)

The post I was responding to was WHY the MSM will not print and tell the people what they need to know about Peak Oil and Energy in general.

I thought it would be good for us to understand WHO we are refering to when we say the MSM, so there is no illusions as to their motivations, goals and tactics.

IF you read my post carefully I said "FOR EXAMPLE"

"How (for example) do you think Anti-Globalism demonstations would be portrayed in THEIR orgainzation's News (society's) Programming? "

To show how we may see MSM's coverage of a subject like AntiGlobalism OR PEAK OIL would play out.

The Zappa lyric was a free bonus...

Hello Samsara,
I did read the message you were responding directly to, yes. As you say, it does ask 'Where's the MSM on this story?' and you do indeed advance a hypothesis about why the MSM doesn't cover certain stories. That's cool - no issue with that whatsoever. But what hasn't been made clear is what 'this story' is here. The previous post (to yours) and the ones above it in this thread do not seem to be about peak oil - if they were I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying. The first two posts in this sub-thread are about some completely incomprehensible legal case in the US.

If you understand what the point of that stuff is (and how it's related to peak oil) can you enlighten me?



This is a video they are talking about. You gotta watch it. It's SOO funny.


That's the scariest god*amn thing I've seen in a long while. And it's not the three dickheads toting rocks... it's the 40 or 50 riot police that are all young men in the 20's and 30's who obviously can't wait to see how their training and tactics work.

How is this different from Fascism?

How did this happen to Canada?

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head, Will.

Most folks are just too damned scared to name Fascism or Corporatism for what it is: the Establishment consolidating power in North America while expanding the Resource War globally.

Most people in the USA will be clamoring for blood and demanding that our Constitutional rights be exchanged for empty promises of continued personal peace and prosperity.

Meanwhile the upper class will shrink, the shrinking upper-middle class will become an openly enslaved managerial class, and the rest will become cannon fodder or worse.

But the MSM narrative will not reflect the reality. The managed media will present a story of eternal liberation brought to us by the makers of various weapons, automobiles, and gated communities.

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)


The war in Iraq is of course about oil, but it is not about putting Iraqi oil in American gas tanks.

America imports only 15% of its oil from the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. Most of America's oil comes from Canada, Mexico, the U.S., and South America.

The purpose of the Iraq war is to prevent Asia and Europe from striking sweetheart deals with Middle East governments, like America did with Saudi Arabia after WWII.

Saddam Hussein started taking Euros instead of U.S. dollars for Iraqi oil. The Taliban outlawed poppy (heroin) production. Shortly thereafter, America invaded both countries and toppled their governments.

A short time later, Iraq switched back from Euros to U.S. dollars, and Afghanistan resumed heroin production.

This was what the wars were really about.

Iraq's "job" in the world economy is to produce demand for U.S. dollars via oil sales. Afghanistan's "job" is to produce dirt cheap heroin for the benefit of multinational corporations and the U.S. government.


The caption of this photo is "A British soldier patrols in poppy fields in Sangin, a district Helmand province, Afghanistan."

What is there to protect in a poppy field? Its purpose is heroin production.

According to The New York Times, the U.S. and British armies have presided over an amazing expansion of heroin trade in Afghanistan:


you can't expect desperately poor people whos only source of income for the past many decades has been poppy production to simply drop such a lucrative crop. Especially when alternatives are relatively few... backlash us inevitable then.

Much better to keep people working, fed, "onside", and then work on diverting produce to legitimate avenues... and slowly developing alternative crops and employment.

"you can't expect desperately poor people whos only source of income for the past many decades has been poppy production to simply drop such a lucrative crop."

It doesn't matter what you expect, they were abandoning it. At least until the US stepped into the question...

But I still don't think that was the main objective (if it was planned at all) of the war. As I think oil was one minor objective of Iraq war.

And just what is the purpose of this 'heroin production' job?

Catherine Austin Fitts explains better than me:


Good article!

This subject is touched on also in Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon, for which Fitts wrote the forward.

BMCNETT wrote:
"The war in Iraq is of course about oil, but it is not about putting Iraqi oil in American gas tanks."

"America imports only 15% of its oil from the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. Most of America's oil comes from Canada, Mexico, the U.S., and South America."

This misunderstands the nature of trade in a fungible [go look that word up] commodity. Oil will flow to the highest bidder, eventually (so long as it isn't scarce as hen's teeth). So, oil production in Iraq doesn't have to be directly sold to the US to allow other crudes to be available to the US. If Iraq wasn't online, there would be less oil for all and that would mean all would have to do without some quantity, which would in turn, harm the economy.



You're somewhat right about the fungibility of oil - but it's not as if Hussein had threatened to stop selling Iraq's oil, and America invaded to "get" oil into the world market, either.

The war was about control of Iraq's oil. Because this oil is so cheap to produce, it creates a lot of political power. If America hadn't invaded, that power could have evolved into something America couldn't control. It already had; Saddam switched 2.5 million barrels of daily oil demand from U.S. dollars into Euros shortly before the invasion.

Oil is not entirely fungible, because it is expensive and dangerous to tanker it halfway around the world. It's cheaper and more secure to pipe it over land from neighbors. That's why America depends on Canada and Mexico for oil imports.

I also remember "the pipeline" reason for the invasion of Afghanistan.
"Either Accept a Carpet of Gold or Get a Carpet of Bombs"

see this link:

and how the Taliban were in talks with Unocal, were invited to Washington, and by all accounts the deal went sour.

The pipeline stuff in Afghanistan is just conspiracy theory. No one is going to build such a multi billion dollar project in that unstable rathole. It just doesn't make any sense.

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.


Don't forget the role of Israel in all of this. Wolfowitz and Perle are likely working for Israel's interests instead of the US interests. Israel is a theocracy as bad as Saudi Arabia with the Wahabi Moslem's. The Orthodox won't even let a reform Rabbi perform marriages in Israel.

They've corrupted the US political parties for years, and have Mossad agents operating almost openly in Washington. They rely on US tax dollars to support their nation, and have our "national defense" as the enforcement arm of their foreign policy. Who did their WMD actually threaten? The only plausible target is Israel, just as the Iranian's nukes only threaten Israel.

I'll probably get called an anti-semite for writing this post, but the real enemy is Theocracies of all kinds. The whole whacked-out end of the world rapture thing can only take place according to the fundimentalist neocons when the jews have built a new temple in Jerusalem and the new messiah must be of King David's line. So the fundementalists are supporting Israel 100% so their prophesies come true. The whole US foreign policy in the mid-east is predicated on interpretations of the books of Daniel and Revalations in the bible. And all of this nonsense has gotten worse and worse since the Republicans under Nixon allied themselves with the fundimentalist christians to take control of what they thought was a solid voting block to keep control of the US. They aligned themselves with the catholics on abortion and right to life issues for the same reason. The Saudi princes do the same thing-they think that being a Wahabi state ensures their power, so they tolerate and encourage psychopaths like Ben Laden to stay in power on top of their ocean of oil.

This kind of insanity is why the Founding Fathers were so dead set against any national religion and wanted a separation of church and state. I don't think the countries of the world have been so at their throats because of control by religious fanatics since the 18th century, and now they want to set the world on fire, and they have nukes to do it instead of 20 lb. cannon balls.

I don't know what a good answer is to the problem, but I do know that if the Bushites attack Iran for Israel, our whole country is likely to be destroyed. We have to stop the fundemental evil of letting groups get grants from the US treasury so they can bribe the congress, whether its "faith based" initiatives in the communities or using the military to enforce the foreign policy of the orthodox faction of jews. And remember, most of the jews in America are here because they don't like the government of Israel either. Its not people with a faith, its fanatics who want to bring on the second coming or build a new jerusalem with a new Temple.

One of the stories in the bible is about the temptation of Jesus in the desert. In it Satan took Jesus up on a mountain and said "you can have all the countries of the world if you will just bow down and worship me. Jesus declined, but I think Cheney and the elder Bush took it.

OM Bob,

Thanks for having the guts to break the silly taboo about talking about it. From my point of view, our society's unwillingness to call Israel on so many of its overreaching policies is not doing the Jewish cause a favor. Like an undisciplined child with too big an allowance, Israel and the small Christian wacko lot have been allowed to punch far above their democratic weight, and the history of this sort of thing has not been pretty. I have no doubt that oil domination has had a motivating factor as well, but as to apportioning the 'blame', I don't know.

Historians, if there are any, will no doubt unravel it to an extent, eventually.

I dunno much about Israel, but I can put disloyal Christian Right in bold without too much trouble.

Israel is a theocracy as bad as Saudi Arabia with the Wahabi Moslem's.

Israel is a predominately secular country with a large Jewish majority. Freedom of religion is very evident there, with Moslems, Christians and Druze all represented in the Knesset (Israeli parliament). By contrast, you are not even allowed to carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia, and if you attempt to hold a church service you will be arrested.

The whole whacked-out end of the world rapture thing can only take place according to the fundimentalist neocons when the jews have built a new temple in Jerusalem and the new messiah must be of King David's line.

This statement is a bit mixed up. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, from King David's line. There isn't going to be a new one. Jews do not believe in a rapture.

Excuse me, NASAguy, but how many of the one million Arab muslims in Israel can vote? The point is that the Hasidim and other fundamentalists are "punching above their weight" in Israel, too, just like here in the US.
Not arresting them may make it qualify as a constitutional democracy, but that doesn't mean that the religious minorities in Israel aren't marginalized and exploited.
Truly, Saudi is the ugliest of all the actors. Contrast them with the Iranians, who actively protect their Jewish minority through constitutional protections on the minimum number of delegates that represent them.

Excuse me, NASAguy, but how many of the one million Arab muslims in Israel can vote?

All the Arab Moslems in Israel who are over 18 can vote. Perhaps I am missing your point?

NASAguy, yes you are correct, Israel is a secular Zionist state and not a Jewish state as such. Unfortunately a distinction which is lost on many, including Jews themselves.

Calling Israel Jewish is like calling Nazi Germany Christian, meaningless. Where the confusion comes in is the fact that Zionism derives its power and support from the Jewish culture and people. It does this through a very sophisticated blend of revisionary history and propaganda, similar to the way the Nazis created the Aryan myths and wrapped themselves in them. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nazis had actually learnt their myth and propaganda skills from the Zionists.

Also, you don't need to be Jewish to be a Zionist, many neocons (closet Zionists) are not Jewish and many supporters of the Zionist State are not Jewish. So when talking about the very real harm that is being done by Zionists and their supporters, the harm should be properly attributed to the Zionists and not the Jewish people as a whole.

BTW, I'm not myself Jewish. And the bit about Jesus coming from King David's line looks like nonsense to me.

Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy

Capitalizing "Jews" would be a good place to start if you want to avoid looking anti-semitic.

Wolfowitz and Perle are likely working for Israel's interests instead of the US interests.

There is nothing antisemitic about criticizing Israel or suggesting that the country has too much influence in the US. You can say anything you want about Israel and all i will accuse you of is being off topic.

However, accusing people of being disloyal, even treasonous to their country, just because they have a Jewish last name, certaintly is antisemitic. So, you are right. You are being accused of being an anti-semite.

Similarly if you said someone was acting in the interests of China because their last name is Lee or Wong, I would call you anti-Chinese.

Which explains the new mega Embassy on the banks of the Euphrates.The US are and always have been, in for the long haul. Anyone who think otherwise is suffering from a mild delusion - what's that line in Macbeth - steeped in blood so much that it were better to go forward than retreat ?

Keeping the oil in the ground is no problem.It won't evaporate or go away.

The very slow brains in the FCO in Whitehall have just realised this and want no part of it - so expect the UK brigades to high tail it down the highway to Kuwait City pronto.

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.

"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 only aggressor nation at the moment is the US, hence why Russia and China (and their weapons) are now welcomed in oil producing regions. Producers are quickly building themselves a web of defence both militarily and diplomatically. The very fact that Saudi Arabia is suddenly friendly with Russia and China shows that even the elite are now distrustful of the US and are looking elsewhere for allies.

The multipolar world view being projected by Russia and China is much more desirable than unipolar one proposed by the US. As can be seen by the ongoing financial debacle, the US couldn't care less who it shafts as long as it benefits. I'd imagine there's a lot of allies fuming over the worthless ABCP paper they've been left holding. Such mistrust of the US can only favour the multipolar view and aid its development.

Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy

The only aggressor nation at the moment...

And that bit is the important bit. There are only a few possible game plans for a post peak world. We can expect several more countries/blocs to employ an aggressor stance.

Note Russia has the ability to defend its resources, and gather others under its sphere. China equally.

Europe is unlikely to undertake any expeditionary jaunts, but can defend itself. Africa, Central and South America will be ignored, invaded or controlled as required. South East Asia will fight amongst itself. India is a great unknown. Australia will become a resource supply depot. Canada and Mexico will do as they are told.

At least that is probably the favoured/believed scenario in the Pentagon.

It's going to take a while, but the days of the London - New York - Tel Aviv axis are on countdown.

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.

Oil Slick Dick and the other Neothugs are just doing what they have been breed to do-- carry out this last man standing game with other ruling elite's on the planet--
They took Iraq for the geopolitical reason of controlling an area that has 80% of the remaining energy resources, because thy could, and before other elite's solidified their position--
This is a scramble for the last of a declining resource, in a collapsing world in the midst of a mass extinction--
No one said late stage capitalism was going to be fun--

When Big Daddy Bush attended the official independence celebration held by the Kuwaiti's after Iraq BushWar I, a plot was uncovered by intelligence agencies to kill him and others by triangulated car bombs. The Iraqi agents were captured and confessed. Shrub never forgot...it was a personal vendetta among other motives.

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

Iraq was always behind Al Qaeda, and the anthrax letters too, and Clinton and Bush always knew it; but it's a state secret, so the war had to be prosecuted in a state of doublethink.

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.


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.


It is kind of amazing to read on TOD the general consensus that peak oil will end life as we know it in the US. Just read Kunstler. We use more and have less than any other country in the world. So, if Bush & Cheney invaded Iraq only to buy you and your families more time, is that all bad. I mean, are you all prepared to tell your children and grandchildren that they are screwed and no one should have done anything to try to help until viable alternatives are found? Reading this site, there clearly are no viable alternatives at this time. And, I think it will take a combination - but, there is a very vocal crowd that is strongly against almost every altertative that is available now. Just read this site. No nukes. No ethanol. No biofuels. No coal. No CTL. Perhaps some wind. And electrify everything, but do not create any more electricity except thru solar and wind and maybe waves. So, tell your families that Bush & Cheney went after the oil, but you want them (your families) screwed.

Dear Jbunt,

You make some good points, unpalatable as they may be. I think Cheney sees himself as a true american patriot, almost a visionary, whose doing his best to secure the energy supplies the United States needs to continue its way of life until some alternative energy source comes online. What must frustrate Cheney is that most Americans just don't get how precarious the situation really is. They want the benefits of cheap and plentiful energy, but they don't want the toil involved in getting it. They just don't want to get their hands dirty, or bloody.

I think Cheney sees himself as an unsentimental realist, a man who is misunderstood by his own time. He's fighting battles most Americans don't even know are going on! But when the lights go out, the shelves are empty and the gas stations close down, it'll be too late to complain and say "Hey Dick why didn't you do something?!" Well Dick is doing something, he's out to secure the world's remaining oil reserves for folks who don't even know enough to thank him for it!

So, guys, let's all cut Dick som slack, shall we?

Yeah, right, Wman:
HIS way of life may not be negotiable, but OURS is on the way out.

Seriously, jbunt, do you think that the Iraqi oil would give us anything more than BAU for another decade at most, followed by a steeper decline?

We had an honest chance to change our energy policy under the leadership of Carter, but he was pilloried by those who offered easy answers to hard questions. And to think that so many in the US still remember the Reagan years wistfully, oblivious to the body counts of the Dirty Wars in Latin America, to the tons of cocaine dumped on US streets, and to the shadow government that was operating in the White House basement.

"Until you change the way money works, you've changed nothing."
- Mike Ruppert, following others

"It may not be profitable to slow decline."
- Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik

I mean, are you all prepared to tell your children and grandchildren that they are screwed and no one should have done anything to try to help until viable alternatives are found?

Are we prepared to tell our children and grandchildren that we squandered our wealth pursuing uncertain oil resources in Iraq when we could have used that national wealth to prepare the country for the effects of peak oil and for crash development of renewable resources?

The billions and billions of dollars spent in Iraq and the debt left for our children to repay could have gone toward the development of new energy resources and green technologies and national infrastructure. Instead, it is being squandered and forever lost like mist rising in the desert heat.

Then again, Cheney and Rummy and the gang thought they had it all worked out and that it would be done on the cheap and that it would pay for itself from oil revenue. What in the world were they smoking??? If they had any sense of honor, all of them should have resigned by now. It's lack of competence and lack of accountability. Giving them the benefit of the doubt re motives - that they went in to preserve our way of life - they truly royally screwed it up.

Reading this site, there clearly are no viable alternatives at this time

BS !! Double Bovine Excrement !

So, if Bush & Cheney invaded Iraq only to buy you and your families more time, is that all bad

So let us kill ONE MILLION INNOCENT CIVILIANS so that we can grab THEIR oil !

"All bad" is an understatement ! "Profoundly Evil" comes closer to the truth but "Logic that Hitler and Stalin would have approved of" is closest.

Disgusted beyond Belief,

May you die an early death shivering in your Hummer or by a self inflicted gunshot,


^------------- 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.

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3709
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 15
Total 3724
DoD Confirmation List
Latest Coalition Fatality: Aug 22, 2007
U.S. Military Fatalities in Iraq: A Four-Year Retrospective
by Glenn Kutler

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
8-2007 66 4 0 70 3.04 23
7-2007 79 8 1 88 2.84 31
6-2007 101 7 0 108 3.6 30
5-2007 126 3 2 131 4.23 31
4-2007 104 12 1 117 3.9 30
3-2007 81 1 0 82 2.65 31
2-2007 81 3 1 85 3.04 28
1-2007 83 3 0 86 2.77 31
12-2006 112 1 2 115 3.71 31
11-2006 70 6 2 78 2.6 30
10-2006 106 2 2 110 3.55 31
9-2006 72 3 2 77 2.57 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.26 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31
12-2004 72 1 3 76 2.45 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30
10-2004 64 2 2 68 2.19 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003 44 1 2 47 1.52 31
9-2003 31 1 1 33 1.1 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003 48 1 0 49 1.58 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003 37 4 1 42 1.35 31
4-2003 74 6 0 80 2.67 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 3724 168 129 4021 2.49 1618



Actually, I do not think that we went to Iraq for the oil at all. That is my opinion. You guys say it was for the oil. But, I would bet all my money, none of you watch as much news as I have. A few months after Clinton was sworn into office in 1993, his new Secretary of State Warren Christopher, being interviewed on ABC's Sunday morning show - I believe Brinkley & Donaldson at the time. Christopher stated that there was no chance the Iraq sanctions would be lifted with Saddam still in power. At the time, the Clinton administration was pretty sure he would not last. Well, 10 years later, with millions of ordinary Iraqi's suffering from the sanctions, I believe that Bush felt that it was not smart to remove the sanctions without first removing Saddam.

But, you all want to believe that Bush was an oil genius and foresaw peak oil before Matt Simmons and all of you. OK.

So you watch a lot of TV and have got it all figured out. Maybe Dick watches more TV than you and Warren Christopher put together? Ever think of that?

I didn't say it was for oil. I said it was for freedom and democracy.

As the office said before:

Go fuck yourself.

"But, you all want to believe that Bush was an oil genius and foresaw peak oil before Matt Simmons and all of you. OK."

er...no. Bush is the glove puppet. Cheney is the smart psychopath who sometime between 1994 and 1999 relised that there was a supply crunch in the pipeline - the oil majors had nowwhere left to go inorder to up output - and that something had to be done about it. See Utube clip from 1994 and his speech to the London Petroleum Institute of 1999.

His answer, open up the Iraq to the US/UK oil majors by force.

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.