Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots with Oil

By Richard W. Behan, AlterNet. Posted February 5, 2007.


An in-depth look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the events leading up to them, and the players who made them possible.
Advertisement

In the Caspian Basin and beneath the deserts of Iraq, as many as 783 billion barrels of oil are waiting to be pumped. Anyone controlling that much oil stands a good chance of breaking OPEC's stranglehold overnight, and any nation seeking to dominate the world would have to go after it.

The long-held suspicions about George Bush's wars are well-placed. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not prompted by the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They were not waged to spread democracy in the Middle East or enhance security at home. They were conceived and planned in secret long before September 11, 2001 and they were undertaken to control petroleum resources.

The "global war on terror" began as a fraud and a smokescreen and remains so today, a product of the Bush Administration's deliberate and successful distortion of public perception. The fragmented accounts in the mainstream media reflect this warping of reality, but another more accurate version of recent history is available in contemporary books and the vast information pool of the Internet. When told start to finish, the story becomes clear, the dots easier to connect.

Both appalling and masterful, the lies that led us into war and keep us there today show the people of the Bush Administration to be devious, dangerous and far from stupid.

The following is an in-depth look at the oil wars, the events leading up to them, and the players who made them possible.

Iraq

The Project for a New American Century, a D.C.-based political think tank funded by archconservative philanthropies and founded in 1997, is the source of the Bush Administration's imperialistic urge for the U.S. to dominate the world. Our nation should seek to achieve a "...benevolent global hegemony," according to William Kristol, PNAC's chairman. The group advocates the novel and startling concept of "pre-emptive war" as a means of doing so.

On January 26, 1998, the PNAC, sent a letter to President William Clinton urging the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The dictator, the letter alleged, was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and posed a mortal threat to "...the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's oil supply..." The subjugation of Iraq would be the first application of "pre-emptive war."

The unprovoked, full-scale invasion and occupation of another country, however, would be an unequivocal example of "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state." That is the formal United Nations definition of military aggression, and a nation can choose to launch it only in self-defense. Otherwise it is an international crime.

President Clinton did not honor the PNAC's request.

But sixteen members of the Project for a New American Century would soon assume prominent positions in the Administration of George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage and John Bolton.

The "significant portion of the world's oil supply" was of immediate concern, because of the commanding influence of the oil industry in the Bush Administration. Beside the president and vice president, eight cabinet secretaries and the national security advisor had direct ties to the industry, and so did 32 others in the departments of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.

Within days of taking office, President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney to chair a National Energy Policy Development Group. Cheney's "Energy Task Force" was composed of the relevant federal officials and dozens of energy industry executives and lobbyists, and it operated in tight secrecy. (The full membership has never been revealed, but Enron's Kenneth Lay is known to have participated, and the Washington Post reported that Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Shell, and BP America did, too.)

During his second week in office, President Bush convened the first meeting of his National Security Council. It was a triumph for the PNAC. In just one hour-long meeting, the new Bush Administration turned upside down the long-standing focus of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Over Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections, the goal of reconciling the Israel-Palestine conflict was abandoned, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was set as the new priority. Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty, describes the meeting in detail.

The Energy Task Force wasted no time, either. Within three weeks of its creation, the group was poring over maps of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks. It studied an inventory of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" -- dozens of oil companies from 30 different countries, in various stages of negotiations for exploring and developing Iraqi crude.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war on terror, afghanistan, iraq, war, oil

Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He is working on a new book, To Provide Against Invasions: Corporate Dominion and America's Derelict Democracy. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com. (This essay is deliberately not copyrighted: It may be reproduced without restriction.)

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Additional supporting evidence
Posted by: autonomie on Feb 5, 2007 12:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good argument. This covers some of the more direct evidence pointing to the war as being fought to control oil.

Here's some additional evidence in the Iraq war timeline. Ask yourself: If the war in Iraq is being fought not for oil but for "noble" reasons, do the following facts make sense:

- Mar. 27, 2003 Paul Wolfowitz reveals that the government intends to finance the war by taking Iraqi oil assets: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

- July, 2003 Bush challenges insurgent fighters to attack US soldiers: "There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on."

- Nov. 19, 2005 US Marines massacre 24 civillians in Haditha, including several children shot to death execution-style. The massacre is covered up and only revealed in March of 2006 after an investigation by TIME Magazine and a human rights group.

- July 2006 The supposedly sovereign Iraqi government takes steps to petition the United Nations to end the US military's immunity from Iraqi laws. If the Iraqi government were sovereign, couldn't it just declare an end to immunity itself?

- October 2006 A US State Department poll, leaked to the Washington Post, finds 65% of Baghdad residents wanting an immediate withdrawal.

In review, the government openly states it has the right to use Iraqi oil assets for its own purposes. The government wants a violent occupation. The government will cover up atrocities in a country it claims to be helping. It doesn't do body counts. Iraqis are said to be "sovereign," but can't even enforce domestic Iraqi law when it conflicts with US interests. Iraqis want foreign invaders out, but, undemocratically, Iraqis are ignored.

Ask yourself if these facts square with a mission driven by human rights, or a mission of conquest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Were on the way down Posted by: Krain61
Bush and Cheney are finished
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 5, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is as interesting - and disturbing - a story as I have ever read. Now the big question: when will this interperatation of events be giving a full airing on the people's air waves, the so-called "main stream media"? Don't hold your breath. My advice to everybody reading AlterNet would be to forward this piece to as many people as possible. That is what I plan on doing.

Here are the facts, ma'am: the obscenity that the tsunami of human shit within the Bush administration are waging against the men, women and little children of Iraq was never about bringing "freedom and democracy" to that troubled part of the world. That was obvious to every thinking person in the United States from even before day one (all twelve of us). Is there anyone out there actually ignorant enough to still believe that a president who stole two (count 'em) two elections in his own country gives a flying fuck about democracy in Iraq or anywhere elese for that matter??? If you do, I've got a two thousand dollar stove made out of balsa wood that I'd just love to sell you!

2007 will be remembered as the year the trillion dollar shithammer comes a'chrashing down on the Bush administration, oulverizing it - and everyone connected to it - into proverbial dust. By this time next year, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney will be out of power and on their sorry way to federal prison. I believe that as sincerely as I've ever believed anything. Some seriously nasty chickens will sood be coming home to roost - and I'm going to love every fucking minute of it.

The jig is up.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush and Cheney are finished Posted by: straykitty
» RE: Bush and Cheney are finished Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: straykitty Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Balsa wood stove... Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Balsa wood stove... Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Bush and Cheney are finished Posted by: cottontail
Old News...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Feb 5, 2007 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a lot of this is old news but it is worth repeating. what's missing from the article is a mention of the drug trade when talking about Afghanistan. author Peter Dale Scott writes that almost all military actions since WWII by the US were either oil or drug related, or both. the CIA run the drugs, the big banks launder it.
look for 'Phony Tony' Blair to get employment w/ the Carlyle Group in some form or another when he is ousted.
this story, as posted above, is worth emailing to everyone you know. spread the word...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Old News... Posted by: jogolowe@yahoo.com
» RE: Old News... Posted by: MyLeftFoot
And some more supporting evidence...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 5, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christina Rocca's name comes up in regard to the Taliban & the "carpet of gold or bombs" threat, showing the role the State Department plays. Here is Rocca in Pakistan, attempting to halt the Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline (Hindu Times, 2005) ""We would support this gas and oil coming from somewhere else," she said."

There is a good article on the Baker-Carlyle connection: James Baker: The Man Behind the Handshake and the whole sorry story of Carlyle and Halliburton is recorded in Dan Briody's two excellent books, "The Iron Triangle" and "The Halliburton Agenda"

This is all leading up to a very under-reported coming event, the Iraq Oil Gas and Petroleum Summit, 17-18 April 2007, Jordan:
"Much more than just a series of summits, the Iraq Development Program is a comprehensive initiative established to ensure maximum success for Iraqi companies looking to establish themselves within the international marketplace. Combining face-to-face meetings, informative expert content and the latest communication technology, the Iraq Development Program is essential for any forward-thinking Iraqi business looking to establish trade partnerships with global corporations."

Thus, it seems that the timing of Bush's "surge", i.e. escalation, is no accident - it's a desperate attempt to gain control and ensure that US corporations get those oil field contracts, and is certainly doomed to failure - though it will cause (and is causing) even more death and suffering - all for the benefit of a handful of Wall Street banks and traders and their neofascist allies of the PNAC, whose dream was a global empire based on total control of all oil supplies.

To say it again, there may be an even greater culprit involved, however - for literally none of this would have been possible without the active aid and collaboration of the US corporate media - from Judith Miller at the New York Times to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity at FOX News to CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC, they were all part of a coordinated propaganda campaign run by the likes of billionaires Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife - but such facts don't excuse the journalists and editors who played along for their betrayal of the American people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Then & Now
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 5, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a time when I would have looked at all this and attributed it to half-truths and wishful thinking by people opposed to the government in power, but that was a long time ago. Some would attribute the fiasco in SW Asia to incompetence, but I doubt people get to this level of power by being stupid. That leaves us with accepting that these people are greedy and evil and have manipulated the American people & government into a proxy war for Oil and commercial interests.

If this is not deserving of impeachment, we owe the Nixon Administration an apology and might as well turn out the lights on any pretense of the US being a representative democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New "Pearl Harbor"
Posted by: cbrouillet on Feb 5, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richard,

You wrote that the comparison between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 was ludicrous and that 9/11 was a "localized criminal act of terrorism." I agree that 9/11 was a criminal act, perhaps the Crime of the Century, in terms of consequences, but I see some strong parallels to Pearl Harbor and suggest that you read Robert Stinnett's Book "Day of Deceit" which chronicles how F.D.R. knowingly provoked the Japanese into attacking the US. His underlings came up with an 8 point plan which they followed. The Japanese code had been broken, DC and the Phillipines knew about the impending attack, but failed to give appropriate warning to Admiral Kimmel. The high casualties drew a million men to enlist the following day.

Prior to 9/11 Rumsfeld was carrying a book about Pearl Harbor under his arm and selling the idea. That term is in the PNAC documents, as well as in Brezinski's "The Grand Chessboard." To prepare Americans psychologically for the event, a Hollywood blockbuster "Pearl Harbor" came out months before 9/11. If you walk into CIA Headquarters, there is some sort of plaque which states that the CIA was created "To Prevent Another Pearl Harbor" which is almost an inside joke- since the event justified the creation of the National Security State, much as 9/11 has been used to justify the creation of "Homeland Security" and a seriese of laws here and abroad curtailing civil liberties, relabeling opponents of government and corporate policies to be "terrorists," indeed, expanding the National Security State into a Global Police State.

The word "localized" is also questionable. We know that $100,000 was wired to Mohammed Atta at the urging of Pakistan's head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad. We know Ahmad was meeting with top US officials from September 4th through the 14th. We know that the "Strategy of Tension" employed the use of terrorist attacks throughout Europe in the last several decades to discredit the left and help the right gain political power. State sponsored terrorism has been used by many governments to strengthen support for their foreign interventions, and justify police actions against dissidents within their boundaries.

I think of 9/11 as a desparate move by a Global Elite, trying to maintain and expand their power using terror and war. The loose ends surrounding it, the lousy cover story, the holes in the official narrative also reveals that it was a "botched special operation" which gives us hope that by revealing the truth about 9/11, we can expose the nature and history of "False Flag Operations," to prevent future attacks and put an end to "the war game" which benefits few and threatens the majority of humanity and the planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A New "Pearl Harbor" Posted by: buzzjustice
» RE: A New "Pearl Harbor" Posted by: realitybase
CLINTON AND WARGAMING IRAQ
Posted by: Schnieder on Feb 5, 2007 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton did take a look at doing Iraq-Google search-Clinton + war gamed + Iraq + 400,000 troops.
Might want to keep this in mind when recalling all the appearances of Former Sec. of Defense Cohen on TV when he has commented about the ongoing war in Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Failure?
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 5, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oil wars are abject failures

How many times do we have to read this kind of drivel. Perhaps the author forgot to read the Exxon profit numbers? Perhaps he forgot to check out Halliburton and Lockheed Martin? Perhaps he didn't notice the 2004 election results? And how about those macho feelings the VP gets after a bombing run? The loss of one objective does not make a failure, much less "abject failure".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Appropriate Iraqi Quote
Posted by: Patuxet on Feb 5, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 28-year-old Iraqi auto mechanic is quoted thusly in today's NY Times:

“I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil — which is the core of the problem — can come and get it."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Appropriate Iraqi Quote Posted by: lessbread
buzzjustice
Posted by: buzzjustice on Feb 5, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good assessment. A couple of corrections and then comment. Iraq and Central Asia do not contain 718 billion barrels of proven reserves in fact that is about the reserve level as reported by all of the Persian Gulf OPEC states as well as the less than spectacular estimates for the Caspian sea region. Churchhill Refitted his fleet to oil not to reduce the number of men shoveling coal, but to increase the speed and turnablility of the ships in order to keep up with the advances in the German fleet. Now, there is no doubt that U.S. elite interests seek to control the oil of the Persian Gulf and it certainly does not want to break OPEC because all of OPEC's oil is sold in U.S. dollars. Yet there is also another reason...Peak in global oil production, a phenomenon that is pressurising the geopolitical climate and exacerbating competition among heavily industrialized countries. Our entire modern civilization exists for one reason and one reason only...oil. A one time non-renewable resource that we have been burning steadily for one hundred years. In that century we used about half of what is stored in the planet. At current rates of consumption we will burn through the other half in 30 years, and no amount of tar-sands or "shale-oil" will change that as our economy is built on the cheap and easy conventional crude. The problem is not just one of elite interests it is also one of consumption so everyone is at fault. As we are toasting our planet by burning up every drop of hydrocarbon energy we should stop and reflect upon our own contribution to the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

File this article in the "we're doomed" file?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 5, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading this article, and especially after reading its summation paragraph, I am, while writing this post, heedlessly, uselessly, screaming at my computer monitor: "AND WE STILL HAVEN'T JAILED THESE RAT-BASTARDS?!?!"

It seems that, with our worthless "leadership" in Congress constantly postering and jockying for political position but otherwise sitting on their collective fat asses and collecting their graft from the same corporations, that is all that we who bother to seek the truth can do: scream and scream again, howling at an indifferent moon like coyotes in the middle of a pop-culture desert.

And to whom? Congress doesn't care, and the vast majority of the public cannot be torn away from "American Idol" and other, equally-unworthy tele-trash long enough to scream at Washington with us. Just what in hell are we supposed to do?! Will things have to get so bad that the whole immoral system comes crashing down, before people wake up to how they are being screwed? I'm afraid so – and, if so, what will be left by then?
. . . . .

These, and other questions, will continue to be asked, but not answered, in our next episode of "As the Stomach Turns." Sponsored by CorporoAmerica, the "folks" who have brought you cheap plastic s**t, outsourced jobs, sweatshops, a Dickensonian economic system, endless wars, global climate chaos, and, possible future nuclear annhilation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what do we Do about it?
Posted by: common intelligence on Feb 5, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a anemic congress and a population being refocused toward new elections instead of nailing the Oil Conspiracy and BUSH CO. is there any hope of correction?

Out side of truth sayers, from the inner circle, bringing public noise to the controlled media, and an over throw of the Pirates that have control of the the United States....well I suggest the people start educating our brothers-in-arms so to get young would be recruits and those in the military to STEP DOWN and protect our country from DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

STOPPING the BUSH Regime is WHAT needs to be done.
AND the election system and candidates must address this
or it's not coming to an end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good points all, cottontail
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 5, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are, indeed, as close as we've been since the 1930s when a cabal of right wing freaks plotted the overthrow of the Roosevelt administration - only to be thwarted by a long forgotten hero (and WW I vet) Smedley Butler.
Cheers!
Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good points all, cottontail Posted by: Conservasaurus
9/11: the "lucky accident" of a life time for PNAC;. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 5, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .Uh, huh – and if you believe that, do I have a deal on beachfront land in the Mojave Desert for you! If the truth about 9/11 were known by the public (just examining the PHYSICS of the collapses revels the Big Lie), there would be no place in the world the Bush administration criminals could hide.

Three-thousand American lives? If you add to that number the American soldiers who have died unroute to or at military hospitals away from Iraq (uncounted in the total dead), and the nearly 3,000 who died in the EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS 9/11 tragedy (read: "a criminal act for PNAC"), the total is more like 15,000, or more.

(Oh, well; why quibble over a few lives, when power and treasure are at stake? After all, our "great and illustrious leaders" don't. . .)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PLEASE
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Feb 5, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The long-held suspicions about George Bush's wars are well-placed. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not prompted by the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They were not waged to spread democracy in the Middle East or enhance security at home. They were conceived and planned in secret long before September 11, 2001 and they were undertaken to control petroleum resources.

I got up to this part..(second paragraph) and quickly realized this person is way out of touch with reality.. Bush was in office 9 months before 9-11 terror attacks.. so how was this planned LONG BEFORE 9-11. And to make this statement implies that Bush planned 9-11, which any reasonable person knows is pure fantasy.. So this statement discredits what ever other conclusions the author makes!

If the point is to show a series of events that led to the current situation ..great.. to make things up to fit a preconceived belief discredits the author!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PLEASE Posted by: Grampop
» RE: PLEASE Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: PLEASE Posted by: Conservasaurus
» PLEASE . . . leave Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: PLEASE . . . leave Posted by: Conservasaurus
» 2/9/06 Latest Testamony WTC 7 was Pulled Posted by: common intelligence
» RE: PLEASE Posted by: Frog
» RE: PLEASE Posted by: Conservasaurus
» doesn't matter who planned 9/11 Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: doesn't matter who planned 9/11 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: doesn't matter who planned 9/11 Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: doesn't matter who planned 9/11 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: doesn't matter who planned 9/11 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: PLEASE Posted by: Dboy
» Part 1 - I know..how boring Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Part 2 - Carlyle Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Part 3 -- OUCH! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Part 3 -- OUCH! Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Part 3 -- OUCH! Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Part 3 -- OUCH! Posted by: Conservasaurus
We're not ridiculous . . . right?
Posted by: Knowmad on Feb 5, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it fascinating (morbidly), and telling (shockingly), that here on our fragile little planet, the major struggle of the supposed ‘civilized world’ is for possession of the very substances, fossil fuels, that may well cause the future demise of our entire species; not to mention the others already ravaged and gone, or soon to be. Doesn’t this speak volumes about our amazing big brains.

Our priorities and ideals have been sullied and lost, - in large part because we’ve been unable to increase our common-sense at the same pace as our wizz-bang technological development - and we will never have a chance at redemption until humankind in general, and Americans in particular (sorry, but that’s the price of being the wealthiest and most militarily powerful) learn how to co-exist with compassion and fairness, and govern with intelligence and foresight.

Sadly, quite a lot to ask, if the current bleak scenario is any indication. But not irretrievable . . . yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We're not ridiculous . . . right? Posted by: Conservasaurus
Richard's article reads like a textbook
Posted by: kellysgarden on Feb 5, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like a history textbook of the next generation. One exception to this would be that a history textbook of the future will include more facts about the staged 9/11 attacks and government's complicity in them. I love the way he calls them the "oil wars."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the technological breakthroughs in the world won't solve THIS problem.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 5, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article points out why, unless The People speak out and act with overwhelming numbers, it will be a long, long time, if ever, before any serious consideration is given to alternative energy production by our current fascist governmental-corporate nexus. They do not give a crap for the American people (or anyone else not on the Forbes list), and there is no sure profit yet in other than what they have already stolen or are positioned to steal: oil.

Alternative energy will remain what it has been for decades: a palliative, a bromide for public consumption, while we are dragged by obscene corporations toward a broiling, poisoned Earth. Unless – unless – an enormous human groundswell raises from the bottom up to oppose, and eventually supplant, these pirates. (Maybe that's why Halliburton is building those semi-secret detention camps around the country.)

Keep your "eyes on the prize," your nose to the wind, your ears to the. . .oh, hell, just keep your passport current.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author fails to mention the defunding of solar and wind along with keeping hemp ILLEGAL.
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 5, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just one month after Sep 11, the DEA goes all out to make hemp imports ILLEGAL but thankfully they lost. And what about solar and wind? When it comes to funding anything of it, like the folks at the Dept of Energy would say, "First you see it, now you don't !"

I guess it's no coincidence that America continues to fight wars for oil rather than create a real economy of its own out of alternative renewables. This country needs major soul cleansing already !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two reasons for the Middle Eastern Wars
Posted by: xerxes on Feb 5, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author rightly points out one of the two main reasons for our wars on Afghanistan and Iraq: OIL

The other which doesn't get mentioned: ISRAEL

The neocons who run the show under the Bush presidency and who are members of the American Enterprise Institute (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Wurmser, Kristal, Krauthammer, etc.) are all either hawkish pro-Israel Jews or fundamentalist Christian sympathizers who are waiting for Biblical prophecies to come true.

The necons want to topple all the Middle Eastern nations who are thorns in the side of Israel (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon), even though these countries pose absolutely NO THREAT to the U.S. Basically, we are waging war on these nations to protect Israel and allow it to be dominant military power in the region (with 200-400 nukes already under its belt).

When will the American public wake up to this reality? When will we stop bankrupting our treasury and slaughtering our young men and women to protect a racist oppressive foreign nation?

We must stop being afraid of the pro-Israel media and AIPAC and speak the truth to power. We must put the needs of the U.S. first before the needs of Israel and big multi-national oil and defense corporations.

Write to your congressional reps and senators, to your local papers and journals, and get the message out. If you don't act, you are complicit in the injustice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ROFL
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Feb 5, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I misread the second paragraph as

"The long-held suspicions about the earth being round are well-placed. "

Hey genius, are ya sure about that??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OFL Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: OFL Posted by: Grampop
reform your political elections...
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Feb 5, 2007 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just make the elections, any election public funded with very harsh limits on personal donations, a limit per donation and total amount. say you cant give more than 1000$ per person or moral person and the personal donations cant represent more than say 25% of the public funding.

As long as your election system is hogged by Big Business you will stay in the same situation where the billionaires diktat prevails.

Also the bipartisan system is a joke, and makes you the laughing stock of the rest of the democracies, there is no way in hell that the whole of the USA can be represented by only TWO political parties, not within a country with such diversity, its simply a mascarade...

But wait, I have many contacts from the Midwest and they all think that Bush is doing a great job and USA's election system is the greatest in the world.

Bush really has the rednecks in his pocket, and we all know how much power the rednecks have in america...

Too much power in fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YES!
Posted by: jende on Feb 5, 2007 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A glimpse at the truth about the evil actions of the Bush Gang.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question mark counterattack ?
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Feb 5, 2007 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
????? ????? ????? ?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It doesn't matter if Bush himself planned it
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 5, 2007 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: kellysgarden on Feb 5, 2007 11:43 AM
What matters most is - - who is actively doing the cover-up right now! And whether Cheney planned it or not, it is Cheney/Bush and Co. who are covering up for it right now. Often, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Remember Cheney? He's been around in influencial positions in government for many, many years. Conservasaurus is probably right though, Bush is way too dumb to plan something like this, even if he were given 9 months to plan it.

All Bush had to do was endorse it and get the ball rolling. I saved a copy of an issue of New York Magazine from the fall of 1974 with a comic strip cover of President Ford and Henry Kissinger in Army fatigues hitting the beaches of an oil rich Arab country and the title is 'Would we kill for oil'? There you go folks. They've been working on this one for over 30 years. Check their archives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary J Minter
Posted by: garyjminter on Feb 5, 2007 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for an excellent, detailed analysis of the real motives behind our Mideast foreign policy. Many of us have known this general situation for years, why can't the American people seem to understand it?

It is morally wrong to invade sovereign nations to get cheap oil (and higher profits for the oil companies), or cheap fruit, suger, coffee (and higher profits for United Fruit and others), and to support murdering tyrants like Saddam, the late Shah of Iran, Idi Amin, Duvalier, Noriega, etc, as our government has done for so long....

I would rather pay higher prices for these commodities, and buy a smaller, fuel-efficient car, than to support assassinations of progressive foreign leaders, invasions, and other violent and corrupt actions...

Gary
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Israel's only real enemy in the region is the traditional one and that
Posted by: yellow on Feb 5, 2007 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is Syria. Why? Because of one simple thing. Water. The 1967 war began with Syria's attempts to divert the headwaters of the Jordan River up in southern Lebanon. The objective was to dry up the sea of Galillee and starve Israel of over 90% of its water supply. Other than some aquifers in the Galillee that are also fed by the same source Israel has no source of fresh water. Syria's threat to Israel was clearly the most severe. This is one reason that relations between the two are the most hostile and why Israel annexed, rather than merely occupied, the Golan Heights.

Obstructing a countries major water source is an act of war and demands a sure response. This is an incontrovertable fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What this means for alternative energy
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 5, 2007 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always suspected that the talk of alternative energy programs was just lip-service to the masses; another smokescreen. One reason, obviously, is that there's unbelievably huge amounts of money to be made in oil, compared to "free" sources such as solar and wind. In addition, advancements in solar and wind power could make many of us free of the commercial power grids. Why would a government owned by corporations intentionally lose its control over its customer base? Both of the political parties
are owned by the same corporations. So alternative power will NOT happen from the left or the right. Any advancements in batteries, solar array's, etc. will have to come from the private sector, and will be in spite of government, rather than due to it. Anytime you near a national politician talking up alternative power, watch out! You are about to be manipulated.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -