by Carlhole » Sun 10 Jun 2007, 21:55:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') had always thought that the US planned to reach a point in Iraq where it could pronounce a fait accompli to the rest of the world and be in a position to negotiate a global energy deal.
The fantasy of a US "global energy deal" to take care of Peak Oil never had any basis in reality.
Peak Oil is very real, and fantasies about the US taking care of it with a
fait accompli aren't going to make it go away.

Well, hypotheses about the future and speculations about US foreign policy motives have, by definition, no basis in reality until they have been verified. And everyone has his/her opinion.
But it stands to reason that if the world is approaching peak oil, that whoever controls the distribution of the remaining supply can pretty much dictate how the inevitably worsening crisis will be handled.
Would the US have simply stood by while Saddam Hussein cut deals with China - long-term energy contracts in exchange for advanced weaponry, for example? Not a chance.
So, for defensive reasons (Uncle Sam didn't want anyone holding his balls for ransom) and for offensive reasons (PO is the ideal time for globalist imperialist designs), the US chose to invade Iraq where it could plant it's big, fat American ass for the long term. And that's what MSM articles are writing about now.
Once the US has entrenched itself and secured it's interests(including it's currency) , it will be in a position to make designs about how the world economy is conducted going forward. It will be in a position, possibly, to direct how China's economy develops, how alternative energies are researched and developed, how different countries and regions practice conservation, who lives, who dies, etc.
If you think for one stupid minute, that the ramifications of peaking energy supplies are only known to the geniuses on PeakOil.com, you have another think coming. They've been known and anticipated since M. King Hubbert was proven correct about the US lower 48 supply.
And ever since WWII, when success on the battlefield meant having access to adequate fuel supplies, the military planners at the Pentagon and oil puppets in the White House have known about the strategic value of controlling petroleum.
If you are one who believes that a mass die-off is inevitable, you must agree that it's much better to be in a position to decide how that die-off progresses.