General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by Gman61 » Mon 08 Oct 2007, 04:13:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Russophile', ' ')\Surely governments are aware of the issue?
Of course. That's why we are in Iraq and will never leave.
If that were
really the plan (not saying that has nothing to do with it), why not go to Saudi Arabia instead? They have much more oil, a better exporting infastructure, and it's home to most of the "terrorists".
Not sure if anyone answered this as I haven't read the whole thread.
I believe the coalition attacked Iraq because the US already has access to Saudi oil through deeply coupled business interests.
In establishing a presence in Iraq it secures access to Saudi oil by having a strong military presence in the Gulf of Arabia. For instance, if there is regime change in Saudi Arabia that undermines Western interests the coalition can go in as "peacekeepers" and secure the oil. But there is no need to attack Saudi Aarabia while we are getting the oil.
This theory was proposed about 2005 by a writer who was (and is) deeply neo-con and pro-Iraq war. He was saying, "OK, so all the stated reasons for the war were phoney - big deal - we secure our energy reserves with this war. It is still a good war". Of course he also explained the added benefits of security and democratization that it would bring to the Iraqis.