Don’t mention the O word

July 4, 2007 5:56 PM

Following the script from A Crude Awakening, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson announced today that new reasons for staying the course in helping Iraqi forces stand up as we stand down is not regime change nor ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction, but… ensuring Australia's “energy security”.
posted by mattoxic (22 comments total)

Really, it was about oil all along? Well bugger me. Here I was thinking we were trying to help the Iraqi people, in some perverse round-about ultra violent way.

Two of the three reasons Nelson gave for Australia’s continued presence in Iraq would not have eventuated if the invasion hadn’t happened in the first place.

1) Helping a friend in need- the US
2) Stopping Al Qaeda securing a foothold
3) Enforcing“energy security” for Australia
posted by mattoxic at 5:58 PM on July 4, 2007

I'm shocked. Shocked to find ga...



Wait. No, no I'm not.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:02 PM on July 4, 2007

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war, as "energy security" and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future.

Ironic, since energy is now far less secure and the Middle East far less stable.
posted by Avenger at 6:04 PM on July 4, 2007

Oh, good. Rudd needs new ammo.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 6:05 PM on July 4, 2007

They must be talking about all the sunshine, because we KNOW it isn't about oil.
posted by DU at 6:08 PM on July 4, 2007

How Wars of the Future May Be Fought Just to Run the Machines That Fight Them
posted by homunculus at 6:10 PM on July 4, 2007

from homunculus' link: "Over four years later, however, Iraq, under threat of an oil workers' strike, seems to be pumping only 1.6 million barrels of oil a day -- almost a million barrels below the worst days of the sanctions-strapped regime of Saddam Hussein."

See? The energy is secure. In fact, it's so secure that its still trapped in the ground. Its the most secure energy in the world.

Still, this is probably the best outcome for the Earth in general. Doubly ironic, no?
posted by Avenger at 6:14 PM on July 4, 2007

Australia's involvement in Iraq is minuscule (800 or so) in comparison to the US and UK, and in doing so Howard has cleverly planted a foot in both camps. He can claim commitment, which he plays up at any opportunity, yet is in a position to quickly withdraw win case commitment becomes a burden. Howard does nothing without calculating the electoral cost.
posted by mattoxic at 6:28 PM on July 4, 2007

What did an hippie, liberal communist, two time recipient of the highest decoration ever in the U.S, Major General Smedley Butler say ? War is a Racket.
posted by elpapacito at 7:00 PM on July 4, 2007

Agreed, mattoxic. Howard is a career politician. A two-faced POS.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 7:02 PM on July 4, 2007

This pronouncement really doesn't disturb me, I mean it's a but of a 'duh' moment, he's not said anything that nobody doesn't know. The only story is the fiction that has been maintained since late 2001 is now fully pulled back (one veil at a time) and done skilfully enough that it does not register with the voters. Who are all thick as pigshit anyway so what's the use?

Of course, I voted for Latham (and would do so again) so what would I know?
posted by wilful at 7:03 PM on July 4, 2007

Ops I forgot. Who warned to keep a VERY close eye on the military-industrial complex ? Why, that sensitive nancy puppet know as President Dwight D. Eisenhower that was such a gullible idiot he tought it was a good idea to insert this recommendation in his farewell speech. Who do he think he was, George W Bush, the Dear Leader of Democratic Republic of North America ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:05 PM on July 4, 2007

Maybe energy security is just a collateral benefit?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:13 PM on July 4, 2007

How Wars of the Future May Be Fought Just to Run the Machines That Fight Them
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:19 PM on July 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Plus ça change, y'all....

(Been seeing these bumper stickers among a certain demographic for decades now)
posted by pax digita at 8:13 PM on July 4, 2007

Back before the Iraq war began, I had already heard about peak oil and was torn. Obviously the American economy, and the economies of the rest of the developed world, rely on access to cheap energy. If cheap energy is running out, the uncomfortable truth is that it's better if we get the last drops rather than our competitors.

But then I thought, what if America had pumped $500 billion into developing and exporting alternative energy technologies to the rest of the world instead. Dumbasses. Oh well - at least we'll keep the buggywhip oil companies profitable for a few more years.
posted by Nquire at 12:01 AM on July 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

if America had pumped $500 billion into developing and exporting alternative energy technologies

sorry, this administration doesn't do communism, and until this year Congress was controlled by lickspittles more interested in wheeling brain-dead people into special sessions and preventing teh homos from getting state benefits of marriage.

Plus the present American Way of Life / status-quo is "non-negotiable" according to the man behind the curtain.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:32 AM on July 5, 2007

Ociana has never been at war with Eurasia, Ociana has always been at war with Eastasia.

Prime Minister Howard has just rebuked his defence minister.

The war is not about energy security, rather it's about protecting the Iraqi people, regime change and preventing Al Queda from gaining a foothold.

End of message.
posted by mattoxic at 2:44 AM on July 5, 2007

The first gulf war was about "jobs, jobs, jobs" according to US SecState Baker. I appreciate having lots of rationale choices but I always liked that one best and I'm going to stick with it, thanks.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 3:21 AM on July 5, 2007

Howard's way
posted by mattoxic at 3:54 AM on July 5, 2007

This is what happens when I leave the country? Man, I need to get home soon.
posted by liquorice at 4:15 AM on July 5, 2007

Oceana has never been at war over "energy security" WMDs. Oceana has always been at war over protecting the Iraqi people, regime change and preventing Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold.

And John Hunt is not a coward. Doubleplustrue!
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:13 AM on July 5, 2007