Oil Wars
Dr Vernon Coleman
Note: The essay below is based on Vernon Coleman’s book `Oil Apocalypse’ which was first published in 2007. An updated version of the book is now available under the title `A Bigger Problem than Climate Change: The End of Oil.’
Securing oil supplies was an important element in many of the wars of the twentieth century. It was certainly the major factor in America's recent illegal wars. (The acquisition of Venezuela wasn’t actually a war, of course, but it was hardly legal.) The war against terrorism was merely a convenient and publicly acceptable excuse for unacceptable behaviour.
`The life contest is primarily a competition for available energy,' wrote Ludwig Boltzman in 1886.
Fighting for oil isn't new, of course.
America only entered World War I (on the side of Britain and France) after both its new allies and new enemies were pretty much exhausted by the fighting. Once it agreed to join in the war America imposed conditions which included the demand that America's economic and political objectives be taken into account when the war was over. One of those objectives was access to new sources of raw materials, particularly oil. In February 1919, Sir Arthur Hirtzel, a leading British official warned: `It should be borne in mind that the Standard Oil Company is very anxious to take over Iraq.'
That was 1919.
America demanded that its oil companies be allowed to negotiate freely with the new puppet monarchy of King Faisal (the monarch whom the British had put on the throne in Iraq). And so Iraq's oil was divided up between the allies. Five per cent of the oil went to an oil magnate called Gulbenkian (known as `Mr Five Per Cent') who had helped negotiate the agreement. The other 95% was split four ways between Britain, France, Holland and the United States of America. Companies now known as British Petroleum, Shell, Mobil and Exxon pretty much had a monopoly of the oil available. Iraqi oil was split this way until 1958 when there was a revolution in Iraq.
`Oil has literally made (American) foreign and security policy for decades,’ said Bill Richardson, American Secretary of Energy in 1999. `Just since the turn of this century, it has provoked the division of the Middle East after world War I; aroused Germany and Japan to extend their tentacles beyond their borders; the Arab Oil Embargo; Iran versus Iraq; the Gulf War. This is all clear.'
American influence in the region was sealed when the al-Saud family and the United States of America created Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, pretty much as an American colony. It was no coincidence that the American Embassy in Riyadh, the capital city, was situated in the local oil company building.
The Americans were not, however, satisfied with their share of Middle East oil. They wanted control. They had to get rid of the British. And their chance came with the Second World War.
The Americans unceasingly portray themselves as Britain's saviour. This is a wicked misrepresentation. As it had been in the Great War, America was ruthlessly opportunistic.
Britain was greatly weakened by the Second World War but America grew tremendously in power as a result of what happened in the early 1940s. The Roosevelt and Truman administrations (which were dominated by banking and oil interests) decided to restructure the world to ensure that the USA would be on top. They wanted control of the world's oil. They wanted USA dominated globalisation (to which end they created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1944). They wanted the dollar to be the only significant world currency. And they wanted the USA to have military superiority in all types of weapons.
Winston Churchill was so worried by what he could see happening that on March 4th 1944 (three months before the D Day invasion of Normandy) he sought assurance from the USA that she would not try to take over British oil interests.
He wrote to USA president Roosevelt saying: `Thank you very much for your assurances about no sheep's eyes on our oilfields in Iran and Iraq. Let me reciprocate by giving you the fullest assurance that we have no thought of trying to horn in upon your interests or property in Saudi Arabia. My position in this, as in all matters, is that Great Britain seeks no advantage, territorial or otherwise, as a result of this war. On the other hand, she will not be deprived of anything which rightly belongs to her after having given her best services to the good cause, at least not so long as your humble servant is entrusted with the conduct of affairs.'
Sadly, there was nothing that even Churchill could do to save Britain from its new `enemy'.
The Americans had already acquired a new `special relationship' with Saudi Arabia. They arranged this in 1945. Since then the Saudis have helped the Americans by controlling world oil prices to the advantage of the Americans (by releasing or withholding oil supplies) and by continuing to sell oil in dollars (when other oil producing countries wanted to change the currency so as to weaken America). The Americans have helped the Saudis by providing arms and by helping to keep the ruling Saudi royals on the throne (against the wishes of the Saudi people).
In 1953, a CIA coup which put the Shah in power gave Iran to the United States of America. (The Americans also helped the Shah form his much hated secret police.) And within a couple of years after that Iraq was jointly controlled by America and Britain.
In 1955 America set up the Baghdad Pact, which was designed, at least in part, to oppose the rise of Arab liberation movements in the Middle East. Britain and Iraq were signatories, although Iraq was independent only in name. The British still had military airfields in Iraq, which was ruled by a corrupt monarchy. The people of Iraq, despite having a huge quantity of the world's oil under their feet, were still starving and living in abject poverty.
Things changed in Iraq in 1958. A military rebellion launched a revolution which was to have dramatic consequences for the world. The day after the revolution started the Americans put 20,000 marines into Lebanon and over 6,000 British paratroopers dropped into Jordan. Under Eisenhower's leadership the USA and the UK had made it clear that they would go to war to protect their interests in Lebanon and Jordan.
The British, rather naively, thought that they were simply protecting their interests outside Iraq. The Americans had bigger thoughts. They wanted to go into Iraq, overturn the revolution and put a new puppet government (friendly to the USA, of course) in charge in Baghdad.
But the Americans were stopped. The Iraq revolution was too big. And it had too much support from other Arab countries, from the People's Republic of China and from the USSR. The Americans glumly gave up their imperialist plans.
But they didn't give up permanently.
The Americans added Iraq to their growing list of terrorist nations and gave great support to right wing Kurdish elements who were fighting the Iraqi Government. Then, in the late 1970s the Americans supported the government of Saddam Hussein in its fight against communism. In the 1980s the Americans supported (with money and arms) Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its eight year war against Iran, a country over which America had lost control during Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Americans openly admitted that they were intervening in order to safeguard their access to the region's oil and they slightly less openly hoped that Iraq and Iran would weaken one another and enable the USA to take over. `I hope they kill each other,' former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is said to have remarked. The Americans provided Iraq's air force with satellite photographs of Iranian targets and sent anti-aircraft missiles to Iran so that the Iranians could shoot down the aircraft which the Iraqis sent over. America was fighting on both sides in this war and was well aware that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons. Over a million people died and both countries were left much weaker. (Bizarrely, and hypocritically, in 2003 George W.Bush, claimed that Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in this war was one of the main reasons for attacking Iraq.) The money America made from selling missiles to Iran was used to finance the Contras who were fighting the socialist government in Nicaragua. Reagan, USA President at the time, disapproved of socialist regimes and wanted to get rid of this one in particular. (It is perhaps unfair to ascribe such depth of feeling to Reagan himself, rather than to his advisors.)
The war between Iraq and Iran didn't finish until 1988, by which time Iraq had become friendly with the USSR.
But then the USSR was taken over by Gorbachev, who wanted an end to the cold war and a permanent detente with America. Gorbachev withdrew Soviet support from Iraq (as he had withdrawn it from countries in Eastern Europe) and the world suddenly changed yet again.
After the war with Iran, Saddam Hussein had accumulated massive debts. The low price of oil meant that his income didn't match his national outgoings. The Iraqi president accused Kuwait of drilling for oil in Iraqi territory and then announced that Kuwait wasn't a separate nation at all but was a province of Iraq. Iraq troops invaded Kuwait in 1990. America (with an international force) attacked, the resultant war was over in weeks and in 1991 the Americans got back into Iraq.
In the decade that followed they used sanctions, bombings and blockades to weaken the Iraqi people and to destroy their spirit. American sanctions against Iraq did not target Saddam Hussein, they targeted the Iraqi people.
When the Americans attacked Iraq in the Gulf War they deliberately bombed the country's water supplies. Then, after the `end' of the war the USA helped ensure that new water purification systems could not be imported into Iraq.
The result was that thousands of innocent Iraqis (including young children) died. The United Nations estimates that more than over a million citizens died as a direct result of the sanctions against Iraq and that unclean water was a major contributor to these deaths. A UNICEF study done in 1999 showed that USA led sanctions on Iraq had resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children under the age of five.
The American Pentagon knew of, and monitored, the destruction of Iraq's water supplies, despite the fact that the destruction of civilian infrastructures which are essential for health and welfare is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.
The American Government knew that bacteria develop in unpurified water, that epidemics would occur, that the manufacture of safe medicine would be compromised, that food supplies would be affected and that, as a result, there would be thousands of civilian deaths.
When an interviewer questioned the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, about the fact that her Government's sanctions had resulted in the deaths of half a million children, Albright responded: `We think the price is worth it.'
`We have 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population,’ said George F.Kennan, American Ambassador to Moscow, author of an American State Department Policy Planning Study after World War II. `In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality...we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.'
Kennan’s paper has been the blueprint for American foreign policy for the last half a century.
Since the disaster of the first invasion of Iraq in 1991 the Americans have been trying to get control of the Iraqi oil. They decided they had to invade when the Chinese and the French did oil deals that would have clicked into place when the sanctions ended.
The Americans knew that Saddam Hussein was no threat to America and that he has no weapons of mass destruction. They also knew that Saddam Hussein has nothing in common with Osama bin Laden.
In 2003 America invaded Iraq for the same, good old reason: oil. By early 2007 the allies had spent half a trillion dollars destroying Iraq's infrastructure and hundreds of thousands had died in the war.
As an aside it is worth noting that the Pentagon is the biggest single user of oil in the world. Tanks, aeroplanes and aircraft carriers are not designed to be fuel efficient and with so many wars going on the American military are burning up oil as if they were trying to get rid of a surplus. As the oil crisis develops (and becomes more obvious) so the military in the USA (and, indeed, everywhere) will stake a very firm claim on what is left. The result must be that the commercial price (the price you and I will have to pay) will rocket ever higher.
Iraq possesses around 11% of the world's oil reserves. I don't think there is anyone left who doesn't now believe that America and the United Kingdom started a war against Iraq in order to snatch control of the oil.
There have, of course, never been any signs that Britain, despite sharing the world's opprobrium for taking part in an entirely unjustified attack on another country, would ever receive any of the oil.
But will America ever actually manage to control the oil it has fought so hard to obtain?
It doesn't look very likely. There have been literally thousands of attacks on pipelines and refineries in Iraq. It seems very likely that the Iraqi resistance fighters will continue to make it difficult for America to steal their country's oil.
(There have, of course, also been many attacks on oil installations in other countries including Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Chechnya and Azerbaijan. These attacks have been designed to disrupt the easy flow of oil to America in particular and the West in general.)
It was always clear (even before the invasion) that America was going to struggle to control Iraq and its oil.
`(USA Policy) is clearly...motivated by George W Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries,' said Nelson Mandela.
America has successfully demonised any country which has oil and which it does not control. Demonising such countries makes it much easier to invade them without incurring too much displeasure from the American people.
The USA spends vast amounts of money on its army, navy and air force. The American budget gives its greatest priority to the military and under George W.Bush the annual increase in spending on bombs, jets, tanks and guns has been greater than the entire military budget of any other country in the world except Russia. In 2007, America was spending around $1,000 per person on arms. Only Israel spent more.
America claims to be the world's policeman, cracking down on terrorism and totalitarianism, fascism and dictators everywhere. Their aim, say American leaders, is to defend freedom.
This is, of course, a cynical lie. America has shown no interest in countries such as Zimbabwe where millions have died under cruel dictatorships but where there is no oil to be had. America only cares about countries which have oil and its late twentieth and early twenty first century military excursions have been designed with the aim of grabbing whatever resources may be available.
Today, the average American uses five times as much energy as the average citizen elsewhere. Without American greed the fossil fuel crisis would not have hit us for generations to come.
Since the end of the Second World War (which America joined belatedly and only then because it saw huge opportunities for financial and political gain) America has bombed or invaded at least 19 countries and has engaged in direct or indirect military action in many more.
Back in 1980 the Carter Doctrine stated that attempts to disrupt the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an `assault on the vital interests of the United States' and would be `repelled by any means necessary, including military force'. Since then America has taken a close interest in Middle Eastern affairs. (What possible other reason could the USA have for taking so much interest in the Arab countries, other than the fact that 60% of proven global oil reserves are there?)
Stealing natural resources in this way may provide America with a fix but it won't change what will happen in the long run. The world is running out of fossil fuels and although stealing what's left from poor countries is clearly wrong and unfair to the citizens of those countries America is merely delaying the inevitable and increasing its dependence on a `drug' that is disappearing.
The danger, of course, is that other countries will follow America's example. (In one way they already have. Countries such as China point to America when they refuse to cut back their consumption of oil.)
America claims to have invaded Iraq in order to impose American democracy on the people there. How curious then that America seems extremely happy with the state of affairs in Saudi Arabia, where a massive 25% of the Saudi GDP goes towards the support of the royal family and where a secret poll showed that half of the population supports Osama Bin Laden.
Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive states on earth, with no freedom of expression and discrimination against women. And yet America and Britain, who claimed to be horrified by discrimination against women in Afghanistan and Iraq, were perfectly happy to support and defend the despotic rulers in Saudi Arabia.
Justice in Saudi Arabia consists of limbs being amputated and public executions. Defendants have very little right to defend themselves. But the American and British Governments fall over backwards to avoid upsetting the people who are in control because Saudi Arabia is a major source of oil and in the past its rulers have invariably opened up the taps whenever supplies seem to be running a little low.
It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that America imposes its own rather bizarre version of democracy only where it sees that there is a financial or political advantage to be won.
In the 1980s USA President Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher persuaded the Saudis to increase their oil production in order to bring the oil price down from $30 a barrel to $10 a barrel.
(This was rather stupid of Thatcher and didn't do Britain any favours. As a net exporter of oil it meant that Britain lost huge amounts of money by selling oil at a third of the price.)
The aim was to destroy the Soviet Union, which was dependent on oil exports, and it worked - resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was something of a shock for the Americans who then realised that without an obvious enemy they no longer had a bogeyman against whom to protect the American people and the world at large. (And, therefore, didn't have much of an excuse to keep stockpiling weapons and invading smaller countries.)
When Reagan was replaced by George H.W.Bush (Bush the elder) the Americans decided they wanted the price to go up again because American oil companies were suffering. (The Americans never actually think these things through.)
And so the oil price was allowed to rise again.
In the 1990s the Americans eventually realised how vulnerable they were to foreign oil producing countries. The Americans decided not only to increase their presence and influence in the Middle East but also to import oil from as many non-Arab states as they could. They used the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other organisations to pay for oil explorations and pipelines in Africa, Asia and South America, and to obtain non OPEC oil suppliers.
This complex web of international oil supplies enabled a new company called Enron to thrive. (Enron gave money to politicians inside and outside America in order to seal their supply sources.)
It seems that the formerly massive but now defunct Enron (at one point allegedly the world's largest company - though very few people had ever heard of it until it collapsed and very few people seemed able to describe exactly what it did) gave vast amounts of boodle to 71 out of America's 100 senators. The company also threw money at George W. Bush during his election campaign.
It has been alleged that Enron's extensive interests in the oil industry meant that the company wasn't terribly keen on America sticking to the Kyoto Treaty. It is common knowledge that one of the first actions of George W Bush, when becoming president of the USA, was to reject the Kyoto Treaty. Could there possibly be any link between these facts?
Enron bought Bush (and America) quite cheaply but the company got the British Government for a much smaller price.
`Oil is too important to be left to the Arabs,' said
Henry Kissinger. And you know he meant it.
American military action in the Balkans in the 1990s was undoubtedly motivated not by any desire to liberate the local population but by a search for energy.
The Balkans aren't resource rich but the region is important for moving energy from Central Asia to Europe and thence to America.
The American base in Kosovo, on farmland seized by America, is the largest American military base built since the Vietnam War. Coincidentally, the base is built right next to the Trans-Balkan oil pipeline.
Despite being financially and politically committed to the EU, Britain turned its back on its European allies, severing many of its ties with France, Germany and Italy and allied itself with the USA.
The USA and Britain wanted to ensure the dominance of their defence contractors and oil companies and to establish control over strategic pipelines through and from the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the former USSR.
At one point the American Government is claimed to have deliberately destabilised Macedonia in order to allow easier access for an oil pipeline jointly owned by the USA and the UK.
In Yugoslavia the Americans (with New Labour support from the UK) managed to renew violence between ethnic groups, to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe and to destabilise the Balkans.
It was widely believed that the American and British war on Afghanistan was a result of the 11/9 attack on America. But a French book called `Bin Laden: La Verite Interdite', written by French intelligence analysts Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claims that the Bush Administration in the USA halted investigations into terrorist activities related to the bin Laden family and began planning for a war against Afghanistan before the events of 11.9.2001.
The two authors allege that, under the influence of American oil companies, George W Bush and friends stopped investigations into terrorism while bargaining with the Taliban in Afghanistan to give them Osama bin Laden in return for political recognition and economic aid. It is claimed that the USA Government wanted to deal with the Taliban (rather than overthrow it) so that it could gain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia and build an oil pipeline.
It seems clear that the American inspired attack on Afghanistan was planned for months before the 11/9 attack. Threats of an American military attack were allegedly made to Taliban representatives when the Americans were negotiating the building of a gas pipeline through Afghanistan to ports in Pakistan. The Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan was allegedly told by an American Government representative that `either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'. This was in August 2001.
Afghanistan is situated close to significant oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea.
Shortly after America started its war against Afghanistan, agreements were signed for the pipeline through that country.
It has also been alleged that the USA had been planning to invade Afghanistan for as long as three years before the 11/9 attack. It has been reported that the USA Government told the Indian Government, in June 2001, that there would be an invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Defence analysts had reported the planned invasion as early as March 2001.
After the infamous 11/9 attack on America George W Bush announced that its war on Afghanistan was just the beginning of its `war on terrorism'. Bush made his infamous `you are either with us or against us' speech and a list of nearly 50 target nations was published. Most of the nations on the list had important oil resources but had no links with bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
After studying details of the 11/9 attack on America many independent observers believed that the attack was inspired, orchestrated and possibly even carried out by the American government itself as an excuse for grabbing control of the world's oil reserves. There is no doubt that the so called `war on terror' could be more accurately entitled the `war for oil'.
George W.Bush's backers, the American neoconservative zionists, saw what was happening some years ago. They have, therefore, tried to create a world in which they will control what oil exists, benefit from the shortage of oil and be free to introduce an endless variety of legislation designed to limit our freedom and expand their power.
The legislation which has changed the world since 11th September 2001 was clearly brought in to enable a relatively small number of money and power hungry men (and women) to control the world and to control potential rioters.
Today, wherever there are significant oil or gas pipelines or fields there will be an American base nearby. The only two significant exceptions are Russia and Iran.
American oil companies paid the Islamic Government in Northern Sudan so that they could gain access to untapped oilfields there. And American Christian groups financed the non-Islamic Southerners because they believed that in doing this they were helping to fight the war against Islam. The result: civil war, paid for pretty much entirely by Americans.
The Americans have long wanted to invade Iran (and it was widely rumoured that they were planning to do so in Spring of 2007). They had certainly been looking for excuses for an invasion.
In the end they didn't invade for purely practical reasons: they didn't have enough men left (the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan had both proved more troublesome than expected), they didn't have enough money left (America is effectively bankrupt and wars are very expensive) and they were frightened of China (which had formed a close alliance with Iran).
It is important to understand that the modern American version of Christianity seems to allow politicians to pick and choose the dictators they attack. They go for the ones who have oil or who won't do business with us but remain on good terms with the ones (in countries such as China, Zimbabwe) with whom profitable relationships have been established. The Chinese Government is no better than Saddam Hussein's Government but the Americans would never dream of invading China. For one thing their currency depends on Chinese support. And for another they know that they would lose a war with China. America, like all bullies, only tackles weaker targets.
The war on Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. Thousands of American and British servicemen and women have been killed. It is difficult to know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed (neither the Americans or the British bother to keep count of Iraqis who are killed) but independent observers put the figure at around a million. After three years of the war The Lancet has reported that the death toll in Iraq exceeded 650,000. This puts George W.Bush and Tony Blair high up on any list of the worst war criminals of all time.
During the run up to the 2003 Iraq War the Americans, desperate to get the Russian vote for the United Nations security council resolution that would give them the green light to bomb Iraq and grab its oil, promised the Russians that Iraq's outstanding $8 billion debts to Moscow and the Russian oil industry would be honoured in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
In principle the Americans did not, of course, have any right to make decisions for a post Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. In practice the Russians presumably knew that America would, as conquerors, have control of Iraq's oil and its money. It was, perhaps, a sign of the Americans' desperation that they were prepared to make this deal and, thereby, be rather more obvious about their intentions than they had previously been.
China and the USA have for years been at a standoff over Iranian oil. China, which now has most of the money in the world, has for years been wooing the Arabs. They offered to support Iran if the Americans should invade.
Iran has the second biggest oil reserves in the world and agreed a $70 billion 25 year deal to supply oil to China.
As the oil runs out there are bound to be more wars over the diminishing quantities of fossil fuels left on the planet.
There have always been wars over resources.
Men have fought over everything of value, but resources such as land, horses, cattle, ports and waterways have always been top of the list. As the oil runs out so the wars are likely to be more violent, more common and more desperate.
America is in decline. Its place as the world's controlling nation has been a short and violent one.
Since the Second World War, American foreign policy has been dictated by its yearning for oil. America's best move was persuading the Arabs to sell oil in dollars. This has meant that every oil importing country in the world has had to pay for oil in America's currency. It is to a large extent through this piece of financial trickery that America has built up huge debts and has nevertheless apparently remained rich.
When will the remaining oil producing nations insist on selling oil in euros instead of dollars?
Despite its yearning for Arab oil America has continued to defend Israel unquestioningly. Powerful Zionists in American politics are doubtless partly responsible for this. But America has also used Israel as a local staging post; enabling them to keep an eye on what is happening in the rest of the Middle East.
America now regards anything the Palestinians do as terrorism. In contrast, anything Israel does is regarded as self-defence. The media has helped create and defend this myth.
Israel also helps to act as a focal point for Arab resentment - taking a little of the heat off America.
These policies are now falling apart, of course.
America's violence against Arab countries has resulted in so much hatred against the USA that it doubtful if the rulers in Saudi Arabia can remain in power much longer. There are some who feel that America invaded Iraq so as to be close to Saudi Arabia when the bin Laden supporters there eventually overthrow the Saudi royal family. Losing access to the Saudi oil would damage the USA enormously.
Around the rest of the world America has made enemies almost everywhere. Although there may be fragile economic links between America and China the reality is that there are huge divisions between the two and neither country trusts the other. The same goes for Russia. Much to America's horror both China and Russia have both developed close links to Iran.
`Twenty years on from the oil shock of the 1970s, most economists would agree that oil is no longer the most important commodity in the world economy,' said Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, in January 2000. I have found no evidence that Mr Blair ever explained what he thought the most important commodity might be.
It is difficult to know just why the British Government allied Britain so closely with America. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, put forward several reasons for taking Britain to war against Afghanistan and Iraq but none of them have much of a ring of truth. And Blair's credibility was of course so damaged that for almost the whole of his premiership it was difficult to believe anything he said.
The most generous thought is that Blair realised that with the oil and coal running out Britain would have to find new sources of energy. (Though this thought seems unlikely since Blair famously - and rather stupidly - claimed that the new information economy had replaced the oil economy.) If he did think this then his policy was a total failure since there are absolutely no signs that Britain will receive any of the oil that the Americans have now managed to steal.
My own suspicion, I fear, is that Blair was simply behaving as Bush's poodle so that he could rely on Bush and America for lucrative employment once his stint as Prime Minister was over.
Is there any doubt that America will eventually turn against Europe and use whatever military might it has left to grab whatever resources might be available?
Of course not.
America, a nation founded on slavery and genocide, has always looked after America first and recent administrations have proved themselves to be corrupt and untrustworthy in the extreme.
But there is a problem which even America must face.
The oil is running out.
And in my next article I will explain why this simple, undeniable truth has been directly responsible for our loss of freedom.
NOTE
Vernon Coleman’s book on oil is called `A Bigger Problem than Climate Change: The end of oil.’ For details CLICK HERE
Copyright Vernon Coleman March 2026
Home