digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at nytimes.com

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back

nytimes.com — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • honesttussey, on 06/19/2008, -15/+234MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
    • McShr3dd3r, on 06/19/2008, -4/+17at least for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP
      • farfromsubtl, on 06/19/2008, -3/+16For all freedom loving, SUV-driving Americans!
        • graddatadda, on 06/19/2008, -0/+8amen...god bless mom and the hummer
        • MWeather, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2Actually, no. SUV drivers got screwed the worst. Well, other than the Iraqi people and our soldiers.
      • canUdi9it, on 06/19/2008, -0/+9All you silly conspiracy theorists, don't you know that nothing is ever planned. Everything that happens in history is either an accident, a coincidence, or a random event. Get a clue.

        The US invaded Iraq because of the WMDs, and/or because of Saddam's involvement in 9-11, and/or because we want to spread democracy, and/or because of the war on terror, and/or because Iran is our new enemy, and/or whatever our fearless leader tells us is the reason tomorrow.

        (sarcasm in case it's not obvious.)
    • mwaleed86, on 06/19/2008, -44/+0***** dude!...this was wahat i was going to post!....


      ***** u!
    • VirtualSobriety, on 06/19/2008, -20/+7ExxonMobile is the only American company of the four...

      The US now went to war so England, France, and The Netherlands could have Iraq's oil?

      Seriously...You're going to stick with that line of reasoning?

      • dracostimpy, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Are you going to stick with the line of reasoning that America goes to war strictly for its own interests rather than that of, say, a chimperor whose family has deep-rooted ties to big oil regardless of corporate nationality?

        Do you think Bush only stands to gain if American oil companies make bank? Can you show me the law that says Americans cannot own shares of foreign oil companies? Moreover, would you be surprised if, after his reign of terror ended, Bush took a position as highly-paid corporate mascot over at one of those foreign oil companies? Lest ye forget, Tony Blair works for JP Morgan now!
        • billbert, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4This ^
        • VirtualSobriety, on 06/19/2008, -7/+1I'm going to stick with the line of reasoning that the elected leader of the United States is The President, and neither "Bush" nor "a chimperor"

          I am going to stick with the line of reasoning that now that the Iraqi govt is beginning to come into it's own it is granting a very limited contract to 4 WORLDWIDE companies whom have the equipment they NEED to start producing oil in the region.

          I am also going to stick with the line of reasoning that you have 0 idea how the American Government works, which explains why you resort to childish name calling instead of any real evidence to support whatever it is that you think...

          Would it surprise you if after he left office, The former President of the United States ran a 7 minute mile backwards while juggling ferrets...Because that is certainly something that COULD possibly happen...Maybe I'll form all of my opinions on that possibility...

          No one support the President, because he may one day juggle ferrets...
        • MWeather, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3"I'm going to stick with the line of reasoning that the elected leader of the United States is The President, and neither "Bush""

          Well you got that much right.
        • dracostimpy, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Mr. VirtualSobriety, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
        • jnichols, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1lol....... I do feel dumber a few more post and I may turn into GW...
      • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2Dugg down. How dare you undermine my conception of America as Evil?
    • DreKor, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Hey, we got Iraq to start trading oil in USD again instead of Euros. That has to count for something. Right?
    • SocialPoison, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Well played...
    • Malevolant, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1It's beyond amazing how ignorant, or ***** ignorant, all of you idiots are. I realize most of you are supported by mommy and daddy, don't have to pay for *****, much less gas, and yet you post this insane, inane, drivel, of which, you know nothing about. Oh wait you know what your partisan leaders have told you and that's it.

      1) More oil will mean better prices - doesn't matter to most of you since your parents buy it for you.
      2) The surge has worked, overwhelmingly, hence we move to more capitalist dealings, just like Vietnam, but that took decades.
      3) How can you be such hypocrites? How can you , on one hand, complain, cry, and yell about the injustice of "oil plundering" when we, as a national, consume more oil than anyone, anywhere?
      4) Until, and if, you ever stop using all petroleum based products, you need to STFU!!
      • edwartica, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5More oil = less investment in alternative fuels = more pollution. oil is a dirty burning fuel, and even if you don't believe in climate change, you must at least acknowledge there has to be a better way than dumping toxins into the air for everyone to breathe.
      • DreKor, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Wait, who only knows that their partisan leaders have told them?
      • Malevolant, on 06/19/2008, -3/+2edwartica - more oil is a short term fix while investing more in alternative fuels sources, that happen in the long term. I guess we should just let gas hit $100/gallon until we figure out our future needs....Get over your Al Gore b.s. There's something called being proactive not reactive, look into it.

        Drekor - I am not a Republican or Democrat, I am independent so don't label me. If you're part of those parties then you are part of the problem, which you are, obviously.

        I deal with common sense, you deal with what you've been sold and told, and then turn into fact, which they aren't.
        • DreKor, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2So, you didn't just call Vietnam a success and boil global petroleum markets down to simple supply/demand? You don't have to be a political party member to be a fool.
        • edwartica, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2I said pollution - you know, that black stuff they have in the air in LA? That's not an Al Gore Myth - that's tangible fact you can see with your own eyes - and breathe with your own lungs. It has always been a threat, and always will be a threat until we stop using dirty fuels.
    • jnichols, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5War ugh what is it good for absolutely nothing..... Wait I mean... war ugh what is good for a bunch of f**king oil..... Good job Bush my friend died for your oil companies
    • deaftly, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4FISSION MCCOMPOLISHED
    • Malevolant, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Ridiculous posts, both of you, very childish too.
      You people just post the same, tired crap, to ad nauseam. You never offer solutions of any type other than things that work in a perfect world, which we do not live in. You do not live or reside in the space of reality. I think it's some parallel Utopian universe, unlike our own. I realize the majority of you are dependent on your parents, have no responsibility, and have no clue on how geopolitics, and life in general, works. This is the reason no one puts any importance on anything said on sites like this one.

      Continue to play the victim, to blame everything on Bush, and thinking "your side" of things is the only right, moral, and correct way of doing things, while ignoring what the other 2/3's of America thinks. You can live in your own bubble while the majority will live in reality. Continue to hate the country that gave you all of your freedoms, your material needs, while claiming it is evil and the blight of the world.

      People with common sense and appreciation know the truth, you aren't one of these people.
      • CryRightardCry, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Get off your high horse, dumbass.
        The fact is 2/3 of America do NOT support ANYTHING that has gone on the last 7 years.
        Oh yeah, when lied to they support it, but not once the truth comes out.
        You sound like a ***** 14 year old telling their parents how the world works.
        The facts are that big oil has it's fingers in the government, and in particular the Bush presidency and the GOP.
        You can pretend otherwise, but you are only fooling yourself.
        Oh, and there is a reason we think Bush sucks morally and ethically, too. It's not up for debate on what's right and wrong in the Christian tradition, it's all pretty clear.
        Bush (which includes his administration) has been a lying criminal. This is just another facet to it.
        Losers like you with this "oh just accept it" crap are the problem. Do you get that? That your pathetic ***** is the problem?
        Try this: man up, and start caring about something other than your own fat ass.
        • Malevolant, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1STFU you far left sycophant. You're basing your b.s. comments on public polling which is highly inaccurate. This isn;t your stupid college, so the world is not like the place you are brainwashed.
          You are so far-left hyper-partisan that you blame everything on Bush, and that is where you lose all credibility, like you ever had any. Most of America doesn't give a ***** what you or other ignorant far left sheep think. I know this because I know a ton of people and none of them buy the b.s. that the MSM tries to sell at every opportunity. I also do not and have not voted for Bush so save your b.s for someone, with a week enough mind, to buy into it.
          If you are going to go with ancient ad hominem/pejoratives, please come up with something creative, that hasn't been used a million times before, and something that your masters HAVEN'T fed you.
          Now piss off you little boy, incapable of questioning anything, especially critical thought, and thinking on your own. Give mommy and daddy my love...
  • Ramble, on 06/19/2008, -17/+92Bush obtained his goal at last.
    • freezeout, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7finally the elusive "Bush legacy" has been revealed
    • sloetjes, on 06/19/2008, -3/+0Not quite. When the US Debt hits 10 trillion he gets his soul back.
    • timewarp424, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4For such a proclaimed dimwit, he sure masterminded the greatest dupe of all history. Sure, got you all.
      • edwartica, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4Chenney is the evil mastermind behind the puppet.
    • digitronix, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2I guess the ends justified the means, right?
  • delrin500, on 06/19/2008, -23/+92Utterly disgusting the way that our government used our military for the financial gain of a few.
    • mjrjr, on 06/19/2008, -3/+8/sarcasm on

      The needs of the few or the one out weigh the needs of the many.

      /sarcasm off

      I'm truly disappointed at how much we've been lied to and miss-lead, yet we won't rise up and take the power of "democracy" back into our own hands...because the "needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few...or the one".
    • justjoehere, on 06/19/2008, -6/+5[citation needed]
    • AbsurdParadox, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
      • delrin500, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5This is your justification for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and destabilizing an entire region while at the same time boosting the number of violent people with a serious grudge against the American people? Seem a little counter productive to me.

        If this is why they would decided to invade another country then what is the justification for the looting of our government treasury? 23 billion confirmed unaccounted for - BBC
        Again counter productive, if your rational is to stabilize the US dollar then why would you steal immense amount of our money?
        • AbsurdParadox, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Whoa, whoa, where did I say that I supported it!? Just pointing people to a definition of what's going on, or the most part.
        • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Dude, I can't believe you "justified the killing of hundreds of innocent people and destabilizing an entire region while at the same time boosting the number of violent people with a serious grudge against the American people" (delrin500 pars.1). That's messed up.

          /emote grabs a beer
    • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/19/2008, -4/+3Even more disgusting is the fact that I pay $100 a week to fill up my car.
      • edwartica, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Even more disgusting is the amount of pollution put out by your car. Let's all breathe in those beautiful, toxic fumes. I wasn't using my lungs for anything vital anyways.
      • VoxRatio, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0Yeah, 91 here. Pretty messed up.
    • eth3l, on 06/19/2008, -5/+3I am so glad you did not make a simplistic blanket statement about an amazingly complex issue.
      • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Yeah! Because, the more complication in the explanation the easier it is to make excuses for whoever it is you're defending.
    • rohcky, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5I suggest you read up on American History.
    • seomike, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1With gas prices as high as they are I think the needs of us all will be satisfied if this knock 2 bucks off the price of a gallon. But then again if the oil isn't coming straight here and is just being thrown into the market for any country to buy then we're still SOL.
    • 4321234, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4The government used the military? I would say the oil lobby used the military and the government was just a proxy. Big oil gets what they want, and the American soldiers and taxpayers, as well as worldwide consumers, foot the bill.
      And it wasn't so America could get cheap gas, either. Global oil doesn't give a rat's ass about America. If anything, they want expensive gas. Mission Accomplished.
  • 2bsbc, on 06/19/2008, -12/+31“In the magical universe there are no coincidences and there are no accidents. Nothing happens unless someone wills it to happen.”

    William S. Burroughs
    • Calinthalus, on 06/19/2008, -8/+3So, you are denying Evolution?
      • popfrogs, on 06/19/2008, -4/+6He said in the magical universe. We usually don't live there.
        • Calinthalus, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2So the point of the quote is...?
        • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Only William S. Burroughs knows.
        • Risingashes, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2It means that things are usually the fault of circumstance rather than malice.

          Aka just because Bush is corrupt doesn't mean he started a war for profit.

          He needed to attack something, so he did. Doing so made oil worth more. That doesn't mean he wanted oil to cost more.

          No idea what 2bsbc thought it meant though, seems only vaguely relevant.
  • shoopdawoop, on 06/19/2008, -22/+24IM AS MAD AS HELL AND IM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE
    • mike17032, on 06/19/2008, -8/+2FAIL
    • deathsythe, on 06/19/2008, -9/+5Okay Che, whatever you say
    • muleskinner, on 06/19/2008, -3/+15Yes, you will.
    • PlayingGangsta, on 06/19/2008, -7/+7What aren't you taking? Oil companies returning to a country where they were until a dictatorship nationalized their operations there? Or the fact that we're still in Iraq?
      • shoopdawoop, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4The fact that I have to login to NYTimes to read a ***** news piece.
    • nicktheawesome, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Gallagher?
    • billybillyboy, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4It seems everyone would rather we just made sure the iraqi oil fields never produced again. Alright, maybe not so drastic. Maybe everyone wanted no US companies (instead of just one, XOM, out of four) to have any chance to get in there. Yeah, that would have been a better outcome.
    • eth3l, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2What are you mad about?

      DAMN THE OIL COMPANIES FOR TRYING TO DRILL OIL! At least Obama supports the mining of more coal! Thats so much cleaner and doesn't make anyone rich but his contributors!
      • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2That we went into Iraq for this. Which means we were most definitely lied to about going into Iraq. So, yeah... I think the discontent is justified.
    • OutrightLie, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2All I wanted was a Cheeseburger in Paradise. Medium rare with mustard - be nice. Big, warm bun, huge hunk of meat. I like mine with lettuce and tomato, Heinz 57 and French Fried potatoes, big kosher pickle and cold draft beer.

      Good god almighty, which way do I steer?
      • 4321234, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Should I digg you up for Buffett, or digg you down for the Windows avatar? Fanboisms collide...
        ARRRGGGGGGGGGG!!! YOU"RE TEARING ME APART!!!
        (splodes)
        • OutrightLie, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I think Buffett would want us to set our differences aside. Digg me up.

          After all - I'm just a son of a son of a sailor.
  • McShr3dd3r, on 06/19/2008, -11/+39Can we leave now?
    • xodex, on 06/19/2008, -4/+5No we can't leave, We still have to guzzle the oil out.
    • freezeout, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5and who's gonna make sure those pesky Iraqis don't demand their oil back?
    • kraftj, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Good one.
  • superfusion, on 06/19/2008, -17/+75~100,00 human lives --> $0.50 discount at the pumps.

    Mission accomplished.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/19/2008, -3/+43"~100,00 human lives --> $0.50 discount at the pumps."

      ...after a $2.50 increase.
      • justjoehere, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8Another 500k and we'll be back to where we were then, right?
        • lolinyerface, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Start with the red states, oh wait, we already did.
    • DeFex, on 06/19/2008, -2/+33they dont call you human resources for nothing.
    • Pssdoff, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Discount??? What discount? These people aren't passing the savings on to the consumers...
    • eth3l, on 06/19/2008, -12/+1WTF is ~100,00. is that a european way to write 100.00?
      • yodaj007, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4How come everyone knows it's a typo except you?
  • mattearle, on 06/19/2008, -16/+22So, the war was about oil. Good stuff!
    • McShr3dd3r, on 06/19/2008, -4/+5Ya think?!?
    • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -12/+6Every war east of Poughkeepsie is about oil. Ask any brain dead liberal.
      • apothekari, on 06/19/2008, -5/+10Yeah us braindead liberals...who ruined everything in the last 8 years because we were in power.
        • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -9/+2Yea, I'm going to have to give you a 'fail' for that one.
        • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -7/+3Nope, only since you took over congress, and the 8 years before bush was in power, when global terrorism was just beginning. If Clinton had acted upon the Intel we had about Bin Laden, bush wouldn't have an "Excuse" for what you call an "Oil war".
        • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5Also, whenever Bush tried to read all the important memos on terrorism, Bill Clinton would pop up behind him and cover his eyes! What a dick!
        • mtvkilledusall, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2I'm going to have to ask you all to cite your sources.
      • elhaf, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4What is it about then? Do tell, oh wise one.
        • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2What would be to point? You wouldn't listen anyway.
          Go back to hating America and masturbating to pictures of dead soldiers.
    • OutrightLie, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6Where does Haliburton fit into all this?
      • edwartica, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2From Wikipedia....
        In 1998 Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton.
      • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6The billions they received in contract work in Iraq and Afghanistan, to start with.
        {source=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88122,00.html} Look, my source is even FoxNews to appease all you neocons out there.
  • philostrato, on 06/19/2008, -14/+6Weird. I'm so glad to see this story on the front page, but I'm surprised it made it with so few initial diggs, especially considering there are at least two other versions I dugg last night. Such is the magic of the algorithm, I guess.
  • ckeenan, on 06/19/2008, -11/+9it took long enough since that was the apparent reason for going to there
  • Troika37, on 06/19/2008, -13/+59FTA: "The Iraqi government’s stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction."

    Let's say that last part again: "The revenue would be used for reconstruction."
    • TinternAbbot, on 06/19/2008, -17/+19It's remarkable how many people view this news as being yet more evidence for neocon treachery instead of an opportunity for Iraq to benefit.
      • thedogfatherx, on 06/19/2008, -8/+11Well it's not surprising. If they hate bush they hate everything about him and there is no changing that. Even if he does something good it's bad in the eyes of the chronic bush hater.
        • PhilliesBlunt, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6Please let us know when Bush does something good, 'mkay?
        • MewTwo, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3Well, bush is a dumbass. He might actually believe the worthless ignorant jumble that comes out of his mouth.
          But there are people who control him who are not the most moral human beings I've ever seen. And I don't believe that THEY think what they're doing is a moral and good, needed thing to do. It doesn't take much to understand that.
        • Albumen, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4I like bush. But I don't like Bush.
      • kiwiboyus, on 06/19/2008, -3/+11You mean like Operation Freedom? Yeah that was for their benefit.
        • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -4/+3It was. Google up "Saddam Hussein". Imagine living under his rule.
        • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Not everyone is better off after Saddam's demise... just look at the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and consider all of the lost homes, businesses, and posessions. But, that's all for the best, right?
      • Aadain, on 06/19/2008, -5/+6If you had been paying attention in the last year or so, you would know that they Iraqi government has NOT been using their oil profits to rebuild their nation. They have happily been using OUR money to do that. So you can excuse some people for being skeptical that they plan to use their increased profits to rebuild their country when our government is happy to keep signing blank checks. All that will happen is that Exxon et al will have even higher profits in a years or two and the Iraqi's will be laughing at us all the way to the bank.
      • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1I find it remarkable how much some people are willing to make excuses for their beloved Bush administration. Amazing.
    • kiwiboyus, on 06/19/2008, -11/+14Oh sure, reconstruction by firms owned by those loyal to BUSHCO. Smells like money laundering to me.
    • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -6/+10They've been saying that since the war started. The US should be paying for reconstruction, they're the ones that destroyed all of their infrastructure. Why do Iraqis have to use the revenues from their own resources to reconstruct something they didn't destroy in the first place? Last time I checked, the Germans and Italians paid mass reparations for the damages they caused to other nations. I guess the US is an exception to this rule.
      • Buzzbean, on 06/19/2008, -5/+8The way it's supposed to work is the losers in any war pay the reparations. The way it works today is the US is guilted into paying for reparations, no matter who wins or loses.
        • PhilliesBlunt, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4You break it, you buy it
        • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -4/+4No, the way it's supposed to work with anyone who has decent ethical principles is that the AGGRESSORS pay the raparations.

          "The way it works today is the US is guilted into paying for reparations, no matter who wins or loses."

          Vietnam and Cambodia beg to differ. The only time the US has paid reparations was for the Japanese internment camps.
        • cdahlkvist, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Buzzbean is right.

          SuperMoses: Try this. The way it is SUPPOSE to work is that the country that WINS takes control of the country that LOSES.

          The U.S. bails everyone out.
        • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3@cdahlkvist: Yes.. unfortunately that's what happens in practice.. the country that wins the war takes control of that country (even when the country that lost is the victim of a war of aggression since they did nothing to the aggressor)

          I also assume that by "The U.S. bails everyone out" you mean the US installs puppet regimes for their own best interests at the expense of the population of the nation they've invaded. I'm sure when they did their "Shock and Awe" campaign, they were dropping "bail out" bombs. Holding 40 billion dollars of Iraqi money in the Federal Reserve is their "bailing out" strategy. And now, forcing laws onto a desperate Iraqi government is their "bailing out" ethics of negotiations. I'm sure other countries can't wait until the US "bails them out" .. that's why people all over the world burn US flags to show their support for US' bail out strategies.

          In the UK poll...(http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/art-bush-terro ... from the country that is the US' greatest ally (supposedly), Bush was second to Bin Laden as the greatest threat to world peace. It must because they keep "bailing" everyone out.
      • macdady843, on 06/19/2008, -9/+11Why do they have to use their own resources to reconstruct something they didn't destroy?

        BECAUSE WE GAVE THEM THE ULTIMATE PRIZE, FREEDOM FROM AN INHUMANE DICTATOR. ONE WHO WAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE GENOCIDED THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN CITIZENS.

        There maybe those caps will help the message get through your thick skull.
        • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -3/+12The US has killed more Iraqis then Saddam has ever killed. Putting your comment in caps does not make it a valid point. You also completely fail to understand what a war of aggression is. I suggest you look it up. No one asked the US to invade Iraq and it's the arrogance of thinking they're the world's police why they're hated around the world.

          Finally, "genocided" is not a word.

        • wpi97, on 06/19/2008, -7/+6"The US has killed more Iraqis then Saddam has ever killed."
          Got data to back that up?
        • macdady843, on 06/19/2008, -5/+4Unfortunately they had to suffer some casualties to obtain freedom from this horrible dictator. I'm sure there are many who aren't complaining. They have a chance at a new and prosperous life.

          and to "SuperMoses" i know genocided isn't a word obviously since digg has built in spell checker. However this made up word seems to hold more weight than any other of similar definition.
        • Tssst, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Thousands? His execution conviction number was 173. And even they were rebels. And he had a 'role' in their deaths. Really, check your facts. He fared far better than bush, who is at about 4100 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis
        • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2I bet you love FoxNews, Macdady843.
        • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3wpi97: You're a moron if you think otherwise. Saddam's biggest crime was against the Kurds which led to about 5,000 deaths. This was during the time when he was still allied with the US and in fact used weapons that he had received from the US. However, conservative estimates of killed civilians during the Iraq war are at 150,000 to 200,000.. where scientifically peer-reviewed papers have it closer to 650,000 in the span of 4 years. So break down the deaths per year under Saddam vs US occupation.

          @macdady843: Yes, I know you need to rely on Digg spell checker to find out that "genocided" is not a word, but the fact remains that your argument is one big logical fallacy. You also sound like you're 12, so I'll stop responding to you.
        • wpi97, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6"wpi97: You're a moron if you think otherwise."
          I see... You have made a very serious accusation, and I am a moron for asking you to back up your claim... Priceless! Oh, yes, and thank you so much for telling me what to think. I don't know how I made so far without your wise counsel.

          "Saddam's biggest crime was against the Kurds which led to about 5,000 deaths."
          Really? Here's what I have read: "it is estimated that up to 182,000 [Kurds] were killed during the Anfal campaign" http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/h ...
          Got a reference that refutes this figure? Or am I being a moron again for asking that?

          Do you include the casualties of the Iran-Iraq war? 213,255 Iraqis (official figures) and estimated 250,000-500,000 Iranians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War How about the casualties of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent Gulf War?

          Also, do me a favor, try to find some estimates of the number of people arrested, tortured, imprisoned, and killed during Saddam's regime for saying the wrong thing, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then total up all the numbers, and compare with the number of Iraqis killed by the US military.
        • SuperMoses, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2If we're going to include the Iran-Iraq war, then we'll have to give some of those causality figures to the US as well since they supplied Iraq with WMDs and financial aid. However, since you've decided to include Iraqi invasions of other countries.. then we might as well include all of the US invasions dating from 1980s to present. But let's just include all of the Iraqi deaths you mentioned.. and I'll even include the 213,255, even though these also include soldiers.

          Saddam: 5,000 + 182,000 + 213,255 = 400,255 Iraqis
          Saddam's Rule: (1979 - 2003) = 24 years
          Total Iraqi deaths per year under Saddam = 16,677

          Under US occupation: Conservative estimate = 150,000 .. Study = 650,000.. we'll take the average: 400,000
          Years of US invasion: 5 years
          Total Iraqi deaths per year under US invasion: 80,000

          So the US has increased the # iraqi deaths by a factor of 4


          ** I didn't include the # of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq war because as I said, if we did this, then we'd need to include all of the other non-Iraqis killed by US interventions. Furthermore, as I said before, the US supported Iraq, supplied them with chemical and biological weapons, and financial aid, so they bare some responsibility in that war. Also, if you look at the wikipedia link you sent me, you'll notice the US Navy on the Iraq side on the right hand side table.

          Nonetheless, this game is pointless to play. Anyone with half a brain knows the US did not go there to liberate the Iraqis, but to secure their interests. They have a track record of doing this.

          Operation AJAX
          Operation PBSUCCESS
          School of Americas
          Overthrow of Allende
          Overthrow of Lumumba

          Look those up.. the list goes on. To think the US has an interest in bringing democracy is naive considering their record of overthrowing democratically elected leaders
        • wpi97, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Well, what do you know? If you try to back up your claims, instead of being an arrogant bastard, you can actually have something resembling a meaningful discussion.

          Now let me remind you what you said: "The US has killed more Iraqis then Saddam has ever killed."

          According to your own calculation the number is actually about the same. Not to mention that the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam does not include the individuals executed for their political views, or just for saying the wrong thing, while the number of Iraqis killed by the US, may very well include the Iraqis killed in terrorist attacks by the insurgents, or as a result of sectarian violence.

          Now you are trying to change your argument, and compare the "deaths per year", which is hardly the number of people "Saddam has ever killed". My point was that your original statement was an exaggeration, and that's that.

          I am also well aware that the US supported Saddam as a counterweight to Iran. So did the USSR, France, and pretty much everybody else. If anything, it means they had a responsibility to destroy the monster they helped create.

          "Anyone with half a brain knows the US did not go there to liberate the Iraqis, but to secure their interests."
          Anyone with half a brain knows that in international politics there are no friends, there are only interests. Not to mention that anyone with half a brain knows that "anyone with half a brain knows X" is not a valid argument.
        • macdady843, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2@SuperMoses:

          If you do indeed reside in the U.S. you need to move out. You are the biggest trash talker of the United States that I have ever come in contact with, and I am ashamed you are allowed to call yourself a U.S. citizen. If you hate the U.S.'s policies so much move to Canada or the UK we won't miss you.
        • kieranmaine, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1So to surmise, George Bush is as bad as Saddam and the UK, French, USSR and most probably anyone that could produce weapons helped keep a mass murderer in power. Why is it only Saddam ended up in court though? A sad example of the topsy-turvy morals that apply to the world.

          @macdady843 - Why is supermoses trash talking the US? He brought forth a fair amount of facts and argued his point quite well. At least try and argue his points instead of referring to name calling.
      • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Germany, Japan, Italy, They've all benefited from losing a war with us. Today they are strong allies, and they have booming economies.
      • akamurph, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4You have no idea of history or how wars work... Stay in school a little longer and you might learn.
    • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -4/+22That is to say, Iraqi profits will be used for reconstruction. The oil companies profits will not.
    • blechler, on 06/19/2008, -3/+15This MO was laid out in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." If you have not read the book I encourage you to do so. The revenues will be lent to Iraq by the oil companies to rebuild, and when they can't repay they will be forced to do the bidding of the US.
      • Testiculese, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4You forgot to add one word to the end of your last sentence: ", again."
    • freezeout, on 06/19/2008, -2/+10just like all those billion congress approved went to "reconstruction" and "rebuilding Iraq" and not to the pockets of the contractors..

      strange how so many billions have been spent on "reconstruction" and yet Baghdad only has 12 hours of electricity a day, 5 years after the invasion.
      • Testiculese, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2That 87billion wasn't for reconstruction. That was actually just the longest round trip money has taken to go from government coffers into Cheney's bank account.
    • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5Awesome, now US oil companies and reconstruction companies (ie: KBR, Halliburton) make massive profits at the expense of Iraqis. Who was it that told me War is a Racket? I guess the Iraqis should be grateful for this... somehow.
    • Nosferotu, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7And do you realize what 'no-bid contract' means? It means Iraqi's aren't getting the best deal for the company coming to do this work, to earn that money for reconstruction. In other words, these companies can charge whatever the hell they want, and ultimately end up leaving Iraq with significantly less money than if they could use bidding to keep the price down.
    • facereplacer, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2and getting the highest levels of each company major bankage
    • SkepticVoice, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6Why does that merit repeating? Let's see what has happened here. The US destroys Iraq's infrastructure.. now force Iraq into giving up a percentage of their oil reserves to US oil companies where Iraq will use whatever small cut they get from the deal to pay for what the US destroyed. Wow.. those neocons are so awesome!!!

      1. Destroy Iraq's infrastructure
      2. Take a large percentage of their oil fields and tell Iraqis to pay for what the US destroyed with the small percentage they get from the oil deal
      3. Convince diggers that the Iraqis are benefiting
      4. ????
      5. Profit!
  • TinternAbbot, on 06/19/2008, -34/+23Uh, this is good for Iraqis, too. And honestly, you have to be retarded if you think we went into Iraq for oil. We went into Iraq because the administration was wrong. Stop trying to look for evil when the culprit is bad information and a new policy of pre-emption.
    • BarrettAnderson, on 06/19/2008, -17/+16I love how the only person with any common sense on this thread gets buried into oblivion.
      • TinternAbbot, on 06/19/2008, -4/+5Economic fundamentals are a rarity here.
        • MewTwo, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Yeah, billions maybe trillions dollar deficit in this country... I think generally most people understand that that is a BAD thing.
      • thedogfatherx, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Thats digg for you.
      • gryphon50, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Haven't a million Iraqis died in this war? Was that good for them too? I can't believe there is anyone left that thinks like you. You actually still believe the b*llsh*t.
        • thisguy457, on 06/19/2008, -2/+0Oh man you're dumb, lets spell this out for you:

          Modernized Oil Inustry = Good
          Oil Revenue = Good
          Million Dead Iraqis = Bad

          See how that works? One thing can be good, and another thing can be bad. Pretty cool how that works huh?
      • MewTwo, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Don't worry, gryphon. Looks like some standard republican schmucks have hit this thread early. Maybe we should just step aside and let their ignorance go for a little bit? Nah.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Same way you do. It's that little red 'thumbs down' button to your right.
    • Aadain, on 06/19/2008, -1/+13Bad information assumes that what Bush & his administration was basing their decisions on was faulty or incorrect. In fact, the intelligence community very loudly told them their information was bad so don't use it, or that Bush was pulling information out of his ass and using it since it said what it wanted it to say (attack Iraq). When you hear this, it's not hard to assume that there were motives for attacking Iraq that the administration did not make public. And when in doubt, follow the money, all the way to Halliburton and other companies that have long ties to people in this administration. One of the oldest motivators in the acquisition of wealth, so it's not hard to believe that we went to war with Iraq to funnel tax money into Halliburton et al (we're talking BILLIONS of dollars).
      • wbg34, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1"In fact, the intelligence community very loudly told them their information was bad so don't use it"

        That must be what George Tenet was referring to when he said it was a "Slam Dunk" case. I suppose the president should have ignored the head of the CIA and questioned the individual analysts.
        • Nosferotu, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Are you really trying to argue the Bush administration WASN'T fully aware the intelligence was faulty? Because I believe many, many reports have come out to the contrary, so your single quote reference really doesn't seem to hold much water.
        • honthraj, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0George Tenet on 60 minutes adamantly claimed that he never said "Slam Dunk!"
        • boo1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2That must be what George Tenet was referring to when he said it was a "Slam Dunk" case.

          this information was based on information provided by "curveball." The germans who held him said he is "untrustworthy" and the CIA never ever vetted the source....
          This is the information you were talking about?

          Then Cheney calls the NY Times and tells them that they have credible evidence that Iraq has WMD's.
          Then goes on "Meet the press" and says "even the times is reporting this story."
    • Carl306, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Administrations are corrupt and people are dying as a result in numerous places all over the world. Take note at the atrocities taking place in parts of Africa, for example. Will the U.S. ever send mass troops into the region to try and stabilize the area and prevent the deaths of all those innocent people? Not likely, as this country (more specifically this administration) has zero economic interest in the resources the area has to offer the global economy.
    • cobophers, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1I must be retarded??? What? You are one huge logical fallacy aren't you?

      On the day you were born, your mom was like, "*****, I WAS pregnant: I should've listened to those doctor folks."

      Thats how you were born, because your parents were wrong. (Get it??? Logical Fallacy)
      • TinternAbbot, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I don't see how a person can be a "logical fallacy."
    • MewTwo, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2This is not good for the Iraqis. You have to be retarded if you think we went to Iraq for morally justifiable reasons. We went into Iraq because the administration wasn't doing what we wanted. Stop trying to say that the war is right when the culprit is bad information and a new policy of fear mongering.
      And another thing, what about your own goddamn country? I don't get how it is patriotic to support the occupation when you and your children and their children are going to be feeling the impact of the multi-billion dollar deficit this ***** war is creating. Welcome to the war economy, where your social security and medical support means nothing compared to the goal of "spreading freedom" to the Middle East. I don't like where you want this country to go.
      • TinternAbbot, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1I don't care for social security. I don't care for federal medical support. I DO care for a federal government that takes national security threats seriously. People are so quick to forget that right after 9/11, the government was criticized for not being able to foresee the attack despite all of the intelligence that suggested something was coming. Years later, people also crucify the government for doing what they claimed the government should have done before 9/11.
  • hapax, on 06/19/2008, -13/+55OIL GIANT

    Terrain: Desert (Middle East)
    Frequency: Uncommon
    Organization: Cartel
    THAC0: 6
    Hit Dice: 16D8
    Attack/Damage: 1-10
    Special Attack: Incite war for oil
    Special Defense: Tax shield
    • McShr3dd3r, on 06/19/2008, -8/+23US WAR MACHINE

      Terrain: Global
      Frequency: When Republicans are in control
      Organization: Federal
      Backing: DARPA, DoD
      Attack/Damage: unlimited
      Special AttacK: Ability to seek out WMD's that don't exist, Collapse local governments and fail to rebuild them.
      Special Defense: Classified
      • tehnico, on 06/19/2008, -2/+2WILDCARD: At the whim of complete ineptitude.
      • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Known Weaknesses: Enemies who aren't polite enough to put on uniforms.
    • Sk00L, on 06/19/2008, -2/+6OMG i think a little pee came out i laughed so hard! too funny!
      • orlyfactor, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8Thank god you were wearing depends!
    • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4you win at interwebs
    • rdmaxx, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1All of this and a deck of many things could be yours for the taking, if you just sign on this line here, below where it says we have no proof. *EG* Yes.. My plan is coming together nicely.
  • jayscot, on 06/19/2008, -23/+15Ah...here we go with the venomous partisan comments.

    For those of you who are new here...Welcome to Digg.
    • deathsythe, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8'tis a silly place.

      Obvious Monty Python reference aside - why do we keep coming back here?
      • apothekari, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Because if you had a Digg type equivalent for Conservatives {the new kind not the Goldwater type}there would never be any debate in the forums it would be all-
        "Shut up you commie pinko fag liberal feminazi terrorist sympathizer America hater"+666 thumbsup
        "Ditto"+333thumpsup
        and then it would die pretty soon after because there was no money to be made blowing smoke up your own asses.
        you guys are needed here to put a contrast on what we never hope to be.
        Thank you.
        • Babazoz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1No problem. Common sense is a heavy burden for people too self-absorbed to otherwise handle it properly.
    • dood, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Only on digg could someone turn a war spawned by a Republican administration's lies and the Democrats continued complicity in the face of those lies, now revealed, in to a partisan debate. This is quite a unique phenomenon.
  • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -8/+8if the money made from the oil don't go to help the people of iraq, there will be a battle for control of those resources. we may have a another darfur on our hands.
    • deathsythe, on 06/19/2008, -7/+1[doesn't ] go to help the people


      Buried for Grammar.
    • alpha19, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4"The revenue would be used for reconstruction."
    • DoctorDiamond, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2death[scythe]

      Buried for spelling.

      And you don't have to capitalize grammar -- it's not a proper noun.
    • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/19/2008, -3/+1By the people of Iraq you mean the Americans right? We're already rebuilding that ***** hole of a country with our own tax dollars and I don't think they deserve a penny more. Unless every effort is made to lower the price of gas, I'm going to start killing puppies. Hail Satan.


      • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2rebuilding the stuff we blew up?
        • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/19/2008, -4/+1Objection. Irrelevant.
          It's common knowledge that we destroyed their country. I am arguing the point that money made over there should be ours. If they want the oil, we should get the ***** out and hand them the keys. Let them rebuild and I want my tax dollars back too.
      • cornell83, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah I dont know what you're talking about. Probably half that country still doesnt have electricity, running water, or any of the other resources they need to live their lives and get Iraq headed in a positive direction. If anything we've spent more money destroying their infrastructure than rebuilding it.
  • mike17032, on 06/19/2008, -9/+16Time for the diggiot spin on this, should be a good show.
    • thedogfatherx, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1*puts popcorn in microwave.
    • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5What's there to spin? Those of us who knew oil was a big reason for the war were right. Besides, this is just history repeating itself, look up Operation AJAX
    • 9jack, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1 Ah yes, here is one "diggiot's" spin. There are lots of people with no substantive logical points to make, just creative derisive name calling and labeling. Lots of bully tactics rather than reason going around these days with politically charged issues.
  • topcat5, on 06/19/2008, -11/+3Now you know the real reason that Bush Jr & Bush Sr. attacked Iraq and armed Iran against Iraq during the Reagan years.
    • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Why didn't they arm Iraq and attack Iran then?
    • Wolverine82, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1FALSE: We armed IraQ not IraN! Get your facts straight. We helped Iran during Iran Contra, but NOT during the 8 year Iran/Iraq war.
      • topcat5, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Uhh. There was Iran/Contra. Please learn some history.
  • k2jones, on 06/19/2008, -8/+4sickening...
    • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -4/+3Yea, a country using their natural resources to become independent from other countries. Disgusting.
      • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1How is going from nationalization to privatization becoming more independent? Get a clue.
  • Bmarofsky, on 06/19/2008, -4/+27FTA: "A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts."

    Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm.
    • dsa202, on 06/19/2008, -3/+0Frand theft auto?
    • cmorriss, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2Why is this surprising to anyone? It's pretty obvious. The U.S. spent a crapload of money to free Iraq. I think allowing our companies to help them modernize their drilling while BOTH Iraq and the U.S. companies make money is something they owe us.

      I don't see any problem with this.
      • byronm, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2The US Invaded Iraq and still occupies Iraq to this day. Iraq owes NOTHING to America and the truth is if we established a true democracy based on capitalism over there then the essence is that Iraq has the rights to do whatever it wants and sell to the highest bidder.
      • operatorc, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2So, let me get this figured out:

        We invaded their country under false pretenses and fear-mongering, blew it all to hell while collaterally killing civilians, destroying their infrastructure that's still barely rebuilt to this day AND we continue to occupy their country, acting as a beacon for regional anti-imperialist fighters.... and THEY owe US?

        Holy ***** man.

        Wow.

        Oh, right... they're "free" now. I forgot, my apologies.
  • FlaNative, on 06/19/2008, -8/+2I can has Operation Iraqi Liberty?
  • deathsythe, on 06/19/2008, -11/+13So can anyone look past the obvious partisan crap and see the good in this? Or are we going to turn every little thing into a political "debate" (more like who has more people who can shout louder - not much of a debate) - like we do with everything on Digg?

    • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5All I see is that the high price of oil is going to be used as an excuse to continue a war which has bent all logical or moral justifications offered for it?
    • emilychap, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4How is the death of thousands and thousands of soldiers and civilians over oil profiteering a partisan debate? How is it a debate at all? It is crystal clear to the vast majority of people who read this article.
    • 4321234, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2I was gonna comment, but I gotta make a run to the Walmart. White House kool aid has been rolled back to 3 trillion dollars.
  • pixmaker2, on 06/19/2008, -9/+1WTF?
  • evilrevolution, on 06/19/2008, -12/+19step 1: mislead
    step 2: invade
    step 3: profit
  • dsa202, on 06/19/2008, -3/+9Finally!
  • elliotys, on 06/19/2008, -8/+29Why didn't the oil companies fight this war then?
    • VolSurrealist, on 06/19/2008, -2/+10Because they're super-rich... the rich don't fight wars, they start, control and sponsor them!
    • mjrjr, on 06/19/2008, -2/+15Because, hiring a private military to fight your wasr is not as "cost-effective" as using the government to fight for your goals.
    • dycc07, on 06/19/2008, -2/+10why pay out of your own pocket when you can have the american taxpayer foot the bill?
    • SaperKain, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7They help Bush get elected. That was the important part of the war.
    • SAc0balt, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2They don't have to when they have America at their disposal as a political and military tool. Washington, for the most part, was bought and paid for long ago. Bush and his cohorts are just trying to make a profit so long as they're playing the role of corporate puppet.
    • theelectricafro, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Who says they didn't?
  • dcollins, on 06/19/2008, -3/+9Did you know that the majority shareholder of oil companies is the pension fund for retired public school teachers? The whole world is just ***** up if you ask me.
    • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3So money for big oil means money to retired school teachers?
      Sick *****.
    • barbiesnow, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Not true...that is a boldfaced lie...arrest more of those guys at the SEC
      • anachronaut, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I prefer my lies to be set in italics, not boldface.

        FYI: the word you wanted was "baldfaced" (as in bare faced), as "boldface" is simply a type style with thick, heavy lettering. Yes, people have to be pretty bold to utter a baldfaced lie, but that's entirely beside the point.
  • duder83, on 06/19/2008, -8/+2high gas prices are a conspiracy to make us pay for the war
    • billbert, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1air is a conspiracy to make us breathe
  • GreatSunJester, on 06/19/2008, -13/+17Damn.... And I was all set to vote for Obama...... McCain comes out advocating drilling in our territory and for nuclear power plants. Obama is against these things and the dems finally admitted they are socialists by wanting to nationalize the oil companys.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Could you please provide evidence for these claims: especially the last one.

      Also, although I'm neutral about nuclear power (it is a valid source of power), I really think drilling for more oil, whether it's here or abroad, needs to be re-thought. We need to ween ourselves off oil asap, and I fully support that. Anyhow, these so-called oil resources that have yet to be tapped will take at least five years to get to market, and by that time, our economy *should* be well on its way to being post-oil.
      • Malevolant, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1This is where people like you fail. Are you not on the internet? Do you not know how to find and research subjects yourself? What is stopping you from finding the information he is referring to? Nothing, so go find it, since it's out there, free, and readily available.
        • MixMastaKooz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1How can I find something that might not exist? The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim: not the person who is listening to it. Especially, when someone makes an outrageous claim about nationalizing gas companies. I guess I'm failing at thinking irrationally and I'm proud of that moniker: thank you.
          For example, if I made the claim, "People with the online name "Malevolant" have 2 inch erect penises." Then the burden of proof lies on me, not the person replying to this, to provide said picture of your small member.
    • byronm, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Wait wait wait.. let me get this straight. We went into Iraq to implement a Democracy and now we tell that democracy how to run its own natural resources and in the end we strike a deal that benefits US oil companies and you come on here and blame that on Obama? Sounds to me like Bush already nationalised oil and did it on a scale so big were willing to destroy other countries to take their oil as well.

      I don't know WHAT planet you live on but oil *IS* part of our nationalized ENERGY POLICY and you can try and blame that on dems all you want but the fact of the matter is Bush CO ***** it up more than anyone else in the history of United States of America.



    • bxblox, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3The "I was going to vote for obama, but then I saw these great McCain policies" rhetoric is getting old. Did you attend the Fox News school of social media.
    • GreatSunJester, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1bxblox -- not really... I have posted before that I think Obama is the best of the candidates we are presented with.
      BUT, that being said, I would rather vote for someone who is for our energy independence (even if it can not be complete) instead of someone who would keep us beholden to others.

      MixMastaKooz -- I followed a link off Drudge yesterday but specifically did not post it (and noticed that no one else has either) because it took me to FoxNews. I was hoping to find more information or rebuttal in other media outlets but it has gone over a day now and seems to hold true. If you want, the link is on Drudge on the left column labeled "House Democrats Call For Nationalization Of Refineries...
      "
      • MixMastaKooz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+21) You think these are reliable sources?
        2) How about something from an uninterested party like the BBC, Le Monde, or another international news service or non-profit news service? Drudge and Fox definitely interested (otherwise know as conflict of interest) parties in this election.
      • GreatSunJester, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Exactly the reason I did not post the link (drudge is junk a link whore, but you sure get a lot of links for your money!). I was waiting to see if the report was going to be denounced by the democrates or their outlets. It has been ignored. Not even the dailyKOS or HuffPo have attacked it. To me, that seems like they just don't want to touch it for fear of getting it more press.
        Nationalizing ANYTHING is against the basic idea of America. I FEAR nationalization - after all, government has such a sterling track record for honesty and efficiency.
  • ralph12c41, on 06/19/2008, -12/+6Digg Users = Oil paranoia. Are you against "Big Beer?? Big Pot??
    • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3Hundreds of thousands of people died because of big pot? WTF?
      • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Google "Opium wars".
        • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3If this was the 1800s ralph12c41's comment would almost be relevant. But putting that aside, who isn't against the drug cartels and the violence that occurs because of them? The "War on Drugs" is as much of a waste of money as is the Iraq War. And how is being against the oil wars equivalent to "oil paranoia"?
    • duggdowncatisad, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Yes, I am very much against Big Pot, i.e. the international drug cartels. Legalizing pot would put Big Pot out of business, and this is one of the biggest reasons out there to support legalization. Obviously a new Big Pot would take over, but it would be more like Big Beer, which doesn't murder people. Not to mention I don't have to burn a six pack to get to work in the morning.
    • elhaf, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I'm against Big Auto. 4000 people a year are killed on Texas highways alone. Invade Detroit!
    • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Name something this administration *hasn't* done for the Oil Companies yet.

      Oh, I just thought of one, "Opening up offshore drilling", and surprisingly, we're talking about that now.
  • prleet, on 06/19/2008, -4/+6No matter what, the sites will be attacked over and over and tahts it..

    currently waiting patiently for gas to reach $100 bucks a gallon...and take western economy down the drain...
    why the sentiments...peoples lives for gas
    • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Oil will never reach 100$ a gallon.
      You'd make more energy by paying a Chinese dude 100$ to generate power using a bicycle.
  • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -4/+19Operation Oil Freedom
    • keymanjim2, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1Operation Make Liberals Go Stark Raving Mad.
      • elhaf, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3You mean there are still people who self-identify as neoconservatives?
      • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Here's a hint: It's not only "liberals" who are against the war. Real conservatives (ie: Ron Paul types) are against it as well. Since when did conservatism mean spending wildly on wars? I always thought it meant to be small government and fiscal responsibility. But then again, you probably watch shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" who paints things in black and white (Liberal / Conservative) ... and tells you how to think because you identify as someone on the right, and therefore you submit yourself to groupthink. There's this thing called "thinking independently" ... you should try it sometime, you'll see how ridiculous labels are when you do.
      • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Honestly, the most vexing thing about this war has always been my inability to understand why people support it.

        I have no problem with my politicians "losing", I mean, they're not too likable a lot to begin with.

        At least back in the 80's I could empathize with the arguments of "lower taxes / abortion bad" republicans, they made sane, arguable points.

        Having the motivations of 50% of the US be alien to me worries me far more than who is in power at the moment.
    • sandiegodude, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.)

      Anti flag song from their "The Terror State" album. Good song, and came out a few years ago.
  • deathsythe, on 06/19/2008, -8/+14Um - you all know that we have totally untapped oil in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska - the Dems have been blocking any and all attempts to utilize that resource for decades now.

    When the world's oil supply finally "runs dry" guess who is sitting on the largest remaing stockpile of oil?

    Supply and demand bitches- $100 a gallon will seem cheap by then - fortunately we will be exporting it at a substantially higher price. haha - what national deficit?
    • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7drilling offshore and destroying the ANWR province will save us a whopping $.03 a gallon. much of the price increase is from speculation, not demand. the same way enron played the energy market, the speculators are playing the oil market.
      • jlab, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Please explain how you know how much drilling will save per gallon.
        • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5"Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a Congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow"
          http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1 ...

          i have access to this thing called google.
        • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3finish him!
        • wizbor, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2ANWR wont be destroyed you fool, and why are the Chinese drilling 60 miles off the coast of Florida? Hmmm? Open up our drilling and watch the markets tank. As you say, the speculators will sell when they see we are serious about getting our own oil. Otherwise its all just BS from the left.
      • rrife, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0That's fine, at least that's the $0.03 that's not going to the middle east.....every penny counts.
    • wutname1, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2by then we will have fusion power
    • PhilliesBlunt, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2There's maybe a years worth of Oil in Anwar and less off the Gulf. Not a solution. If there was a substantial amount of oil in either location, this matter wouldn't be up for debate.
      • deathsythe, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately regardless it is up for debate - that's congress for ya.
      • rrife, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0Well if you don't want it, I'll take it.
  • humanerror, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Don't worry, I'm sure this is just a wacky coincidence.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 06/19/2008, -7/+12LOL - oh the hand wringing...

    What a joke. Here's a reality for you...FRANCE.....RUSSIA......GERMANY.....

    Remember when we asked for your help and you told us ***** YOU?

    Funny how that worked out for you eh?
    • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Actually, they always ask us for help.
    • scm21st, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1A French company was one of the four that was awarded this contract. In case that matters to you.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2SCM21st - you are correct. I missed Total in there.

      In that case why are people complaining? BP is British. Total is French. Shell is Netherlands and Britain.

      ONly Exxon is US based.
      • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1People are complaining because Iraq is now forced to give a large percentage of their oil fields to multinational oil companies, only to get a small percentage left for themselves which they'll now have to use to rebuild the country the US destroyed. Do people not give a ***** about the Iraqi people any more? Why are you so happy for these oil companies who helped push this war and are now reaping the benefits at the US and Iraqi populations expense.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1That isn't why anyone is complaining. It is because they want to tag GW Bush with the War For Oil moniker and when 3 out of the 4 companies winning contracts are not US companies, that's a little hard to make stick.

          As to your point:
          1) The US did not destroy most of the country. Saddams forces, insurgents and Iran had a large hand in what was destroyed. What the US destroyed (communications, weapons facilities, etc.) it has been rebuilding. The insurgents have made a fine sport of redestroying those things wherever possible because it causes chaos.

          2) The Iraqi people are not giving up their oil fields - in fact the Iraqi Constitution provides for more local control - and profit from oil then has ever been the case. If you care to read it this is an excellent document authored for the Iraqi government.
          http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/052706.pdf

          3) These Oil companies have not been paid over the last several years for their work and these contracts will rectify that. These companies will (and have been) assure the full development of Iraq's estimated 111 billion barrels of oil in the most efficient and profitable manner
    • 4321234, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2You may remember them saying "***** YOU", but most of the world remembers it as "Please have some ***** common sense".
      But then you probably remember those UN resolutions as "gee, we believe they have WMD, too, but let's give them another chance to come clean". Most of the world remembers them meaning," maybe if you wait a while, you might gain some common ***** sense".
    • sweetholymosiah, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Because America got the good deal? Eh?
  • T8erT0T, on 06/19/2008, -5/+18"This is.... J-E-O-P-A-R-D-Y!!!!"
    "I'll take 'Shady Deals Among Venal Governments and Soulless Corporations' for 500, Alex."
  • KoolHow, on 06/19/2008, -5/+8The U.S. Government does the bidding of the corporate giants. The corporations do not fight the wars. They are so tied into the power structure in the government that they can get citizen's tax dollars to do it for them. But look behind the scenes of most every major political decision and you will see the influences of money and power.

    Iraq has always been about corporate control of land and resources... getting it to the multi-nationals and away from Hussein. Everything else has been and continues to be smokescreen. The world is chessboard for those struggles, but we people have tremendous power to change the situation. www.changing-history.com

    • wutname1, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Thank you for saying "U.S. Government" and not the US or the Americans
    • ileen4justice, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Did you read the small print in the article? It stated that one of the reasons these oil companies got the no bid contract is because THEY'VE BEEN ADVISING THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT FOR FREE THE PAST TWO YEARS. So we know have confirmation that the oil companies probably have already built new corporate offices in Iraq. AND THE NEW YORK TIMES IS PART OF THE FILTHY CRIMINAL MSM!!! They state the following as fact in the article when it is by overwhelming evidence A LIE: "For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight SUPPLY that is a CAUSE of soaring prices." No mention that there is no supply problem and that demand is down. No mention of the Enron law that got us into this. No mention of the futures speculators who are making billions from their hedge funds as they laugh about the grandmothers sitting in the dark without electricity. No mention that the oil companies are sitting on over 70% of their leases for offshore drilling AND HAVE CAPPED THE OIL RIGS WHERE THERE ARE BILLIONS OF GALLONS OF OIL BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST WAITING FOR THE PRICE TO GO, LET'S SEE, $200 OR $300 and then they'll release all those reserves so they can steal more trillions from our children's pockets.

      "There's no end to the crimes committed by Bush and his thugs. No end to the list of criminals who have ruptured this nation and spat on the laws we have developed for both self-government and our relationships with other nations; no end until every member of Bush's "inner circle," (including Bush and Cheney; especially Bush and Cheney) every political appointee, every hack lawyer designated as the next "memo writer" authorized to make "legal" this crime or that crime, or sanitize some newly thought up abrogation of the law - no end to the list until the name of every one of these disrespectful, neo-fascist bastards is included in indictments, war crimes trials, and, if justice is to prevail, convictions." ~ Mike Malloy
      • KoolHow, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Right On! War criminals need to be tried in an international court. And while they are being detained for court they should be put in an outdoor stockade in the middle of some big city and the people of the world should be allowed to come and visit and hurl insults and whatever in their slimy faces.
  • modusop, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Anyone else getting a picture of Daniel Plainview negotiating this deal when you read the article? "I am an oil man, you will agree..."
  • nirvanix, on 06/19/2008, -5/+11Hey good ol' Americans - you the American people completely financed this war out of your US Treasury, you spilled your blood for it, and the oil companies and their political appointees will see all the profits. But hey, 'America, ***** yeah!'
    • Jexie, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Now that America has given up everything it used to stand for to save big oil I wonder what big oil will do for America when times get tough...I'm betting on absolutely nothing.
    • laserdog, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1We also shouted USA on cue!

      We're awesome!

      USA!
      USA!

      Wait, what now?
  • AbsurdParadox, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3I wonder what the world would be like if governments didn't interfere in business.
    • 9jack, on 06/19/2008, -2/+0That's easy, the business interests would buy off the governments, and use the governments and their military in their quest for ever higher concentrations of wealth via resource wars. Oh . . . . . . .
      • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Pretty dumb comment.
        Why buy off the government if you could just build your own private army? It'd be cheaper.
        • billbugger, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1or build your own government.. see panama
    • thegrizz51, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I'd be more interested in seeing a world where the businesses don't interfere with government.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I was more going for business and government not colluding, but that was unclear.

        Anyway, to prevent business and government from colluding, one must be eliminated.
    • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1A republicans wet dream?
    • hemetae, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Let's parse that a little better:
      A Libertarians wet dream.
      A Neo-Con nightmare.
  • averstra, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3The deal that most of these companies will make give a certain percentage of the oil that they bring up back to Iraq, this is a common practice in the oil industry as long as the oil is not nationalized. This will help the price of gas that is more of a refinery problem (to few, since the US has not built one in 30 years)
    • anubis2night, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Actually that's only part of the problem, you forget the speculation that has driven the prices up 400% and yes I meant 400% people will try to justify the rise in gas by explaining the rising costs and inflation but when you actually factor the price of oil to produce it's somewhere near $17- 30 a barrel and of course this takes into account exploration and drilling which has tapered off dramatically over the last 5 years, and traditionally the cost of a barrel of oil has stayed the same over time, in fact in many instances it has retracted, as it's a controlled commodity and can be adjusted by Opec. So while the true cost ranges at around $30 we continue to see $130 barrels with speculation aiming at $250. Then you factor in this new deal and suddenly it becomes clear that 8 years of Bush and 4 trillion dollars in deficit spending was all it took to make the oil industry into the new Fed bankers of the world, that and a few thousand lives plus a couple of twin towers. Anyone think it's more than a coincidence that 2 oil families are tied to 9-11 then we attack a oil rich country then we hand over major contracts to other oil companies? Bin Laden, Bush and Big oil the true terrorists of the world.
    • barbiesnow, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2It is the problem of a loophole created by Enron...remember them..and the profiteers and speculators getting by unchecked...Republican Congress, president, Phil Graham and wife Wendy...its a small world after all.
  • 1kewldude, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3FTA - There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

  • SuperMoses, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Why does this sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2 ...
    • Zansurf, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1YES i had just written a comment about the parallels in the way we dealt with Iran and started reading the other ones. Most people don't even know the significance of this. We all want to be anti-bush, or anti-republican. It's more about being pro certain ideologies that don't involve the upheaval of nations for our own benefit. It's like when people claim that America is the greatest country in the world. We are the hegemonic power of this era, but are we truly Great if we constantly only look out for our own interest without regard for the effect on developing nations?
  • gravesg, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3I saw this coming for some reason ..
  • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/19/2008, -5/+3To bad they'll be captured, raped, killed, and beheaded by terrorists....
    • thatguyfred, on 06/19/2008, -3/+7They aren't terrorists if they're just fighting for their country.
      • elhaf, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6They also aren't terrorists if they just kill a foreign occupying force. That's called defending the homeland.
        • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1They are suicide bombers that blow themselves up inside mosques, killing women and children. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.
        • byronm, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3dkapuchino

          oh, so if they commit suicide doing something its terrorism but if we fly over from 40,000 feet and drop a "Smart bomb" on them its collateral damage. Great way to frame the debate and ignore the fact that we started the killing in the first place.
      • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1#define "For their country".
        Does the killing of Iraqi women and children by suicide bombers qualify as "fighting for their country"?
        • anubis2night, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I think that there will always be collateral damage in war and we have done more than our share. Let's face facts to the world we are the terrorist's and thanks to Bush and Co. we are proving them right, we need to get out and leave this mess to whomever gets the oil contracts, if they want the oil they need to clean up the mess...
        • thatguyfred, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Desperate times call for desperate measures. We don't always fight symmetrical warfare either. Clandestine and Black operations are fought in the worst of ways. Don't be naive.
  • freezeout, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6"36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power..."

    what an amazing coincidence, the current president of the united states and his vice president are both oil men. you don't think their decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein had anything to do with this?

    naaaaaaa..
    • eth3l, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Maybe if the Democrats hadn't banned drilling in the US and basically prevented the rise of nuclear power WE WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED TO INVADE TO GE OIL.
      • dkapuchino, on 06/19/2008, -3/+1Correct, except for the fact that we didn't invade for Oil.
      • anubis2night, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2We don't need to drill for oil, we can convert garbage to oil and we can also convert biomass to gas or oil, plus exploration to actual production is 10 - 12 years away and will only get us something like 300,000 barrels a day which by 2020 - 2025 would be 1/8 of our driving habit's. Let's not get into a bi partisan blame game here. We all neglected to stand up to Bush and Big oil, and we need to do it now, playing the political blame game is part of the reason we are in this mess and doesn't help maters. In fact it's a smoke screen used by people who don't want to face the larger issues.
      • byronm, on 06/19/2008, -0/+11. Nuclear Fuel is a *VERY* finite resource.
        2. Nuclear Fuel is very much an IMPORT RESOURCE
        3. Nuclear Fuel is *MORE REGULATED THAN THE OIL INDUSTRY

        Add all of that together and not only does the cost not make sense but you ignore the amount of energy used to create nuclear materials and dispose of nuclear materials and before you know it its a zero some policy which had inherent risks that the US population chose to avoid.

        Never mind the fact nuclear power relies heavily on the government and had we adopted that paradigm people like you would blame it on the dems and look for some other scape goat technology to avoid the facts of life.
  • BillE3, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3Why would the new Iraqi government want the oil companies to return now? After all, every liberal I know, told me that the oil companies came in with the invasion forces, like in Kuwait. They have been telling me how we already took all the oil from Kuwait and Irag. If we have all of the oil already, then aren't the oil companies already there? If we have all of that oil, then why is it not here now and flooding our market?
    • anubis2night, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2This is only the last step in the process to legitimate the control of that oil, and I suspect it's why you'll see them trying to have us occupy that nation for the next 100 years or until the contracts / oil runs out. Kind of reminds me of the opium wars.
  • dlopez18, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2If we can secure Iraq as a sole contributor to americas oil would that mean Mr. Bush had foresight?
  • nkleffman, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7They hate us for our Freedom.
  • nick1971, on 06/19/2008, -3/+3After Operation Build a Gas Station we may now be able to solve the global oil price crises. Rather than allowing the price of oil to go up in US dollars we can reduce the dollar price and express the missing value as US Soldiers and Iraqis killed.
    The only point now is to work on the exchange rate and solve some additional questions.
    1 US kid killed = x$
    1 Iraqui =y$
    Do we add on values based upon people being maimed?
    Will we work on a total disability score 5% etc or set up a price for an eye, leg etc
    Will there be feedback to the families of the bereaved - perhaps vouchers at Exxon?
    • BillE3, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1How about if Mexico gives (thats free) one barrel of oil to the U.S. each day, for each and every illegal alien that crossed the border?
  • eth3l, on 06/19/2008, -4/+1Good News. How private oil compaines affect the President personally and positively is beyond me. I just think its good we will be drilling ore of the stuff in Iraq!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.