What is Digg?126 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+53They think that they are defending our access to oil, but what these wars are actually doing is jeopardizing our access to oil.
Here's why: Oil is a tremendously fungible good in today's economy, with today's financial and transportation system. Oil is money. Oil = money. Therefore if your country is sitting on top of oil you can get someone to pump it out of the ground and pipe it to where someone can buy it. Then you have money with which to suborn your population and make yourself rich. You might even build some schools and hospitals. Every country needs money. In fact every country is sure that it needs More money. So a country with more oil than they use (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc) will ALWAYS sell their oil. It doesn't matter if its a Muslim Republic, a Communist Worker's Paradise or an African oligarchy.
Oil is so easily converted into capital because it is critical in any modern economy. Without it we're in the dark, isolated with no industry. (We might want to work on that problem someday). So we are interested in a guaranteed supply. We want to buy. We have to buy.
If we step away from the Mideast natural market forces will guarantee that the countries with oil will sell it.
The problem for the Neocons is not access to oil, it is not the fear that Iran and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will get in a snit and stop selling oil. That's ridiculous, absurd. What the neocons fear is that these regimes will not play the game the way that it is set up now. They will sell their oil through Russian or Chinese traders and not through Texan oil traders.
We will still buy the same oil at the same prices, but the rich Texan oil companies will not get a cut of the action.
That is what the wars are about. - suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+42Man ... anyone who doesn't believe it by now is so far gone, we should just put them all on an island and seal it off, Escape-From-Manhattan style :P
- Demq, on 10/14/2007, -6/+33it's not Only about oil, but also... Imperialism.
showing the world who's the boss. - inactive, on 10/14/2007, -2/+26i thought they hated our freedoms?
- PurpZeY, on 10/19/2007, -8/+26Anyone who didn't realize it was about oil from day 1 needs to be evaluated for mental retardation. I didn't need anyone from the CIA to tell me that.
- leroyrich240, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19You're insane if you believe that had anything to do with it, except that it gave the current Administration an excuse and a way to justify the invasion in the minds of Americans.
- Ghoztt, on 10/14/2007, -4/+20CAPTAIN OBVIOUS STRIKES AGAIN!!!
- Wiggles2, on 10/19/2007, -3/+17You think we'd be in Iraq if their main export was polish sausage? masterm1nd you are a fu*king dolt. Oil is the reason, 9-11 is the excuse. My 2 year old son even knows that.
- dukeeeey, on 10/19/2007, -5/+151 million iraq lives for oil
- leroyrich240, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13I'm saying that the only thing it had to do is that Americans were angry, Iraqis are Arab (and all Arabs are the same, right?), and Bush lied about Iraq's involvement (and WMDs, etc.) to justify the invasion. If you see any more connection than that, you are insane. You are manufacturing justification (or allowing the Bush Administration to do it for you) for something that never should have happened in the first place. You're brainwashed and blood-thirsty. Period.
- batshitcrazy, on 10/14/2007, -3/+11Ray McGovern also thinks 9/11 was a false-flag operation
- leroyrich240, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You're twisting my words. Of course we wouldn't be in Iraq had 9/11 not happened, but not because Iraq had something to do with 9/11. And no, I DO NOT believe terrorism had ANYTHING to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And I don't see how anyone else could believe anything remotely close to that.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Because we all know how much Iraq had to do with 9/11, right?
- sethosayher, on 10/14/2007, -1/+8Of course it was about oil. But other factors played in. It was about establishing a true American Empire. It was about making a Free Market Paradise in Iraq. It was about reshaping the middle east. It was about making the world a better place to live in...for corporations.
- lazerus9, on 10/14/2007, -4/+11When Bush took office oil was less than $20 per barrel, now it's closer to $85 per barrel! I'd say it was about oil alright!!
- felman87, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But neo-cons hate ***** and women, so it all works out for them.
- InfoWarrior905, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You're one of those people that answered "YES" in the FOX poll that asked if Iraq was connected to 9/11, aren't you? Let me ask you another question then, can you find Iraq on a map? Or how about the United States?
- ImTheChaz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8This isn't about the actual oil, it's about the trade of oil in anything other than USD$ and the reason why the US WILL attack Iran.
- tyrione, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What country haven't we attacked that didn't involved exploiting local resources? Whether it's building the new Oil Pipeline from Iraq that leads through Afghanistan and bridges with the EU pipelines, to the Rubber Industry of South America, Oil in South America, to Missile bases around the globe to be the watchdog, we never attack Post-WWII for HELPING THE HELPLESS. When our coups fail we remove the leadership we placed in there. We divided Persia. We did so for natural resources, namely OIL. You're free to refuse to believe. It's not about belief. Facts are never based on Faith. Fact is based upon recorded events that reveal Truth in Action.
- ImTheChaz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I'm not a Saddam lover in the slightest, but at least it was his ***** oil. How would you feel if he came over here and stole all the Big Macs?
- 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Good job there is less to hate each time another Executive Order is signed.
- EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Or you can do as Norway has done, not to pipe the money into the economy at home, but invest the money for the benefit of the people, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Petroleum_Fund_of ...
- terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Replying to the post above me: we didn't go to Iraq because there were terrorists there, because there weren't. That wasn't even in Bush's rhetoric in the build up to war. The minority of current fighters who consider themselves Al qaeda came after we invaded. You can look this up yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.
I get the feeling you're under the impression that Iraq had some link to the 9/11 attacks. This has been proven to be false so thoroughly that you really need to start questioning your sources of information. They lied to you. - terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What you actually said: "If you think oil is the only reason we are at war, or the main reason we are at war, you are already sealed off on your island."
Oil IS the main reason we went to war. That's where I disagree with you, and I imagine the other people you're fighting with here.
"Sorry, but if 911 had not happened, we would not be at war."
The only reason we wouldn't be at war without 9/11 is that the President likely wouldn't have been able to drum up the support he needed (although we'll never really know). But I take it you think there's more to it than that, which implies that you see some fundamental link between Iraq (prior to our invasion) and Al qaeda. Which has been proven false. Furthermore, Iraq was a terrible distraction from any real war on terror we might've fought, and if you can't see that then I simply must question either the source of your information or your own ability to reason. - leroyrich240, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Bingo. Unfortunately, that's most Americans until recently. :(
- leroyrich240, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Maybe you're the one who's ***** up.
- mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9Digg needs a "No *****, Sherlock" section.
- BowieX, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Whatever the merits of McGovern, I love the choice of words in "seek refuge in denial" -- quite a poignant turn of phrase, one that I shall try to remember. That is all I had to say, really. :)
- InfoWarrior905, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sadam was actually producing too much oil, and if my memory serves me right, was threatening to start trading it for Euros
- jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think the crux is that the people behind all of this are trying to guarantee *their* access to oil, not *ours.* Guaranteeing "our" access would mean thinking long-term. Guaranteeing access to as much oil at the highest level of profit, and only during their life times, is a goal that can be attained using their methodology.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Spirocheat, You're right about Israel being the obstacle that blocks our ability to befriend Mideastern countries. Because of our mindless support of Israel we are involved in a pointless counterproductive war that has killed uncountable numbers of civilian, lft uncountable orphans, destroyed a country and indebted the USA. Bad Idea!
However, since the Zionist digger brigade uses their browsers to find for Israel and then attack that entry, we will now be dugg down.
Read this as you digg me down Mr. Zionist: there will come a day when Americans are going to wake up. That will be the day that the gravy train train will end for your racist endeavors. - Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can tell the boss by the fact that he never drops Hunter epics.
- Mu99ins, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2There were many reasons to invade Iraq. One of them was oil related.
To say it was all about oil is inaccurate.
The question is, why does the author choose one reason and claim
it's the only reason?. Is he ignorant of the other reasons, or does he
have a political ax to grind? - InfoWarrior905, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why because he is speaking against the party line? PAPERS PLEASE!!!!
- frenchmeat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2OK SO WE KNOW ABOUT IT
NOW WHAT WILL We DO ABOUT IT - HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Huh? Did you even read what I wrote? Saudi Arabia is too powerful. Far too powerful. They own huge stakes in US companies like Citibank.
If you can get a country like Iraq to start pumping their own oil, they are going to be pumping 24/7 and selling it for whatever they can get, especially after being oppressed for the last few decades, and after we've completely destroyed all their infrastructure.
Really, it isn't a terrible idea. The problem is you will never be able to bring democracy to that region. At some point a dictator will just take power (or be put into power). The country will be right back to where it was. - EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Sure, the Bush family and their friends are heavily into oil owning corporations dealing in oil. A high price per barrel benefits the Bush family to the tune of tens of millions each year.
- terrordome, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Showing the world who's the boss doesn't seem to be going too well, atleast not in Iraq. I agree, though.
- sigintop, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2It's kind of about oil. You see it's too obvious to make money off of the oil itself. What it really is about are the services that result when we enter this war. There is more money made in oil clean up, defense contracts, services to troops, private security companies, transportation, rebuilding, etc... than all the money from oil. How much is this war costing us again and how much ISN'T provided by the government but by some private contractor? Add to that amount all the things we don't hear about. The number begins to grow and grow
It's a classic way to win big. Make something appear as a flaw and let the people think it's true. They'll be proud of themselves for find this flaw and ignore the really bad stuff that's happening. "Running interference" covers up what's really going on. - leexy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The amazing thing is the complacency of the American people. Whatever happened to the land of the free and the brave?
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Huh?
- FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Uhhh, yeah. Not only is your "conclusion" based on a spurious result, but it's frighteningly ignorant of world economics and the law of supply and demand.
- mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He might be bitter, but he does have knowledge like most seniors. I over look a persons short coming if I can learn something. there is a old saying I like and use."take what you need leave the rest" here is a quick story. I use to wait tables /manager a restaurant in Hawaii and so many stars and very rich people ate there. I waited on bill gates the day before his wedding. but to me the coolest person I waited on for a week was Bob McNamara, JFK's sect of def. we hung out all week. He was a riot and had a great personally all I thought about was what is in his head. his wife was dieing of bone cancer so it was sad but we had a great time,
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I still think technology would be better way to out.
What's easier solving the the energy crisis or a 1300 year old religious dispute?
Its easier to put a man on the Moon than occupy a small country in south east Asia.
Stop using oil and start using something else and you solve the green problems too. - pineutrino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yes, it's immature and they should cut it out, but that doesn't make the points they're arguing wrong.
- jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Much like that website, McGovern isn't what's known as a "reliable source"
- EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4When I read this comment, all I could think of was "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" and the answer is obviously NO.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Really Carter tried that? I heard he was greenish.
Any tech change over will not arrive fast enough to stop more energy wars or more pollution but it would still arrive faster than peace through any other means. At least there is an electric infrustructure in place in the world. The important thing is to go with the market rather than against it.
The oil companies really do want cheap oil as expensive oil makes the alternatives more viable. And one an economy find a renewable more economic than oil then the game will be up. I keep hoping something like the MP3 revolution will happen in energy. Similarly the record companies were operating like a cartel. Then MP3 happened and their model collapsed. - shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 "Don't you agree that several GIs killed each week is a small price to pay for the oil we need?"
- InfoWarrior905, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Global hegemony through fear, yup.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is