digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at rawstory.com

NYT: Stolen oil profits keep Iraq's insurgency running

rawstory.com — While many US officials and politicians routinely point to jihadism or Islamofascism as key motivating factors for Iraq's insurgency, a growing number of officers on the ground are blaming economic conditions instead, according to an article slated for the front page of Sunday's New York Times.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ElAssoWipo, on 03/16/2008, -11/+52Wow I feel silly, all this time I thought they were angry because America invaded their country for no particular reason, killed their families, bombed their houses and destroyed their entire infrastructure.

    But no, they're just broke. And that's why they fight for their country. Makes perfect sense.
    • LukasSmith, on 03/16/2008, -12/+10They are broke because of the insurgency. US troops will leave when the insurgency ends. they have no brutal dictator to kill them all or torture them so hell just fighting sounds profitable. And your last sentence they are broke thats why that fight for their country? Doesn't make sense actually. If they are broke they are fighting for profit not their country. So ultimately not exactly a noble cause. If the only reason they fight is for profit then obviously we need to fix their economy which we cant do unless the insurgency dies. We can only hope with McCain in charge we can finally get Iraq stable enough to take care of itself. Because common lets face it. The place was livable before but still a ***** hole. If we leave it the same as when we found it no problem. We don't really need to set the goal so high for them. We need to leave them a stable enough ally. Hell there is poverty and gay religious problems all over the middle east. That probably wont change. But at least Iraq will be an ally.
      • enri, on 03/16/2008, -3/+5"...fighting sounds profitable." They must be following our example.
        Part of the reason Iraq was a ***** hole was because of the trade sanctions placed on them. Once we finish privatizing their natural resources (something the last two dictators we put in power refused to do) we will open trade with them again.
        • scbysnx, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4you say "something the last to dictators we put in power refused to do" as if the reasons were noble I don't believe the war was justified but it's not as if Saddam didn't want the oil private because he had some huge desire to make sure his people were ok, he wanted it state owned so he could make sure he had enough money for his next palace! He even broke sanctions by taking the money the UN allowed him to accept for oil and spending it on himself rather than the Iraqi economy.
      • emildorbell, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1"So ultimately not exactly a noble cause." What's more noble than fighting to feed your family?
    • Picaroon, on 03/17/2008, -3/+3"No particular reason"? I hate when people make these random, inane comments that make no sense, and then all the Diggers just digg them up because what they said is vaguely anti-war.

      Anyway, they don't "fight for their country." If you're still hanging onto the myth that insurgents are fighting for a country or against the US, you're sadly mistaken.
      • swrostmore, on 03/17/2008, -2/+4Your right, the reason for the invasion was very particular: Saddam's active nuclear weapons program.
      • rz8472, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3"The insurgents" are not any monolithic group.
    • solid12345, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2The insurgents are fighting for their country by kidnapping Chaldean Archbishops, suicide bombing street markets, and shooting up rival Mosques?

      The insurgents are just criminals who will butcher people for money, this means more legitimacy for us and the Iraqi government.

    • morningmatters, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4I recently saw the documentary "No End in Sight" on Netflix which talks about the issue of poverty shortly after the Iraq War. Basically, the Iraqis expected their "liberation" to include a stable government but Bush admin did not plan for postwar rebuilding so the Iraq rebuilding planners basically sat on 18Billion approved by the congress and spent only 1Billion by the end of the year. Also, one of the first things the US did after overthrowing Saddam was to fire anyone related to the baathist party or debathification. Many of these men and especially those in the military joined the Sunni insurgency because they were the breadwinners of their families and they had to get paid. The Shiites did not fare much better. Although they were not baathists they weren't given enough jobs and without the police force (they were all fired) they were forced to join the local militia to defend themselves against looters. The US marines did not initially police the civilians because they expected to get out of Iraq quick and they didn't have any experience in that field anyway. Basically anyone with a gun became a looter and most of the businesses were shutdown and their merchandise stolen. This circle of violence obviously worsened employment prospects and drove more people into insurgency.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2More pointedly, There is no reason to stay because there are no defined goals set that will allow the Americans to leave.

      George Bush didn't set the goals because the war was an abominable failure, despite the military victory in the invasion. He didn't set those goals because they could be used to measure the progress, and success of the war. Bush had his legacy to protect.


      The reasons for the invasions are worth as much as none at all because the Bush Administration lied, and falsified evidence to justify the attack. The yellow cake documents, the Saddam-AlQaeda link, the mobile weapons labs, the anthrax letters and the vial of white powder held up at the UN Security Council meeting.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1This "insurgency" is American fuelled. WE are the ones controlling all the oil, WE are the ones "losing" it. Just like we "lost" all those AK47's.

      I'm sorry, this is so difficult, I'm having a hard time putting it all together and explaining it in a way contrarion to your viewpoint on life.

      I'm so sorry...
  • jon30041, on 03/16/2008, -4/+25Ok, this is what I like to read. No more *****, I want to see hard-hitting, investigative journalism. The media is supposed to be the counter-balance of the government, and will get more respect for doing so. C'mon, guys... make me like you again.
    • carpespasm, on 03/16/2008, -1/+6They're just doing it now because they have actual competition in the internet rather than the collusion of same-interest competitors in the TV news business.
      • jon30041, on 03/16/2008, -0/+5That's fine. Any ways it starts to happen is fine by me.

        As long as we get some damn accountability, for *****'s sake!
    • 9mmCensor, on 03/16/2008, -0/+6The relationship of media balancing the government, fails to account for the fact that both are controlled by the same people.
    • LukasSmith, on 03/16/2008, -5/+3Um there is always a new source willing to look at any side of the issue. Ever been to a place called digg.com? The articles are always anti government anti bush anti iraq anti globalism anti free trade. well anyhow just stick anti to any word and you get the picture.
  • drmobutu, on 03/16/2008, -2/+60Turns out Wolfowitz was right - there's enough Iraqi oil revenue to pay for the war, after all...
  • greenbk, on 03/16/2008, -7/+23Gas in Iraq under Saddam Hussein cost $.02 per gallon. This occupation is less a military occupation and more a big money-grab. Stealing money from innocent civilians in a 3rd world country, no less. 'Give us all your money and let us destroy everything you know... or we kill you.' That's the message we've sent to millions upon millions of ordinary Iraqis. The Iraq War is clearly the most shameless act of greed in American History.
    • PolishLogic, on 03/16/2008, -5/+5So insurgents stealing oil and selling it on the black market = "the most shameless act of greed in American history"? I'd love to know how you got there.

      (and according to the NYT your price was a bit off)
    • LukasSmith, on 03/16/2008, -7/+4money grab? yeah because US is making SOoooooo much money off this. I want you to realize how much money the Iraqi government is pulling in every year from oil revenue. 30 - 60 billion. Thats ***** chump change. Stealing 30 - 60 billion a year? please.
      • Drogoganor, on 03/16/2008, -3/+4You're such a petulant little bitch.
    • solid12345, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1I'm sure that .02 cents a gallon made the countless Iraqi girls feel better after being taken off the street and raped by Uday and Qusay Hussein. I bet cheap gas brought back those 250,000 dead Kurds too.
  • Agenda, on 03/16/2008, -7/+19Operation Iraqi Liberation a Great Success.
    (OIL)
    • asskey, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2It's Operation Iraqi Freedom so no. But Operation Iranian Liberation may go on as planned.
      • swrostmore, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3It was Operation Iraqi Liberation in the initial days of the invasion. Learn some history.
    • rz8472, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1It wasn't just for the oil. It was corporate welfare and giving "Cost-Plus" contracts to certain friendly corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, which charges $30 for 6-packs of cheap knockoff Iraqi Coca-Cola and builds luxury mansions for its staff in Baghdad's green zones. Oh and it's pretty obvious that both companies have done a piss-poor job at actually reconstructing anything because there's no oversight. No-bid contracts prevail once again.
  • trghpy, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2What good is oil when you're trying to feed your family?
    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40613
    • uptown, on 03/16/2008, -1/+9Try serving freedom fries without oil...... can't be done.
  • InsideJob11Sep, on 03/16/2008, -13/+13I'd suggest that the CIA is funding the insurgency though stolen oil profits.
    • PolishLogic, on 03/16/2008, -9/+10Yeah, because the CIA just loves fighting against the US millitary....
      Might as well say the Air Force loves bombing the ***** out of US Navy ships.

      /facepalm
    • Picaroon, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4InsideJob11Sep? Yeah, you're just a nutjob. Anyway, the CIA loves that so many people think they do stuff like that. It makes it easier for them to do their real job.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Bingo. It's deflection. Chase that garbage while they do their real job without interference.
  • Sil369, on 03/16/2008, -7/+2But! But! The Terr-whore-ists!
  • PolishLogic, on 03/16/2008, -8/+9Why digg the rawstory.com version, when you could have just dugg the NYT version? Wouldn't it be better to get the least biased version of the story?
  • DrShotgun, on 03/16/2008, -2/+31I was under the impression that the insurgency might be due to the fact that the US stood by and didn't protect any of the major Iraqi buildings and infrastructure from looting and destruction (besides the oil ministry), fired every member of the ruling party and banned them from ever working again, and then fired the entire military, then refused to listen to complaints. Of course, let's remember the fact that all of the reconstruction work went to US corporations for sums far exceeding what the Iraqi's offered to do it for. Then, after a lot of ex-army men frustrated by the above began killing US troops, we decided it would be a great idea to basically arrest without warning a whole bunch of military-age males, who were the primary breadwinners for large extended families, and then jail them for undetermined periods of time, often torturing them. Then, of course, we employed private contractors to shoot innocent Iraqis and installed a weak, puppet government.

    Yeah. Just an idea.
    • opiniastrous, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1You might think so, but people are less willing to take action based on ideology than they are on self-preservation/advancement. I suspect it's because the fulfilment of ideological beliefs is a much higher-level need than say, putting food on the table.

      Think about it. If people were more willing to take action on ideology, there would be no people who liked the thought of protecting the environment but decided to keep their gas guzzler because they liked the size, speed and power. There would also be more people willing to protest on political and social issues.

      That's what the article is about, and just because you have met your low-level needs and are free to keep your thoughts centred on your own ideology, it doesn't mean that the officers' reports (and the article) are wrong.
  • fuzzmeister, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4If only the NYT took down their annoying signup-wall, so people could submit the full article instead of a little Raw Story blurb.
  • SheilaNoya, on 03/16/2008, -6/+6Let's not forget about the $4 Billion a year the so-called "terrorists" are getting from the opium fields in Afghanistan. These are the same opium fields that the primitive Taliban was able to shut down, yet Bush and his billions of dollars and modern technology can't seem to do anything about.
    • poidh, on 03/16/2008, -3/+3*Sigh*
      The Taliban did not shut down the opium fields and produce no opium. They stockpiled enough opium from previous years to "shut down" the opium fields and still be able to sell opium just as before. And guess what? The Western media fell for it hook line and sinker. Then, when the journalists (I use that term very loosely) had gone away and the Taliban needed some more opium, guess what they did? That's right, they opened the fields up again.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4If the drug "war" fails in the US what makes you think that anything they do would be successful in a foreign country?

      Anyway, any success in the drug war creates a shortage increasing the price which, in turn, increases the incentive to produce more. A "win" in the drug "war" is like shooting yourself in the foot.
  • tunapez, on 03/16/2008, -5/+7What a coincidence, stolen oil profits fund the occupancy, too! I'm glad we could find this common ground.
    /heartwarmer
    • InspectorGadget, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2If oil profits were able to fund the Iraq war, we wouldn't be running such a miserable budget deficit.
    • haterofps3, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4They are not funding the war they are funding retirement funds in the Cayman Islands!
  • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -12/+6We went to war with Iraq because of 9-11. In order to understand why we invaded you must understand fully these things. What really happened on 9-11? What policy makes the white house act the way it does? Who influenced the policy and what does the policy state? If we look into history we can find that nations have lied and killed their own citizens to go to war, see the gulf of tonkin and the reichstagg fires. Here is a list of things i think that if you read and try and wrap your mind around everything will slowly seem to make sense. Please keep in mind that George Bush's "war on terror" happens where 3/4 of the world's remaining oil and natural gas is located.
    1. The true events of 9-11 --- See the loose change movie.
    2. Neo-conservatism the ideal -- Irving Kristol (godfather of neocon) Neo-conservative persuasion
    3. Project for a New American Century - PNAC -- The American middle east where they called for a new pearl harbor. ( Jeb Bush served on this he was the governor of the controversial state Florida when big bro bush was "elected" the first time.)
    4. The Bush Docrtine --- Pre-emptive war, get them before they get us.
    5. The Peak oil Theory --- www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net or http://www.theoilfactor.com/
    6. Hacking Democracy -- Evidence that shows US election systems are not what you think they are.
    • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -5/+5I left out one major thing and that is, who controls the media? I divert you to the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdochs War on journalism.
    • MajorLeague, on 03/16/2008, -6/+7Does the tin foil itch when you wear it on your head?
      • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -6/+6Please provide me your own facts contradicting things listed. Your opinions is worthless without fact. Are you trying to tell me that PNAC's plan does not call for a restructuring of the middle east in favor of US? Are you telling me that Kristol didn't say that. Your tin foil assertions are laughable at best please go away.
        • MajorLeague, on 03/16/2008, -6/+4You've proven yourself to be a ***** by thinking 9-11 was a setup.
        • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -6/+4Please show me factual information basing that 9-11 was not a setup and that PNAC didn't say we needed a new pearl harbor. I have time. Like I said before your opinion is worthless without factual information.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have to prove 911 was a setup, an so far no one has legitimately done so.
          • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -4/+3Can you provide information that counters what people here say?
            http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
            Or are all those generals and intelligence specialists wearing tin foil hats too?
          • masterm1nd, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3I didn't say anything about tin hats. I'm just saying you have to prove the widely excepted scenario wrong. I don't have to prove the sky is blue, you have to prove it's not. I didn't see any proof on that link and it would literally take me years to counter everything said on that site. Most of them seemed to be questioning various details and calling for more investigation, that doesn't mean it was false flag and space aliens.
          • omegaredIX, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2The widely accepted scenarios, the 9-11 commissions report, is being refuted and proven wrong time and time again. The tin foil hat thing was not direct towards you but the majorleague guy. Many scholars and experts have proven the commission report wrong. This video here is an hour long video just talking about the pentagon. If you dont like that video try this site
            http://www.physics911.net/
            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6404296089 ...
        • LordoftheFly, on 03/16/2008, -3/+6Looks like someone is still upset about Ron Paul losing..
      • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2Again one of you please link me information that refutes the loose change video. Remember that the final cut loose change video takes the government 9-11 reports and refutes it. Tells the governments story. Then refutes it. Can you refute it? Or provide any sort of information?
        http://digg.com/world_news/9_11_Pentagon_Foundatio ...
        There is information about the plane and the pentagon. Can you show me any sort of information that refutes what i have shown?
      • omegaredIX, on 03/16/2008, -2/+3http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm
        In this article, which is an appendix to Prof. Griffin's second book, he lists over 100 lies included in the official 9/11 Commission report. Links to other pages on Serendipity have been added, for those who may not yet be fully informed (and who wish to be, since there are some who don't want to know anything about this, probably because they can't handle knowing the truth — it is too threatening to their self-serving view of the world).
        Looks like he has hat on nice and tight right? I am still waiting for someone to provide evidence that counters what the truthers are saying.
      • writerwriter, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1GROW UP AND READ SOMETHING!!!!
        www.zeitgeistmovie.com
        Best online Documentaries: 9/11; Fear and the Selling of the American Empire
        http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=10703290536 ...

        If you REALLY think that 9/11 was executed by a guy in a cave, you're an IDIOT!
        GEt INTO THE REAL world man. Come into the light - where your subversive, criminal government does NOT want you to be.
        • omegaredIX, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Ah google canada. NEver been there
    • jumbalia, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2I consider myself a 9/11 "conspiracy" theorist, but honestly... Loose Change is the worst theory of how and why the events of 9/11 took place. Many of the claims made on the video are not only easy to prove false (such as the fact that no plane wreckage was found at the pentagon), but are totally insane - even for a conspiracy nut.

      At the very most, there were explosives planted in the buildings and the Bush administration made sure the attack was not interfered with (it is very unlikely that inside sources planned and executed the entire thing, they most likely just knew of the coming attack and added to the damage). And at the very least, the attack was suspected and nothing was done to prevent it. What really needs to be done is further investigation by a credible and unbias source so that the truth - good or bad - can be known for sure.
      • omegaredIX, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2I really think you should watch the video above. If anything a plane hitting the pentagon is the most absurd thing ever. The video i provided above will give you an in-depth analysis of how impossible it is for that plane to have leveled with the ground and impacted the building. I really think you should watch that video and also go to the pilots for 911 truth website. If a plane really did hit the pentagon why are they not releasing a video that shows a plane hitting the pentagon. The video they provide us all you can make out is a white stream hovering about 5 feet off the ground impacting the pentagon. Ill say it again if a 757 hit the pentagon why are they holding back video footage? Do you honestly believe that only one camera at the pentagon got a look at the attack? The hub of the worlds greatest military had only 1 camera film the biggest attacks on American soil since ww2? Um, im calling ***** on that one. Also check out http://www.physics911.net/
        • jumbalia, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2I am aware that the withholding of the pentagon videos is very fishy, but there was indeed a ton of plane wreckage removed from the sight as well as dozens of eyewitness accounts from people who saw the plane heading towards the pentagon and crashing into it. I will admit there is a slight possibility that it was a missile that struck the pentagon, but definitely not the Towers. The problem with the analysis is that it assumes the plane does a 90 degree nose dive before pulling up and hitting the pentagon (which would be impossible, yes) But the eyewitness accounts say the plane came in at a very low altitude, flying over the highway, before hitting the pentagon.

          I know you're probably very angry at the thought of 9/11 being an inside job - so am I. But don't let anger cloud your judgment. I totally agree with you that portions of the 9/11 attack were an inside job, but that doesn't mean we have to make it seem worse than it already is. Sources like Loose Change and Alex Jones are totally non-credible. I agree with the main point of their theories, but then they go and discredit themselves by making totally absurd statements (Alex Jones reported that the men identified as the highjackers by the US were later found to be alive. When really it was just people who had the same name who were misidentified by local authorities) The number of "insiders" it would take to pull off a scheme involving landing the planes, firing missiles, and paying hundreds of people to keep silent about what they saw would be almost impossible. Do you honestly believe that many people could keep silent about such an atrocity - air traffic controllers who monitored the plane, military staff who fired the missile, eye witnesses who were paid off, etc. It is far more likely that a very small number of people were involved, who all gained far more than a small bribe to keep silent. All that was required was to let the attack occur, plant explosives in the towers (Bush's brother was head of security for the World Trade Complex), and prevent NORAD from interfering (Cheney took over command). This plan would only involve high whitehouse and military officials and could be covered-up much easier.

          The simplest answer is often the correct one. Why would they go through the trouble of creating such an elaborate hoax (as theorized by Loose Change and alike) when they could get the same results with a relatively small scale plan. For all we know, Bush might have been (and still could be) totally clueless about the whole thing. He's nothing but a puppet, so there really is no reason to involve him. I don't know what's scarier: that the president is a cold blooded killer, or that he's just as big a sheep as a large portion of the US population.
          • omegaredIX, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2You should listen to the audio battle between Michael Shermer vs. Jim Fetzer on http://www.911scholars.org/.(Ii believe our argument will construct the same way theirs did) Fetzer brings up your point to Shermer. There are also eyewitness accounts, reporters and ranking military officials that said that a 757 did not hit the pentagon. Also check out the film Pandoras Black box flight 77which takes the data the government gave them about the flight pattern and they throw it into their own simulator. The government results and their results conflict greatly. But ya check out that arguments its a little down towards the bottom of the page its an audio file i think you will enjoy it. Also thanks for actually debating instead of throwing in the tin foil hat assertions. Also i think Alex Jones is a little off the deep end.
          • omegaredIX, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Hey sorry I am wrong. Shermer gives the argument you are giving not Fetzer I apologize.
          • jumbalia, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, I just listened to it. Some interesting arguments, although it doesn't really reflect our argument because Shermer is for the government's account and we are both against it. Fetzer does bring up some interesting points about the pentagon that I will do further research into before coming up with any conclusions. But Shermer also makes a good point that Fetzer is only disputing the story rather than coming up with hard evidence of his own (he makes himself look rather bad when he suggests the plan crashed in river without anyone noticing). I think Fetzer would have come across better had he made the argument that he didn't know what truly happened, only that it didn't happen the way the government claims. And bring up the point "why would they lie about such a thing unless they were trying to cover up their own involvement?"
      • omegaredIX, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I also liked it when fetzer pointed out the positive and negative evidence rationals, very interesting.
      • writerwriter, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1www.zeitgeistmovie.com
        http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=10703290536 ...
        The Great Global Warming Swindle (google it; page 2)
        Bowl ling for Columbine
        Rule by Secrecy and The Terror Conspiracy, both by Jim Marrs.
        If US citizens were able to and motivated to read, there would be out and out armageddon in the US. The government is CORRUPT beyond anything people understand.
        Sadly, the cult of patriotism disallows people in the US from educating themselves, let alone asking questions.
        The US is a living, breathing version of Orwell's 1984.
  • poidh, on 03/16/2008, -7/+4Study after study after study has shown that people do not explode because they are poor. They expode because they think it is their religious duty.
    • 9mmCensor, on 03/16/2008, -3/+6People do not explode. Explosives attached to people explode.
    • jumbalia, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4but they are driven to these extreme religions because they are poor and destitute and think there is nowhere else to turn to. How many of these suicide bombers do you think are millionaires - or even make a steady income for that matter.
      • poidh, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2What rubbish. Islam is not a religion for poor people only. Suicide bombers and organised terrorists are nearly always from well-off families and are university educated.
        • jumbalia, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1the organizers are wealthy, yes, but the actual suicide bombers... It's no different than the US administration and actual soldiers fighting in Iraq. One group is largely rich, old, white guys and the other is largely low-income minorities.
    • Picaroon, on 03/17/2008, -3/+3Why is poidh dugg down? He's correct. Suicide bombers are generally not poor.. They are young men who are indoctrinated and educated, usually more middle class or wealthy than poor.
  • aclockwork3, on 03/16/2008, -2/+4Exactly what we have all been thinking in the backs of our heads, but finally something to back it up. It's getting really hard to find a single thing related to and arose from this war that is not entirely negative.
  • shanethetrain, on 03/16/2008, -3/+4Just watch the documentary No End In Sight.
  • poidh, on 03/16/2008, -8/+7Wow, there are more nutty fruits in this thread that you'd find in a Cadbury's Fruit and Nut Bar (family sized version with 50% extra free).
  • hillkiwi, on 03/16/2008, -2/+4If you ask me the US doesn't mind the insurgency - Iraq switched from the US dollar to Euros for oil (a move that would cripple the US economy if others followed in suit), and are now paying the price. The message: "you trade in US dollars or we will make your country an unimaginable living hell".

    Long story short the US sent a message and still has its thumb on those reserves so China and Russia can't get to them.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/16/2008, -4/+2If you ask me, that's a pretty ridiculous claim.
      • hillkiwi, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1You should read about the effects of using depleted uranium and decide if it still sounds ridiculous.
    • haterofps3, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Iran did the exactly same thin AFTER the heat died down around the whole invasion drum beating!
    • solid12345, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2How could Iraq switch to the Euro as a currency when under Saddam they were trading oil for food?

      Funny how every foreign policy action by America is a conspiracy, and every action by a 3rd world nation is "reaction to imperialism"
      • hillkiwi, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1"After the introduction of the euro, pre-invasion Iraq decided it wanted to be paid for its oil in euros instead of US dollars causing OPEC to consider changing its oil exchange currency to euros, although after its conquest, the interim government imposed by the Bush administration reversed this policy, and the subsequent Iraq governments stuck to the US dollar."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC


        "The programme used an escrow system. Oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account "
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programm ...
  • partrow, on 03/16/2008, -3/+3Another choice tidbit from the especially well-respected and reliable paper known as the NYT. Is anyone reading and believing this hardcopy rag anymore? They lost their respectability with most discerning readers long ago.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Political Science department at my university provides free copies. I read it at almost every chance I get. Some of their stories contain innuendo and in some cases slight bias, but by and large, I enjoy many of their articles. Every newspaper in the world contains bias, every newspaper in the world is not always completely accurate, it's the responsibility of every independent free thinker to realize this and believe what they read according to their own judgment.
  • AsusMobo, on 03/16/2008, -0/+7Let me guess. You go in, blow up people's neighborhoods, blow up their job, kill their wife and kids, and then you expect them to love America? Be happy about it? Dude it some fools from China/Russia came to L.A.and started pushing their ways on us, raping and pillaging, killing innocent people and calling it collateral damage, you would see what a real insurgency looks like.
    • solid12345, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Now maybe the insurgents should stop blowing up their own neighborhoods and killing their neighbors before they can speak about America being a evil force?
  • robbinzo, on 03/16/2008, -1/+3Greg Pallast (BBC) has interviewed oil company top brass (and secretly recorded them). The invasion was to prevent Saddam producing too much oil. Oil exports from Iraq are now below the level they were at during UN sanctions. The plan was always to turn down production and therefore increase the world price of oil. The oil producing nations (cartel) have a monoploy and they want to maintain it.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-y ...

      Palast notes that he got a hold of secret oil documents. ("Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn’t matter.") His only source is Ebel, whom seems to be his prime insider. Well, you would think that if Ebel could corroborate Palast's story (as Palast tries to make us assume) that he would have a quote or any reference longer than three words. "It's about oil". (We don't know what his answer was in response to)

      Excuse me if I'm skeptical. If Ebel, the highly credentialed source, could legitimately corroborate Palast's claims, then you would see a long interview, and plenty of references as per journalistic standards. However, you don't.

      Also, Palast has indeed been on BBC, but only as investigator used on less than a dozen stories since 2002.
  • graverubber, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3“We’d all be hanged” if the refinery had operated this way under Mr. Hussein’s government, one senior refinery official confided to American soldiers.

  • DivisibleByZero, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1where they get their funding and why they get their funding are two separate things. So a word of advice to anybody who gets into terrorism as a way to make money off the oil business: Maybe you should just get a job with the oil company?
  • Cyrus042, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4Economics and money has always been a significant factor in attacks throughout Iraq and Israel. Oil smuggling in particular has been at least a recently reported issues in Iraq. (I'm sure it's been happening for quite a while now) People need to understand that nationalistic and militant groups aren't grass root movements. These are top down movements being funded by ideologues. (Many of them use these stolen oil profits)

    Religion plays a role, but it's not necessarily what's getting these violent individuals out there in the streets. Money is. These "insurgents" are guns for hire often being funded by those outside the country. Many poor youth or others are approached with money for either themselves or their families. In some cases, it's a proxy war, with outside influences funding or supplying operatives and mercenaries. (Yes, Iran is very likely one of them)

    In short: Ideologues / Opportunists motivated by ideology and/or power are leveraging money and politics in order to cause unrest in Iraq in order to achieve their own goals. Of course, there's undoubtedly other things happening as well, but I think the majority of violence is for this reason.

    To say that it's islamofascism or jihadism is an abstraction of the truth. There are most certainly individuals similar to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who might have a religious slant, but ultimately, much of it is politics of power as well.
  • jumbalia, on 03/17/2008, -0/+6Since when has oil or unlawful occupation had anything to do with this war? They attack us because they hate freedom, remember? This is why the Bush doctrine is working so well - remove freedoms at home and they won't hate us so much. It's the only way to protect ourselves from the evil-doers...
  • kd1s, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2To hell with it, stop protecting provinces and cities. Secure the oil fields then rape and pillage at will. Deny the insurgents the means to make money. That'll shut it down faster than anything. That's what I say about terrorism in general.
    Increase spending on technologies to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Then watch the middle east become a stinking ***** cesspool because quite frankly, Arab and Persian cultures are to me some of the most toxic out there and with no money they can keep it right there.
  • ashlocke, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4What is islamofacism? It doesn't make sense to me.
  • writerwriter, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2An amazing percentage of posters in this thread think that the US Government is
    1. Legal
    2. Honest
    3. Upfront
    Nothing could be farther from the truth. The goal is to keep you terrified of pretty much anything. The fear-factor flavour of the last 8 years is other-than-christian brown people.
    Pull back the curtain people ASK QUESTIONS!!!
    www.zeitgeistmovie.com
    http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=10703290536 ...
  • opiniastrous, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2You know what I would have liked? A direct link to the article. I rarely feel that rawstory contributes anything to the material it reports on (other than its own bias).
  • LoneRanger85, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Waiiiit a minute! I thought WE were stealing all the oil in Iraq!
  • angelpro03, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0Lust for oil has kept US in Iraq. People of Iraq think US is to blame for there economic conditions. It has nothing to do with Islam. Even though it sounds pessimistic, the fact is that there is no effective way to curb this insurgency. Oil is the only source by which they will able to feed. Food and economic condition are related to the violent behavior of particular society. If you want to stop it by means of violence, you can’t It has never been done in the history of man kind. When you kill a terrorist, you create a martyr in the eyes of many who will grow up to emulate him. So each terrorist annihilated means 3 more in the making. It’s a vicious circle and at the root of it always is a strong (and often irrational) belief that injustice was meted out to a certain section of the society. I guess the best bet is to just let a generation to grow old and die. That would make the next generation see the futility. You gain nothing - not even martyrdom. Let people of Iraq decide what they want.
  • molotov, on 03/17/2008, -0/+11: It's typical that the intelligent comments are getting dugg down.
    2: Why can't we get the link to the NYT? You people too lazy to read a piece of journalism? Rather read a blog? Very telling.

    Also, if you read the ACTUAL article and not a biased summary, maybe you'd have more intelligent comments. At least they would (hopefully) be relevant.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/politics/New_Iraq_Poll_Shows_Impro ...

    Fifty-five percent of Iraqis say things in their own lives are going well, well up from 39 percent as recently as August. More, 62 percent, rate local security positively, up 19 points. And the number who expect conditions nationally to improve in the year ahead has doubled, to 46 percent in this new national poll...
  • nitemareglitch, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1They are just readying us for more taxes, and more restrictions in the name of "better care" so far they suck at providing for us, so why whine that we want MORE government? We need less of it, I will take freedom over safety any day.
  • lolo2007, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0To hell with it, stop protecting provinces and cities. Secure the oil fields then rape and pillage at will. Deny the insurgents the means to make money. That'll shut it down faster than anything. That's what I say about terrorism in general.
    Increase spending on technologies to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Then watch the middle east become a stinking ***** cesspool because quite frankly, Arab and Persian cultures are to me some of the most toxic out there and with no money they can keep it right there

    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/3/3
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/category/2/2
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/category/14/14
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/4/4
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/category/13/13
    http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/2/2
  •  

    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.