What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
123 Comments
- lakush, on 10/12/2007, -15/+54The title says "big oil contracts" but the article says "the contracts under consideration are small".
If you took the time to read the article, these contracts were described as "crumbs", while western oil firms wait patiently for long term contracts.
Framing this issue as "liberal vs conservative" goes to show you don't have a clue. - MatthJD, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35This is outrageous! We invaded so Bush and Cheney's oil buddies could get rich. I expect American companies to get these contracts! This is ruining my conspiracy theories!
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28@dukee
"Iraq was about oil. These (maps) prove it."
I'm not so sure that your assertion holds true. First, these documents were shared a year before the invasion of Iraq. They were even made public before Congress voted on it. So cry to your elected congressman for missing this if you really think it's true. (And I sure hope you didn't re-elect your congressmen if you think this is true. That would be negligence on your part as a voter.)
Secondly, what to make of the other maps? Shall I presume that the maps of Saudi Arabia and UAE mean that Bush intended to invade them, too?
Your argument doesn't seem to hold much water. - bluto36, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30Foam;
" I can't believe people buy their BS."
why not? you expect people to buy yours dont you? - jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23"Oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gas. Government makes much more. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon." -George Will, contributor to Newsweek and the Washington Post among others.
Link: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/04/05/on_rising_gas_prices
So it seems like Bush's "oil buddies" that make the most are, oddly enough, IRS agents and congressmen. - leftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I feel like bombing your caps-lock key.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Haliburton is a services company, not an oil company.
- InfidelAl, on 10/12/2007, -24/+40"Seen" does not necessarily mean"approved". And even if it did, would it be suprising if the Iraqi Adminstration showed it to ours to see what we thought of the document given our involvement in the area?
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23It was about keeping trading in the Dollar and not switching to the Euro. We don't have to control it in order to benefit immensely from the Iraqi oil situation.
- wolphkaat, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28You mean Haliburton, that company from Dubai U.A.E. ?
- 29Victor, on 10/12/2007, -16/+28If you had taken the time to read the WHOLE article, it goes on to say:
'But the Asian firms are also well positioned to grab further contracts.
Having avoided military entanglements in the region, they may curry more favor with the Iraqi people.
"They have no involvement with the secular or ethnic people," said Aljibury. "The conditions favor them."
Given its rapidly growing thirst for oil, combined with its feeling of isolation from world oil markets, China is sometimes viewed as more cavalier than Western oil firms when it comes to putting capital and people at risk. That could lead them to sign contracts in violent Iraq sooner than Western firms.'
And the "wait patiently for long term contracts" was a quote from a guy from Oil Change International, an anti-oil and anti-administration group.
So, before you school people on reading the article, you might want to read the whole thing yourself. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23@foam
Your only looking at the back-end of the building process. Do you think an multi-billion dollar company builds a facility like an oil refinery on a whim? They do extensive research on ALL the costs associated with such a project. The environmental red-tape, cost of protesters, sabotage, etc, etc, add up. Why bother with all of that when it's just cheaper to build a refinery in a developing nation. - tomcat4u, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19I'm wary of those who are quick to blame an oil-thirsty Bush as the main reason behind the war. It's hard to tell who is unbaised when it comes to this discussion. What are the facts? Couldn't Bush just have been deluded by his zealotry to protect America from anything with a turban on its head and sand dunes around it? I honestly don't know. It's frustrating.
- cbambrick, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25???????? I don't get where you are going. Why would the oil companies want the oil prices to be so high? If they have to buy the oil from all these Asian companies, they would not make as much money. Since they would have to purchase from these other companies, our oil prices would be so high like they are now. Whenever the prices are go up, the demand for alternate energy goes up because people do not want to pay so much for gas. The increased oil prices would not be good for oil companies... it would destroy them. If they controlled these Iraqi oil fields, the price of oil would be cheaper here and no one would care about ethanol and hybrid cars.
- Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@ foamweapons,
Sorry man, but the more expensive oil gets the more pressure there will be on research for alternative fuel sources.
It is in their best intrest to keep the oil flowing, make it seem relaibly and steady. Every time we hear oil embargo, peak oil, disruption in flow, price per barrel going up, we get a little more inclined to get away fro oil.
These companies are thinking long term. - mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I have said it before, and I will say it again... We could have bought a ***** of oil for what the war has cost us. Anyone who thinks that this war was a business decision to make money on oil needs to take a class in simple arithmetic. You will notice that no prominent/respectable war critic is still out there saying that we started this war to get some oil. Leave that theory for the crazies and the mathematically unaware.
- foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -22/+29"Myth: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.
Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels’ application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries." - http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=11829
Blaming environmental regulations is the main talking point of oil corporations. Their profit margins for every gallon of gas refined is astronomical, unheard of in any other industry, yet they complain about environmental regulations. I can't believe people buy their BS. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Your mom once came over and baked me cookies.
You see, I can give 'facts' too and prove my point. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Yeah, next they'll say that Halliburton isn't American, but a Dubai company or something crazy like that.
- rancorcrankor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Perhaps you mean war is "fought with deception."
Like Poker is.
Wars have been fought since the dawn of time. Long before the boogymen of the "Military Industrial Complex" or "Big Oil" or the "Trilateral Commission" or whatever other shadowy figures that people tend to think are in control of their lives.
War is nothing more than a fistfight that happens to have many more people involved and much bigger weapons. There is no way to put an end to war as long as people have free will. To think otherwise is wistful at best and damned foolish at worst. - InfidelAl, on 10/12/2007, -18/+24Oil is a world commodity. Your theory does not account for this. Additionally, the major US oil companies have been investigated numerous times for such price manipulations. However, market forces have always been found to be the cause.
- Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8 foamweapons,
There are very few countries where oil companies out and out own the oil fields. I have personally worked in several south east asian countries and Egypt, and in all of those the oil fields are owned by the country and the oil is produced in join ventures of state owned companies and international oil companies.
In this day and age nationalizing oil fields doesn't really hurt oil companies unless they already have heavily invested in the oil infrastructure. There is a tremendous amount of technology and expertise required to effeciently extract oil. Countries will end up paying the oil companies any way to get their oil out effeciently. - jsffive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6P.S.
I think the mistake is in believing that the ruling elites give a damn about ideologies. They only care about control.
Bash "leftists" or "rightists" all you want. The people at the top of the pyramid are patting themselves on the back for their cleverness. - ericdano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Wow, you mean Rosie got it wrong? No way.......the room is spinning..........
- Euangelion, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19They will say"BushCo" was too stupid to get the oil. BDS has no limits.
- Bit0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not sure what the sarcasm tag was for... sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
- kcuhpp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10[...] "Giving out a few crumbs to the Chinese and Indians is one thing," said Kretzmann, who noted the draft law was seen by both the Bush administration and the International Monetary Fund before it was given to Iraq's parliament. "But the real prize are the contracts that award long-term rights. I think the [Western oil companies] are biding their time."
- pestilence4hr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The argument that we went to war over oil really has nothing to do with the notion that we want the oil. We don't need it, as we get most of our oil from domestic sources, Canada, and Mexico. The argument is that we want *control* over the middle east resources, as it gives us leverage over our competitors who do rely on middle east oil, like Germany, Japan, etc...
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@WordyRappington
"But I suspect it really is about spreading democracy and freedom, and that is the worst reason of all to start a war."
Countries of free people with protected rights are better able to coexist peacefully with the rest of the world. It is the BEST reason of all to start a war... lasting peace and prosperity. We are attempting to put an end to eternal strife through the application of concentrated force. The fact that this is difficult and painful does not make it wrong. Nor does the fact that there is no guarantee that it will work. It is still the *best* course of action. In a world occupied by intelligent animals, quite often even the best options are undesirable... but they are still the best options.
The best way to halt the expansion of Islamic militantism is to give the people of these regions a reason to hope for a healthy, prosperous future. Ironically, in this case the cause of freedom is not about the freedom itself but the stability and prosperity a just government fosters. - orichter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What about the fact that the US is the 3rd largest oil producer? That in itself, plus the fact the 80% of Iraqi oil goes to Europe or china... should make one realize the war was not for oil.
When is the Democratic elite going to realize we are in a war of civilizations? Of abysmal barbarians against all that the West has built over 2,000 years? Democracy is not the best form of government but it sure is better than theocracy, totalitarianism, and dictatorship. Just look at the advancements made in the last 500 years in the middle east - all they can show for it is a throwback to the 700's? If they had no oil economy they would have no terrorism in the middle east or outside it in the US, Europe, etc. Since they could not finance it.
Clausewitz and Sun Tzu said that the advancement of war includes running terrorists in your enemies areas. It is a DIRECT ACT OF WAR in attacking your enemies by financing and arming terrorists to attack them with. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria are doing just that. They even state that in their daily "Jihad" exhortations in public and they teach it in their grade schools, "Jihad against all that is Western".
What "useful idiot" would get rid of the "Global War on Terror" as a term in use in the US Congress. Why only the liberals - er, Democrats. We are re-living history, of the type: "Peace in our time" so said Stalin, Hitler, and liberals over and over, just before the real war took off, in the vain hope that the world really was not that way. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What?!!? You mean their profit margin is normal compared to other businesses and other industries?!!?!?!?
Your facts are confusing me.
The oil companies make so much money in profit because:
a) their capital is all fixed assets. not much variable.
b) huge amounts of consumption per day.
I have no sympathy for you idiots that can't even understand simple business. It's like you WANT to believe capitalism is bad. - bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6OMG BLOOD FOR OIL LOOK!!!!!!!!!111111
- demicritter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8The vapidity of some posts is truly breath-taking. If people could get beyond calling Bush stupid, the war illegal and all the other "media-created catch phrases" there might be a chance for reasonable discussion. Unfortunately, every self-proclaimed pundit, armed with key board and CPU is their own independent research institute funded by furtive investigations conducted on their employer's time and dime.
I work for myself so I'm no hypocrite. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If I wanted a blog I would have had sex with your sister.
- Liam76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Henry Liu is a crackpot with no training in economics. He was the basis for Petrov's theory.
His assumption that because the US dollar is no longer tied to gold equates to tax because we bought things with those dollar and can't repay with gold is wrong. No modern economy has a gold backed standard.
If everything switched to Euro overnight we would have a glut of paper money, which would suck for the US (and wouldn't be too great for the world), but that won't happen. The Euro will grow and the dollar will shrink (or vice versa) gradually as modern curriencies always fluctuate. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think the most important argument against the deluded belief that the war was about oil is the fact that Saddam would have been quite happy to give US oil companies lucrative contracts in exchange for lifting all the sanctions against Iraq. We didn't need a war to get Iraq's oil... a smile and a handshake would have accomplished it! The fact is, there were more important principals involved. The fact that we didn't allow Saddam to just buy his way into our good graces is something to be proud of.
- dcoolidge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yep were the bad guy and they look like the good guys...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8We should of went to war for oil, going to war for natural resources is one of the only few reasons acceptable in my opinion.
May sound harsh, but it is what it is. - silverchrysalis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5conspiracy theory much?
- sid0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3??? The companies are owned by the US? That's news to me.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Spam spam spam spam...
Spammity spam wonderful spam!
spam spam spam spam... - h3ndrix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I never thought that was the criticism given, the real criticism was: Why the ***** did we go into Iraq?
The oil bit was just some people's rationalization for a very idiotic thing. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@WordyRappington
"Your argument is essentially the Trotskyist position that in order to end oppression we have to take over the world."
No, it's not. If you would bother to pay attention you would notice the distinction between "taking over" and fostering a free nation. Did France take over America during the American revolution? Did America permanently take over Japan or it's segment of Germany after WWII? And this also addresses your second point. America has an *excellent* track record in promoting peace in the world. Your problem is that you confuse impotent pacifism with peace. You mistake the *cost* of peace with something that somehow invalidates the peace that results. Peace is *relative*. Human psychology does not permit total peace, only relative peace. The intelligent application of force has consistently proven it's benefits. War and conflict is not the opposite of peace, it is a necessary component of real, *relative* peace... the only kind of peace that can exist. Yes, peace, prosperity and freedom do come out of the barrel of a gun. Deny this fact at your own detriment.
"Right, give them a prosperous and hopeful future by bombing and invading them."
YES!!! That is how it works. Why are the people NOT free and prosperous? Because there are some among them who first benefited from the oppression of the Bathist regime and later from the chaos and violence. (Bear in mind, they often have a different notion of "benefit" than we do.) The ONLY way to root those elements out is through the application of violent force. Care packages and jobs programs and new hospitals can't do it... bullets are the ONLY option.
"After all Iraq is much more hopeful and prosperous than it was 5 years ago isn't it?"
What does that have to do with it? You don't judge the success of an operation while it is ongoing. There is no time limit here. Road repair disrupts traffic. Short-sighted people complain about the disruption and say "this is worse than it was before they started working". Not very intelligent attitude, is it?
As I said in my last post, even the chance that the operation will fail outright does not make it the wrong thing to do.
"Who is going to stop the expansion of American militarism?"
The term militarism neatly sidesteps the vital issue of what the military is being used to accomplish. It's a bit like using the word "drugs" without bothering to make a distinction between haroine and penicillin. Have you actually considered the alternative to a powerful American military? Do you have any concept of the chaos that would reign in the world without the controlling influence of powerful entities? America is often criticized for it's lack of involvement in Africa. That criticism has some justification... and look at the result. "American militarism" is infinitely preferable to the alternative.
"After all, how many countries has the peaceful and co-existing government of the US bombed or invaded in the last 30 years?"
As I said, this is your basic mistake. You seem to think that it is possible to have peace without ever resorting to violence and you are simply wrong. For the most part, those excursions have resulted in greater overall peace and stability. The fact that corrective measures are violent does not mean they are contradictory to peace. Haven't you noticed that they *WORK*? What would the Balkans be like right now without military might? South Korea? On the other hand, when we *don't* exercise our power, you get genocide and famine.
"Now how many countries has the warlike and non-co-existing government of Iran bombed or invaded in the last 30 years? The record speaks for itself."
Yeah... America uses it's might to solve problems, Iran has Hezbollah doing its bidding to cause problems. The record does speak for itself. As long as you refuse to acknowledge the benefits of "bombs and invasion", none of your observations are credible. For the last time, peace can ONLY exist if strength is exercised from time to time. We don't use it enough.
"Never mind the fact that people in Islamic countries never asked you to "give" them anything."
If you bothered to actually comprehend what I wrote rather than simply reading it and projecting the meanings onto it you want to, you would understand that we aren't doing it for them. Tumors don't ask to be treated either. The point is not to promote peace in these counties simply because we want them to have peace, the point is to *defend ourselves*. Remember what I said... peaceful, free and stable countries pose little danger to the rest of the world. *WE* are a part of the rest of the world. This is the best way to defend ourselves. - Bob_Oliver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The US is in it for Armageddon, not oil.
- MadN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia"
Dubai? - kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2did anyone notice the price of gas, it has really started going up since the Dem's took over.
I think Nancy should have cocked a leg in the middle east and bring the prices back down.
They all seem to think she is the answer to Americas problems, They trust her and see her visit as a new foreign policy jump start.
How come Dem's never deliver? - kingleroy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9I think this article is a little misleading.
The "big" oil contracts are still going to American/UK companies. The "first" contracts going to China and Vietnam (and others) because they have more previous knowledge about Iraq's oil fields due to more liberal access during Saddam's reign. Therefore, the title of this article is misleading because it implies that the "big" oil contracts are going to the East (thus, denigrating the "war for oil" theorists).
I think it's pretty obvious that Iraq was for oil. Project for a New American Century says we need to secure the energy reserves in the Middle East. The people who signed this neo-con manifesto are the guys who play major roles in the Administration.
I've had multiple military dads tell me that "every war is economics". I've seen nothing to prove to me any different. - stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't you remember? The Dems were in FAVOR of higher gas prices!!!
Remember? They figured that you peasants wouldn't be able to drive as much if gas prices were higher. And they think that's a good thing.
BTW, Nancy Pelosi violated the Logan Act. Any politician that at least attempts to have her arrested for that has earned my vote for life. - Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why can't a Republican help clean up the mess that the current Republican made? Everyone isn't the same. Just because the current Republican president is an idiot doesn't mean that all the other hopefuls are going to be idiots. Just like all Democrats aren't people who will lie under oath, like Mr. Clinton did. Good Ol' George, not Bush, but Washington, was right. Political parties will be the death of Democracy. There could be the best presidential candidate out there, but if he's a Democrat, there will be Republicans out there that won't vote for him... and vice-versa. People shouldn't be so blinded by "their party" and look at all the people and vote for the best one.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOL... incredible!!!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is