What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
358 Comments
- richmomz, on 06/30/2009, -11/+85Good, maybe we can *both* go back to minding our own business for a change.
- LumpOfCole, on 06/30/2009, -2/+71Thankfully it was only Bush that sold us on the war and not Billy Mays. Billy Mays would've sold us two wars for the price of.. oh *****, how his Afghanistan going anyway?
- googooly, on 06/30/2009, -9/+74Good for them. That's what they wanted from the beginning.
- macromorgan, on 06/30/2009, -15/+74Dear Iraq;
It's your war now. Don't Bush it up.
Sincerely;
Everyone - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -12/+66You mean sans the whole invasion thing under false pretenses?
- NEUTRINO50, on 06/30/2009, -0/+46We are not leaving Iraq. We are leaving Iraqi population centers. Out of sight, out of mind (until s* hits the fan again)
- Unexploded, on 06/30/2009, -3/+46I'd digg you up, but then reality might get upset.
Ten seconds of searching via google gives you a pretty good start regarding your question:
"Iraq to give Western companies oil rights: report"
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil. ...
Hmmm..I wonder who helped Saddam get into power in the first place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_%E2%80 ...
We're cool with puppet dictators, so long as they do what we tell them. - krispykreams, on 06/30/2009, -12/+54You're an idiot if you think that America went in just to end Saddam's oppressive regime. Have fun living in your black and white fantasy world.
- ivanmarsh, on 06/30/2009, -3/+41When do we get our 1.8 trillion back?
- alanocu, on 06/30/2009, -66/+95The "blood for oil" claim is ridiculous. If America wanted to use its military might to seize Iraq's oil, we could have captured Iraq's oil fields and kept them with the half million troops that were deployed during the Gulf War. The notion is ludicrous because all the evidence contradicts this claim. We wouldn't be paying record highs for oil right now.
- jeches, on 06/30/2009, -5/+34Finally...
- treehugger87, on 06/30/2009, -20/+47So long, and thanks for all the oil
- lhbaker, on 06/30/2009, -2/+26The invasion destabilized the world market. Iraq is sitting on top of one of the biggest reserves in the world, and could barely manage to exploit it. First because of the sanctions after GW1, and then because of GW2. The invasion drove prices up world wide, and suddenly oil in Texas that was selling for $30 a barrel was selling for five times that much just a year ago.
Sure, maybe we didn't invade to steal their oil. But American oil companies benefited massively because of the war.
Get it? - dalittle, on 06/30/2009, -2/+25You are quite naive. Halliburton subsidiaries are the main contract winners in the Iraq Oil Fields. How do you think that happened and who benefits from that?
- inactive, on 06/30/2009, -13/+36Yeah! those damn ingrates! we only ***** up there country how dare they celebrate!
- charlie6969, on 06/30/2009, -8/+30Whether we agree with the War or not; these American Citizens gave their LIVES.
Have a little freaking respect, people! - linkedghost, on 06/30/2009, -2/+23only the dead see the end of war
- PhilliesBlunt, on 06/30/2009, -5/+26So... what WAS the war over anyway?
- twiztidsinz, on 06/30/2009, -3/+23No... 'record prices' were during Bush...
We're now paying higher-than-average prices partially due to OPEC realizing how much money they could make and realizing that people are trying to get away from oil. - MatlasK, on 06/30/2009, -7/+26God bless those men.
- publiclurker, on 06/30/2009, -6/+25Why wouldn't we be paying more. The goal is to bet more oil for the companies and their profits, not so a bunch of simpletons can fuel their oversize mechanical compensation cheaper. People like you are just a source of profits and maybe cannon fodder.
- judicar, on 06/30/2009, -5/+24Civil war ... ethnic genocide. Unfortunately not wanting to be there isn't always a good enough reason.
- WhiskeyLemur, on 06/30/2009, -8/+24The Iraquis don't want us there.
The majority of our population doesn't want us there.
We can't afford to be there.
Someone remind me why this withdrawal didn't happen sooner? - mbelrose, on 06/30/2009, -2/+17"Iraq was to unveil the foreign firms that have won contracts to develop key oil and gas fields, nearly four decades after Saddam Hussein's party nationalised the energy sector."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM ...
If someone invaded Alaska and auctioned off their oil fields to a bunch of Saudis, what would the citizens of that state do the next year when their oil revenue checks stopped coming? - malex, on 06/30/2009, -5/+20Actually, both you and Alanocu are mistaken. Simply occupying the oil fields and trying to pump them dry during an occupation would be logistically impossible. What they can do is have the US State Department draft no-bid contracts giving select American and British petroleum companies access to the entirety of Iraq's fields, which have now been privatized for the first time in 35 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast ...
Incidentally, you actually think that the oil companies making record-breaking profits is evidence AGAINST their using America's military to control the world's largest reserves? That's *adorable.* - kolop1, on 06/30/2009, -3/+18You mean giving Japan and Germany lots of money to rebuld and become prosperous nations? Or do you mean just leaving. Because we didn't just leave Germany and Japan.
- KahRahTay, on 06/30/2009, -5/+20and have mercy on those who lied to send them there
- UTKEngineer, on 06/30/2009, -3/+17FTA:
At the insistence of Iraqis, the Status of Forces Agreement, which was concluded late last year between the Iraqi government and the *Bush Administration,* required that U.S. troops be out of Iraq's urban areas by June 30, 2009, and withdrawn from the country altogether by the end of 2011. - Bloodwine, on 06/30/2009, -6/+20The Iraqis want us there, but they want to be in charge of themselves. That is, they want us to have their back in case of emergencies or the infighting gets too ugly. When not backing them up, they want us out of sight.
- TheBigBad, on 06/30/2009, -3/+17Now let's all sit back and watch a country eat itself.
- CeruleanRed, on 06/30/2009, -35/+48What you're saying is absolutely true, and you and I will get buried for it.
- RegalBegal, on 06/30/2009, -3/+16I think they are referring to just Iraq here.
- s73v3r, on 06/30/2009, -0/+13Dear Sirs:
I am needing your assistance in getting 100,000,000,000 barrels of oil out of Nigeria. - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -6/+19First non-existing WMD, then Democracy and freedom and then only to keep the whole place from falling appart after the yankees ***** it up good.
- s73v3r, on 06/30/2009, -1/+13Hell, we're still in Germany and Japan.
- superkendall, on 06/30/2009, -0/+12"Withdrawl" is a really misleading term to use, since all they are doing is going back to local bases in Iraq from where they will help Iraqi's - it just moves the troops out of more local city locations.
- twiztidsinz, on 06/30/2009, -3/+14What was our reason for going there?
To find WMDs? lol
To remove an abusive dictator from power (that we put there)? Then why didn't we go to Cuba? Why aren't we in Burma stopping the genocide? How 'bout North Korea?
To fight the terrorists? Then why'd we leave Afghanistan so unfinished? - borez, on 06/30/2009, -3/+14Right, who's next?
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/30/2009, -0/+11Hahahaha, you think that we went to war to make gas cheaper for YOU!?
How cute. How naive. You don't get it. They don't give a ***** about you. It was never, EVER about securing Iraqi oil interests for the American people. It was about securing those interests for themselves.
Oh, and it's working beautifully, by the way. The icing on the cake is that all they have to do to convince you they don't control the oil is exercise the control they have on that oil to raise the prices. Since you apparently believe they are too benevolent to ever do such a thing, you immediately assume it all has nothing to do with them. Hilarious! - wilhoitm, on 06/30/2009, -0/+10Haliburton has it!
- Caffeinate, on 06/30/2009, -4/+14They should be honored because they gave their lives in service to their country.
They took an oath to follow orders, and did their duty, even to the point of the ultimate sacrifice. They did not lie to Americans in order to justify the war, and they were not the ones that gave the orders. When you join the military, you are not free to pick and choose which orders you follow or don't follow. Some of the time, you don't even know WHY you got the orders that you got, you just have to follow them.
If you want to call someone a pathetic loser, blame the ones who started it. Don't dishonor the sacrifice of men and women that do their duty. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/30/2009, -1/+10@TJcombox: The war was NEVER about WMDs. They knew they didn't exist from the start. It was a manufactured excuse.
- paradigmx, on 06/30/2009, -0/+9America hasn't minded it's own business since post-ww1
- twiztidsinz, on 06/30/2009, -4/+13Still doesn't change the fact that what was done during the Bush administration was a giant *****.
- ismhmr, on 06/30/2009, -2/+11They are celebrating because they are so happy, we made everything so much better for them, and they truly have freedom now..
Seriously though, does this mean they are going to close the bases too? - rmxz, on 06/30/2009, -1/+10LOL - was Reagan's marketing that good that people believe that?
Sure he got away with lower taxes because he raised the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.
We haven't had a "fiscally conservative" republican since Eisenhower at least. - inactive, on 06/30/2009, -3/+12your attempt to use your eco 101 knowledge of supply and demand to simplify a complex issue is hilarious.
- Kelden21, on 06/30/2009, -3/+12HI BILLY MAYS HERE!
- JimSwarthow, on 06/30/2009, -5/+14level of violence in Iraq spinning out of control in 6, 5, 4...
/it's a no-win. let's git while the gittin's good - treehugger87, on 06/30/2009, -1/+9That would be such a brilliant comment if we weren't paying *less* for oil now than we were a year ago.
And don't be so naive as to think W brought us into the war so that his country could enjoy lower oil prices. His largess is reserved for the corporations who stand to profit from Iraq's oil (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas ... to the tune of 75% of the world's 3rd largest oil reserves. -
Show 51 - 100 of 362 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is