What is Digg?104 Comments
- Anrkist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26because every other day theres a story about how they are asking us to stay in the country.... IM SO CONFUSED!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+28Oil
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24Last I heard our troops are there for our freedom. If they weren't there, we'd have terrorists lining up to come kill all of us here tomorrow. Considering our southern border is as porous as a sieve, that theory has been blown to *****. We send our border patrol over there to secure their border. How nice is that?
The again, Michael 'the demon' Chertoff has a gut feeling that *****'s gonna happen soon. Maybe we need to ramp things up over there to keep us even more free than we already are. You'd think the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and all of the other freedom initiatives would be enough to keep us free forever. Next thing you know Halliburton will be building detention facilities on US soil or something crazy like that to really keep us safe.
I've got the cure for Mikey. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -17/+34HERE'S WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ
The Bush/Cheney regime already had the intention to invade Iraq - even before 9/11. They just needed the excuse and 9/11 gave them just enough to twist to railroad an invasion.
All Osama was to George W. Bush was an excuse. The excuse. After 9/11 Bush was free to invade according to PNAC plan.
Iraq was supposed to be like the Falklands or Panama - in and out and a great victory for a president to build support for other PNAC agenda items.
In some ways we are lucky it backfired on the bastard. The agenda was the wholesale hijacking of the Constitution and the Nation. - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I thought al-Maliki was supposed to be a puppet of our government. Does he ever make a statement that doesn't come from inside the White House? Is he breaking from our wishes here? I'm also confused.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15So Why Are We Frick'n There?
EXXON, MOBILE, and BP for starters stand to pluck the Iraqi people for about $21 Trillion 50 years or 21 trillion dollars worth of oil:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/30/155142/473 - Asure, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Outlandishly
Idiotic
Logic - jwl23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7If we're there for oil, why the hell does it keep getting more expensive? I wish we would start stealing the stuff already.
- ElRayQuieres, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I think you meant: I don't know, let'$ a$k the pre$ident.
- hfactor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, the answer is: because he lies. If there´s no law and order WITH the troops, there won´t be law and order WITHOUT them.
- adml_shake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I wonder if anyone had thought that maybe he said this so no one with a bomb strapped to their chest decides to go off out side of his office?
- Glugory, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@nondescrypt
Yeah, it's not like there isn't that whole CIVIL ***** WAR thing going on over there. Yeah, it's JUST US killing Iraqis. They're not killing each other at all! Those suicide bombings in markets and *****? Those aren't Iraqis. Those are American troops because we're the ONLY ones killing people! Seriously nondescrypt, you're a ***** moron. - faskill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Because the people getting the oil and selling to us our setting the price how they want.
- Kegsterino, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Why are we there? Easy answer - the very first name for the Iraq War was 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'. This is not a joke - you can google it. A day later the white house spokesperson very quickly said 'Mistake, Mistake - it's going to be called Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
The acronym's say it all my friend.
The US, with UK and Australian help, have built 14 PERMANENT military bases in Iraq. Do you honestly think we have a free press when NOT ONE of them ever ever ever asks the questions like 'Erm .. hey Hilary, Barack, Cheney... what are you going to do with all those billion dollar military bases? Are you going to turn them into Iraqi youth centres if the Iraqi government so wishes?'.
The US embassy in Iraq is bigger than the freakin Vatican!!! Iraq is the new Phillipines and NOBODY is going to pull out of there for as long as we're all living. Trust me on that. More terror and hatred to come. - TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7And yet another ignorant digger (nblsavage) shows just how uninformed the American people are when it comes to the relationship between two religious sects. Junkyard is pretty much dead on.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Operation
Iraqi
Liberation - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4'we' (as in 'we the people') aren't there (iraq)...the military monster our taxes fund are there...to build permanent bases to protect republican business enterprises (like haliburton) and protecting 'our republican christian way of life'
- a1532b, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Just because it is cheaper for the manufacturer does NOT mean they will pass the savings onto the consumer. Higher profit margins are the goal of capitalism, not happy customers...And when a business has a product that is essential for the world to keep on spinning, along with no alternatives readily available, they don't have to do a damned thing for you!
- sirvincent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3For some odd reason, this reminds me of the "How Gullible Are We?" story...
- tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'd say we would be much better off if 50 US troops had died instead of 3600+ to successfully free an oppressed people from the clutches of a genocidal maniac, a 6-month victory left to the history books. I don't know if it's at all lucky that it backfired, since it's not like anything came of it other than more US dead and more Iraqi dead.
- TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Welcome to the conspiracy theory section of digg.
- Ethanael, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Why? Because if we leave, we'll be back in ~10 years to fix the mess that we left. The only difference will be more bloodshed and your children fighting that war. There is no ***** way that Iraq can stand on its own feet right now.
- TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You didn't read my post did you? My point is that if we just leave, the ruling party is quickly going to kill the others...reading comprehension for the win.
- Glugory, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Oh please! If we left, the Iraqi government would fall before you could say DURKA DURKA! Their entire government is either corrupt or incompetent. This goes for their military. One day a certain soldier might be working with us, the next day he's setting up a road side bomb to kill us. You're an idiot if you think that country can defend itself.
- itsjussed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5the head of the US also says we are doing the right thing. doesnt mean its true does it?
- bennnno, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If the Iraqi's could keep there own country safe I am sure our troops would be out. A few days ago everyone was talking about how horrible this PM was, now his words are trusted. Buried because of the lack thought in posting.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -15/+17Because the "heads of Iraq" are lying.
The iraqi government is loyal to the iran-backed shiite insurgency, and want the US out so they can get on with slaughtering sunnis, stepping up the already on-going ethnical cleansing of southern Iraq and Baghdad. The kurds have much the same idea, but for the northern part of Iraq.
If the US troops retreated into the megafortresses and shut the doors today, there'd be an instant bloodbath on a Rwandan scale. - techweenie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We're there because W, like many 'dry drunks' cannot admit to having made a mistake.
- Artzealot, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Why are we there? that's the million dollar question.
- gigabyte3d, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5What do you expect when you elect a Monkey into the White House?
- jimmye, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4don't pretend like you don't know
- jarinudom, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Probably because al-Maliki is an incompetent spineless worm who agrees with whoever is in the room at the time. The Iraqis seriously need to have a vote of no-confidence in him and replace him with someone who will take charge of the situation and actually try to fix things instead of bowing down to the local warlords.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2actually its closer to a trillion dollars now.
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm a classical liberal and a Bush basher. Get it right.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3It's okay to type "*****", you know. We do live in a free country.
- rlh1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So if we're there to protect the republican business enterprises, Cheney's cronies, Neocons interests, etc, secure oil for right wing fascist corporations,........what happens when the Democrats take over in 2008. Will they stop helping all these right wing chumps, or are the Democrats controlled by these corporations too ?
- Buelldozer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You can turn it off all you want but it won't help. I've seen this before, when enough people turn off Politics they'll just start posting it to other categories so you'll see it anyway. For instance, this topic is in "World News" and not politics. I turned Politics off weeks ago, yet I'm still seeing, and reading, this stuff.
Look closely at what happened with this topic. The topic itself really does belong in World News however through the use of a politically based summary the ENTIRE discussion turned into a US political debate.
What could have been an intelligent discussion on the state of Iraq's readiness and it's government stability and control instead turned into a huge "Bush sucks!" and "My candidate can do better" circle jerk.
Wheee, ain't Digg fun?!?!?! - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"The President this morning has spoken with three foreign leaders. He began with Prime Minister Blair, where the two discussed the ongoing aspects of Operation Iraqi Liberation." -Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html - Igei, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2hahaha. yeah he says we can leave whenever we want but then says that they still need our money, our weapons and our troops for training his shmucks. think about it people...they're not ready.
- perogi21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Make that the billion dollar question.
- Jerrellw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Spoken? I did not hear him ask us to leave. I heard "We can protect ourselves when the Americans (please don't leave)...we still need weapons (please don't leave)...and training (please don't leave)."
- ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I wonder for how much longer.
- nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3To protect a bunch of Muslims & make them "Free", because the U.S. cares for the well being of others
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The oil question is more complex than we realize. Saddam was messing with oil prices because he was pumping wildly irregular amounts of oil. He had become the main factor in determining the price of oil. He was the swinging supplier! This made him an enemy more than anything else. So we invaded. What was the plan for the oil? According to Greg Palast, there were two plans. (He claims to have them both.) One was backed by big oil. One was backed by the state department. Both involve stabilizing the price of oil and giving the US a controlling interest in OPEC, but the big oil plan didn't necessarily involve keeping prices of oil low for anyone. They make more money if the supply is low and the price is high. They tend to back politicians that keep it this way. Much of the clusterfscking we see in Iraq seems to have occurred because of the disagreement about what to do with the oil on our side. At first, some geniuses (such as Bremer) wanted to sell off Iraqi oil-assets to private companies, not realizing that this would be seen by the whole world for what it was, a very blatant oil grab. Now we have these really generous oil profit-sharing agreements, which seem more agreeable to the world even if the effect is the same. The sad part is that by signing on to these things, not only is oil leaving Iraq, but the oil money is leaving as well. This puts the Iraqi economy (such that it is) in the lurch. We tried establishing a fund to help rebuild Iraq out of oil money, the Iraq Development Fund, but that got raided to a very comical effect. No re-building happened. I guess my point is that any time you have people fighting over a resource worth trillions of dollars you're going to see some disagreement. We are there to get a controlling interest in OPEC, but "we" is many different parties.
- nondescrypt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3If CNN says Iraq needs us, then I guess Iraq has spoken...
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Sure we could leave but Halliburton's 2nd qtr earnings would disappoint their shareholders. And you KNOW Cheney isn't about to let that occur. He has a responsibility to his people, dammit!
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That press conference is a chuckle. 3-24-2003 and people are already asking about the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo! Humanitarian aid to Iraq, the Iraqi economy ...you don't hear stuff about those items anymore. Other nations participating in the cost of the war?! The idea that one supplemental budget was enough to pay for the war. Nice blast from the past.
- origclubsoda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Gay
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Glugory, haven't they been telling us there isn't a civil war going on? I'm sure I heard that a few times.
- bwhancock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Does this mean we won in Iraq?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is