What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
136 Comments
- nicholasroussos, on 07/02/2009, -0/+32Oil's not about oil; it's about money. And that's why they're not touching the oil ... yet. The oil companies haven't left the table. They're just making a big show of walking away. It's Negotiations 101. They want more money. The whole, "This proves that it's not about oil line" is the worse BS I've seen all day. And no one buys it, anyone who says they do has been trying to sell something all along.
Here's a quick rule of thumb to get you through life, look to see where peep's hands are. Either they have a hand out, or they have a product in a hand. Worse yet, you can't see their hands (which means it's probably in your pocket.) - borez, on 07/02/2009, -5/+33We spent all that money taking the country, why didn't we just take the oil? Surely that was the whole point of this exercise... wasn't it?
There's a big stinking rat hiding amongst all of this crap we're being fed. For sure. - adavis99, on 07/02/2009, -2/+29A: Iraq is a cluster f**k.
- AmazingSteve, on 07/02/2009, -15/+37So you mean the war is a TOTAL failure?
- rotundo, on 07/02/2009, -6/+27"Any notion that the invasion of Iraq was simply an oil grab took another hit on Tuesday"
What a stupid opening statement to an otherwise interesting article. Just because something didn't work out as planned doesn't mean the motivation wasn't there. It is a matter of public record that people were saying the war would bring oil prices down. It didn't, but it still counts as one of the justifications.
I'll accept that it wasn't "simply" an oil grab. There were many reasons and rationales used. But oil was a huge part of it, and no post-war failure is going to erase that dirty memory from history. - ProjectGSX, on 07/02/2009, -2/+15Looks like we need to invade again to get better terms.
- topgigmedia, on 07/02/2009, -1/+12yeah in leaving 3 historically and fundamentally opposing, waring factions in place in a very unstable region... That is such a better idea.
Face it, if the US was truly on an altruistic mission to remove horrid dictators, there were plenty of other places we could have gone before Iraq. - mparker21311, on 07/02/2009, -0/+11Is there anyone who still trusts the government?
The Government can forget getting support from this Millennial. - pintomp3, on 07/02/2009, -6/+15Where are those WMDs?
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -2/+10Whats the point of pumping oil in an area where pipelines will get blown up? The violence will pick up again and that will make oil logistics very expensive.
- ahac, on 07/02/2009, -2/+9Its not that the oil companies don't want the oil. They just want a better deal than they got offered now.
- walruspanzer, on 07/02/2009, -1/+7Interesting read. I heard about the auction but wasn't aware that it was completely unproductive because of political and social issues. This could potentially be a big setback for the Iraqi government and their plans for funding reconstruction projects.
- purpmint008, on 07/02/2009, -3/+8The US had many selfish reasons for invading Iraq.
However, I do not think that the American people were going to get cheap oil. You think that the oil companies are going to sell it to us for cheap? Hell naw!
The entire point was to invade Iraq and gain control over the last remaining major oil reserves in the world and then use that as leverage over other countries.
For example, the US can use its military force residing in the military bases to stop exporting oil to any country that opposes it (Russia, China, etc., etc.)
Get the point? Chomsky talked a lot about this.
So did Zbigniew Brzezinski. Look it up. - vision777, on 07/02/2009, -1/+6If it was about something else then what was it about?
WMD's - Not found.
Bad Dictator - There are worse all around the world why not go get them.
Responsible for 9/11 attack - The person responsible is in Afganistan.
One of the first things done when we took Iraq was to secure the oil fields not secure and save the people. That is all the proof needed. - undervalued, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6It wasn't about stealing wealth it was about dreams, magical sky men, and butterflies.
- neonoodle, on 07/02/2009, -4/+8So you mean plans never go awry?
- SpinningHead, on 07/02/2009, -9/+13"What's funny is that a bunch of people said that the war was for oil, and although many of us knew this not to be true, it was subsequently proven not to be."
Thats like saying the armed robbers were not actually trying to rob the bank because they were foiled by the police. - overtoke, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. This is why we attacked them. And oil for US dollars is the situation we are now enforcing there.
- sodade, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4"there were plenty of other places we could have gone before Iraq."
there were plenty of other US propped up evil dictators we could have gone after before Iraq.
There - fixed that up for you. - dalittle, on 07/02/2009, -3/+7The Iraq War was an oil grab. This is just posturing by the oil companies. I am sure they have lots of shady closed door deals going on this.
- mofro99, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3Thanks Vitriol, as a Muslim it always infuriates me to see morons posting lies about Islam. Especially because it happens so often. "OMG MUSLIMS HATE ALL INFIDELS BLAH BLAH." Every religion has its crazy fringe. But I've never seen so many willing to accept that EVERY Muslim is a wide-eyed terrorist ready to happen. They can all suck my camel *****.
They obviously watch too many Hollywood movies. - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3You're welcome mofro99.
I give Christians in the US a hard time -- because I know them. Also, they are in my face.
To be honest, I'd probably be annoyed by some Muslims in the Middle East as well -- but I don't live there. And in the scheme of things, there isn't much difference between what 99% of what they want and what we want; to have everyone leave them alone and let them raise a family.
>> The amount of terror our country supports is mind-boggling. When I heard the Bush admin was sending money to Mech, a group connected with al Qaeda, lots of money to stir up trouble in Iran -- I was kind of shocked.
That the Iranian people, are still genuinely decent towards American people (shove the government), after all we've done to them -- it's amazing. Americans would never have turned the other cheek if they had done anything like overthrow our president or finance terrorism in our country. And 90% of American's don't even know they were our ally at first sending in troops into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden.
Without jerkoffs in the media telling us who to fear -- we'd be getting along fine with most of the world. It's the scam the military plays to keep the cash flowing. - JCEEZ, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3Saddam lied about WMD because he was afraid of Iran invading.
- dse78759, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4I don't see how Iraqi Kurdistan is not going to get invaded by whoever wins the power struggle in Bagdad.
Turkey could also do it, since the last think they want is an emboldened Kurd state. - rotundo, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6Indeed that was a part of it. And the oil companies have made out handsomely.
You may remember prominent Republicans from before the invasion telling us that the war would be practically self funded because we'd save so much on oil. Which is a disgusting rationale in any case, but nonetheless it was said and it has proven to be false. That doesn't mean they didn't support the war under such pretexts. - ajkrik, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3The basic aim of power through government is to redistribute wealth . . . from the middle class to the wealthy, to the "poor". From the wealthy to the "poor" and on and on. Like Vegas, it isn't the end result of any individual transaction that is important, it's the cumulative effect of getting a piece off each transaction. Most of the money "spent on the Iraq war" went to corporations . . . not Iraqis. Politician's main duty is to get rich by giving their friends what they want.
- jasvll, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3I can't believe it's already time to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator, have that dictator turn on us and nationalize Iraqi oil, depose him, install a 'friendly' 'democracy', have it turn out to be too 'democratic', forcing us to install a 'friendlier' puppet dictator...
- mksmothers, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3Oil? We're still using oil? What is this1850? Is this really the best we can do? C'mon build a couple thousand nuclear power plants in the United States and tell the middle east, (Israel included) we won't be sending any more checks their way.
- skinturtle, on 07/02/2009, -2/+5That's exactly what I see going on as well. They still want that oil...all this is...is a pissing match to see who's more desperate and who's greed is greater.
You can be assured was about oil. Or at least it started out that way but times have changed since the occupation began... - solid12345, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2Please, even big-lib Oliver Stone himself said Bush had a naive view of the world and hoped to achieve greatness by "remaking" the mideast.
Remember, this is a guy who thought he was inspired by God to lead, he thought it was his crusade to spread freedom around.
Personally I love how more of the Nixon tapes are coming out because whether you think he was a crook or not, his conversations reveal he DID believe in what he was doing and not being president for corporate interests no matter what the left said about him 40 years ago. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2This is quite an enlightening article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090702/ts_nm/us_iran_ ... - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -3/+5You mean the weapons we gave them?
- FredFredrickson, on 07/02/2009, -2/+4Those same idiots?
You mean the people who denied that was why we went over there? - Silv3Ro, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2so instability and terrorism in Iraq is making possible oil-drilling deals potentially unprofitable for oil companies; furthermore, Iraq has so much oil it could become the largest producer in the world.
I wonder who (i.e. what countries) is backing and funding this instability and terrorism... - alexkreuz, on 07/02/2009, -5/+7It wasn't about stealing oil wealth from Iraq .. It was about stealing tax wealth from US taxpayers ..
You guys still don't get it? - evildemonic, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2In the forseable future, there is no scenario I can see where attempting to place sanctions against Russia or China wouldn't cause pure bedlam. Sure, if we are already in the midst of WWIII...
"Owning" Iraq wouldn't change that situation at all. What possible plan could we have where that would make any sense? Are you assuming we have much more military might than we do?
The reason we have so many military bases in the ME is due to oil, in a way. The specific reason is stability of the global economy. It's not because we want to control the oil, per say. The ME is a notoriously unstable region. Some people are quick to conclude that it is because of US meddling...but a little thought into this shows that to be wrong. The arabs/persians don't even get along with themselves (look at Iraq and Afghanistan)...Kurds, Shiats, Sunnis, it's a bloody mess. The stable flow of oil (energy) has been, is, and will continue to be a very important factor for the world's economy. Also, believe it or not, we are very close with certain countries in the ME. Kuwait, obviously. Saudi Arabia we are practically sleeping with. Egypt is the second highest receiver of US foreign aid (and has been for a long time). Israel is number 1...I wonder if that has anything to do with tensions in the ME...
As I stated in an earlier post, I would love to dialog on the reasons the US attacked Iraq, but that would be a 50+ page essay.
The reason Afghanistan was invaded should be obvious to any American. Besides the obvious (9/11) the US still feels partly responsible for the destruction of that once great nation during the cold war. Read up a bit on the cold war as it relates to Afghanistan and you will figure out what I mean. Also, Afghanistan has a chance at once again becoming a stabilizing influence in the area. Don't underplay the amount of weight this idea was given in the decision to go in there.
I'm not going to give you any song and dance about democracy and dictators. Anybody who paid attention during the 70s and 80s should know all about how we have backed terrorist regimes to further our interests. Remember the Iran/Contra affair? What do you think that was about?
At the risk of getting too complex for the average Digger, I will say just this: Do not discount the role that the Israeli lobby and growing concerns about Iran played in the Iraq invasion. - evildemonic, on 07/02/2009, -1/+3F.Y.I. Chomsky is a good speaker/writer, but his ideas are largely *****. (For a good example of this, read the book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", then read Chomsky's lengthy critique...he can be very convincing while being totally full of ***** at the same time.)
Iraq is pretty far from "the last remaining major oil reserve", try again.
To think that we would try to hold back oil exports to Russia or China is ridiculous! I mean, seriously, just think about that for a minute. Russia has more oil output than 10 Iraqs, lol. Just think of what political chaos would descend upon us if we tried stopping exports to those countries! All for what? To deny them ~1% of the world's oil? If you spent any time critically thinking about this, you would see that your assertions are boarding on the absurd. - wilhoitm, on 07/02/2009, -7/+9Yes, a TOTAL FAILURE and it is all George Bush's fault!
- AmnesiacJack, on 07/02/2009, -6/+8Duh the powers that be don't want an auction, they need all this to go on behind closed doors not out in the public eye.
- borez, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2@yojiffyskippy: Theory yes, conspiracy theory no.
- overtoke, on 07/02/2009, -1/+3That is absolutely and completely false. Bush has no ***** vision whatsoever.
We attacked iraq specifically to halt their sales of oil in euro. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -2/+4i wouldnt say total failure and all of bushes fault, but ill say it was bushes fault and a total failure
- cherrysweet00, on 07/02/2009, -2/+3Good thing our work there is done now. Profits'll be pouring in. Any day now. Any. Day. Now...
- noahhoward, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2@topgigmedia Lets see they have a government they chose, the majority are cooperating with each other and the only people who are trying to kill anyone are the remnants of the regime and the anti-americans. Yeah, actually the war sucked but they're better off now and on their way to becoming a proud, successful nation again.
- ebcreasoner, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Definitely not patience. I'll tell you that.
- ebcreasoner, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Should anybody truly trust any government. It's the silent souls selling off the very heart of our country.
- nathanbutnet, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1alexkreuz, I was going to point out the same thing but you beat me to it. Act two of stealing taxpayer wealth was the bailout of the financial industry it seems.
What is act three going to be? It seems all these tragedies always have an act three. - alais, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1dalittle, did you even read that passage before you linked it? Do you know the difference between crude oil and piping infrastructure? It would seem as if you're just another in a long line of tin foil hat kooks who don't get it.
- solid12345, on 07/02/2009, -2/+3The war wasn't about oil, it was about changing the political landscape of the mideast, it is sort of like the domino theory, the idea is if Iraq, the heart of the Arab world, becomes a functioning democracy this would spread to the neighboring countries. Of course if you want to get technical it is about oil in the largest sense we want a stable and pro-western trading partner, but that is just a piece of the big picture.
Not saying this theory will work but Bush did have a grander vision in his head, even if it was naive and incompetently executed. - ebcreasoner, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Why the hell did you have to say emboldened. Gross!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is