11 ms·

That's only 5% though at ~$70/barrel. Didn't it use to be $100/barrel and civilization didn't end? Seems to me to be sensationalism to get clicks.

cf141q5325 7y ago
And to gather support for a war against Iran.
- nkkollaw 7y ago
  Yes, American media is pro-war nowadays for some reason, so that's entirely possible to me.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    What "American media" is "for" a war with Iran? I had the impression that the decision to stop the nuclear treaty was received with rather mixed feelings. The driving force behind any such development is Donald Trump, his administration and somehow the Israeli government that seems strangely eager to encourage Iran to start working on nukes again.
    - nkkollaw 7y ago
      Actually, Trump was advised by Bolton to attack Iran after they shot down the unmanned drone a few weeks ago, and was heavily criticized by the press for not killing 100 people over a drone.
      - bayesian_horse 7y ago
        Then you need to pay better attention. Most of the criticism was directed at the way he waffled about the decision. We don't know what actually happened in the brain of the president. On a good day he is lying, corrupt and lazy. On a bad day he has obvious cognitive deficiencies. So we can't know if he intended to follow through on the attack or if it was just a show. We don't know how certain he and his people are about Iran attacking the drone.
        nkkollaw 7y ago
        I see. I wonder though, he is lazy and has cognitive deficiencies you say, but he made billions and is the president of the United States. How do you account for that?
        bayesian_horse 7y ago
        For one thing, nobody knows how much money he had or has, let alone "made". We do know that he inherited about $400 Million through illegal schemes. Over a few decades, invested in the stock market, or almost anything else really, he could have been a totally unskilled billionaire. What he actually did, however, was to lose billions. There is indeed no apparent way he could have "earned" even a single billion, between all his failures. And no proof he ever personally owned a billion. He certainly seems in no rush to prove otherwise. And you don't want to get me started on what lead to his electoral win. It certainly wasn't his smarts.
        nkkollaw 7y ago
        LOL, that's pretty delusional. However, whatever makes you happy.
  - addicted 7y ago
    Trump was heavily criticized because he claimed that he stopped an attack he had authorized, when he learned people would die. His reason for stopping the attack was either transparent BS, or he was sleeping through the initial briefing when he authorized the attack in the first place, because there is absolutely no way that they realized only after the attack was in motion, that people would die. The more likely reason he stopped the attack was he watched criticism of a possible attack on Fox News, right after he had authorized it, since there was a segment around that time where Fox News hosts were discussing how it would negatively impact his polling to start a war against Iran.
- jwr 7y ago
  Exactly. I don't understand why everybody in the US seems to just accept that there needs to be a war against Iran. How is the US endangered by Iran? These strikes were on oil production facilities of the Saudi kingdom, which is known for beheading people, murdering journalists, and supporting the 9/11 attacks. The US is one of the top oil producers and has its own oil, as well as strategic reserves. Why does everyone accept that the US has to "retaliate" or wage war against Iran? Why is Iran even being named at this point? I think it is sad that we are allowing this to happen. Instead of making sure we don't completely destroy our planet and go extinct, we accept our politicians' war-drumming as a fact of life.
  - atlasunshrugged 7y ago
    I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran, in fact I would expect (based on listening to Podcasts such as Pod Save the World which is produced by some former Obama admin folks) that even much of the establishment is against it. I do have to say, I would have thought the rhetoric we're seeing would have cooled down now that Bolton is out. My conspiracy theory is that it's a false flag op, I'm guessing Saudi, Israel, and a few other players would love a diminished Iran so they can fill the power vacuum in the ME (or just feel more secure from not having a large power near them) and having America come in with a wrecking ball is a great way to accomplish their strategic objectives without getting their hands dirty. And many of those lobbies (Netanyahu, MBS, etc.) have strong voices in the current admin
    - jwr 7y ago
      > I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran I used the word "accept". The media is all about war and there is no public outcry, not even a strong dissenting voice. The discussions are mostly about when and how, not about why. It seems inevitable and obvious that a war is what must happen. This is what I find bizarre.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    Helpful to point out to Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 2.4 trillion. Also helpful to point out that's approximately 100 times the cost of the Apollo program.

cf141q5325 7y ago

And to gather support for a war against Iran.

nkkollaw 7y ago
Yes, American media is pro-war nowadays for some reason, so that's entirely possible to me.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  What "American media" is "for" a war with Iran? I had the impression that the decision to stop the nuclear treaty was received with rather mixed feelings. The driving force behind any such development is Donald Trump, his administration and somehow the Israeli government that seems strangely eager to encourage Iran to start working on nukes again.
  - nkkollaw 7y ago
    Actually, Trump was advised by Bolton to attack Iran after they shot down the unmanned drone a few weeks ago, and was heavily criticized by the press for not killing 100 people over a drone.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      Then you need to pay better attention. Most of the criticism was directed at the way he waffled about the decision. We don't know what actually happened in the brain of the president. On a good day he is lying, corrupt and lazy. On a bad day he has obvious cognitive deficiencies. So we can't know if he intended to follow through on the attack or if it was just a show. We don't know how certain he and his people are about Iran attacking the drone.
      - nkkollaw 7y ago
        I see. I wonder though, he is lazy and has cognitive deficiencies you say, but he made billions and is the president of the United States. How do you account for that?
        bayesian_horse 7y ago
        For one thing, nobody knows how much money he had or has, let alone "made". We do know that he inherited about $400 Million through illegal schemes. Over a few decades, invested in the stock market, or almost anything else really, he could have been a totally unskilled billionaire. What he actually did, however, was to lose billions. There is indeed no apparent way he could have "earned" even a single billion, between all his failures. And no proof he ever personally owned a billion. He certainly seems in no rush to prove otherwise. And you don't want to get me started on what lead to his electoral win. It certainly wasn't his smarts.
        nkkollaw 7y ago
        LOL, that's pretty delusional. However, whatever makes you happy.
- addicted 7y ago
  Trump was heavily criticized because he claimed that he stopped an attack he had authorized, when he learned people would die. His reason for stopping the attack was either transparent BS, or he was sleeping through the initial briefing when he authorized the attack in the first place, because there is absolutely no way that they realized only after the attack was in motion, that people would die. The more likely reason he stopped the attack was he watched criticism of a possible attack on Fox News, right after he had authorized it, since there was a segment around that time where Fox News hosts were discussing how it would negatively impact his polling to start a war against Iran.
jwr 7y ago
Exactly. I don't understand why everybody in the US seems to just accept that there needs to be a war against Iran. How is the US endangered by Iran? These strikes were on oil production facilities of the Saudi kingdom, which is known for beheading people, murdering journalists, and supporting the 9/11 attacks. The US is one of the top oil producers and has its own oil, as well as strategic reserves. Why does everyone accept that the US has to "retaliate" or wage war against Iran? Why is Iran even being named at this point? I think it is sad that we are allowing this to happen. Instead of making sure we don't completely destroy our planet and go extinct, we accept our politicians' war-drumming as a fact of life.
- atlasunshrugged 7y ago
  I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran, in fact I would expect (based on listening to Podcasts such as Pod Save the World which is produced by some former Obama admin folks) that even much of the establishment is against it. I do have to say, I would have thought the rhetoric we're seeing would have cooled down now that Bolton is out. My conspiracy theory is that it's a false flag op, I'm guessing Saudi, Israel, and a few other players would love a diminished Iran so they can fill the power vacuum in the ME (or just feel more secure from not having a large power near them) and having America come in with a wrecking ball is a great way to accomplish their strategic objectives without getting their hands dirty. And many of those lobbies (Netanyahu, MBS, etc.) have strong voices in the current admin
  - jwr 7y ago
    > I don't think "everybody" in the US thinks there needs to be a war with Iran I used the word "accept". The media is all about war and there is no public outcry, not even a strong dissenting voice. The discussions are mostly about when and how, not about why. It seems inevitable and obvious that a war is what must happen. This is what I find bizarre.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Helpful to point out to Americans that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 2.4 trillion. Also helpful to point out that's approximately 100 times the cost of the Apollo program.