5 ms·

>a 'propaganda war' much akin to the one we saw before Iraq and Afghanistan is slowly coming to life. Yep, it's been going on for a month or two now. Preparing

>a 'propaganda war' much akin to the one we saw before Iraq and Afghanistan is slowly coming to life. Yep, it's been going on for a month or two now. Preparing the public for another brilliant war that we can definitely afford. I'm fairly sure we (the US and UK, probably the french) are already at war with iran already, in the form of the various cyber attacks, assassinations and embassy closures that've been in the news in recent months. Here's a couple of articles on the subject, from the point of view of the war-weary and somewhat disbelieving british left. Trust me, we can't fucking believe they're doing it again either. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/06/iran-war-drums-terry-jones http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/06/iran-war... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war-already-begun http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war...

avar 15y ago
Preparing the public for another brilliant war that we can definitely afford. I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded? At least the Iraq war was arguably mainly about resource acquisition , have there been any studies about how cost-effective that resource acquisition is in the long term? The wars cost billions of dollars, but the invading forces now have control over billions of dollars of oil resources as well. Has anyone done a realistic cost analysis on how those two stack up against each other?
- cmillllllls 15y ago
  Although that may be correct, have gas or oil prices dropped here as a result? No, they went up (oil companies use "wars" and "storms" and other cracks in the road to say "lets let Opec profit another 20% this year bob" With that + the fact that the US is in debt of $16 trillion + and that number keeps growing, I think we can't afford it.
- MichaelSalib 15y ago
  Um, the US does not "have control over billions of dollars of [Iraqi] oil resources" now. Why would you think it did?
  - nazar 15y ago
    Give me one reason no to think that way?
    - gk1 15y ago
      The onus is on the person making that claim, not the other way around. You can't make a claim without any evidence, and then defend it by demanding evidence of the contrary.
    - pyre 15y ago
      This sounds like a "prove that God exists!" / "prove that he doesn't!" argument...
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Evidence of absence is always a tough one but one could point to the absence of significant troop presence there as of 2012. Any "control" that the US has over the oil in Iraq is in the form of contracts that US firms have to develop the oilfields, which are currently being bid against by chinese, russian and dutch firms: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/258812/20111130/exxonmobil-iraq-oil-kurdistan-contract-lukoil-shell.htm http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/258812/20111130/exxonmobil-i... http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/12/c_131243187.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/12/c_131... I'd note that politically, from this point forwards it's a big win for Iraqi politicians to support non-US interests as far as the oil, so the only special treatment we'll be able to get is the same as in Nigeria, etc: Bribe the right people and hope you did a better job than the Chinese.
      - nazar 15y ago
        Well, I might be wrong at this, I am not really good in politics, but when I hear in news that Libya is being bombed by US, UK, and FR and then I make a quick google search about Libya's major oil buyers and see that those are exactly the same countries that came to bomb them. Well the whole spirit of "bringing democracy to totalitarian states" disappears... From the first link you provided, I wonder why is it ExxonMobile to get the Iraqi oil contract before LukOil and others. Here in Turkmenistan, the major contracted oil/gas companies are Petronas(Malaysia), Petforac(Russia) and Dragon Oil(UAE). I wonder where is ExxonMobile and British Petrolium, ohh, maybe they are still busy at bringing democracy to other more oil and gas wealthy states such as Iran, Syria and Co.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  >I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded? Because the US is broke its debt keeps going up and its economy needs dirt cheap oil right now, not having it hit 200+ when Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormutz.
- scott_s 15y ago
  I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded? Based on the proposed budget: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/in-new-strategy-panetta-plans-even-smaller-army.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/in-new-strategy-panetta... A smaller Army would be a clear sign that the Pentagon does not anticipate conducting another expensive, troop-intensive counterinsurgency campaign, like those waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would the military be able to carry out two sustained ground wars at one time, as was required under past national military strategies.
rsheridan6 15y ago
I've been reading that we're about to go to war with Iran, any time now, since 2004, and it keeps not happening. I would be very surprised if we attacked Iran during the Obama administration.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure -- I mean back when he was elected I would have agreed with you, but since it turned out that he was worse than Bush he might actually do it.

avar 15y ago

Preparing the public for another brilliant war that we can definitely afford. I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded? At least the Iraq war was arguably mainly about resource acquisition , have there been any studies about how cost-effective that resource acquisition is in the long term? The wars cost billions of dollars, but the invading forces now have control over billions of dollars of oil resources as well. Has anyone done a realistic cost analysis on how those two stack up against each other?

cmillllllls 15y ago
Although that may be correct, have gas or oil prices dropped here as a result? No, they went up (oil companies use "wars" and "storms" and other cracks in the road to say "lets let Opec profit another 20% this year bob" With that + the fact that the US is in debt of $16 trillion + and that number keeps growing, I think we can't afford it.
MichaelSalib 15y ago
Um, the US does not "have control over billions of dollars of [Iraqi] oil resources" now. Why would you think it did?
- nazar 15y ago
  Give me one reason no to think that way?
  - gk1 15y ago
    The onus is on the person making that claim, not the other way around. You can't make a claim without any evidence, and then defend it by demanding evidence of the contrary.
  - pyre 15y ago
    This sounds like a "prove that God exists!" / "prove that he doesn't!" argument...
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Evidence of absence is always a tough one but one could point to the absence of significant troop presence there as of 2012. Any "control" that the US has over the oil in Iraq is in the form of contracts that US firms have to develop the oilfields, which are currently being bid against by chinese, russian and dutch firms: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/258812/20111130/exxonmobil-iraq-oil-kurdistan-contract-lukoil-shell.htm http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/258812/20111130/exxonmobil-i... http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/12/c_131243187.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/12/c_131... I'd note that politically, from this point forwards it's a big win for Iraqi politicians to support non-US interests as far as the oil, so the only special treatment we'll be able to get is the same as in Nigeria, etc: Bribe the right people and hope you did a better job than the Chinese.
    - nazar 15y ago
      Well, I might be wrong at this, I am not really good in politics, but when I hear in news that Libya is being bombed by US, UK, and FR and then I make a quick google search about Libya's major oil buyers and see that those are exactly the same countries that came to bomb them. Well the whole spirit of "bringing democracy to totalitarian states" disappears... From the first link you provided, I wonder why is it ExxonMobile to get the Iraqi oil contract before LukOil and others. Here in Turkmenistan, the major contracted oil/gas companies are Petronas(Malaysia), Petforac(Russia) and Dragon Oil(UAE). I wonder where is ExxonMobile and British Petrolium, ohh, maybe they are still busy at bringing democracy to other more oil and gas wealthy states such as Iran, Syria and Co.
tomjen3 15y ago
>I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded? Because the US is broke its debt keeps going up and its economy needs dirt cheap oil right now, not having it hit 200+ when Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormutz.
scott_s 15y ago
I'm going to assume that by "afford" you mean monetarily. In that case how do you know it can't be afforded? Based on the proposed budget: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/in-new-strategy-panetta-plans-even-smaller-army.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/in-new-strategy-panetta... A smaller Army would be a clear sign that the Pentagon does not anticipate conducting another expensive, troop-intensive counterinsurgency campaign, like those waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would the military be able to carry out two sustained ground wars at one time, as was required under past national military strategies.

rsheridan6 15y ago

I've been reading that we're about to go to war with Iran, any time now, since 2004, and it keeps not happening. I would be very surprised if we attacked Iran during the Obama administration.

tomjen3 15y ago
I wouldn't be so sure -- I mean back when he was elected I would have agreed with you, but since it turned out that he was worse than Bush he might actually do it.