What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
Some interesting perspectives on the situation in Iraq. Gives me even more pause for us to help go after the Sunni insurgents.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0620/People-who-are-making-sense-about-Iraq
Click to expand...

Very good article. The linked interview on the limitations of COIN/CT doctrine is also good. Thank you for posting this.

There is intelligent coverage, we just won't find it in either the entertainment media (CNN, ABC, CBS) or the party propaganda organs (MSNBC, FNC). Those aren't doing journalism.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Very good article. The linked interview on the limitations of COIN/CT doctrine is also good. Thank you for posting this.

There is intelligent coverage, we just won't find it in either the entertainment media (CNN, ABC, CBS) or the party propaganda organs (MSNBC, FNC). Those aren't doing journalism.
Click to expand...

BBC or Al-Jazeera are your best bet.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

On Election Night 2012, by far the best coverage was on BBC America. Fox had Karl Rove trying to undo the election results and Bill O'Reilly speaking for millions of old people who the world has passed by, MSNBC had high fives all around, while on CNN John King was claiming we still lived in a center-right country on a night where the left retained the Presidency and gained seats in the House and Senate. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile with no fear of being called biased the BBC called it like it was, tellingly pointing out that if Romney was going to have a good night North Carolina should have been called for him pretty soon after the polls closed. A simple statement but more wisdom in one sentence than the rest of the networks combined (actually PBS wasn't bad, they're just a little too low key, like watching a poetry reading or something...:D)

But, back to the subject at hand, any TV show putting Dick Cheney on and asking him softball questions about Iraq deserves to be laughed off the air. What's next, getting investment advice from Bernie Madoff in his prison cell?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

walrus said:
I'm sure it was but to who and at what price? What else is Iraq good for? Getting to Iran?
Click to expand...

You want to compare oil prices from then to now? Toss in the cost of GWII while you're at it.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Slap Shot said:
You want to compare oil prices from then to now? Toss in the cost of GWII while you're at it.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing anything, Rover wanted to know why anyone would want to go back into Iraq, Oil is the answer.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The "blood for oil" meme never had any basis in reality. It was a Democrat campaign slogan, but in reality the U.S. companies never even bid on oil rights after Saddam got strung up. In fact China got most of the contracts with the new government, largely uncontested. IMO it was a mistake on our part to lay low at that point, if we had gotten some oil rights at least there would have been some benefit to the work of freeing them up in the first place. We did a great job of trading our blood for China's future economic security.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
The "blood for oil" meme never had any basis in reality. It was a Democrat campaign slogan, but in reality the U.S. companies never even bid on oil rights after Saddam got strung up. In fact China got most of the contracts with the new government, largely uncontested. IMO it was a mistake on our part to lay low at that point, if we had gotten some oil rights at least there would have been some benefit to the work of freeing them up in the first place. We did a great job of trading our blood for China's future economic security.
Click to expand...

I don't think we got into Iraq over oil. It was more a neo-conservative world view that we could go over there, kick some @ ss, and force Iraq, Syria, and then even Iran to become liberal democracies complete with constitutions drawn up by a US overlord (I think Bremer was called "Viceroy" or some nonsense like that).

However, we were sold the bill of goods constantly that Iraqi oil would pay for our costs over there, which makes me wonder why none of it ended up coming our way. Yet another miscalculation. At this point I doubt Iraqi oil makes up that much of the world supply, and if they're so concerned about the situation perhaps the Saudis can pump more to make up the difference.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
The "blood for oil" meme never had any basis in reality. It was a Democrat campaign slogan, but in reality the U.S. companies never even bid on oil rights after Saddam got strung up. In fact China got most of the contracts with the new government, largely uncontested. IMO it was a mistake on our part to lay low at that point, if we had gotten some oil rights at least there would have been some benefit to the work of freeing them up in the first place. We did a great job of trading our blood for China's future economic security.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It was for oil.

http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/2014/03/08/rachel-maddow-why-we-did-it/
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
However, we were sold the bill of goods constantly that Iraqi oil would pay for our costs over there, which makes me wonder why none of it ended up coming our way. Yet another miscalculation. At this point I doubt Iraqi oil makes up that much of the world supply, and if they're so concerned about the situation perhaps the Saudis can pump more to make up the difference.
Click to expand...
That bill of goods never made any sense to those who understand the Middle East and world oil markets. The money we put into Iraq was never coming back to us. The best we might get is a decent stable Iraq, though that was never a likely outcome.

My understanding is that Iraq is now a fairly large oil producer again, and if their supplies disappeared off world oil markets, it would be quite noticeable, though not cataclysmic.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
The "blood for oil" meme never had any basis in reality. It was a Democrat campaign slogan, but in reality the U.S. companies never even bid on oil rights after Saddam got strung up. In fact China got most of the contracts with the new government, largely uncontested. IMO it was a mistake on our part to lay low at that point, if we had gotten some oil rights at least there would have been some benefit to the work of freeing them up in the first place. We did a great job of trading our blood for China's future economic security.
Click to expand...

They were never "free", it's been tyranny by Shia majority this entire time. Thus, the rise of this "ISIL" group.
 
geezer said:
The "blood for oil" meme never had any basis in reality. It was a Democrat campaign slogan, but in reality the U.S. companies never even bid on oil rights after Saddam got strung up. In fact China got most of the contracts with the new government, largely uncontested. IMO it was a mistake on our part to lay low at that point, if we had gotten some oil rights at least there would have been some benefit to the work of freeing them up in the first place. We did a great job of trading our blood for China's future economic security.
Click to expand...

We were told by the Tories that the entire war would last a few weeks and cost 1-3 billion, which would be paid back by the grateful Iraqis from their oil revenues. So yes, it was very much planned to be 'blood for oil.' However, the war lasted a little longer than a few weeks, cost 1-3 TRillion, the Iraqis weren't grateful and sure as hell aren't paying us back from oil revenues as gas approaches $4 a gallon. So no, I guess blood for oil didn't have any basis in reality after all. It was blood for nothing.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
Not us. Them. The war was fought and paid for by the middle and lower classes in both countries, to protect the economic interests of the upper classes. Wars are welfare systems.
Click to expand...
I assumed the poster I was responding to was taking issue with all the money the U.S. government (us or at least our tax and borrowed money) put into Iraq. There are obviously other important dimensions to the war, but regarding finances, we poured a lot of money in there and I don't think it was reasonable to expect to see that money come back to us in any form, including as oil exports or revenues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top