Posted on 11/28/2012 10:10:46 PM PST by WilliamIII
An all-out U.S. war with Iran, including an invasion by American troops, would cost the global economy close to $2 trillion in the first three months and could go as high as $3 trillion, according to a Washington think tank. A full-scale ground operation to dismantle Iran's nuclear program is unlikely but the scenario is just one of a handful that a group of nine experts, assembled by the Federation of American Scientists, examined to explore how the global economy would be impacted by U.S. action against Iran. "There had been talks about oil spikes, about what would happen with the Iranian nuclear program, damage to Iran itself but there had been no, at least in the open sources, large-scale looks at what was going to happen globally," said Charles Blair who co-authored the report.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Okay. Now tell us the price tag of not stopping Iran and allowing them to produce nukes?
They only want nuclear power to run energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs. /s
Okay. Now tell us the price tag of not stopping Iran and allowing them to produce nukes?
We defeated the Soviets — “stopped them” — without invading them. We’ve protected Taiwan from China for 60 years without invading China. As Reagan knew, deterrence works. Pre-emptive invasions (Iraq war, for example), not so much.
Why do we need a war? All ya have to do is bomb their oil derricks and refineries! They will be out of business!!!
Or if you DO invade... conquer, dammit!
If that would make them stop the nukes too, wonderful. I doubt it would.
I like Trump’s approach: “Take their oil!”
Only cost 2-3 trillion because we’ll feel obligated to rebuild it afterwards.
Bring back the punative military expiditions. Throw away the Powel doctrine. Abandon Middle east and pay some attention to South America and lets make some friends there.
You are correct. The only ones stopping Iran will be Israel; ( ( ( (( POOOOOF )) ) ) )
I read your first nonsense post and decided to let it go... (There ARE worse things than was, William.)
But this one, no it has to be answered. ANYONE who thinks that deterrence will work with Iran is an idjit who known nothing about Iran, Ahmadinejad, the Twelfth Imam, or what the government of Iran is prepared to do to prepare the way for his return.
“Ahmadinejad belongs to the mainstream of Shi’a Islam, known as ‘Twelvers,’” an article posted at www.kairosjournal.org stated. “They recognize a historical succession of Imams, connected by family ties, commencing with Muhammad and concluding with the 12th Imam.”
The 12th Imam was born around 868 A.D. at a time of great persecution of Shiites, the journal explained, and in order to protect him, his father, the 11th Imam, sent him into hiding. He appeared in public briefly at the age of 6 when his father died but then went back into obscurity. Shiites believe he continues to guide Muslims, and they expect his “messianic” return to bring order from chaos and righteousness from unbelief, Kairos said.
“President Ahmadinejad seems to think that the time is ripe for the 12th Imam’s reappearance and that, as president, he should play a role in opening the way for his return,” the journal said. “He is reported to have said in one of his cabinet sessions, ‘We have to turn Iran into a modern and divine country to be the model for all nations, and which will also serve as the basis for the return of the 12th Imam.’”
Like Bernard Lewis of Princeton, the Kairos authors said Ahmadinejad seems to believe “that the hand of God is guiding him to trigger a series of cataclysmic events which could precipitate the return of the 12th Imam. Only time will tell if this is his true conviction; but if he does hold such a view, his possession of nuclear weapons is a particularly scary prospect.”
(There ARE worse things than was, William.)
I’m a reaganite. He beat out enemies through deterrence and containment, not war. You’re obviously a Bushite, big on looking for excuses to invade and blow trillions of dollars, and send thousands of Americans to their graves. How’s that Iraq war working out for you? And the Afghanistan war — a real success!
Reagan won the cold war by outspending the Soviets. He spent so much on defense that the Soviets gave up the Brandenburg wall, and allowed the citizens to “tear down this wall.”
War had nothing to do with it.
The FEAR of war had a lot to do with it, though.
That was supposed to say “war” not “was”.
Also, I must say I don’t appreciate being smeared with labels. I most certainly do not appreciate being smeared with George Bush’s name, although I imagine that I don’t have quite the disdain for him that you do.
If I am any kind of “ite” I am a Hayekite. So what?
While we are clearing things up, it would be worthwhile to distinguish between properly and well executed wars and wars bungled with inchoate war goals and self-defeating tactics on the ground. Neither the Iraq war nor the one in Afghanistan needed to be as long or as costly as they have proven to be if they were fought to win, the old-fashioned way.
All wars, whether in the 7th century or this one, MUST be fought without restraint, but with intelligence, and massive and irresistible force; most importantly the war must not end until the enemy is utterly defeated, seen to be utterly defeated, knows itself to be utterly defeated; is left supine, exhausted, alone, unable to resist, spent and done. Anything short of that is not victory and is a simple waste of life and treasure.
After such a war, the victors rule the defeated and can build any kind of subsequent society they choose to - at the expense of the defeated. Fail, and leave behind a resentful, undefeated population ready to resume whatever nefarious activity led to the confrontation in the first place, just as soon as they have sufficiently rebuilt.
So don’t throw a bungled war at me as a justification for preemptive surrender. And don’t try to sell me the silly notion that we can fight the threat of Islam with the strategy that worked against the Soviet Union. That’s sophomoric, to say the least, and most importantly it just won’t work.
what you said.
Since we no longer know how to fight a war to a decisive victory, why bother?
We would just waste thousands more good men and trillions of dollars we don’t have just to slink back home with little to show for the effort.
I won’t support another war until we reinstate the draft. It’s one of the best ways to rid the country of large numbers of stupid, lazy young men, unlike our all-volunteer military which are mostly good, smart, and honorable.
The primary reason we did so well after WWII was the decimation of the European industrial base. We were basically the only game in town for the longest time, an invasion of Iran will most likely be much different with much different results.
If that would make them stop the nukes too, wonderful. I doubt it would.
This would cut off their money supply. Also they would have Riots after the food and fuel started running out.. Their regime would collapse!!
Also, I must say I don’t appreciate being smeared with labels.
Hey, you support preemptive war. Bush supported preemptive war. I just pointed out that you agree with the Bush philosophy that brought us the Iraq war — and all the disasters it caused (including the election of Obama). You’re entitled to your opinions, but you need to have the honesty to own them - and not label it a “smear” - when somebody calls them for what they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.