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 ...
Hey, why don’t we make IRAN pay for it!!!
WWII ended the Great Depression...just sayin...
What might the price tag be if Iran isn’t stopped?
Obama’s saving us money already!
He only spent $6.95 on a tube of lipstick!
Hey, why don’t we make IRAN pay for it!!!
Like Iraq paid for that war? We’re about to pay for the debt left over from that war with Obama’s higher taxes.
What might the price tag be if Iran isn’t stopped?
How much did it cost Reagan to defeat the Soviet Union by invading them? Oh wait, he didn’t invade the Soviet Union. He didn’t invade any countries (other than tiny Grenada). It was genius George W. Bush who showed us that you need to invade countries to “stop them.” And look how that worked out - Iraq is now the closest ally to Iran.
WWII ended the Great Depression...just sayin...
So I guess the US isn’t bankrupt after all, if we can spend trillions on another mideast war?
WWII ended the Great Depression...just sayin...
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This war will end an era of <$15 gas...just sayin..
Any Iranian between them is only because Obama walked on the blood that was shed.
I always thought that, but have read other places now that some of the people elected a couple years before the War started putting a stop to some of FDR’s policies, as well as the Supreme Court ruling against FDR on a couple of things was what started the turn-around.
But I’m no expert!
10 Giants bombs that we have already paid for plus NO nation building = already paid for. Who runs these numbers?
Any Iranian “influence” between them
How about a few well-placed neutron bombs that are already paid for? Then exploit the oil fields for both Israel and us.
We don’t need their oil, wipe them off the earth with the nuclear bombs that we have in abundance!
Any study by the leftist Federation of American Scientists is automatically suspect. This one smells.
No real mention of the US just taking out Iran’s oil fields/pumping capacity/natural gas lines. That would cripple the economy without starting a major war.
Also, we would not “invade” Iran because they have a much larger, well armed Army than Saddam did (Just ask my son who fought against the Iraqi irregulars while witnessing what the 3rd ID did to the Republican Guard divisions.) No use risking ground troops when you can fight from the air and sea at much less a risk.
With US oil production reaching potentially all time levels, any oil loss from Iran could be made up from our own supplies. Now you know why Obama doesn’t want the Keystone pipeline built. It is our secret weapon in any “oil wars”.
Additionally, our military attacks would be aimed at Command and Control Centers of the Republican Guard, key naval facilities to stop “swarms” before they could be formed, and key anti-ship missile sites and ships.
Would also target some major missile bases.
Grant us air superiority from the beginning plus some very interesting cyber-attacks and EMP warfare.
Trusting any thing from the FAS is like trusting a pedophile to babysit your children.
I remember when Jeremy Stone headed FAS, he being the son of identified Communist Party member/KGB asset I.F. Stone. Go back and see what positions FAS took re the Soviet Union and our weapons programs during the Cold War. They weren’t on our side.
No need to say any more. Their past actions and positions tell us that they are not to be trusted.
Their past actions and positions tell us that they are not to be trusted.
Don’t know about them, but I do know that when a Bush economic advisor said the Iraq war would cost hundreds of billions, they canned him — and freepers booed him. Turned out he was on the low side. If you think an Iran war would be cheap, and wouldn’t cause economic havoc, you’re lying or dreaming. This is one reason the GOP lost - too many war lovers around romney. He even had to disclaim them at his third debate, saying “nobody wants another Iraq war.” Unfortunately, there are nuts who do.
Romney is a war lover?
LOL!!
Four posts in, and clarity hits the forum.
Exactly. How much would three nuclear weapons raining down on Europe cost the global economy?
Some ideas are so flawed, that most folks would be ashamed to be knows as the person who floated it. This article is a prime example.
The idea that we’re going to invade Iran is just a scare tactic by the Left.
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.
“Also, I must say I don’t appreciate being smeared with labels.”
Would you please link to the post where he “smeared” you with labels? Thanks in advance.
“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).”
That’s a really broad brush you’re painting. The “disasters” you pointed out were media driven, as well as the media driven Obama election. He’s got his Kill List, and is in love with his drones.
BTW, there was a milestone in Obama’s “real war” in Afghanistan this past week. 2000 good men and women killed. Where was the media? They were counting every person killed during the Bush administration. AND, there have been more killed under Obama than during the entire Bush administration. ROE are horrible there, and we need to bring them home ASAP.
“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.”
The first post where I saw the word “smear” was yours.
Would you please link to the post where he “smeared” you with labels? Thanks in advance.
Check #35
FYI, in that post, he accused me of a “smear” because I said he’s a Bushite. Apparently he considers the name of Bush a smear word. I certainly don’t mind being called a Reaganite.
By the way, the Iraq war disasters are very real, and they continue. The country has been in chaos for a decade. And its government — the government that came to power as a result of our invasion — is shiite, very strongly allied to Iran, and with a constitution that says the Koran is the ultimate arbiter. Sorry, but I consider it a “disaster” that thousands of America’s finest gave their lives for that.
My God! Here you go again!
Where have I EVER said that I support preemptive war?
We already at war, man! You either know that, or you have been asleep for virtually your entire adult life.
I’d rather see our civilization and culture survive; you on the other hand take a very nice, and very detached attitude. Perhaps you have been influenced by pervasive cultural relativism. Maybe it is a matter that is not of particular concern to you.
I first used the word “smear” when WilliamIII labeled me a “Bushite”.
I wasn’t perfectly sure what WilliamIII meant by that at the time beyond it being a slur in his mind, but the totality of his posts make it clear that he is suggesting with that label that I support “preemptive war”.
I do not, but I do support defending our civilization against the barbarians who beset it. They have declared war on us; to pretend otherwise would be deny a very important reality, maybe the most important reality of our time.
WilliamIII’s thinking, as I understand it, leads to the conclusion that surrender is preferable to war, because it is less costly up front, in both lives and treasure. What is not factored in are the post-surrender losses, and those would certainly be incalculable.
That’s how I see it. We’re already in a fight, and we had better be prepared to do what it takes to win it.
Where have I EVER said that I support preemptive war?
Do you or do you not support going to war against Iran?
WilliamIII’s thinking, as I understand it, leads to the conclusion that surrender is preferable to war,
By your logic, Reagan was in favor of surrender because he didn’t have us invading countries. He defeated the Soviets by containment and deterrence, not wars like Bush’s Iraq invasion or the Iran invasion that so many confused consertaives pant for.
“Also, I must say I don’t appreciate being smeared with labels.”
You need to learn how to quote something, and distinguish it from your reply.
Lordy...how long have you been on the ‘net?
You really ought to learn how to read.
What I have said to you already, I will say again; I SUPPORT DEFENDING OUR CIVILIZATION.
That's my position. Whether in any given case that might mean a shooting war is a question for another time. That's certainly the case with Iran. I support defeating Iran or more precisely the ideas that are driving Iran's foreign and domestic policies. How that can best be done is a matter for debate and discussion by people with a lot more information than I have. But the imperative is there.
Preemptive war? Go fly a kite.
Total horsepucky. Reagan was in favor of defeating Communism, and did so, thereby defending our civilization.
Your argument, if you can even call it that, posits two and only two alternatives to a problem with an entire spectrum of possible options for action. The point is to be SMART about our tactical and strategic choices. Smart peace would be preferable to dumb war, but smart war might well be preferable to dumb peace.
Dogmatism is not a survival trait. That's a truism you need to mull over and maybe take to heart.
Strawman argument by the old pro-Soviet disarmament and peace at all costs FAS. No one calls for an invasion of Iran, just areal and naval attacks, if necessary.
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.