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 ...
“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.
No one calls for an invasion of Iran, just areal and naval attacks, if necessary.
Right, it would be a cakewalk, just like the Iraq war.
It isn’t just the money. We don’t need anymore names on this wall...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPBQGu74oo&feature=youtu.be
I agree — although I’m no pacifist! Just don’t believe in “preemptive” war. Iran has been working on a nuclear program since the days of the Shah, and continuing after the mullahs took over. In other words, all through Reagan’s administration - but Reagan never talked about starting a war against Iran - and nobody accused Reagan of being an appeaser.
Reagan understood deterrence and containment. It destroyed the Soviets, it has protected Taiwan from China, and it can bring defang Iran. Please, no more preemptive Iraq-style wars. Especially when an Iran war could tank the economy!
Reagan was in favor of defeating Communism,
Yes, but not by starting wars.
We need Islamist lunatics with nukes even less.
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.