Iran warnes US to not return carrier to Persian Gulf

[Gipper]

Gipper, et al,

It is a bad neighborhood.

​

(COMMENT)

It would be wise if Israel is vigilant and alert, but not actively defensive. Like any bad neighborhood, where the neighbors are offensive, rude, rough and intimidating, you don't go out of your way to poke the bear. But you do have to maintain the bravery to walk down the street.

​

(COMMENT)

For now, Iran is a "hot air diplomat." It talks tough, but the rhetoric is not credible. Iran doesn't have a weapon system yet. It may never have a weapons system. Iran is the "Mouse that Roars." It doesn't have a capability that can impact Israel. And, you cannot use deadly force against someone that talks tough - but has no real ability to hurt you.

Terrorism is a different animal all together. In respect to Iran, terrorist organizations came first. Iran is not the father of any one particular terrorist scheme. It looks for an existing aggressor or belligerent and then provides support some limited support.

The US, and other nations, think of Iran as a shadow benefactor and banker for the Hezbollah, and (anti-American) insurgents in Iraq. It was only in March 2006 that the US labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism; which mostly related to activities in Iraq and Lebanon. But if you ask the question: Which terrorist Organisations were created by or operate out of Iran, you hear the sound of silence. The IRGC (in particular the Quds Force element) operations much on the mission order as any Clandestine Service (US, Russian, French, China, etc). It conducts operations on a limited scale, usually in suggested or manipulative manner. But we don't refer to these other nations as conducting terrorist activity. The IRGC-QF provides training, weapons, and monetary support to allied activities in much the same fashion as the US did with the Mojahedin (Afghan) Islamic resistance fighters against the Russians.

​

(COMMENT)

What would you have them do?

You are suggesting that Israel is under threat from an imminent Iranian transgression, the potential transgression is credible and lethal. So you advocate:

Vigilante Activism: Israel taking the World Police Powers into their own hands and assaulting Iran; preemptively.

Yeah, when the US claimed Iarq had WMD, and we invaded Iraq -- how did that workout?

Do you wait for the Mushroom Cloud? In essence, YES! Before Iran can have a working weapon, it must test it; it is only prudent to see if it works. That is substantial evidence, and now begins to alter the paradigm. Once Iran has passed this threshold, then they can no longer be protected under the "Hot Air" scenario. The threat becomes credible and that signals the time to strike.

Iran may NOT in fact be building a weapon, but instead, playing a game to get world attention. It appears that Iran has hit a nerve and has a non-existent bargaining chip that it can trade. It is diplomatic blackmail using technology. And the US will give them just about anything in order for the US to limit further proliferation.

Most Respectfully,
R

If you are correct that Iran is not close to a deliverable nuclear weapon, than I agree with your position. Iran's leaders could very well be blustering in the hopes of an Israeli attack, that would help the leadership stay in power.

I can only hope that Mossad has the intel on their nuke program and knows exactly where it stands.

 

[RoccoR]

Gipper, et al,

I have no idea of what the Israelis might know.

If you are correct that Iran is not close to a deliverable nuclear weapon, than I agree with your position. Iran's leaders could very well be blustering in the hopes of an Israeli attack, that would help the leadership stay in power.

​

I can only hope that Mossad has the intel on their nuke program and knows exactly where it stands.​

​

​

(COMMENT)

But last years National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), as well as the 2007 NIE are not definitive.

In late 2009, the IC began to update the 2007 NIE on Iran, with the final version ​

reportedly completed​

in February 2011. Briefing Congress on the NIE behind closed doors, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ​

testified​

, “We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” But, “We do not know…if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”​

SOURCE: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...lear-program-what-intelligence-would-suffice/​

​

​

It is important that we work to set the record straight from the beginning. WE (the US - America) don't actually know if the Iranians are building a weapon, let alone know what progress they have made if they started.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[GenSeneca]

So Rob, if you understand that ending the Iranian nuclear program doesn't mean the same thing as delaying their program, then you're simply taking my statement out of context and arguing against your own strawman.

My claim: If X then Y = IF we do an Iraq style invasion of Iran THEN the US will face an economic collapse.
I am using a very specific scenario to propose a very specific conclusion.
Your argument: A does not lead to Y = Airstrikes alone will not lead to a US collapse.

I have never argued that anything less than a full invasion of Iran will lead to economic collapse in the US. Additionally, I have not argued that a full invasion of Iran is the most likely scenario for dealing with Iran. The only way to derive such conclusions from the statement, "preventing the first will lead to the second" is to completely ignore the context in which that statement was made, i.e. an Iraq style invasion of Iran to prevent them from EVER aquiring or using nuclear weapons.

Therefore, if you want to argue that X will not lead to Y, then we will be discussing the conclusion in the context of the scenario I actually offered. However, if you want to argue that something other than X will not lead to Y, or that X is not the most likely scenario by which we will deal with Iran, then you are merely offering a red herring.

Now as for your statement that another 2 trillion in spending will not sink us, you seem to be looking at that spending as taking place inside a vacuum without regard for any other negative factors, much less the high probability of them having a ripple effect. You do not appear to accounting for any of the obvious deleterious effects of an all out war with Iran in making such a statement.

And lastly, in defense of my assertion that the US is already in decline, just because an unknown portion of the USS America remains above the water line does not change the fact that no less than $15 trillion worth of the ship is known to be underwater, that we have been steadily sinking into debt for over a century, and the pace at which we are sinking has drastically increased over the last decade. So the claim that we can handle $2 trillion more in debt may or may not be true, doesn't matter, at some point our overspending will collapse the nation. I'm sure the Greeks felt as you did about their own debt, that spending just a little bit more wouldn't result in catastrophe... and by the time they saw the warning signs, like thier interest rates reaching 6-7%, it was too late because such signs only become obvious once your ship is fully submerged below the waterline.

 

[dogtowner]

dogtowner, et al,

Good question!



(COMMENT)

It has been more than half a century, that Israel has established itself. And a number of Arab-Israeli Wars have been fought. You would think, by now, that the a new generation of Arabs would have adapted to the change in geography. But they have not. However, the frequency between wars has lengthened. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Both sides need to lighten-up a little. Neither side is without blame.

IMO, you are correct. The entire affair keeps the animosity between the cultures aflame. But if it can be reduced to a war of words, as opposed to a blood letting scourge --- then something useful was accomplished.

I'm sure the average Akhmet is over it and would love it if they could all just get along but leadership needs the tension. The wars have just taken a more minimalist mode as having had their fannies whuped in the old days was too embarrassing to risk again. No way it remains a war of words as it conflicts with the arab mindset.

(COMMENT)

Whether Israel was ever under our influence is a question, in and by itself. The approach to take is to have convinced the Middle East/Persian Gulf neighborhood that Iran is a problem that they have to face and deal. The key here is for the Arab World to understand that Iran might inadvertently light the fuse that ignites the region. It is up to America to stay out of the fight, and not provocatively promote a confrontation for which we will all be sorry for in the end.

BUT, if the US has to engage Iran --- we will have to make it a swift and lethal blow for which there is no recovery. Otherwise, the problem will reemerge for our next generation to deal with. This was the mistake we made with the Israel in 1948, and it is the mistake that keeps on giving. We cannot use the same logic and diplomatic think that has turn into dogma over the last half-century to fix the problems of the 21st Century. We don't want the same results --- we want a better world.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pretty sure the rest of the neighborhood is onboard with all you suggest at least in terms of risk but they won't fight or even scold for fear of seeming un-muslim.

IF it comes to battle it will be a pretty brief, mainly air and minimalist in terms of civilian targets. As to no recovery, that will have to take the form of the population saying no with authority. If the mullahs get the idea that they risk their authority they'll back off pretty quick. They would likely be content to be sort of wealthy and peaceful after this rather expensive lesson.

As to the future... thats in the hands of the population. They are the ants that can prevail by sheer numbers and just a little stubbornness.

 

[dogtowner]

dogtowner, et al,

You cannot think like a mid-20th Century American Diplomat that still thinks it is a Super Power. In order to understand Iran's Leadership, you have to think more like a medieval theif something on the order of --- Ali Baba.



(COMMENT)

Iran wants to be the "Regional Hegemony." It wants to be the Lord Protector of the Persian Gulf (its cultural name sake). It wants Power and Glory --- the Islamic State that made good. It wants the Persian Fleet to be in Bahrain, not the 5th US Fleet.

Most Respectfully,
R

just as Hussein had been, yeah I get it. like it or not we are still the superpower though China is gaining on us. other economies are certainly emerging and that changes the nature of things some but it will require a collapse of national will knock us off the perch.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

We all talk as if the motive for the bombing was to retard the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program.

But it is very unclear, if Iran is actually engaged in such a program. I am given to understand that "we" (the US) don't actually have any information that pins this down. (Rhetoric aside!)

Why conduct such an extensive operations on a "maybe."

Originally Posted by The DNI
In late 2009, the IC began to update the 2007 NIE on Iran, with the final version reportedly completed in February 2011. Briefing Congress on the NIE behind closed doors, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified, “We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” But, “We do not know…if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
REFERENCES:

• http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
• Exclusive: New National Intelligence Estimate on Iran complete | The Cable

SOURCE:

• Iran

​

I am haunted by what happen the last time we (America) proclaimed to the world that someone have WMD (thousands and thousands of tons). It wasn't a little mistake --- it was huge.

Originally Posted by David Kay, Director, Iraq Survey Group, CIA
A great deal has been accomplished by the team, and I do think ... it important that it goes on and it is allowed to reach its full conclusion. In fact, I really believe it ought to be better resourced and totally focused on WMD; that that is important to do it.

But I also believe that it is time to begin the fundamental analysis of how we got here, what led us here and what we need to do in order to ensure that we are equipped with the best possible intelligence as we face these issues in the future.

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
SOURCE: CNN.com - Transcript: David Kay at Senate hearing - Jan. 28, 2004​

We certainly don't want to repeat this mistake. I'm sure the last time we cried "Wolf" has not faded from everyone's memory.

I'm not sure of what the Israelis know - but I venture to say, it is not much more than we know. And thus, why would either nation conduct such an operation. (ANSWER): They wouldn't. It is more likely that some other player is trying to open a conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

We all talk as if the motive for the bombing was to retard the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program.

But it is very unclear, if Iran is actually engaged in such a program. I am given to understand that "we" (the US) don't actually have any information that pins this down. (Rhetoric aside!)

Why conduct such an extensive operations on a "maybe."

Originally Posted by The DNI
In late 2009, the IC began to update the 2007 NIE on Iran, with the final version reportedly completed in February 2011. Briefing Congress on the NIE behind closed doors, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified, “We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” But, “We do not know…if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
REFERENCES:

• http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
• Exclusive: New National Intelligence Estimate on Iran complete | The Cable

SOURCE:

• Iran

​

I am haunted by what happen the last time we (America) proclaimed to the world that someone have WMD (thousands and thousands of tons). It wasn't a little mistake --- it was huge.

Originally Posted by David Kay, Director, Iraq Survey Group, CIA
A great deal has been accomplished by the team, and I do think ... it important that it goes on and it is allowed to reach its full conclusion. In fact, I really believe it ought to be better resourced and totally focused on WMD; that that is important to do it.

But I also believe that it is time to begin the fundamental analysis of how we got here, what led us here and what we need to do in order to ensure that we are equipped with the best possible intelligence as we face these issues in the future.

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
SOURCE: CNN.com - Transcript: David Kay at Senate hearing - Jan. 28, 2004​

We certainly don't want to repeat this mistake. I'm sure the last time we cried "Wolf" has not faded from everyone's memory.

I'm not sure of what the Israelis know - but I venture to say, it is not much more than we know. And thus, why would either nation conduct such an operation. (ANSWER): They wouldn't. It is more likely that some other player is trying to open a conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BigRob]

So Rob, if you understand that ending the Iranian nuclear program doesn't mean the same thing as delaying their program, then you're simply taking my statement out of context and arguing against your own strawman.

My claim: If X then Y = IF we do an Iraq style invasion of Iran THEN the US will face an economic collapse.
I am using a very specific scenario to propose a very specific conclusion.
Your argument: A does not lead to Y = Airstrikes alone will not lead to a US collapse.

I have never argued that anything less than a full invasion of Iran will lead to economic collapse in the US. Additionally, I have not argued that a full invasion of Iran is the most likely scenario for dealing with Iran. The only way to derive such conclusions from the statement, "preventing the first will lead to the second" is to completely ignore the context in which that statement was made, i.e. an Iraq style invasion of Iran to prevent them from EVER aquiring or using nuclear weapons.

And I am pretty sure that along the line I accepted this statement, and took the position that even in the face of a full on invasion -- we would not collapse.

Therefore, if you want to argue that X will not lead to Y, then we will be discussing the conclusion in the context of the scenario I actually offered. However, if you want to argue that something other than X will not lead to Y, or that X is not the most likely scenario by which we will deal with Iran, then you are merely offering a red herring.

We can debate the scenario in fantasy until we are blue in the face -- but what does it accomplish? It is like me saying -- if we have have a nuclear war with Russia tomorrow our country will collapse....certainly such a scenario is not a pretty one -- but why harp on things that have a extremely unlikely chance of occurring? If you want to have this debate -- fine -- but it makes more sense to me to take the position of a more likely outcome and debate the effects of that.

And I did argue that X will not lead to Y, by arguing that we can easily sustain additional borrowing right now to finance a war.

Now as for your statement that another 2 trillion in spending will not sink us, you seem to be looking at that spending as taking place inside a vacuum without regard for any other negative factors, much less the high probability of them having a ripple effect. You do not appear to accounting for any of the obvious deleterious effects of an all out war with Iran in making such a statement.

Europe is on the verge of implosion, Asia frankly is starting to have some problems as well, and our treasury yields are absurdly low -- and this is with Brent Crude Oil at $110. What would a full on war do the supply? It would be a shock -- but what would the price do? Double? I doubt it. Hell, we saw $145 dollar oil in 2008. To get there, we would have to undergo a 30% spike -- would Iran do that? Maybe -- can we survive it? Yes.

As long as we can borrow money at 2% -- we are no where close to a collapse. Is it a good thing to keep piling on debt? No -- but can we pile on some more and be ok right now? Yes.

And lastly, in defense of my assertion that the US is already in decline, just because an unknown portion of the USS America remains above the water line does not change the fact that no less than $15 trillion worth of the ship is known to be underwater, that we have been steadily sinking into debt for over a century, and the pace at which we are sinking has drastically increased over the last decade. So the claim that we can handle $2 trillion more in debt may or may not be true, doesn't matter, at some point our overspending will collapse the nation. I'm sure the Greeks felt as you did about their own debt, that spending just a little bit more wouldn't result in catastrophe... and by the time they saw the warning signs, like thier interest rates reaching 6-7%, it was too late because such signs only become obvious once your ship is fully submerged below the waterline.

At some point our overspending will cause us to collapse -- but that is not now -- and your claim was a full on invasion of Iran will cause that collapse. It is no proof of that to claim "at some point" our overspending will collapse us.

You need to make a case as to why the cost of an Iranian war will capsize our nation. I was generous with the $2 trillion mark -- a war might in fact be cheaper -- so, to make your claim legitimate -- you need to explain why the cost of an Iranian war (put a price tag on it and explain how you got there) will be the end of our country. Otherwise, your argument simply has no merit.

 

[GenSeneca]

And I did argue that X will not lead to Y, by arguing that we can easily sustain additional borrowing right now to finance a war.

If you believe that argument to have merit, then answer the following:

What is the exact dollar amount of debt necessary for US spending to reach catastrophic levels?

While you're contemplating that, consider for a moment that you're still discussing an increase of debt as though it would exist in a vacuum:

A Cascade Effect is an unforeseen chain of events due to an act affecting a system. If there is a possibility that the cascade effect will have a negative impact on the system, it is possible to analyze the effects with a consequence/impact analysis. Cascade effects are commonly visualised in tree structures, also called event trees.​

Higher gas prices will lead to slower economic growth and would also have the potential to drag our economy into a recession or even depression. The worse the economy gets, the less revenue government collects, the less revenue going to government, the higher the deficits. Since we're already adding to the deficit with a new war, on top of our current wars, and in addition to all the other new deficit spending our government would deem necessary to get us through this "crisis" (more rounds of stimulus, bailouts, welfare etc), deficits hit a new record high. Record deficits continue to add to our record debt, pushing us farther, and faster, towards that mysterious numerical value of total fiscal insolvency.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to compensate for the new record deficits and debt, the Fed expands it's current policy of monetizing our debt. Basically, we just inflate our currency to pay the bills. Of course the rest of the world is watching as we intentionally devalue the US dollar, so they lose faith in the dollar as the gold standard of currency and drop it. The trillions of dollars currently circulating throughout the world thanks to the Feds record QE programs would come back to the US and it's only then Americans would actually see just how much their currency has been devalued through inflation. The feds only two means for fighting inflation is through manipulation of the interest rates, in the belief higher rates reduce inflation (the rates were as high as 20% under Carter, to fight inflation, which led to stagflation), and the destruction of currency to reduce the money supply.

In economics, stagflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high and the economic growth rate slows down and unemployment remains steadily high. It raises a dilemma for economic policy since actions designed to lower inflation or reduce unemployment may actually worsen economic growth.​

​

​

M2: Represents money and "close substitutes" for money.M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. Economists use M2 when looking to quantify the amount of money in circulation and trying to explain different economic monetary conditions. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.​

At best the economy is flat. Wages are stagnant. Prices are skyrocketing. Unemployment is on the rise. The public who was already holding angry demonstration about the new war is now rioting in the streets and engaging in open conflicts with police and other government authorities demanding "change".

Can't happen here, right? ... At least not any time in the near future... That's the hope anyway. The United States is special, but we're not that special. What I've just described has happened repeatedly throughout history, Rome, Weimar, Zimbabwe, and even more recently in Greece. As I said, we're already traveling at record speeds towards insolvency, so it's not that fanciful to believe the repercussions of becoming engaged in another ground war in the ME will shift us into an even higher gear and propel us that much faster toward the inevitable... But so could a lot of other factors.

Now having said all that, I agree, it's purely academic to contemplate a US invasion of Iran at this point as that's probably not going to happen any time soon. However, we will eventually run out of delay tactics and/or once again fall for some bit of misinformation that finally tips the scales and convinces the public that we have to put boots on the ground in order to quell atomic paranoia and achieve the serenity of 100% certainty.

 

[RoccoR]

dogtowner, et al,

REF: A slightly different discussion,

I tend to think that you might (I say "might") be thinking of a Super Power in terms of a 20th Century standard. A vast majority of the strength of a 20th Century Super Power rested with its ability to project military force. In that arena, the US is still a formidable defensive force; but it has lost its ability to tame the beast. It has proven that it cannot flip even small nations like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. While the US can win every military engagement, it can no longer offer a leadership model or example that draws foreign indigenous populations to embrace once liberated.

... ... .... like it or not we are still the superpower though China is gaining on us. other economies are certainly emerging and that changes the nature of things some but it will require a collapse of national will knock us off the perch.

(COMMENT)

But in today's world, in the 21st Century, one must think of a Super Power in different terms: Comprehensive National Power. This includes commercial influence, industrial influence, economic influence and political influence --- and to a lesser degree --- followed by military influence. The US has lost its industrial base. It can assemble major end-items; but cannot build them from scratch. That capacity is overseas; outsourced to the low bidder. The US has been stripped of its revenue from the middle class, acquired because the middle class was fully employed with new jobs coming on-line each year to absorb both the high school graduate and the college grad. That is gone. We have entered the first generation since WWII that does not have the reasonable expectation of attaining the same standard of living as the previous generation (as all the emerging generations do). Without the imported (outsourced) components, one cannot build a fighter jet, a tank, or even the simple radios within the cars. Your cellphone depends on the availability of these foreign components. And today, the Army talks in terms of Combat Brigades (something on the order of 33 today); not Divisions and Corps. The shear number of contractors hired by DOD alone demonstrates how dependent the force structure is on outside service support.

Today, a 21st Century Super Power is based on its ability to affect change on external economies. You are correct, without investing in the infrastructure nessary to bring America back in terms of commercial, industrial, and economic health, China becomes by default, the new emerging Super Power. But if it is not already there, it will only be another decade before it is universally recognized as the Power to recon with on any level.

​

​

The largest portion of U.S. debt, 68 cents for every dollar or about $10 trillion, is owned by individual investors, corporations, state and local governments and, yes, even foreign governments such as China that hold Treasury bills, notes and bonds.​

​

Foreign governments hold about 46 percent of all U.S. debt held by the public, more than $4.5 trillion. The largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the Treasury.​

In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.​

SOURCE: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/ss/How-Much-US-Debt-Does-China-Own.htm​

​

​

​

​

​

For every dollar you have in your pocket, somebody else owns over half.​

(QUESTION)

Who is the real Super Power?

Most Americans (in particular the Senior Leadership in Congress and the Administration) are resting on the laurels earned by previous generations and squandered by their inept management.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BigRob]

If you believe that argument to have merit, then answer the following:

What is the exact dollar amount of debt necessary for US spending to reach catastrophic levels?

I don't know the level in dollar figures -- my arguement is simply if you can borrow it for basically nothing -- you are not nearing a collapse.

To make your argument stick however (That invading Iran will collapse the nation) -- you need to determine that figure, and explain why such an invasion will get us there.

While you're contemplating that, consider for a moment that you're still discussing an increase of debt as though it would exist in a vacuum:

A Cascade Effect is an unforeseen chain of events due to an act affecting a system. If there is a possibility that the cascade effect will have a negative impact on the system, it is possible to analyze the effects with a consequence/impact analysis. Cascade effects are commonly visualised in tree structures, also called event trees.​

Higher gas prices will lead to slower economic growth and would also have the potential to drag our economy into a recession or even depression. The worse the economy gets, the less revenue government collects, the less revenue going to government, the higher the deficits. Since we're already adding to the deficit with a new war, on top of our current wars, and in addition to all the other new deficit spending our government would deem necessary to get us through this "crisis" (more rounds of stimulus, bailouts, welfare etc), deficits hit a new record high. Record deficits continue to add to our record debt, pushing us farther, and faster, towards that mysterious numerical value of total fiscal insolvency.

All of this is true -- and none of it backs up your original assertion. Your argument is that invading Iran will collapse the country -- because of overspending. Nothing you state above makes the link.

I have argued on the other hand that such action would probably not be above the range of a 30% shock to oil prices -- and we have seen such prices before and survivied.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to compensate for the new record deficits and debt, the Fed expands it's current policy of monetizing our debt. Basically, we just inflate our currency to pay the bills. Of course the rest of the world is watching as we intentionally devalue the US dollar, so they lose faith in the dollar as the gold standard of currency and drop it. The trillions of dollars currently circulating throughout the world thanks to the Feds record QE programs would come back to the US and it's only then Americans would actually see just how much their currency has been devalued through inflation. The feds only two means for fighting inflation is through manipulation of the interest rates, in the belief higher rates reduce inflation (the rates were as high as 20% under Carter, to fight inflation, which led to stagflation), and the destruction of currency to reduce the money supply.

In economics, stagflation is a situation in which the inflation rate is high and the economic growth rate slows down and unemployment remains steadily high. It raises a dilemma for economic policy since actions designed to lower inflation or reduce unemployment may actually worsen economic growth.​

​

​

​

I agree in theory -- but look around -- reality is not bearing it out. Our inflation rate is not through the roof, we continue to have positive growth, the demand for dollars at 2% shows that the dollars is not in any real danger as of now as being replaced -- can all of this ultimately happen? Sure -- is it happening now? Not really.​

​

At best the economy is flat. Wages are stagnant. Prices are skyrocketing. Unemployment is on the rise. The public who was already holding angry demonstration about the new war is now rioting in the streets and engaging in open conflicts with police and other government authorities demanding "change".

We have a ways to go before we get to that stage -- and I just don't buy that the invasion of Iran gets us there. How much do you envision this war will cost? $2 trillion over a decade? Will $200 billion more a year sink us? That is what you are claiming?

Can't happen here, right? ... At least not any time in the near future... That's the hope anyway. The United States is special, but we're not that special. What I've just described has happened repeatedly throughout history, Rome, Weimar, Zimbabwe, and even more recently in Greece. As I said, we're already traveling at record speeds towards insolvency, so it's not that fanciful to believe the repercussions of becoming engaged in another ground war in the ME will shift us into an even higher gear and propel us that much faster toward the inevitable... But so could a lot of other factors.

"Shifting us into a higher gear" is not collapse. Yes we spend a ton of money -- far too much -- but we can reverse that at this point.

Now having said all that, I agree, it's purely academic to contemplate a US invasion of Iran at this point as that's probably not going to happen any time soon. However, we will eventually run out of delay tactics and/or once again fall for some bit of misinformation that finally tips the scales and convinces the public that we have to put boots on the ground in order to quell atomic paranoia and achieve the serenity of 100% certainty.

Possibly -- possibly not. The good thing about "delay" is that we can let the scenario play out instead of blindly jumping in.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't know the level in dollar figures -- my arguement is simply if you can borrow it for basically nothing -- you are not nearing a collapse.

By the time it becomes obvious, it's already too late.

Your argument is that invading Iran will collapse the country -- because of overspending.

No, that is a strawman you have created. An invasion of Iran would set off a chain reaction of events that would lead to catastrophe. While our overspending would play a role, it represents just one link in the chain. So while all the links I cited, which you have agreed are true, do not support the strawman argument that overspending will cause the collapse, they do offer credibility to a catastrophic conclusion by way of the cascade effect.

Yes we spend a ton of money -- far too much -- but we can reverse that at this point.

Theoretically that's true but the political reality is, that's not going to happen...

 

[BigRob]

By the time it becomes obvious, it's already too late.

Maybe -- it depends on a lot of other factors.

No, that is a strawman you have created.

GenSeneca: For me, it's a question of which is worse... Iran getting, and possibly using, nuclear weapons... or the total economic and strategic collapse of America. Stopping the first will bring about the second, preventing the second will allow the first, which outcome you consider worse is entirely one's own personal opinion.

You offered no qualifers here -- your argument was invading Iran will collapse the country...period. I didn't create the strawman -- I took your argument at face value and you are backtracking at this point.

An invasion of Iran would set off a chain reaction of events that would lead to catastrophe. While our overspending would play a role, it represents just one link in the chain.

GenSeneca: Overspending is the cause, financial collapse is the effect. It would fallacious for anyone to point to any specific spending and try to claim that as the "cause" of the effect. So no, that's not what I was arguing when I said that an Iraq style invasion of Iran would lead to the collapse of the US government. Fact is, the US is already collapsing, an invasion of Iran would just hasten that collapse to a time frame within my lifetime.

This moved the goalposts from your first claim (or at least qualified it) -- but look at your last sentence. You argue the US is already collapsing -- and an invasion would hasten that collapse -- one has to assume because it would cause more spending. However -- you don't ever try to put a price tag on the war you cite as the cause of our collapse -- and instead speak generally about more spending because of this war -- but don't explain why we can't handle it.

I have argued that given our borrowing power right now we can sustain a 30% oil price shock and easily borrow an additional $2 trillion if need be to fund a war (10 year estimate, and a high one at that).

You have argued that an invasion will collapse us. You then argued that it will really just start a chain reaction that will collapse us -- but have yet to offer proof that we cannot sustain the additional debt load -- outside of some vague generalities that more spending is bad and will ultimately collapse us -- something no one disputes -- but something that was not the original claim. It is your assertion -- back it up.

So while all the links I cited, which you have agreed are true, do not support the strawman argument that overspending will cause the collapse, they do offer credibility to a catastrophic conclusion by way of the cascade effect.

They vaguely outline such a scenario -- but don't adaquately defend the assertion that invading Iran will doom us, or that we cannot at this point afford to do it.

Theoretically that's true but the political reality is, that's not going to happen...

Depends on how we change the political reality.

 

[Aus22]

Maybe -- it depends on a lot of other factors.




GenSeneca: For me, it's a question of which is worse... Iran getting, and possibly using, nuclear weapons... or the total economic and strategic collapse of America. Stopping the first will bring about the second, preventing the second will allow the first, which outcome you consider worse is entirely one's own personal opinion.

You offered no qualifers here -- your argument was invading Iran will collapse the country...period. I didn't create the strawman -- I took your argument at face value and you are backtracking at this point.



GenSeneca: Overspending is the cause, financial collapse is the effect. It would fallacious for anyone to point to any specific spending and try to claim that as the "cause" of the effect. So no, that's not what I was arguing when I said that an Iraq style invasion of Iran would lead to the collapse of the US government. Fact is, the US is already collapsing, an invasion of Iran would just hasten that collapse to a time frame within my lifetime.

This moved the goalposts from your first claim (or at least qualified it) -- but look at your last sentence. You argue the US is already collapsing -- and an invasion would hasten that collapse -- one has to assume because it would cause more spending. However -- you don't ever try to put a price tag on the war you cite as the cause of our collapse -- and instead speak generally about more spending because of this war -- but don't explain why we can't handle it.

I have argued that given our borrowing power right now we can sustain a 30% oil price shock and easily borrow an additional $2 trillion if need be to fund a war (10 year estimate, and a high one at that).

You have argued that an invasion will collapse us. You then argued that it will really just start a chain reaction that will collapse us -- but have yet to offer proof that we cannot sustain the additional debt load -- outside of some vague generalities that more spending is bad and will ultimately collapse us -- something no one disputes -- but something that was not the original claim. It is your assertion -- back it up.



They vaguely outline such a scenario -- but don't adaquately defend the assertion that invading Iran will doom us, or that we cannot at this point afford to do it.



Depends on how we change the political reality.

While I do not think the USa is close to collapse I think it can not aford another war. To attack Iran will cost more than money. It is only likely to have and short term gains. It might keep the Oil suppy for another decard. But oil will eventually run out over the world, and alternative fuels will have to be used.
THe main competition will be with China. They are moving from oil. Also the Pacific will be where most of the expenditure on defence will occur. Even to compete with the expansion of the Chinese navy will cost billions.
The West can not afford another middle east war which will have no long term benefits.

 

[GenSeneca]

Maybe -- it depends on a lot of other factors.

Our credit rating doesn't get downgraded because we might, someday, pose a risk, it gets downgraded because the risk is already present and the indicators point to the problem getting worse, not better. Interest rates on our borrowing don't go up because we might, someday, pose a risk, they go up because the risk is already present and the indicators point to the problem getting worse, not better.

GenSeneca: For me, it's a question of which is worse... Iran getting, and possibly using, nuclear weapons... or the total economic and strategic collapse of America. Stopping the first will bring about the second, preventing the second will allow the first, which outcome you consider worse is entirely one's own personal opinion.

You offered no qualifers here --

Except of course the quote I was responding to: "do you believe a full all out war in the middle east will?..." - Pocket
A "full all out war in the middle east" was the context in which my remarks were made, context which you have ignored since the beginning.

your argument was invading Iran will collapse the country...period. I didn't create the strawman -- I took your argument at face value and you are backtracking at this point.

You took my comment out of context to claim that "limited airstrikes" would not collapse the country and when I called you on that strawman you shifted to claiming that spending a couple trillion more wouldn't collapse the country, as if that spending would occur in a vacuum and that a "full all out war in the middle east" wouldn't have repercussions far beyond that of simply us spending more money.

GenSeneca: Overspending is the cause, financial collapse is the effect. It would fallacious for anyone to point to any specific spending and try to claim that as the "cause" of the effect. So no, that's not what I was arguing when I said that an Iraq style invasion of Iran would lead to the collapse of the US government. Fact is, the US is already collapsing, an invasion of Iran would just hasten that collapse to a time frame within my lifetime.

This moved the goalposts from your first claim (or at least qualified it) -- but look at your last sentence. You argue the US is already collapsing -- and an invasion would hasten that collapse -- one has to assume because it would cause more spending.

As I have pointed out, and you have totally ignored, there is a great deal more to the issue than just that of additional spending.

However -- you don't ever try to put a price tag on the war you cite as the cause of our collapse -- and instead speak generally about more spending because of this war -- but don't explain why we can't handle it.

My explanation: The cascade effect. We saw it with the housing crisis... Everything was "fine" until home prices began to drop, that was the catalyst which set off a cascade effect that crushed the entire system. My argument, invading Iran could be the catalyst for a collapse of the US. You remind me of those people who were wearing rose colored glasses during the housing bubble, ignoring all the warning signs as being trivial, insisting that everything is just fine, that nothing bad is on the horizon, that any problems will be seen long before it becomes an issue and that we will have ample time to avoid any kind of crisis.

I have argued that given our borrowing power right now we can sustain a 30% oil price shock and easily borrow an additional $2 trillion if need be to fund a war (10 year estimate, and a high one at that).

Yes you have, and such an argument is entirely one dimensional. You're assuming many things, primarily that a ground war and occupation of Iran would not have any other side affects beyond spending... like a 30% rise in the cost of oil would not cause our fragile economy to slide back into recession, or worse, a depression... where have you factored in the fact that tax revenues decline in down economies while spending skyrockets for social welfare, bailouts, stimulus packages? Oh, and don't forget to factor in the role political unrest would play in a country angry about our government starting a third war of occupation in the middle east, higher gas prices, a failing economy, etc... The issue has always been about more than just that of additional spending but anyone listening to your argument on the subject would never know it.

You have argued that an invasion will collapse us. You then argued that it will really just start a chain reaction that will collapse us --

It was always the chain reaction that would collapse us. I never claimed that our entire country would magically fall apart at the very moment we stepped foot onto Iranian soil.

but have yet to offer proof that we cannot sustain the additional debt load --

Because it's not just about the debt...

outside of some vague generalities that more spending is bad and will ultimately collapse us -- something no one disputes -- but something that was not the original claim. It is your assertion -- back it up.

I have backed up my assertions as best I can considering that I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario which does not lend itself to offering solid empirical facts. But let's also not pretend that you have offered more than "vague generalities" about how we can sustain huge amounts of additional spending while acting as though no other factors should even be considered because a war with Iran couldn't possibly have any other consequences.

They vaguely outline such a scenario -- but don't adaquately defend the assertion that invading Iran will doom us, or that we cannot at this point afford to do it.

When placed against your one dimensional view that considers only additional spending and nothing else, I can see why you believe I have not adequately defended my viewpoint.

Depends on how we change the political reality.

The political reality isn't going to change... It hasn't changed for more than 100 years and there's nothing to suggest that it's going to change.