Guest Derek L Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 All kinds of things can escalate, if the U.K, U.S is mired in a war with Iran then Argentina could take the Falklands and since they are backed up this time by many South & Central American countries there would be escalation on that front...as you know Iran is also allies with many of those countries currently Then there's Russia, China, India whom all need Iran Pakistan is on the Iranian side, Afghanistan & Iraq are too There is just too many countries that would get mixed up in this ..it's way too risky Argentina, even combined with the other South American navies, doesn’t have the capabilities to “take” the Falklands Islands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 The WW3 comment to more directed to the thread in general not to you. I agree we don't know what will happen I just felt the thread was going from one worst case assumption to another to another and so forth. I'd also like to point out that I'm against any strike. I think the consequences of even a so-called limited strike could be far worse than Iran having the ability to make a bomb. Although I'm of the mindset that they act rationally in their foreign policy and their rhetoric is just to shore up their domestic support and anti-western/Israeli support in the region. Fair enough. I dont really care which countries have nukes anymore. I dont LIKE them per say, and if I could snap my finger and make them all go away I would! But Im not going to willingly spend my money on that. Technology is spreading across the globe fast, and the countries that really want them are going to have them. If I was in charge we would just stop playing this game. We have all kinds of stuff right here in Canada to spend our money on. If Iran or any other country is acting in a way thats not conducive to our values we should sever ties with them and not trade with them, but thats IT unless they pose a direct threat to us. I dont wanna work and pay taxes to pay for any more projects over there... especially when most of them dont turn out very well. We have been at this for about a century, spent trillions of dollars, and the middle east is no more stable than when we started. At some point you gotta be willing to try something different. These are all deeply rooted sectarian and religion conflicts (Shia VS Sunni, Shia VS Jew, Sunni vs Jew, Kurd VS Sunni, Persian VS Arab, Jew VS Persian) with nationalism and rasicsm thrown into the mix. The idea that we are gonna fix this is laughable. The idea that its even in our interests to even try is debatable. The idea that its working is ridiculous. I assure you the west could spend 100 TRILLION DOLLARS in the middle east and it would still be a basket case when all was said and done, or worse. And the shia, and sunnis, and jews, will still hate each other. The only difference is that we will be a f__k of a lot poorer. Take the money we might spend fighting Iran and upgrade a Canadian bridge, or build an energy plant, or repave a road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Israeli women chant 'Death to Iran'...errrr...or, I think that's what they're saying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w5qClX22sY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 What is your objection to my comments? That you don't think Iran will have any allies? Well, its YOUR premise! Perhaps you could name some of those allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) The U.S is weak & vulnerable & cannot afford to get bogged down in another multi trillion dollar war Everybody knows this, it's the perfect time to capitalize on it I've been following your answers in this thread and I can't help but notice how you seem to take money and financing for granted in your arguments against the US. What do you think would happen to the rulers of either Pakistan or Afghanistan if the US cut off the money flow? And all the foreign aid of food and materials? Not to mention weapons! What do you think would happen to the economies of those South American countries if America closed its borders to trade? When you buy groceries (I'm assuming your mother doesn't do it for you and that you don't live on pizza and takeout) do you pay attention to how much fruit and vegetables come from South America? America would not be hurt by refusing to trade with those countries scarcely at all! She grows her own and has other, larger trading partners, such as Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean countries. Not to mention how eager Greece and Spain would be to take up the slack! There are a LOT of countries with agrarian economies so desperate for trade they couldn't care less about Argentina and politics! Are you yourself so independently wealthy you take financing for granted? Do you think everything works for free? How long would an Argentinian ruler stay in power if the Argentinian people started to lose their jobs while their currency inflated? You over-exaggerate the poverty of America to wage military actions and hyper-exaggerate the fiscal situations of any and all of her rivals, even and especially the "craphole" countries. This is why many of us here on MLW feel you are often blindly biased against the Americans. Edited March 7, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Wouldn't higher oil prices (as in skyrocketing prices) be a big drag on the global economy? who cares, we were talking about the net effect of war in the Gulf on Canadas economy. If our investment in that war was less than our profit from spiking oil prices, it would be a net gain for any country that exports oil, including Canada. I don't see anybody occupying Iran either, there is no need. There is ample firepower to utterly destroy Irans navy and air force in a couple of days, which means the Straits of Hormuz would stay open for all those that use that waterway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 I've been following your answers in this thread and I can't help but notice how you seem to take money and financing for granted in your arguments against the US. What do you think would happen to the rulers of either Pakistan or Afghanistan if the US cut off the money flow? And all the foreign aid of food and materials? Not to mention weapons! What do you think would happen to the economies of those South American countries if America closed its borders to trade? When you buy groceries (I'm assuming your mother doesn't do it for you and that you don't live on pizza and takeout) do you pay attention to how much fruit and vegetables come from South America? America would not be hurt by refusing to trade with those countries scarcely at all! She grows her own and has other, larger trading partners, such as Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean countries. Not to mention how eager Greece and Spain would be to take up the slack! There are a LOT of countries with agrarian economies so desperate for trade they couldn't care less about Argentina and politics! Are you yourself so independently wealthy you take financing for granted? Do you think everything works for free? How long would an Argentinian ruler stay in power if the Argentinian people started to lose their jobs while their currency inflated? You over-exaggerate the poverty of America to wage military actions and hyper-exaggerate the fiscal situations of any and all of her rivals, even and especially the "craphole" countries. This is why many of us here on MLW feel you are often blindly biased against the Americans. a war with iran will crash the worlds economy none of what you said will matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 a war with iran will crash the worlds economy How will it happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 How will it happen? Europe is just hanging on a thread.. the U.S can't afford to go more trillions in debt, China is barely hanging on Any one of these places goes down and the rest of the world will go down with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) Europe is just hanging on a thread.. the U.S can't afford to go more trillions in debt, China is barely hanging on Any one of these places goes down and the rest of the world will go down with them That doesn't answer the question. How about some specifics. Explain to me how the US debt affects its foreign policy. Give me some talk about interest rates, the Fed, monetary policy....something. Your answer to every question and counter argument is a variation of "I'm right because I think it will happen.' Edited March 7, 2012 by j44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) That doesn't answer the question. How about some specifics. Explain to me how the US debt affects its foreign policy. Give me some talk about interest rates, the Fed, monetary policy....something. Your answer to every question and counter argument is a variation of "I'm right because I think it will happen.' I don't have to explain a damn thing to you So, do you not think a war of this magnitude with Iran will affect the very fragile world economy? Edited March 7, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 I don't have to explain a damn thing to you So, do you not think a war of this magnitude with Iran will affect the very fragile world economy? Simmer down young fella. Were we or were we not in a discussion/debate? I'm continuing that debate. Why so angry? If you are going to disagree with someone you shouldnt fly off the handle when someone disagrees back. It is called debate. Isn't that what we are all here for? If you can't engage in debate without jumping down someones throat and name calling I don't know why you are here. And you really need to stop making these jumps from you saying that a war will 'collapse the world economy' to saying that I don't think it will 'affect' it just because I asked you to explain yourself. Nowhere in these pages did I say the economy would not be affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 I don't have to explain a damn thing to you So, do you not think a war of this magnitude with Iran will affect the very fragile world economy? You just broke all the rules of debate! If you don't have to explain your position, why should anyone else believe it? Or even consider it? Moreover, the idea that such a war would affect the world economy was YOUR premise! It is up to you to defend it! All you have done is turn the question around, as if somehow it is j44's responsibility to prove YOUR premise!!! More nerve than a bum tooth, as they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 You just broke all the rules of debate! If you don't have to explain your position, why should anyone else believe it? Or even consider it? Moreover, the idea that such a war would affect the world economy was YOUR premise! It is up to you to defend it! All you have done is turn the question around, as if somehow it is j44's responsibility to prove YOUR premise!!! More nerve than a bum tooth, as they say. Ill take a crack at it. He could be right, or he could be wrong. One thing for sure is the global economy is in MUCH worse shape than anyone knows. Economists, politicians, and bankers are trying to sugar coat things and make the public feel good about the economy so that they dont stop spending and start saving, which would cause a very serious recession or worse. But never mind what these people SAY... Look at what they are DOING. Central banks are acting like theres an emergency. Not only are rates pegged at or near historic lows, but we now have central banks coming out and promising no rate increases for years into the future. They are desperate, and things are much more fragile than people think. Short term scenario... Could another expensive and botched war be the straw that breaks the camels back? Its possible. Even just TALKING about war in the middle east pushes oil prices up. It doesnt matter if theres a real shortage of supply or not, because speculators will bid up the prices if they think a war is imminent. Thats just a fact. Those speculators know how bad we are at war, and that theres a high likelyhood of unforseen consequences, and a good chance we will dig ourselves a hole that takes us a long time to climb out of. Increasing oil prices could definately cause a recession. People in the west have no savings at all, and they carry a lot of debt. For many households gasoline and heating fuel are a big part of their budget, and if oil prices go up almost all other prices will go up too (food, clothing, etc etc). A lot of these people will default. Long term scenario... Modern wars are incredibly bad for people and besides the short term BUMP you get from war spending are disasterous for the economy. They rob people of wealth, and are used as a vehicle for the privileged to steal money from the rest of society, and they create debt. Modern wars are even WORSE than traditional wars because you dont get to keep as many of the spoils anymore... These non-defensive elective wars truly are like spending trillions of dollars digging a gigantic hole and then filling it back in. Good for hole diggers! Good for people that make hole digging equipment! But terrible for everyone else. The west SHOULD be trying to curb all this wasteful pointless spending, or spend on something that offers a return on investment. The US could have a brand new country with what was spent in Iraq, if they had put that money into infrastructure, research and technology. Its hard to know how much another expensive quagmire will damage our economy in the long term, or exactly how shitty all this debt is going to make life for future generations. Having said that, the global recession thats coming is going to happen whether theres a war in Iran or not. Its the result of 30 years of terrible decisions, and hundreds of millions of people living fat on other peoples money. This would just be one of many stupid and short sighted decisions, so theres plenty of blame to go around. You also cant necessarily think of the pending economic collapse as a bad thing either. Lets say youre sick and you need an operation to fix you... but you know the operation is going to be painful, and for a long time after it, you will be in much worse shape than you were living with the illness. It sucks going in for that operation, and youre going to have some rough times. But in the end one day youll be healthy again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peg_city Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Does anyone have a theory on why Israel/theUS would attack Iran if doing so would only delay the inevitable? It doesn't make sense to me. Your just creating worse relations with Iran in order to kick the can down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Does anyone have a theory on why Israel/theUS would attack Iran if doing so would only delay the inevitable? It doesn't make sense to me. Your just creating worse relations with Iran in order to kick the can down the road. I think their thought process would be that they would delay the Iranian program so that they could buy more time and hopefully come up with a solution or a way to stop it. I see Israel as being more likely to take this route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Your answer to every question and counter argument is a variation of "I'm right because I think it will happen.' You should see some posters on this board try to explain how the Shah came to power. Poster A: Well, in 1953, you see...there were these CIA agents in overcoats and dark sunglasses...Poster B: What about 1941? Poster A: Never seen it and Spielberg is so full of himself that I generally can't stand his movies. Edited March 8, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Iran cannot be trusted with the bomb. But I guess they need to have it for things to move forward, right? Question is can ANY country with nukes be trusted NOT to used them,we already have that answer,NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Question is can ANY country with nukes be trusted NOT to used them,we already have that answer,NO. How so? Since the Americans used nukes to end WWII and prevent hundreds of thousands of future casualties, what country with the Bomb has used it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 How so? Since the Americans used nukes to end WWII and prevent hundreds of thousands of future casualties, what country with the Bomb has used it? We don't know if they would have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths, you're allowed to guess but don't act like you know it was a fact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 We don't know if they would have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths, you're allowed to guess but don't act like you know it was a fact It’s not an assumption. Clearly if the Bomb wasn’t dropped, at a minimum further bombing of Japanese cities and the naval blockade of Japan would have continued……..If the planned invasion of the Japanese homeland had of occurred in late ‘45 to early ‘46, based on the precedent of Okinawa, hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers and millions of Japanese would have died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 It’s not an assumption. Clearly if the Bomb wasn’t dropped, at a minimum further bombing of Japanese cities and the naval blockade of Japan would have continued……..If the planned invasion of the Japanese homeland had of occurred in late ‘45 to early ‘46, based on the precedent of Okinawa, hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers and millions of Japanese would have died. yes it is an assumption, do you not know the definition of assumption? Something accepted as true without proof; a supposition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 How so? Since the Americans used nukes to end WWII and prevent hundreds of thousands of future casualties, what country with the Bomb has used it? We don't know if they would have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths, you're allowed to guess but don't act like you know it was a fact It’s not an assumption. Clearly if the Bomb wasn’t dropped, at a minimum further bombing of Japanese cities and the naval blockade of Japan would have continued……..If the planned invasion of the Japanese homeland had of occurred in late ‘45 to early ‘46, based on the precedent of Okinawa, hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers and millions of Japanese would have died. Lesson #5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 yes it is an assumption, do you not know the definition of assumption? Something accepted as true without proof; a supposition Do you understand what precedent and trending means? Do you discount the landings (precedent) on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan and Palau? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Do you understand what precedent and trending means? Do you discount the landings (precedent) on Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan and Palau? we're talking assumptions here, you made a textbook assumption and you denied you made it I can assume a lot of things too ya know Edited March 8, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.