Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Putting a price tag on war with Iran


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,630 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:58 PM

Putting a price tag on war with Iran

(CNN) -- 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.
Here is the group's breakdown on various scenarios:

Note that all costs are median estimates for the first three months of any action. Costs projected longer than that involved too many variables, according to the group, and would be inaccurate to report.


More sanctions
The U.S. increases the financial pressure on Iran by imposing a new round of sanctions that penalizes any foreign bank that does business with any Iranian bank. Current sanctions only apply to large transactions related to Iran's energy sector. The sanctions would "seek to cleave Iran's entire energy sector from the world economy," according to the report. The new round of sanctions would also limit international lending, depleting Iran's foreign currency reserves.
Estimated Global Cost: $64 billion


Blockade
Even though Iran's economy is severely hurt by sanctions, a diplomatic agreement is not on the horizon. The United States aims to "cut off" Iran by blocking all of its oil, natural gas, energy equipment and services. A substantial amount of U.S. military assets are deployed to the Persian Gulf to enforce the shipping blockade. A worldwide ban is imposed on investments in Iran's energy sector. International lending to Iran and investment in Iranian bonds are also banned.
Estimated Global Cost: $325 billion


Targeted strikes
The United States leads a limited air and special forces campaign, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and military installations that are of some concern. In order to avoid escalation to a larger conflict the United States relies on the stealth and speed of this mission, not targeting Iranian military assets that could counter the strikes. U.S. forces run the risk of being targets.
Estimated Global Cost: $713 billion


Bombing
The United States leads a larger scale air campaign that targets Iran's nuclear facilities and its military to limit chances of Iranian forces being able to retaliate. Iranian air defenses, radar and aerial command and control facilities are bombed.
Estimated Global Cost: $1 trillion


Invasion
U.S. troops invade Iran. A naval blockade and "no-fly" zone are imposed as U.S. forces systematically take down Iran's military bases, destroying each installation one by one. Large numbers of ground troops would be needed for this mission
Estimated Global Cost: $1.7 trillion


De-escalation
The United States makes concessions to resolve the conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Sanctions are temporarily suspended and America scales back its military presence in the Persian Gulf, redeploying an aircraft carrier to another area. Oil prices around the world drop, investments increase in the region and markets react positively now that the threat of a conflict is diminished.
Estimated Global Gain: $60 billion


Current sanctions
Not addressed by the group on Thursday were the current U.S. and international sanctions against Iran that target the country's oil by cutting off the U.S. financial system from any entity that facilitates the purchase of Iranian oil through the Central Bank of Iran. The European Union also has an embargo on the purchase of Iranian petroleum. Combined the sanctions are crippling Iran's economy and has caused Iran's currency, the rial, to plummet to historic lows.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/world/iran-war-cost/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29


  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#2 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,911 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with food?
  • 3
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#3 SterlingArcher

SterlingArcher

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 945 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with food?


Too much to do the math
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image-Mod note: Inappropriate

#4 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:10 PM

if USA decides a war with Iran it will not be easy as it was with Iraq and Afeganisthan...

and if iīm not wrong, Russia is an Iranīs "friend" right?

Edited by aeromotacanucks, 20 November 2012 - 05:11 PM.

  • 0
Shup up and fly! youīre not payed to think, youīre payed to fly!

#5 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,821 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

Try taking care of your own people first.
  • 1
Posted Image

#6 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,421 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:58 PM

if USA decides a war with Iran it will not be easy as it was with Iraq and Afeganisthan...

and if i´m not wrong, Russia is an Iran´s "friend" right?


easy?
  • 1

#7 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:32 PM

ok. wasnīt easy. but with Iran it will be even harder...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! youīre not payed to think, youīre payed to fly!

#8 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,037 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:57 PM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with food?

Feeding the worlds hungry doesn't make money for the people that "matter" like a war does.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#9 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,362 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:58 PM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with food?


The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income. billion a year (equivalent to 0.5% of annual global income) would ensure universal access to basic social services (basic education, health, nutrition, access to water and sewerage disposal).
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image An effective improvement in the situation of the 20 poorest countries would cost 5 billion – equivalent to the cost of building EuroDisney.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Reducing the debt of the most heavily indebted countries would cost between 5 and 7.5 billion – less than the cost of a Stealth bomber.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Extreme poverty could be banished from the globe by 2015


United Nations Development Fund

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 21 November 2012 - 12:00 AM.

  • 1
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#10 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:14 AM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with food?


The costs that the UN as an example put for are based on a "perfect situation" where the will exists on all sides of the equation.

Even if say the the "have" countries decided provide to the "have nots" its still contingent on the political will or the "have nots" power structures (political, religious, cultural etc) to:

1) accept
2) effectively "disburse"
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

View Postnhlconspiracy, on 21 April 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.

Logic at its finest.

#11 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:17 AM

Only $3 trillion? Try more. Way more.

Iran has about a million trained troops, more than the population of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and twice the geographical area of both.

Afghanistan and Iraq were both in states of chaos, with leaders hardly having much control over their own military. Toppling them was like pushing over a fat kid who was bending over to grab a twinkie.

While it's still in the realm of do-able as far as the US bombing them into oblivion is concerned, it would put the US so far into debt and stretch their military so thin it would pretty much spell doom for their currency and thus economy. So, why not? Only problem is, Harper is a US lackey and would drag Canada into a mess like this as well.
  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#12 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,178 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:12 AM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with schools?

fify
  • 0
Posted Image

If the way Torts stepped up doesn't inspire anyone to work harder, I'll drive them to the airport myself.

</p>

#13 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:04 AM

No ground invasion is going to happen The USA is not going into another war after leaving one unless Iran does a 9-11 type attack. if anything happens it will be air strikes on Nuke facilities. It does'nt matter if Iran have 5 million in their Army 3-4 weeks of bombs landing on their heads they would all surrender and their officers would run away just like Iraq did in 1990.
  • 0

#14 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:07 AM

The cost of eradicating poverty is 1% of global income. billion a year (equivalent to 0.5% of annual global income) would ensure universal access to basic social services (basic education, health, nutrition, access to water and sewerage disposal).
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image An effective improvement in the situation of the 20 poorest countries would cost 5 billion – equivalent to the cost of building EuroDisney.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Reducing the debt of the most heavily indebted countries would cost between 5 and 7.5 billion – less than the cost of a Stealth bomber.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Extreme poverty could be banished from the globe by 2015


United Nations Development Fund


Right, yet Billions have been spent donated ect ect and still poverty goes on because you know why? These "poor" countries are rife with corruption from the top down who just steal the money or food and buy weapons of war.
  • 0

#15 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,630 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

It does'nt matter if Iran have 5 million in their Army 3-4 weeks of bombs landing on their heads they would all surrender and their officers would run away just like Iraq did in 1990.


Yes just like how the Iraq's and Afghani's surrendered in under a month...
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#16 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:15 PM

USA forgets about these things:

1) Iran has an airforce and can defend itself, and they have allies (Russia, China, etc)

2) an angry mob using junkyard weapons can be a very hard challenge, because this angry mob will give their lifes to destroy the "intruders"...

3) letīs imagine that Iran really has a nuclear weapon, they will use them for sure if USA/Israel bomb them...

4) with a very high tecnology the USA had a very hard task against the rebels from Iraq and Afeganisthan. and the rebels used old soviet weapons. again, junkyard battle isnīt easy, it looks easy but it isnīt...

5) Iīm not sure if USA really wants another war. the economy isnīt wonderfull enought to spend on weapons...

6) it will cost a trillion at the 1st moment, but if the conflict goes longer it will cost more...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! youīre not payed to think, youīre payed to fly!

#17 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,630 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

USA forgets about these things:

1) Iran has an airforce and can defend itself, and they have allies (Russia, China, etc)
2) an angry mob using junkyard weapons can be a very hard challenge, because this angry mob will give their lifes to destroy the "intruders"...
3) let´s imagine that Iran really has a nuclear weapon, they will use them for sure if USA/Israel bomb them...
4) with a very high tecnology the USA had a very hard task against the rebels from Iraq and Afeganisthan. and the rebels used old soviet weapons. again, junkyard battle isn´t easy, it looks easy but it isn´t...
5) I´m not sure if USA really wants another war. the economy isn´t wonderfull enought to spend on weapons...
6) it will cost a trillion at the 1st moment, but if the conflict goes longer it will cost more...


1. Yes they can defend themselves, alot more than the Iraq's and Afghani's could but superiority is clearly claimed by the West.
Russia has more of a open friendship with Iran, China is more quiet on that front but yes they do support Iran. Would Russia or China 'intervene' if a war was launched on Iran?? Still tough to predict but definitely relations with the West would plummet.

2. Yup, Any nation, when the people are defending their own homeland against foreign invaders they make for the most formidable opponent.

3. You can imagine, but they dont have the weapon, and they would still need to develop/test the deployment system, and would have very limited range. So basically they would nuke there own land where the foreign troops amass. Most likely wouldnt go over very well with the civilians of Iran. Since launching a nuke against a true Nuclear Power like US or Israel would be a death wish.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Wars aren't fought to benefit the American people, there fought to benefit the military-industrial-complex which btw is foaming at its mouth ready to go.

6. Agreed, a lot more. Most likely trigger a new global cold war build up.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#18 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:10 PM

No ground invasion is going to happen The USA is not going into another war after leaving one unless Iran does a 9-11 type attack. if anything happens it will be air strikes on Nuke facilities. It does'nt matter if Iran have 5 million in their Army 3-4 weeks of bombs landing on their heads they would all surrender and their officers would run away just like Iraq did in 1990.


If it was that easy, the US would've done it already. Yes, they will drop a couple of bombs on their nuclear power plant and Iran will surrender in 2 days. Too bad reality doesn't work that way.
  • 0

Posted Image


#19 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,572 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:15 PM

How much does it cost to supply African countries with food?


Tree fitty
  • 0

#20 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:18 PM

1. Yes they can defend themselves, alot more than the Iraq's and Afghani's could but superiority is clearly claimed by the West.
Russia has more of a open friendship with Iran, China is more quiet on that front but yes they do support Iran. Would Russia or China 'intervene' if a war was launched on Iran?? Still tough to predict but definitely relations with the West would plummet.

2. Yup, Any nation, when the people are defending their own homeland against foreign invaders they make for the most formidable opponent.

3. You can imagine, but they dont have the weapon, and they would still need to develop/test the deployment system, and would have very limited range. So basically they would nuke there own land where the foreign troops amass. Most likely wouldnt go over very well with the civilians of Iran. Since launching a nuke against a true Nuclear Power like US or Israel would be a death wish.

4. Refer to point 2.

5. Wars aren't fought to benefit the American people, there fought to benefit the military-industrial-complex which btw is foaming at its mouth ready to go.

6. Agreed, a lot more. Most likely trigger a new global cold war build up.


Well, if US did decide to attack Iran, I will bet Iran will attack all the surrounding US base camps in Iraq and Afghanistan and will probably arm the Hamas to the teeth in their ongoing battle with Israel. It will be chaos for the Israeli people and the American bases near Iran. Iraq will probably become a battle ground.
  • 0

Posted Image


#21 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:32 PM

The price could be the very future of every living entity on the planet ..

Edited by Tearloch7, 21 November 2012 - 11:33 PM.

  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#22 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

Well, if US did decide to attack Iran, I will bet Iran will attack all the surrounding US base camps in Iraq and Afghanistan and will probably arm the Hamas to the teeth in their ongoing battle with Israel. It will be chaos for the Israeli people and the American bases near Iran. Iraq will probably become a battle ground.


Nah those targets are too tough. Not enough collateral damage either.

The ones they would attack are the ones in the AE and likely bahrain maybe kuwait.


An attack on these could have serious collateral damage to the economy.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

View Postnhlconspiracy, on 21 April 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.

Logic at its finest.

#23 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:34 AM

Yes just like how the Iraq's and Afghani's surrendered in under a month...


You never saw the thousands and thousands of Iraqi army waving white flags in 1991 and 2003 it took 21 days to roll on Bahgdad in 03 and just a month or so for Iraq army to be destroyed in 91 with a kill ratio of about a thousand to 1.. Afghan does'nt have an army they have an insurgency and hide behind women and children.
  • 0

#24 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:37 AM

If it was that easy, the US would've done it already. Yes, they will drop a couple of bombs on their nuclear power plant and Iran will surrender in 2 days. Too bad reality doesn't work that way.


You lack reading comprehension. I never said Iran would surrender if the USA bombed their Nuke facilities I said they would surrender if the USA started to bomb their military. 1st you take out lines of communication then you bomb the crap out of their positions then their commanders run a way and the rest scatter or surrender.
  • 0

#25 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:42 AM

USA forgets about these things:

1) Iran has an airforce and can defend itself, and they have allies (Russia, China, etc)

2) an angry mob using junkyard weapons can be a very hard challenge, because this angry mob will give their lifes to destroy the "intruders"...

3) let´s imagine that Iran really has a nuclear weapon, they will use them for sure if USA/Israel bomb them...

4) with a very high tecnology the USA had a very hard task against the rebels from Iraq and Afeganisthan. and the rebels used old soviet weapons. again, junkyard battle isn´t easy, it looks easy but it isn´t...

5) I´m not sure if USA really wants another war. the economy isn´t wonderfull enought to spend on weapons...

6) it will cost a trillion at the 1st moment, but if the conflict goes longer it will cost more...



Irans airforce is out of date and would not stand a chance against the USA.and most would flee to Iraq or some other neighboring country for safety. many Iraqi pilots fled in 91 and 03.

If Iran were to retaliate with a nuke then say goodbye to Iran that would be the dumbest thing Iran could do. I know many here want the USA to get nuked but you are all deranged.
  • 0

#26 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

You lack reading comprehension. I never said Iran would surrender if the USA bombed their Nuke facilities I said they would surrender if the USA started to bomb their military. 1st you take out lines of communication then you bomb the crap out of their positions then their commanders run a way and the rest scatter or surrender.


Man, you make everything so simple. You should be the commander in chief.
  • 0

Posted Image


#27 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,088 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:28 AM

If Iran were to retaliate with a nuke then say goodbye to Iran that would be the dumbest thing Iran could do. I know many here want the USA to get nuked but you are all deranged.


The kind of nuke Iran would have would be a small crude one. Even if they were still able to get it into Tel Aviv (the best target), it would have the kind of casualties that the bombing of Hiroshima had (around 100k after you include the effects of radiation and fire). Meanwhile, Israel most likely has an arsenal of advanced Thermonuclear-type devices that can be launched from ICBMs. Estimates put Israel's arsenal in the 200 range.

Regardless of Israel's small size, Iran does not want to get into a nuclear exchange with Israel.
  • 0

#28 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:35 AM

Dittohead.

I agree with you that Iranīs airforce is obsolete and if Iran decide for a nuclear strike would be insane...

BUT:

1) even obsolete is an airfoce, and as happened in Vetnam USAF isnīt 100% invincible, in Vietnam an old MIG-15 destroyed many F-4, F-4 was bigger and not agile compared to MIG-15 and the soviet jet was cheaper...

a brand new F-22 is 5 times more expensive than Iranīs F-14...

2) Iīm not sure if Russia or China would be quiet if Iran needs some help. the point is, how USA would react if one of them (or both) decide help Iran with weapons or even more?

3) the locals may decide protect themselves on some sort of "guerrilha" style. even with the country is caos the locals may unite themselves to fight the "enemy from distant lands" it can be a hard challenge because the conflict can be extended for many and many months. and somebody in USA will have to pay the bill. and Iīm not sure if the "payers" will like...

4) in 11/9 was diferent, the terrorist did first, but if USA decides for the first step will be diferent. and thereīs always a possibility of more "11/9" around the globe.

5) lets just imagine that China decides have their money back (the money borrowed to USA). if USA goes for a war with Iran they will be to concentrated in a military action because the enemy is bigger this time, and itīs more agressive. how Washington will react if the economy goes to another crisis during the war?

6) letīs just imagine that the other arabic countries decide help Iran.


even with a high tecnology a war with Iran wouldnīt be easy, and letīs hope that Russia or China decide be "quiet" because if one of them decide "go for it" things can be REALLY hard...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! youīre not payed to think, youīre payed to fly!

#29 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,045 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:39 AM

As the Neo-con fools found out in Iraq and the Afghan .. the easy part is invading .. then the blood and treasure factor comes into the equation .. America can NOT AFFORD another war ..
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#30 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:43 AM

Was there a calculation done for the copyright infringement lawsuit that the Beach Boys would push?
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.