Washington Post: Start a war with Iran to revive the economy

[^_^ 5,021]

War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

...

With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

...

The nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907404.html

[Samoray 165]

I hope they would treat Israel as a threat to world peace as well for having a nuclear Arsenal for war purposes, and for refusing to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refusing to disclose it's nuclear sites, and programs

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century.

How so?

Edited November 9, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[mawilson 2,133]

I hope they would treat Israel as a threat to world peace as well for having a nuclear Arsenal for war purposes, and for refusing to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refusing to disclose it's nuclear sites, and programs

And who exactly has Israel threatened with its vast nuclear arsenal, pray tell?

[Danno 1,228]

War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

...

With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

...

The nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907404.html

PBJ responded to this same dangerous idea.

Broder's Brainstorm

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)

Posted 11/02/2010 ET

Though Obama "may lose control of Congress," says columnist David Broder, he "can still storm back to win a second term in 2012."

How does Broder suggest Obama go about it?

"Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II."

Conceding the prospect of a new war is "frightening," Broder goes on to list the rich rewards of Obama's emulating FDR.

"With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, (Obama) can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve...

"(T)he nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history."

Cynicism aside, what is wrong with Broder's analysis?

First, how exactly are "preparations for war" on Iran going to improve our economy when two actual wars costing $1 trillion have left us in the deepest recession since the 1930s?

Were those wars just not big enough?

If war is good for the economy, why is this nation, at war for a decade, growing at 2 percent, while China, which invests in rogue regimes rather than bomb them, is booming?

Moreover, any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be carried out by air and missile strikes from ships and planes already in the U.S. arsenal. We would not need the tens of thousands of ships, tanks, guns, and planes we needed in WWII, or the 12 million men under arms.

The first result of a U.S. strike would be to pull Iran's oil off the world market. If Iran responded by mining the Gulf or sinking a tanker, oil would go to $300 a barrel and gasoline to $10 a gallon. Does Broder think that would give a nice boost to the U.S. and world economy?

Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor united us in rage and resolve. Should we attack Iran's nuclear facilities, when its nuclear program is supported by both sides of that divided country, we would likely unite Iranians in patriotic anger and convince any doubters that Teheran must acquire nuclear weapons to deter us.

We would then have to invade Iran to win the war, as that would be the only sure way to remove a regime that would be hell-bent on revenge through terror and every other means.

Memo to Broder: We don't have the troops to invade Iran, which is three times as large as Iraq.

And as Obama's "preparations for war" are under way, how does Broder propose we defend our diplomats and civilians in Lebanon, who are a cab ride from Hezbollah in south Beirut?

Broder says, "Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century."

But a threat to whom?

Iran's next-door neighbor Turkey does not see Iran as a threat. Indeed, Turkey's prime minister got Teheran to agree to trade half its low-enriched uranium to the West for fuel rods for a reactor that makes medical isotopes. It was America that slapped away the offer.

Iraq's leaders make regular treks to Teheran for advice in forming a new government. Our man in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, admits to getting "bags of cash" from Iran. Syria has excellent relations with Teheran. Lebanon just hosted President Ahmadinejad.

If the neighbors can live with Iran, why are we, with 5,000 nuclear weapons, 6,000 miles away, so fearful?

Israel calls Iran "an existential threat."

But Israel has 200 nukes and the planes, subs and missiles to deliver them, while U.N. inspectors claim Iran has not diverted any of its low-enriched uranium for conversion to weapons grade.

Should it do so, say U.S. officials, we would have a year's notice before Iran could even test a device, let alone build a bomb.

We are told Ahmadinejad is a madman, a religious fanatic, a Hitler who would die happy, even if Iran were incinerated, if only he could explode a nuclear bomb on Israel or the United States.

But when Israel attacked Iran's ally Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in 2008, Ahmadinejad did nothing. Does that sound like Hitler?

When was the last time Iran started a war with anyone?

America has deterred Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong-Il, all men with nuclear arsenals and far more frightening than Ahmadinejad, who is well into his second term, unpopular, with an economy in shambles. Moreover, Ahmadinejad does not make the war-or-peace decision for Iran.

If Obama prepares for war and Iran refuses to back down, how many U.S. dead and wounded would Broder consider a fair price to pay for a second term for his "enduringly superior" leader?

[Samoray 165]

And who exactly has Israel threatened with its vast nuclear arsenal, pray tell?

Israel is a country of WAR, it is absolutely a threat to the world peace,

First they took Palestine, and they claimed it their home land and they called it Israel

and here is a list of countries that Israel has/had conflicts with as a result of land occupation aggression

Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and who knows what will come in future maybe they will say we had some ancestors in UK 3000 years ago and we have the right to return...

so you can't tell me it's not a threat for having a nuclear power

I think if Iran and north Korea has to disclose their nuclear capacities and programs, why Israel would be excluded ?

[Pooky 3,825]

Israel is a country of WAR, it is absolutely a threat to the world peace,

On the day the UN Mandate bringing the state of Israel into being took effect, six neighbouring Arab nations launched a coordinated attack on it. Is it any wonder, then, that Israel has developed its military strength?

Israel is not a threat to world peace. They have had nuclear weapons for 40 years and have shown no inclination to use them except in self-defence. The only threat posed by Israel is to their neighbours in the Middle East, and again, it is a case of self-preservation, maintaining the very existence of the state of Israel in the face of hostile neighbours and terrorist threats.

Iran, on the other hand, makes no bones about declaring the USA as "The Great Satan", holding Embassy staff hostage, sponsoring and supplying international terrorist organisations and generally agitating against Western nations, especially the USA.

So who is the greater threat to world peace?

Regardless of the Israel vs. Iran threat argument, the OP is dangerously dumb. Yes, conflict can boost an incumbent administration, as was clearly seen with the Conservative Party in the UK in 1983, the year after the Falklands War. But to actively seek to promote a conflict for domestic political gain? That is twisted, barbaric and downright insane.

[scandal 951]

On the day the UN Mandate bringing the state of Israel into being took effect, six neighbouring Arab nations launched a coordinated attack on it. Is it any wonder, then, that Israel has developed its military strength?

Israel is not a threat to world peace. They have had nuclear weapons for 40 years and have shown no inclination to use them except in self-defence. The only threat posed by Israel is to their neighbours in the Middle East, and again, it is a case of self-preservation, maintaining the very existence of the state of Israel in the face of hostile neighbours and terrorist threats.

Iran, on the other hand, makes no bones about declaring the USA as "The Great Satan", holding Embassy staff hostage, sponsoring and supplying international terrorist organisations and generally agitating against Western nations, especially the USA.

So who is the greater threat to world peace?

Regardless of the Israel vs. Iran threat argument, the OP is dangerously dumb. Yes, conflict can boost an incumbent administration, as was clearly seen with the Conservative Party in the UK in 1983, the year after the Falklands War. But to actively seek to promote a conflict for domestic political gain? That is twisted, barbaric and downright insane.

Very well said, Pooky. +1

[scandal 951]

Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan,

Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has made repeated peace overtures to all of its neighbors in the region, including Lebanon and Syria only to be rebuffed. Syria is a tyrant-run police state which actively supports and gives shelter to terrorists including Khaled Mashaal and the militant Hamas leadership who continue to call for Israel's destruction. Lebanon harbors within itself the Hizbullah state-within-a-state led by the terrorist Nasrallah. When these states moderate, Israel will be there with arms outstretched to sign the desperately needed peace agreements including land and border agreements, water sharing agreements, and joint security agreements. Just ask the Jordanians- they'll tell you.

[Samoray 165]

On the day the UN Mandate bringing the state of Israel into being took effect, six neighbouring Arab nations launched a coordinated attack on it. Is it any wonder, then, that Israel has developed its military strength?

Israel is not a threat to world peace. They have had nuclear weapons for 40 years and have shown no inclination to use them except in self-defence. The only threat posed by Israel is to their neighbours in the Middle East, and again, it is a case of self-preservation, maintaining the very existence of the state of Israel in the face of hostile neighbours and terrorist threats.

Iran, on the other hand, makes no bones about declaring the USA as "The Great Satan", holding Embassy staff hostage, sponsoring and supplying international terrorist organisations and generally agitating against Western nations, especially the USA.

So who is the greater threat to world peace?

Regardless of the Israel vs. Iran threat argument, the OP is dangerously dumb. Yes, conflict can boost an incumbent administration, as was clearly seen with the Conservative Party in the UK in 1983, the year after the Falklands War. But to actively seek to promote a conflict for domestic political gain? That is twisted, barbaric and downright insane.

I am talking from my point of view, but i am not gonna call you names like you did me.

to anyone who would like to know more information, do some research of the illegality of Israeli state, Breaking international law, Building illegal settlements, repeatedly aggressions toward the Palestinians in Gaza, and nuclear power.

[Samoray 165]

Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has made repeated peace overtures to all of its neighbors in the region, including Lebanon and Syria only to be rebuffed. Syria is a tyrant-run police state which actively supports and gives shelter to terrorists including Khaled Mashaal and the militant Hamas leadership who continue to call for Israel's destruction. Lebanon harbors within itself the Hizbullah state-within-a-state led by the terrorist Nasrallah. When these states moderate, Israel will be there with arms outstretched to sign the desperately needed peace agreements including land and border agreements, water sharing agreements, and joint security agreements. Just ask the Jordanians- they'll tell you.

Hizbullah, hamas, are against Israel but that does not make them terrorists for that purpose exclusively, and Israel is not a peaceful country either started all this and is like ( oh guys i wanna just take some more land, build my settlements, do blockades on Gaza people, have my own Nuclear weapons, and i want you all to just stand there and watch me ), let me tell you it's never gonna work this way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Iran...yeah. Why not? It needs to be someone we can fight with expensive hi-tech to minimize our casulties but stubborn enough to keep it up for 8 years or more. Short wars do not help the economy so much.

Better than hurricanes hitting the US and the insurance companies having to stimulate the economy.

[Pooky 3,825]

I am talking from my point of view, but i am not gonna call you names like you did me.

to anyone who would like to know more information, do some research of the illegality of Israeli state, Breaking international law, Building illegal settlements, repeatedly aggressions toward the Palestinians in Gaza, and nuclear power.

Please explain where I called anyone names in my post.