War with Iran: spell it out.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Iraq has cost over $200 billion, and over 2000 soldiers' lives.

Now, the crazies want to go to start bombing Iran.

"Don't worry," they assure us, "no ground troops will be necessary!" (echoes of "cakewalk" and "greeting us with flowers" still ring in the background).

So, since apparantly all us Americans who disagree with you are powerless and impotent, I have a question for the crazies:

How much of our treasury do you intend to blow on this new war fantasy?

Iraq was crippled when you decided to invade. And even then, you're a quarter-trillion in the hole and 2000 soldiers are dead.

Now you want to do Iran.

So: what do you think the cost will be? Give me a dollar amount. Give me a casualty estimate. Spell it out.


q/q

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So: what do you think the cost will be? Give me a dollar amount. Give me a casualty estimate. Spell it out.


[/ QUOTE ]
$1 trillion cost, 1 million dead.
Cheap at double the price.

[BluffTHIS!]

You spell out first how many casualties would be caused by Iranian use of nuclear weapons on either Israel or other western countries (Iranian government has been reported to favor not only putting nuke warheads on ballistic missles, but also to have its operatives or terrorists drive a warhead to a target city to detonate it), the dollar cost to us cleaning up same and dealing with surviors' medical situations, and what we should be willing to do to prevent that. You give those estimates and last resort preventative options first before expecting replies to your question.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
You spell out first how many casualties would be caused by Iranian use of nuclear weapons on either Israel or other western countries

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop being a coward and answer the question.

If you think the cost is justified, you're free to explain why.

But at least be man enough to tell the truth.


q/q

[BluffTHIS!]

Be man enough to say first what the costs of doing nothing might be Mr. Appeaser.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Fine, he's a simple answer for you:

Iran will not start a nuclear war in the middle east. Neither would Iraq.

You are lying about both because it is politically convenient, and because terrorizing people into supporting your war plans is your best sales pitch.

Now, answer my question. How many lives, how much debt?


q/q

[LadyWrestler]

Have a fine day...if not today...soon.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran will not start a nuclear war in the middle east. Neither would Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your lying about what is obvious a possible scenario that is disgusting. Mostly probably because you don't care if Iran does carry out its president's threat after acquiring the means, "to wipe Israel out". This is more of the lib appeaser put your head in the sand to avoid having to take effective measures, which while costly, are less than the costs of doing nothing. Such positions are cowardice and nothing more.

By your reasoning the US should have stayed out of the Euro side of WWII and let Hitler run over europe and acquire nuclear weapons and *hope* he would be benevolent enough not to use them on us. Hope didn't stop 9/11, and hope won't stop another one or worse.

[QuadsOverQuads]

How many lives, how much debt?


q/q

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran will not start a nuclear war in the middle east. Neither would Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have this vague memory of Scud missiles being launched into Israel during Gulf I. I assumed that Saddam was simply trying to get the Isrealis involved so that neighboring Arab countries would choose up sides and create a regional conflict.

Israel showed great restraint. They probably won't in the future -- and I wouldn't have blamed them if they had chose a nuclear response.

If "starting a nuclear war" simply means starting a war that will involve the use of nuclear weapons -- you're way off base here.