The basis of my "bold claim" was an invasion of Iran, that's what Pocket and I were discussing in the post you quoted. At first you seemed interested in trying to understand how I could arrive at such a dire conclusion (a conclusion I'm sure some of the Pentagon war gamers also arrived at). You even asked what definition of "war" I was using and I told you. Rather than accept the definition I used and move forward on that conversation, you have been off on this tangent about how we're not going to have an actual war with Iran, just a few airstrikes (without acknowledging tthe slightest possibility of mission creep)... Maybe we disagree on the definition of war but that doesn't matter, you asked what definition I used to reach my conclusion, I told you, an yet here we are NOT talking about the subject I was discussing.
Now I tried to bring back up the topic I had originally broached by asking you what the result would be of an actual invasion into Iran, i.e. my definition of WAR: full invasion, regime change, insurgents, nation building, the whole nine yards... You declined to answer on the grounds that it can't/won't happen. My "bold claim" was based on the premise of that scenario, would your conclusion to that scenario be much different?
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.
