And I am pretty sure that along the line I accepted this statement, and took the position that even in the face of a full on invasion -- we would not collapse.
We can debate the scenario in fantasy until we are blue in the face -- but what does it accomplish? It is like me saying -- if we have have a nuclear war with Russia tomorrow our country will collapse....certainly such a scenario is not a pretty one -- but why harp on things that have a extremely unlikely chance of occurring? If you want to have this debate -- fine -- but it makes more sense to me to take the position of a more likely outcome and debate the effects of that.
And I did argue that X will not lead to Y, by arguing that we can easily sustain additional borrowing right now to finance a war.
Europe is on the verge of implosion, Asia frankly is starting to have some problems as well, and our treasury yields are absurdly low -- and this is with Brent Crude Oil at $110. What would a full on war do the supply? It would be a shock -- but what would the price do? Double? I doubt it. Hell, we saw $145 dollar oil in 2008. To get there, we would have to undergo a 30% spike -- would Iran do that? Maybe -- can we survive it? Yes.
As long as we can borrow money at 2% -- we are no where close to a collapse. Is it a good thing to keep piling on debt? No -- but can we pile on some more and be ok right now? Yes.
At some point our overspending will cause us to collapse -- but that is not now -- and your claim was a full on invasion of Iran will cause that collapse. It is no proof of that to claim "at some point" our overspending will collapse us.
You need to make a case as to why the cost of an Iranian war will capsize our nation. I was generous with the $2 trillion mark -- a war might in fact be cheaper -- so, to make your claim legitimate -- you need to explain why the cost of an Iranian war (put a price tag on it and explain how you got there) will be the end of our country. Otherwise, your argument simply has no merit.
