Maybe -- it depends on a lot of other factors.
GenSeneca: For me, it's a question of which is worse... Iran getting, and possibly using, nuclear weapons... or the total economic and strategic collapse of America. Stopping the first will bring about the second, preventing the second will allow the first, which outcome you consider worse is entirely one's own personal opinion.
You offered no qualifers here -- your argument was invading Iran will collapse the country...period. I didn't create the strawman -- I took your argument at face value and you are backtracking at this point.
GenSeneca: 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.
This moved the goalposts from your first claim (or at least qualified it) -- but look at your last sentence. You argue the US is already collapsing -- and an invasion would hasten that collapse -- one has to assume because it would cause more spending. However -- you don't ever try to put a price tag on the war you cite as the cause of our collapse -- and instead speak generally about more spending because of this war -- but don't explain why we can't handle it.
I have argued that given our borrowing power right now we can sustain a 30% oil price shock and easily borrow an additional $2 trillion if need be to fund a war (10 year estimate, and a high one at that).
You have argued that an invasion will collapse us. You then argued that it will really just start a chain reaction that will collapse us -- but have yet to offer proof that we cannot sustain the additional debt load -- outside of some vague generalities that more spending is bad and will ultimately collapse us -- something no one disputes -- but something that was not the original claim. It is your assertion -- back it up.
They vaguely outline such a scenario -- but don't adaquately defend the assertion that invading Iran will doom us, or that we cannot at this point afford to do it.
Depends on how we change the political reality.
