English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Krauthammer: Attack on Iran Inevitable

Responding to a question on Iran, President Bush said on Tuesday: "It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force."

"Before" implies that the one follows the other, Charles Krauthammer notes in the Washington Post.

"The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy.”

Krauthammer weighs the costs of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities – while at the same time warning of the costs of doing nothing.

The mullahs of Iran "are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age,” he cautions.

The Post columnist points to these costs of attacking Iran:

Economic. An attack on Iran could send oil prices to $100 or even $150 a barrel overnight, leading to a worldwide recession.

2006-09-15 07:10:57 · 8 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

it hard to tell...

2006-09-15 07:19:41 · answer #1 · answered by Paul 3 · 0 0

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. I didn't listen to his speech on Tuesday, I am already puking every morning after hearing the news. In the past.... the economy always went up when there was a war..... . I just don't know now, I suppose as long as interest rates stay low we will be OK. We (USA) have a HUGE stock pile of oil. If they would stop exporting oil, well Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq will NOT and they have more oil than Iran. Bush would probably attack Iran and take it.

2006-09-15 14:20:33 · answer #2 · answered by kar_summers 3 · 0 0

I personally think an all-out attack on Iran would create a "Global-Conflict". The Russians, as well as the Chinese need that oil as badly as we do, and they'll be damned if they are going to let us control it. Now a strike on there nuclear facilities has already been done by the Israeli's, But they just rebuilt the facilities again. so it's going to be "All-Out-War" with them, or diplomacy. I think Diplomacy has already failed numerous times. Their liars, amongst other things. 1st. Sgt., 7th Special Forces, (Ret.) Vietnam, "67"-"70"

2006-09-15 14:45:49 · answer #3 · answered by KatVic 4 · 0 0

The US has enough of its own oil to last a while keeping gas at around $5/gallon. attacking Iran would benefit by being able to gain control over that oil, therefore, it would not bring about a worldwide recession.
second part is that Iran imports 40% of its gas, the reality is that Iran doesnt even have enough technology to supply its own country with enough oil. if other countries stop exporting to Iran, then they can take that 40% and export it to other countries, thereby lowering gas prices.

2006-09-15 14:27:29 · answer #4 · answered by kunta kinte 2 · 0 0

yes-escalation of hostilities in a region of the world rich with oil reserves will surely have a ripple effect on many products and goods manufactured with hydro-carbon by products. The real problem is determining how long such an effect will last.

2006-09-15 14:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by ews99999 2 · 0 0

Maybe not a recession but it would cripple the world economy. It would be a big problem. That is if they stoped exporting oil.

2006-09-15 14:19:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

WHAT CAN I SAY THE MANS AN IDIOT

2006-09-15 14:14:47 · answer #7 · answered by plutoniccatgirl 3 · 0 0

not necessarily, no

2006-09-15 15:04:45 · answer #8 · answered by kapute2 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers