Threatening Iran: The High Cost of a Single War-Like Remark »
Posted by: populist 2 months, 4 weeks agoMost analysts say an actual attack on Iran would send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel - a level that would strangle economies worldwide and send the world into an economic collapse not since the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs kicked off the Great Depression. The repercussions of that would be staggering.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 65
-
0%
Lurch2 months, 4 weeks ago
Strangle the economy and drive us into a recession? No problem! Beer is a recession-proof commodity. The McCains will just get that much richer.
Reply-
0%
Teech2 months, 4 weeks ago
...."Most analysts say an actual attack on Iran would send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel - ..."
What are Bush and Cheney waiting for. Attack! Make up some lies later. There's still time for those guys to make another billion or two before oozing out of office and down to South America where war criminals can find safe haven.
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens2 months, 4 weeks ago
Could the absence of Hussien the Middle East bully be the cause of the oil prices? The oil countries don't need to be nice to us anymore, as they don't need our protection
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens2 months, 4 weeks ago
Could the absence of Hussien the Middle East bully be the cause of the oil prices? The oil countries don't need to be nice to us anymore, as they don't need our protection
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens2 months, 4 weeks ago
Could the absence of Hussien the Middle East bully be the cause of the oil prices? The oil countries don't need to be nice to us anymore, as they don't need our protection
Reply -
-
0%
mark-stevens2 months, 4 weeks ago
Nice going netscape... these were posted 10 minutes later, after I tried posting over and over and...
Reply
-
-
0%
spkguy2 months, 4 weeks ago
Only a fool or a fraud...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQd5HPCkYpQ
Wow! Talk about getting a free pass!
And John McCain voting 89% of the time with G.W.B. is change..I DON"T THINK SO!
Reply
-
-
0%
flyonthewallzz2 months, 4 weeks ago
The folks with diesel vehicles are already starting to play with putting Mazola in their tank. It works as long as the weather is not too cold.
5 bucks a gallon at the grocery store.
The supply demand concept is skrewed because folks that need to drive for work are topping off their tanks because they know it will only cost more later.
Secret energy policy!
I rode a bicycle to work until I was 42, F**** em!
Reply -
0%
icono12 months, 4 weeks ago
I think the price of oil will continue to climb irregardless of who is in the White House and or what the geo-political situation is in the Middle-East.
The American public should be aware of that possibility because it will be the general American public that suffers from higher oil prices not our politicians and or the wealthy.
Reply -
0%
flyonthewallzz2 months, 4 weeks ago
The truth be told: we have been getting it cheap!
I seem to remember folks talking about how much it would cost our economy if we cut back in order to reduce carbon emissions.
It seems that current policies are the very thing needed to make Al Gore happy.
Too bad so many folks have been caught with their pants down and no time to wipe.
We can wear that racing stripe with pride.
Sorry folks I am in a bad mood, my wife just bought my son a fancy convertible, and he does not even have his license yet.
Grouch, Grouch, Grouch!
Reply -
0%
flyonthewallzz2 months, 4 weeks ago
The truth be told: we have been getting it cheap!
I seem to remember folks talking about how much it would cost our economy if we cut back in order to reduce carbon emissions.
It seems that current policies are the very thing needed to make Al Gore happy.
Too bad so many folks have been caught with their pants down and no time to wipe.
We can wear that racing stripe with pride.
Sorry folks I am in a bad mood, my wife just bought my son a fancy convertible, and he does not even have his license yet.
Grouch, Grouch, Grouch!
Reply -
0%
truthiness2 months, 4 weeks ago
a global economy is vastly strengthened by a global currency. the implementation of which requires removing the current substitute, the american dollar. the first step would be weakening the dollar to the point people were looking for an alternative. (the euro is already being accepted in NY and Hollywood, among other US venues)
who would benefit from such an action? the G8 governments, the WTO leadership, the megacorps like haliburton and exxon-mobile and marlboro and coca-cola, the mega banks, etc.
another benefit would come to small business people who would be able to use the WWW to trade internationally with less encumbrance.
who would manage such a currency? the world bank? the WTO? something new?
and who would make and enforce the inevitable trade, currency, counterfeiting laws? interpol? the UN security council?
now you have centralized currency and infrastructure and legislation and enforcement. aka, a government.
of course, its just a theory.
Reply -
0%
Ruggaboo2 months, 4 weeks ago
Another Populist Pizza party tirade...
Iran is the world leading sponsor of terror groups.
Far from the leftist beatniks to decry the killing of American soldiers by Iranian weapons and training.
Iran is just another $hit stain in a planet crawling with third world thugs and tin horn dictators.
Iran's terror spawned government with nukes is simply unacceptable to all but the most unhinged left wing socialist wingbats.
Iran's drive and dream to control the Hormuz straits must never be realized at any price.
Reply-
0%
tchef2 months, 4 weeks ago
If you study history (recent in this case) you will find that Iran is a mess of our own creation. When we assisted in toppling the elected government because they where going to put the control of their oil in the hands of the government instead of the foreign companies and installed the Shah, we laid the groundwork for our current situation.
Reply
-
-
0%
ningyo2 months, 4 weeks ago
drill here--drill now--build refineries--we have huge untapped reserves right here that we cant touch because of lobbiests from sierra club and the socio-envi... hve huge nat gas reserves right off our coast that we cant touch but every other govt in the world is tapping--including china--drill here--drill now--as soon the our govt removed the restrictions the price for oil would drop like a stone--and then theres oil shale..3 trillion barrels or so..
Reply -
0%
ningyo2 months, 4 weeks ago
what is it exactly that you on the socialist left have against tapping our own natural reserves and producing fuel and energy at reasonable prices..that would feed a thriving economy ,lower prices on food and everything ,low inflation ,etc..technology has been steadily making all these things more efficient and cleaner as well..oh thats right...it doesnt make the marxist/stalinist america's bad agenda work when people are satisfied with their lives..never mind
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke2 months, 4 weeks ago
Perhaps its you comprehension of a free market.
Even if ANWR was opened up, the oil companies that would produce the crude would not funnel it down to the US at a below-market price because they love America so much.
It is sold to the highest bidder - whomever has the ability to pay the highest price. Supply & Demand is in full effect.
The impact would be minimal on the market and significant on the environment.
Reply-
0%
earthlingerer2 months, 3 weeks ago
Heck, we might even be forced at gunpoint to repay our loans to china with any oil that we free... better kept untapped.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
idov2 months, 4 weeks ago
The comment that seemed to trigger the latest spike in oil prices was from Mofaz that Israel will have no choice but to take out Iran's nuclear bomb facilities. But while Mofaz who was defence minister in the former government, he is not now, and his words were his private opinion, not in any way the policy of the government. It's ridiculous that a statement made in the internal political debate in Israel should have such an impact world-wide. The debate on this issue will see many more statements of this ilk.
For Israel an atomic bomb in the hands of a regime that has talked about destroying it is not acceptable. Israel will act as it did in Syria last year and Iraq in 1982 if necessary.
France gets 80 per cent of their electricity from atomic power but the US stopped building plants 30 years ago. America has many untapped sources of oil but because of internal politics they are not tapped. You can blame Israel all you want should oil prices skyrocket, but our concern is survival.
Reply-
-
0%
djn3nunez32 months, 4 weeks ago
"We should have been more proactive after the oil crisis in the 70's. We had a good look at that time of things to come but instead we got lazy and didn't work to make the changes that we needed to."
I don't think it's so much that we got lazy, the idea that we had to conserve, curb our appeitite for cheap oil, and/or develop alternative energy, got Raygunned. There is no massive profit in conservation.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Edmar142 months, 3 weeks ago
Israel gets to keep it because it has been attacked 5 times. It gets to keep it because even when their back was against the wall during the 1973 war, they showed civilized restraint and didn't use their nuclear arsenal. They get to keep it because they have a democratic society which isn't at the whim of some dictator or ruler. They get to keep it because they haven't threatened to wipe any Moslem nation from the face of the earth like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and now Iran has done in the past and present. They get to keep it because they haven't bombed a single mosque, sent suicide bombers into neighboring countries, fired missles daily into it's neighbor's civilian neighborhoods or set off car bombs in a crowded market place. They get to keep it because unlike their neighbors, they don't preach hatred of Moslems in their schools or synagogues. They get to keep it because they have shown that they are a responsible nuclear power. Is there anything that I said that is untrue?
Reply -
0%
Thinker222 months, 3 weeks ago
> How is that Israel gets to keep its 300 or so nuclear bombs but no other country in the ME can defend itself with a nuclear arsenal as well?
Probably because Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is threatened to be eliminated or "erased from the map".
> Israel does not rule the ME, much as it thinks it does, or aspires to.
This is correct. Israel does not rule the ME and does not aspire to. Israel only aspires to live in peace... but it did and will defend itself if attacked.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
nikkibabe2 months, 4 weeks ago
Quote:
"Iran is the world leading sponsor of terror groups."
Excuse me. It is USA that invaded, destroyed and occupied a muslim country. Iran has not done anything like that. I hope you read newspapers and watch TV. (May be FOX!!!!).
It is the leaders of US who should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. FYI: IRAN & SYRIA together are giving shelter to over 3 million refugees who have fled Iraq to escape US cluster bombs.
Reply-
0%
Thinker222 months, 3 weeks ago
> Excuse me. It is USA that invaded...
Excuse me but you either genuinely do not have a clue or pretend not to have a clue of what terrorism is.
This is a good definition of terrorism I recommend you to use in the future if you do not want to make a fool of yourself any more than necessary:
TERRORISM IS DELIBERATE ATTACKING OF NON-COMBATANTS WITH POLITICAL GOALS IN MIND.
Reply
-
-
0%
TheNewsseeker2 months, 4 weeks ago
The risk of having the oil price rising out of control is only one argument against a military attac in this area, but quite a good one. Like no other country, America depends on oil. Its price consists mainly of psychological components, with other words: What we pay for at the moment, is political instability. An attac could cause a worldwide crisis on the energetic and economic sector. Is it really worth that?
Reply -
0%
simonsez2 months, 4 weeks ago
"On the demand side, the USDA lowered corn consumption for feed and residual use by 150 million bushels. Corn use for ethanol is expected unchanged from last month's forecast at four billion bushels, or about 40% of the domestic consumption".
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/corn-rise...
Aren't we smart!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply -
0%
vor2 months, 3 weeks ago
Saddam was the bulwark that prevented Iran from surging West. Now he is gone by default we are the new bulwark and as the neocons have always desired Iran is now the target. But as this article shows, the consequences of such an act would be devastating. Yet as Cheney and his thugs have shown before they have no fear. They are after all the guys with the white hats on, right? The world no longer sees it that way. Not after Iraq and the refutation of diplomacy by this administration. What would be the response of such an attack by Russia, China, India, Japan, etc.? All of whom would quickly see their own economies devastated. The neocons are most dangerous because they refuse to learn from the past and because they feel their idealogy is invulnerable to criticism. We have seen this sort of belief before at the top of governments and the results haven't been the least bit pretty.
Reply-
0%
jimdoze2 months, 3 weeks ago
Saddam had been, long ago, a bulwark against Iranian expansion. He also demonstrated the exhaustion of realpolitik as the primary paradigm of American foreign policy. Saddam himself, said that the reason he maintained the WMD ruse was to keep Iran at bay. So ask yourself, what kind of world would it be if Saddam did have nukes? and, what kind of world would it be if he were proved to not have them and the U.S. did not have boots on the ground in Iraq? The former would produce a situation where the world would need to tiptoe on eggshells in his presence and the latter would open the doors to Iran taking the southern oil fields, then the Kurds going independent, followed by the Turks coming in to crush the Kurds and taking the northern fields. The so-called neocons had far more foresight than virtually anyone I have seen posting on these pages. Or is it that folks here simply yearn for realpolitik and would have had us re-arm Saddam or another strongman in his place?
Reply-
0%
vor2 months, 3 weeks ago
You ARE a neocon! And that is not to smear you it is simply that you agree with their policies. But we have to disagree as to the danger Saddam posed. He was too busy keeping his own house in order. If this proposition were made based on the fact the Quasay and Uday would have been worse than Saddam it would have been a proper argument but to say that Saddam was an imminent threat was absurd. Just yesterday Bush continued his backpedaling from statements made on the eve of invasion and after. I just think he got caught up in the neocon frenzy and didn't truly understand the consequences. All of this upbeat talk about Iraq is equally ridiculous. The best solution is that Maliki becomes a Shiite strongman in the way Saddam was for the Sunni. Only a strongman can rule such a country. We are simply babysitting what will once again become a volatile nation. The British creation of Iraq was flawed at origin and that is not easily repaired.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze2 months, 3 weeks ago
So now Middle Eastern oil is understood to be critical to the world economy? Will wonders never cease! Let's remember that the next time abuse is being hurled at the administration for taking us into Iraq.
If we need to walk on eggshells with Iran to keep the price of oil under control now, think of the leverage they will have over the whole world when they have nukes. That IS a situation that WILL LEAD to war, with far nastier consequences when it unfolds.
Reply -
-
0%
Thinker222 months, 3 weeks ago
> If US or Israel attacks Iran, Russia and China are not going to sit and sing KUMBAYA.
Why not? Do you have any reasons to believe that Russian and Chinese leaders or peoples love Iranian Ayatollas so much that they'll be willing to sacrifice millions of their own citizens and destroy their countries to save the Ayatollas?
Reply
-
-
0%
jimdoze2 months, 3 weeks ago
"You don't go and take countries for oil."
That is exactly right, Nikki! In fact, if you would look and think critically, you would realize that we didn't.
The simplest proof amongst many is that if we had, we'd have taken the oilfields and let the rest of the country be damned.
Reply -
0%
Thinker222 months, 3 weeks ago
> You don't go and take countries for oil. Drill your own oil and take a hike.
You're right, Nikki! Saddam did not listen to your advice, took Kuwait for oil and the rest is history...
...but, apparently, you have a problem with this history and your own advice, don't you?
Reply
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - No Bailout of Georgian Government Says Bob Barr
- 1.0 - The FED: Crimes Against Humanity
- 1.0 - We Live Under Such Well-Crafted Illusions...
- 1.0 - 10 Reasons Why We Need a New (Cold?) War
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
