but, we don't need to rely on these things. we can simply cite the adversary.
For example, here. Heritage concedes the potential of significant negative economic consequences for Americans from a U.S. attack on Iran - consequences that most Americans would never go for, if they had any say in the matter. (as it is, most Americans tell pollsters they want the nuclear dispute resolved diplomatically, not militarily. Imagine what these numbers would be if the military option came with an explicit price tag of doubling the price of filling up your car with gas.)
Heritage argues that these consequences can be mitigated by correct policies, but:
1.) Most Americans wouldn't like these policies (drilling in ANWR.) 2.) Most reasonable people would not accept the claim that these policies would be significantly mitigating (opening ANWR for drilling far in the future would reverse a current spike in the price of oil?)
I think that's pretty damning, if that's the best Heritage can come up with.
Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:23:41 -0400
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Heritage: Economic Blowback from Bombing Iran Will be Easily Managed
> On 31 Jul, 2007, at 0:06 AM, dredmond at efn.org wrote:
> > On Mon, July 30, 2007 5:54 pm, Robert Naiman forwarded:
> >
> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/heritage-economic-
> >> blowba_b_58
> >> 383.html
> >>
> >> Heritage: Economic Blowback from Bombing Iran Will be Easily Managed
> >> Posted July 30, 2007 | 01:41 PM (EST)
> >
> > Fifteen minutes after the bombs start falling, the Iranians will
> > hand over
> > 5,000 RPG-29s, 1,000 anti-air missiles and 3,000 long-range
> > missiles to 20
> > million enraged Shiites. The resulting carnage would make Dien Bien
> > Phu
> > look like a tea party. Just too ugly to imagine.
> >
>
> I am not sure about this... we hear this sort of thing over and over
> again: when we attacked Afghanistan the story was that we had no idea
> what we were in for, these guys were wily guerrilla fighters who
> would throw us out in short order. When that didn't happen and the
> Taliban ran to the borders, and BushCo turned on Iraq, we said...
> Iraq ain't no Afghanistan. Boy you have no idea what fierce fighters
> the Republican Guard are! Well, they turned out to be just the sort
> of cowards that the term (Republican) seems to be associated with
> back here. Now it's Iran... well, we say now, Iran ain't no Iraq,
> depleted by years of sanctions. They are a spirited people, willing
> to lay their lives down against foreign aggressors... and so on. I am
> sure there will be some carnage, but well within what the likes of
> Heritage Foundation classify as the messy affair of democracy blooming.
>
> But then again, what the fuck do I know! ;-)
>
> --ravi