2005 , Israel & US attack Iran , markets die.

[wisestguy]

in 03 , when the war x Iraq broke out , the markets sensing an easy victory , busted out on the upside with a relief rally that " something was being done about that ' terrorist' state Iraq " .

this time a lot of people will expect the same thing and be caught by a sucker's rally , after the initial outburst , the markets and the $ will tank biggie.

this war will not be so certain or easy , conquering Iran will be much much harder than Iraq. remember Iran is a religious state , and in the Irn x Irq war , they volunteered in their thousands to die for their state .

also as Iran is leader in the shiite world , an attack on them may spark even more terrorist attacks in the US . they have the contacts , if need be . Iraq was a secular state and had no big theocratic sympathies.

this may be 1 hornets' nest too far .

hail hail rahimdullah ??

 

[MartinD]

I cant imagine the US would want a second Iraq on its hands, they are going to have troops tied up in Iraq for at least a decade at the current state of affairs.

North Korea however, unlike Iran DOES have nuclear weapons

 

[wisestguy]

s'why there's something called ze draft.

also , NK is a back water , whereas Iran is in the ME , which Israel and the US want to control . Iran may not have nukes but so what ? since when has that been a concern . Iraq had none . just make it up !

 

[roguetrader]

IMHO Iran would be no more of a problem than Iraq was, don't forget those two states fought a war for 8 years without any clear winner. On the flipside however Iran would, like Iraq, be no less of a problem to control in the aftermath, in fact probably more so, and for that reason I doubt the US will do anything more than sabre rattle with Iran. The will of the people is already stretched over the Iraq debacle.

 

[TWI]

Iran has moved on a long way from the days of the iran Iraq war, they have close commercial ties with not only Europe but also, and more importantly Russia and China and posses Russian hi-tech weaponary including sunburst missiles against which the US has no defence. On top of this Iran is pressing ahead with the Bashir nuclear program despite warnings from the US and Sharon. I think that the key change will come when Rumsfeld is replaced by his deputy Paul Wolfovitz. Woilfovitz is a very hard line straussian and PNAC supporter. I suspect Iran will happen along the lines of an Isreali sponsored air attack which will be condemned by most of the planet but supported and escalated by the US.

"We've been fighting a war for the past 18 months, which is the harbinger of World War III. THE WORLD IS GOING TO FIGHT, WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT. I'M SURE,'' Ra'anan Gissin, a senior adviser to Sharon, said in an interview Friday." - April 27, 2002 Interview By STEPHANIE INNES

Anybody who has doubts about the wider ME intentions should just have a look at the PNAC website, it's all laid out there and has been for years.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[wisestguy]

yeah man , don't forget the potential for terrorist escalation .

say good bye to big ben . in fact that would be getting off lightly . the extreme would be some royal assasination.

 

[mikeyk]

I think Iran is much moe likely to be attacked than North Korea as the real reason for Iraq's invasion as we all know is control of the middle east and hence control of the oil supplies. i dont think USA would do anything about NK unless they possessed a real threat to there supremacy.

I also heard al lot of rattling about Syria which might be a more likely target in the short term? Whatever ever happens i think its more likely than not that America will take on other middle east states.... after all how long till oil runs out at current consumption 10/15 years???

Some would say it would be stupid of America to invade other middle east states as it would be a very difficult war. Could this be the last crazed thrashings of a dying beast?

 

[TWI]

Which Terrorists are those exactly? The ones in Iraq or maybe the ones who just got the boot from CBS news or maybe even Soros, he has to be as after all, it is time to pick sides with that genius line from Rove that "You are either with us or against us". I think that the definition of Terrorist is getting pretty wide these days and with every addition to the patriot act it seems to get broader. Just good to see "King" George "dubya" spending another $50mil on his coronation in a few days time. He deserves it, after all he is the only great hope for the World now that we are beset by Terrorists on every street corner.

 

[knucklehead]

You're right, world war three is coming. I think It will be against religon in general !

 

[TWI]

what is "religon"?

 

[frugi]

It is to religion as quitely is to quietly Sorry, couldn't resist. I will moderate myself severely as penance.

 

[sulong]

what is "religon"?

"Religion" is a means of conscripting willing participants into slavery, at the same time masking the intent with false "hope".

 

[wisestguy]

>>Which Terrorists are those exactly?

terrorist should include all acts of terror , even the ones commited by the Israeli army on palest. kids and the indiscriminate bombing of Iraqi residents .

if that what you mean , you are preaching to the converted. will not stop individual acts of retalliation on behalf of the shiite faith . label it what you like .

hail hail rahimdullah !

 

[DaveJB]

Have I missed something?
What war? If there's one starting the Grauniad seems unaware of it (as I don't watch much TV it's quite possible we're 10 years into WW3 and I never noticed, but I still suspect I'd have heard of it - or is this some sort of Nostrodamus attempt?
Dave

 

[trendie]

This is very reminiscent (sp) of the thread on "Bush or Kerry".

I suspect that it will merely result in people firing entrenched views at each other.
Neither side really wanting to see the whole picture.
Neither side really giving way to their initial ideas.
Innocent posters being shot down.

Twalker may be closest with his " 'King George" remark.
Too 'king right.

 

[Ende]

Every action has a motive behind. What motives the "terrorists" have? do you really think that's the "religion" only? look what your children use & wear. think what kids there in ME use & wear. ever heard of starvation in south africa? ever compared yourselves to those people in undeveloped countries? isn't the gap between those have's and have nots playing some part in it? i guess the attempt to blame the "religion" for everything is obtuse and futile. i'm afraid of the more fundamental reason lies beneath. that's EQUALITY

 

[Mr. Charts]

IMHO, these boards are not for political or religious issues. There are plenty of suitable places where those matters can be raised and discussed. Such debates on financial boards usually end in acrimony and are normally totally futile.
Having said that,
"what is "religon"?
well, like politi-con
it sometimes seems like a silli-con.

 

[frugi]

Religious/political/philosophical discussions are more suited to the Lounge so I have moved the thread.

 

[knucklehead]

I'm refering to Revelation 17:15-18.

An attack on all religon which God put into mens hearts because religon is the cause of all conflicts !

 

[DaveJB]

Crikey,
where's David Icke when you need him?
<g>