Jerusalem Post: 'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'

The Iranians also back the Iraqi government which you say we all need to support (via internet posting of course) - make up your mind as to whether Iranian support is good or bad - thanks in advance!

 

Iranians are not killing US troops right now.

 

They are in basso's head.

In his HEEEEAAAAAAD.
In his HEEEEAaaaaaaAAAAAD.
In his HEAD.
In his HEAD.

RE-PUB-LI-CAN, RE-PUB-LI-CAN, ZOMBIE, ZOMBIE.....

nods head with beat

 

And no matter how the neocons try and twist his words (and I know it makes for a good scare tactic soundbite), the leader of Iran has never said that Iran is dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.

 

Here is some information

 

That was pretty good.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=82971&highlight=kerry+vietnam


i did a search on your posts in regards to John Kerry, you must have started more than twenty threads, yes just the ones you started, ripping john kerry's vietnam service you internet warrior LOL

 

Umm.. I think this article says otherwise

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php

Excerpt Below.

 

and this article (from a more respectible news outlet)..

Washington Post

 

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently laid out the case this way: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The 'page of time' phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/w...a2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

Congress would never give a lame duck president power to declare war on Iran.

 

I would think that the GOP would still have some sort of influence with Bush-Cheney. I would not think another war would be good for the GOP's chances in November.

Now as far as the Jerusalem Post goes, I think that there is certainly the neo-con equivalent in Israel that would be just thrilled if we bombed or invaded Iran.

Hopefully as posted above this is just more of the same old stories about the possible attack on Iran.

 

What would be the effect on the markets of such an actual attack? How should we play it if it happens? Too bad that, unlike those close to Bush-Cheney, we ordinary investors would not know ahead of time when the attack is about to be launnched.

 

Expect market volatility to go through the roof. When that happens, commodities, particularly crude and nat gas, will spike like crazy. Expect $160-170/bbl crude.

 

$160-$170/barrel would be light. Check out past flare ups around the Suez Canal area... and think what would happen if Hormuz was shut down...

Natural gas is more of a regional market, I would not expect it to spike as much as oil.

 

I was thinking $160-$170 in a matter of a few days. After that, things could get much worse, and head upwards to $200. As far as nat gas, you're probably right since the correlation with natgas and WTI/Brent isn't that high.

 

how did the Shah's regime "vanish" mark?

 

Right there with you. I soooooooo wish he was viable for the general election.