Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: philv who wrote (24026)	12/31/2005 8:30:28 PM
From: philv	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81108

Just another opinion for what it's worth. I would lay odds on a Syrian strike before an Iranian one. They have been carefully laying the ground work for a long time, and the target is relatively easy. That would isolate Iran, leaving Iran without any Arab or non-Arab support. (Russia/China big ?) Most Arabs remain suspicious of Iran, as they were in the Iraq-Iran war. "A blistering attack on Bashar Assad was delivered by one of his closest aides, ex-vice president Khalim Haddam, over al Arabia TV Friday, Dec. 30 December 30, 2005, 9:08 PM (GMT+02:00) He denounced the Syrian president for spurning his advice to sack General Rustoum Ghazaleh, the former Syrian military intelligence in Lebanon, immediately after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri last February. DEBKAfile’s Middle East sources note that Haddam insinuated in the interview that Assad had had pre-knowledge of the murder and could have prevented it. He clearly laid the crime at Ghazaleh’s door and made it clear that the general would not have acted without Assad’s authority. This veteran Syrian politician’s diatribe against Assad is unprecedented and shocked opinion in Damascus and the Arab world." The above from "Debka".

To: philv who wrote (24026)	12/31/2005 9:20:55 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81108

Phil > Strike while the iron is hot, and while the emperor is alive and eager. Sure, but it makes no sense, particularly now that the Iranian dominated Shia have won the elections in Iraq. Therefore, if the US or Israel hits Iran there will be a bloodbath for Americans in Iraq as the Shias join the Sunnis in a common insurgency against the US. Furthermore, they can wave democracy goodbye. We've already seen in Iraq how the most wonderfully equipped army in the world can't defeat a determined insurgency using primitive weapons and a conflict with Iran will make it even worse. So the US must make up its mind -- either it listens to Israel's propaganda about Iran's potential nuclear threat or else it must regard the professed democratic future of Iraq as its priority. It can't have both. Of course, we know that Israel would be delighted to see a never-ending civil war in Iraq and a major US confrontation with Iran, but what Israel gets out of it, other than schadenfreude, is beyond me.