Hmm let me first mention that the timing of the strike is a totally separate issue that has nothing to do with the point I was making, that there will be no WWIII. Just because we don't know the strategic thinking behind the timing issue does not mean my other assertions are incorrect. Having said that here is what I think on the timing of the strike - there is absolutely no downside to delaying it to the very last moment and yet there are lots of advantages. Here is just some of them in no particular order - Nuclear sites can be wiped out a year before they build their first nuke or an hour before it. The end result will be the same but if it's done at the very last moment, more money will have been invested in the construction of the site, therefore the damage will be heavier and less money will be available for a rebuilding effort. - I am sure Israel still hopes that the US (the big Satan) not Israel (the little Satan) will carry out the bombing. Certainly the US is more powerful and better equipped militarily, economically and politically to carry out a successful attack. For political reasons an American strike will resonate better in Europe and the Islamic world than an Israeli attack. - Israel wants to show the world that all diplomatic options are indeed exhausted. If Israel attacks a year or two before the first nuke, the hysterical anti-Israel fringe that you belong to will be screaming at the top of their lungs that Iran was on the brink of disarming. You will still whine and try to rewrite history anyway of course but if the attack is carried out a day before the first nuke is built no serious open minded person will buy your hysterical rants. - Israel wants the rest of the world and especially the arab/sunni world to be scared shittless that a nuclear Iran is imminent before they attack which will make them more favorably predisposed toward Israel and its military action.
a_p, your timing factor explanations are outstanding. Thanks much. Yes, I agree that the WW3 issue is a separate one. If you have some ideas on the following ..... Historical evidence shows clearly that major wars have occurred in the bottoming phases of bearmarkets and in some cases even recessions have brought on wars, albeit smaller scale ones. (There is a chart depicting ALL the major and semi-major wars plotted alongside the Dow Jones monthly chart from inception. I seem to have lost this chart, but will try to find it again.) If indeed a bearmarket occurs worldwide, where could the inevitable major war possibly come from? Israel-Iran is the only real current candidate. Russia and China have not yet showed their hand. A US strike on Iran is not a major war. India-Pakistan could erupt into an all out nuclear war but I don't see anybody else getting involved, so the "major" concept requirement fails again. You see what I'm getting at? For now it does appear that Israel-Iran is the volcano, and seems to be the only conflict that COULD (still unproven) drag the biggies into an all out conflagration.
Even assuming your chart is right and major wars did start during bear markets, I am pretty sure that the reverse dependency does not exist, i.e. not all bear markets lead to major wars. I don't see a major war on the horizon today. There simply are not two equally strong blocks of countries that can start it. The only real possibility would be West against East, the Western Civilization against the Muslim one, but the Islamic world is too weak militarily and too deeply involved into their own divisions (sunni vs shia, arabs vs non-arabs etc) to put up even the semblance of a united front. All other conflicts you mention while quite possible will remain local. Iran will not find a single country willing to fight on its side. Just like they did not during the Iran-Iraq war. For now it does appear that Israel-Iran is the volcano, and seems to be the only conflict that COULD (still unproven) drag the biggies into an all out conflagration. See, my list of "the biggies" that can be dragged into this war is empty. What are the countries on your list?
No, that would be bad for business. WWIII will not be this big all out war, it will be series of small scale, nearly off scale, conflicts that will determine who has control of global resources in the future.
RCG & a_p, I know you'll disagree, but remember the premise I'm going to prove to you that all major bearmarkets result in MAJOR WARS at or near the bottom? RCG, IMO it will be a big one, bigger than WW2, as to how it won't go nuclear, beats me. I'm still searching for the main long-term chart, but this one will do for now as step 1 - directly from the BANK OF ENGLAND .... Remember Japan's DEFLATIONARY bout (ongoing)? Think its just coincidence that British Empire's rates have taken out the alltime low? UK defaulted once, think it won't happen again? Uploaded with ImageShack.us
a_p, have you had much contact with american jews stateside, esp. the BH and Manhattan variety? i.e. socially, or biz-wise etc., more than just casual?
Another solid evidence chart with the Socialism driver this one comes courtesy of Brian Taylor, Global Financial Data https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/ Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Re: Proof that a significant southbound turn in the HERD's mood aka "collective social mood" AKA Bearmarket generates conflict aka wars ... The U.S. market has proved to be a reliable forecaster of coming periods of global peace or conflict Corroboration: (1) major bear market lows of just the last 200 years â the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II. Those were buying opportunities. (2) Bearmarket 1937 - 1942 ... WWII started in 1939, two years into the bear market (3) Bearmarket 1966 - 1974 .... Vietnam escalation and the Yom Kippur War occurred several years after it started. (4) Bearmarket 1987 to 1991 .... Gulf War started in 1990, and the US entered the war in January 1991 (5) Bearmarket 2000 - March 2003 .... (Suicide bombers attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, just 6 trading days from that yearâs low in the DJIA. (5) continued .... About two weeks after that low, the United States attacked Afghanistan. The U.S. Congress authorized war on Iraq on the day of the 2002 bearmarket bottom U.S. invaded Iraq one week after the well-known higher low of the bearmarket, March 11, 2003 ------------------- Conclusion: These international conflicts of major significance took place at or near the bottoms of major waves within that initial decline, not at or before the peaks, as the common belief about causality seems to have it. So fasten your seat belts. This bear market and the dangerous social actions it will engender have only just begun. CALL for a world war is inevitable! Advice: Eat, drink, be merry, have a ball, lick the best pussy you can find. Continue with your health and other improvements. The whole shithouse is going up in flames, but we can enjoy life to the very end. There is absolutely no way to stop the onslaught. It has to run its course. videos below ... from the all-time greatest poet/musician/singer - Beatles compared to this? Not even close, but also a bullmarket icon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPaqi7Dpdg http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=2fR3YS0gJdA&feature=related
Nice political thread If I may add I heard a rumor that Iran already has nukes and is waiting for the attack to use them. What do you think?