Will you be caught in the economic crossfire from the pending Syria strike?

[JRLeft]

The Middle East is a dangerous place, and Worcester residents who live 5,500 miles away could get caught in the economic crossfire of a possible American strike on Syria without lifting a finger.

After recent evidence emerged that Syria is used chemical weapons against its citizens, the Obama administration has that it would launch a military strike against Syria. The New York Times reported that the strike might entail "one or two days of cruise missile strikes from at least four United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea" rather than an open-ended campaign that would push Syria's Bashar al-Assad to negotiate a transfer to give up power.

>snip

The most important of these is Iran's ability to cut off the flow of Middle Eastern oil that we import through a waterway — the Strait of Hormuz. For example, Brent crude oil, up 1.5 percent in London on August 28 was near a six-month high of $116 a barrel, and closed the next day at $114.34. These higher crude oil prices will likely be passed on to you in the form of higher prices at the pump in the weeks and months ahead as the strategic moves of all the participants escalate.

But beyond a rising price of oil, there are other possibilities. The Washington Post reports that generals it interviewed believes that the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Mr. Assad — could attack Israel. Moreover, those military officials expect cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure.

But there are longer term strategic consequences of the U.S. involvement in a military strike on Syria. Will Iran use a U.S. strike on Syria to launch a nuclear strike — assuming it has such weapons — on Israel? Would Russia join Iran in this attack? If so, would the U.S. respond by attacking Iran and Russia? Such strategic consequences could send the world economy into a dangerous tailspin.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20130902/COLUMN70/309029993

[Little Star]

1. Worse than that, we could end up in WW-III. Yikes!

[JRLeft]

3. And it is all because of greed.

[Little Star]

5. Bingo! Greed of TPTB, The MIC and 1%ers.

[JRLeft]

6. Profits must be made off of mass death.

[Initech]

11. Yup the greed of the upper 1%, MIC, and hedge fund managers will destroy us all.

Fuck 'em all!

[daa]

2. Every time oBOMBa opens his mouth the market tanks nt

[JRLeft]

4. Are you kidding me Wall ST will make a killing off of this.

[daa]

7. Watch the market every time he talks war. Was up 1% this AM now negative nt

[JRLeft]

8. I do not care what the market says wait until you see the results of the strikes. Government payouts

to defense contractors. Oil futures speculation rises. Followed by food prices and so on.

[gordianot]

9. Now that the line for chemical weapons has been crossed the next logical line is nuclear weapons.

The great fear for war planners for decades has been the idea of a limited nuclear war whatever that is supposed to entail. All that has to be done much more short of a limited nuclear war is to disrupt the Gulf of Hormuz for even a few weeks. None of this looks good.

[JRLeft]

10. I seriously doubt there will be a nuclear attack, but it is clear many interests want the strike to

happen.

[gordianot]

12. It would not take a nuclear weapon from any recognized power in the reigon.

Over the years there is a considerable amount of nuclear material unaccounted for, or participation by a rouge State who likes to cause trouble. There is actually some indications that actual nuclear devices are unaccounted for from the old Soviet Union. More than a few analyst have stated it is just a matter of time.

I hope your doubts are correct.

[JRLeft]

13. If it were to happen which is possible. It would guarantee World War III.

[gordianot]

14. And it would not take a device originating in Syria, Iran, Israel, and United States to start it.

[JRLeft]

15. So many want this anyway.