Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wurzel Of Highbridge

Syria Is Just A Ploy To Keep Bond Rates Down.

Recommended Posts

It appears to me the war supported by the US and UK is puerly to keep bond yeilds, thus mortgage rates down - perhaps I am stating the obvious?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/markets-usa-bonds-idUSL2N0GS0N020130827

TREASURIES-U.S. bond prices up as Syria sparks safe-haven bid

* Talk of Western strike in Syria supports safety bid

* Treasury to sell two-year notes at 1 p.m. (1700 GMT

* Yields have eased on weak July home sales, durable goods orders

...

On Tuesday, 10-year Treasury note prices rose 10/32, their yields easing to 2.76 percent from 2.79 percent late on Monday.

Would they (the bankers) really kill millions of innocent people to stop their property Ponzi from collapsing? Is this why the UK is so keen to get involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me the war supported by the US and UK is puerly to keep bond yeilds, thus mortgage rates down - perhaps I am stating the obvious?

http://www.reuters.c...N0GS0N020130827

Would they (the bankers) really kill millions of innocent people to stop their property Ponzi from collapsing? Is this why the UK is so keen to get involved?

:lol: Well the UK would have more motivation than most if it was about protecting property Ponzi`s. Funny if not for the grave seriousness of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me the war supported by the US and UK is puerly to keep bond yeilds, thus mortgage rates down - perhaps I am stating the obvious?

http://www.reuters.c...N0GS0N020130827

Would they (the bankers) really kill millions of innocent people to stop their property Ponzi from collapsing? Is this why the UK is so keen to get involved?

Yep, I wouldn't put it past them.

Also.. UK government's defence contractor buddies and lobbyists need a nice war where the UK taxpayer must buy lots more weapons. Nice little earner for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me the war supported by the US and UK is puerly to keep bond yeilds, thus mortgage rates down - perhaps I am stating the obvious?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/markets-usa-bonds-idUSL2N0GS0N020130827

Would they (the bankers) really kill millions of innocent people to stop their property Ponzi from collapsing? Is this why the UK is so keen to get involved?

They have not got a problem sending their own folk to die (armed forces) so I don't think they will give a $hit about johnny foreigner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are testing Obama's resolve. If they can get away with using chemical weapons of mass destruction they are free to try other stuff.

Despite there being no easy answers, some action has to be taken. Preferably action to help eliminate any other stocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are testing Obama's resolve. If they can get away with using chemical weapons of mass destruction they are free to try other stuff.

What's so special about chemical weapons? Would you have been OK with this if they'd just dropped ordinary, everyday bombs on those people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are testing Obama's resolve. If they can get away with using chemical weapons of mass destruction they are free to try other stuff.

Despite there being no easy answers, some action has to be taken. Preferably action to help eliminate any other stocks.

there is zero proof that the syrian government has used chemical weapons. You are forgetting all the propaganda justifying other wars - starting with the claim that Iraqis had switched off babies' incubators in Kuwait - a claim made up by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and later shown to be a lie - which was conveniently forget when the war started. If they would murder David Kelly, don't forget, what makes you think Cameron is telling the truth now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is zero proof that the syrian government has used chemical weapons. You are forgetting all the propaganda justifying other wars - starting with the claim that Iraqis had switched off babies' incubators in Kuwait - a claim made up by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and later shown to be a lie - which was conveniently forget when the war started. If they would murder David Kelly, don't forget, what makes you think Cameron is telling the truth now?

I think this is in a different league. The UN inspectors will report in due course. I doubt however any evidence will satisfy some members on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we need to see what the inspectors report.

However given we went to war looking for WMD, it should hardly come as a surprise that we would take action when someone actually uses a chemical WMD.

EDIT: Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said three hospitals it supported in the Damascus area had treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 had died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it does look obvious that some kind of chemical weapon was used. the one thing that doesnt make sense is why assad would use them.

he was winning the war and pushed back the rebels, hes got the backing of russia, and the west were pretty much slowly backing out of the situation.

its just a strange time and strategy for the syrian government to use chemical weapons like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However given we went to war looking for WMD, it should hardly come as a surprise that we would take action when someone actually uses a chemical WMD.

Why?

You still haven't answered my question up above.

You could also explain why we didn't 'go to war when someone actually uses a chemical WMD' when the UN claimed that Obama's cannibal al Qaeda friends in Syria were using Sarin a few months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it does look obvious that some kind of chemical weapon was used. the one thing that doesnt make sense is why assad would use them.

he was winning the war and pushed back the rebels, hes got the backing of russia, and the west were pretty much slowly backing out of the situation.

its just a strange time and strategy for the syrian government to use chemical weapons like this.

It isn't strange when you consider the possibility that the rebels used chemical weapons against themselves in a false flag attack in order to get the West to bomb the government.

Is this possibility only obvious to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Obama drew his red line.

On August 20 last year, Mr Obama drew his “red line”, telling Assad that any use of toxic gas would “change my equation”.

Either he is being tested by Assad or Assad has lost control of his WMD and that is a prospect I don't fancy facing. If some of them were smuggled into Palestine and used against Israel then all hell would break out.

Assad's timing is a little odd though given he was winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so special about chemical weapons? Would you have been OK with this if they'd just dropped ordinary, everyday bombs on those people?

Not sure what point you are making here, I'm not happy about any weapon being used by Syrians against Syrians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Obama drew his red line.

On August 20 last year, Mr Obama drew his “red line”, telling Assad that any use of toxic gas would “change my equation”.

Either he is being tested by Assad or Assad has lost control of his WMD and that is a prospect I don't fancy facing. If some of them were smuggled into Palestine and used against Israel then all hell would break out.

Assad's timing is a little odd though given he was winning.

So you haven't considered the possibility that the rebels used chemical weapons against themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you haven't considered the possibility that the rebels used chemical weapons against themselves?

I thought where I put Assad has lost control of his WMD pretty much covers that.

EDIT: “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Obama said in the summer of 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest unfunded_liability

However given we went to war looking for WMD, it should hardly come as a surprise that we would take action when someone actually uses a chemical WMD.

Seem to recall another middle eastern regime using white phosphorous shells on civilian targets in a recent conflict. Don't remember talk of any action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seem to recall another middle eastern regime using white phosphorous shells on civilian targets in a recent conflict. Don't remember talk of any action.

Any munition can be nasty, WP weapons are categorised as conventional weapons according to international law it seems.

EDIT: And entirely legal. The wiki makes interesting reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what point you are making here, I'm not happy about any weapon being used by Syrians against Syrians.

So you're presumably demanding that Western governments stop arming the cannibal al Qaeda 'rebels'? That's the fastest way to stop Syrians killing each other.

No, you want to bomb them. I guess it's OK for Americans and Britons to kill Syrians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you haven't considered the possibility that the rebels used chemical weapons against themselves?

because the rebels arent really a cohesive group its not unreasonable to think one faction launched it to draw the US into an attack. they wont even think of it as killing themselves because theyre not in the the same group, just a different tribal faction.

the west isnt going to put boots on the ground so if the government is toppled they will think they can take over.

the unfortunate thing is that it appears there doesnt seem to be a good side in this conflict. its Al-Qaeda vs Hezbollah and the syrian government.

the last time a side was picked was backing iraq vs iran and look how that turned out. the other time was backing the taliban vs russia and look how that turned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't strange when you consider the possibility that the rebels used chemical weapons against themselves in a false flag attack in order to get the West to bomb the government.

Is this possibility only obvious to me?

This ^. Either Assad is nuts (unlikely) or some other vested interest has seen the opportunity to bring other powers in on the "rebel" side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.