US House Silent on British Hostage Crisis - Why?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 31-3-2007 @ 07:45 PM by OBE1
I follow the markets a bit, and tend to adhere to the adage that concerning major political strategies...in the final analysis:"it's about the money--stupid!"...me, not you.

Along with honoring a request from the UK, which allows them the dignity to deal publicly with this issue themselves ( I think most would agree that it's appropriate for them to walk point on this one)...I'm motivated to consider the immediate economic consequences of a hard line from the White House.

After losing 400+ points in February...news of the British hostage story saw oil to spike to a 6 month high...the Dollar falter, and the market began to sputter again on inflationary concerns.

I believe that ANY involvement from the White House (language...soft, or strong) on this issue, will be interpreted by the market as a step closer to US conflict with Iran...and an already insecure market, is sure to respond immediately to the negative.

While I don't believe that this is the only reason for the 'silence'...and that much is taking place behind the curtain, I do think that current US economic vulnerability is worthy of consideration here. It kinda makes sense that the administration would like to see the situation resolved short of direct, public US involvement....at least for the moment.

Am I completely whacked over here? If so , maybe the good people of ATS can pull me back to center on this one.....

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

EDIT: 3rd time...kant spel berry wel...make that 4.



[edit on 31-3-2007 by OBE1]
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^