Syria and the Risk of Nuclear War for Israel

Russia’s Prime Minister Medvedev fired a nuclear shot across the bow of both the US and the world, but tragically the US media paid little attention to his warning of a possible nuclear confrontation over US interference in the Syrian problem. Interesting that the Russian Prime Minister talked about the possibility of nuclear war and the media chose to pay little attention, keeping the American public once again in the dark. Medvedev warned the US against any military intervention in Syria and was quoted as saying: “Sometimes these [military] actions — which undermine state sovereignty — could result in a fully-fledged regional war, and even — although I do not want to scare anyone — the use of a nuclear weapon.”

Readers should ask: why risk a nuclear war with Russia over Syria, which has no strategic value to the US? While Syria has little or no strategic value, it is very important to Israel for two reasons. Israel still maintains control over the Golan Heights, an area of land which Israel seized from Syria and has steadfastly refused to return since the end of the 1967 war. A civil war in Syria would weaken Syria, allowing Israel to continue its illegal control over the Golan Heights. Syria is also an ally of Iran and all know that the road to Iran goes through Syria; hence a weakened Syria represents a “weakened Iran”, which would greatly please the Israelis. The US has no real beef with Iran, but Israel is a bitter enemy of Iran because it supports Palestinian freedom and those who fight Israel for it. Nevertheless Israel’s dispute with Iran has become America’s, for Israel controls the US Congress, and Congress by bowing to AIPAC seems perfectly willing to sacrifice American lives to remain in the good political graces of AIPAC.

The US is being driven to military intervention by foolish hawks in this country whose arrogance of power has blinded them to the seriousness of a confrontation with Russia. Along with the fanatical extremists who hunger for yet another war is the Israeli lobby, which would like nothing better than for the US to use its military power to weaken Syria, as was done with Libya and Iraq. Israel is incessantly using its political capital in the US Congress, which has been aptly described as “occupied territory” through its agent AIPAC, and has pushed the US ever closer to a war with Iran. The US, pushed strongly by Israel, has made it virtually impossible for a negotiated settlement with Iran over its nuclear program. The goal is to put Iran in a box from which there is no negotiated settlement, and then advocate a war, arguing negotiations has failed. Nothing could be better for Israel than having the US fight a war with Iran, except taking Syria down along the way.

All Middle East US policy is dictated by Israel, and it is certainly no coincidence that over the years Israel’s most bitter enemies have included Libya, Iraq, and Iran, and Syria. The US had taken down 2 of the 4, and it appears only a matter of time before AIPAC convinces the US government that the time to attack the other two is at hand.

What is unnerving however is Medvedev’s statement about being pushed too far and facing a nuclear showdown with Russia, who has seen itself pushed to the limits by an aggressive US policy of establishing missile bases all around Russia in their former satellite nations. Russia has been provoked too many times, and now appears to be sending a very strong signal that it will not allow the US to use force in Syria. Adding to the seriousness was the incident between the US and Russia over Russia’s sending what we said were “attack” helicopters to the Syrian government. The US made a huge deal of this, accusing Russia of siding with the government of Syria by sending “attack” helicopters to the Syrian government, while the US was hypocritically aiding the rebels by sending arms and ammunition in a Civil War. The US had to back off its claim when it learned the helicopters were merely refurbished and not attack helicopters. It was also revealed that the US considered the use of military force in stopping the Russian ship to prevent the helicopters from reaching Syria. Even discussing such and option is a frightening scenario and it demonstrates the true nature of the arrogance of power in this country.

Russia, with its warning, has apparently drawn a “line in the sand” and is unwilling to allow the US to continue to meddle in Russia’s back yard. They seem to be saying the imperial drive of the US will be stopped in Syria, and in a late breaking story the Russians today announced any plan to unseat Assad, the leader of Syria as being unacceptable. In recent years they have tolerated imperial expansion, but Putin is under political fire to take a strong position against any further US encroachment, and Syria appears to be the line the sand. So the ultimate question is: do we risk a nuclear exchange with Russia to placate Israel’s desire to have us do battle with Syria and Iran? In the near future we will find out just who the US Congress really represents.

The Banks Always Win and You Always Lose.

When banks make foolish and risky investments causing the loss of billions, they need not worry, for you will be forced to cover their losses. The argument that they “are too big to fail” was slickly inserted into the political jargon and became the accepted norm, so any time a bank is in danger because of economic stupidity, you will be required to pay for their irresponsibility; but then again who is stupid, the banks or you?

Around the globe, bankers have turned to taxpayers to cover losses because of their shoddy investments, but why? Why is it your responsibility to pay banks for loans and investments they never should have made? A quick review shows that when the major bank crises occurred in this country the Obama administration quickly rushed to their aid by taking money from you to protect the banks. While no one really knows how much money was transferred from taxpayers to banks, a figure of about 12 trillion dollars is generally accepted; however this may well be underestimated. You were not asked for this money, nor were you consulted. It was a done deal without you approval or consent.

This scenario has repeated itself around the world. Banks make bad investments and when faced with a loss they turn to the citizenry for relief. Take Greece for example. Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government hide their real debt by finagling a complicated derivative package to hide the seriousness of the Greek debt, thus allowing short sighted Greek politicians to borrow even more money. Now that Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy, banks, including Goldman, are demanding reimbursement. Goldman made bundle of money on the initial fraudulent loan that helped obscure the Greek debt by charging the Greek government excessive interest rates, but who is being blamed for the crisis in Greece? The citizens of Greece are the scapegoats, and are being called greedy and excessive, with banks demanding their money back as if the default were the responsibility of the citizens. Faced with an unemployment rate of almost 30%, the Greek government has been told it must cut more spending and use that savings to pay back the banks. Does cutting spending while in a depression thus forcing more unemployment, help a nation’s economy recover? Of course not, it only insures more suffering for the citizenry, but that is not important. The banks want and will get their money, and that’s all that matters.

Spain, and perhaps later Portugal, will be on the verge of insolvency and bankruptcy just like Greece, and once again the banks are insisting on the return of their money, even though they exercised economic stupidity in making the loans in the first place. Ireland has already paid the price of repaying the banks which has cost the Irish citizenry a great deal of hardship, but once again it was essential that the banks get their money and let the citizenry be dammed.

The only country to have bucked the tide is Iceland who found itself on the verge of insolvency with the major financial institutions demanding payment for their bad loans, but the citizens of Iceland refused to take orders from the bank, threw out their government who was courting the banks, and in a national referendum said to world financial institutions, we are not responsible for repaying financial institutions for making bad loans, and refused to pay back the banks and financial world. They were threatened with all kinds of things, but the citizens of Iceland stood tall and refused. The banks lost their money and while the citizens of Iceland suffered for a while, today have one of the strongest economies in the world.

This entire scenario and refusal of a nation to pay back banks and financial institutions has intentionally been obscured by corporate media, who is closely aligned with the financial institutions. They do not want the world‘s people to know that they are not necessarily obligated to make good to banks for bad bank loans
What happens on the other hand when you make a foolish or stupid investment and borrow money to improve your business, purchase a home, or improve your home? If you cannot make payment do you get bailed out? Who pays for your stupidity? If you were such a risk the banks never should have given you the loan in the first place. Who is to blame, you who took the money the banks so generously threw at consumers, or the banks that were stupid to make such risky loans? You will pay once again for their stupidity by forfeiting your home, or business.

Until the public gets it, they will be required and told to pay, but consider this. Why couldn't the 12 trillion dollars that was given banks to “save” them, instead have been given to consumers who were underwater in their home loans? If consumers were bailed out they could have saved their homes or business and had money in their pockets to spend, thus generating a stronger and more robust economy. It was a win win situation, banks would have gotten their money back from consumers who could now pay their loans, and the economy would have been greatly stimulated by an infusion of 12 trillion dollars into the economy. Why couldn’t the 12 trillion be allowed to “trickle up” to the banks? The 12 trillion given to banks was just hoarded and given to bank executives as bonuses for their savvy. How is the “trickle down” theory working for you?? How long will we allow ourselves to be treated as “saps”?