It seems impossible to under-estimate the ignorance and gullibility of the United States populace. Was is such a long time ago that the U.S. government was scaring the life out of the citizenry by saying that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’, thus putting every man, woman and child in the U.S. in grave, mortal danger? What was the result of that lie? The U.S. invaded Iraq; about 4,000 U.S. soldiers died, along with at least a million Iraqis. Another 30,000 U.S. soldiers were injured, and millions of Iraqis became refugees, either in Iraq or neighboring countries. Iraq’s infrastructure was destroyed, and today, fifteen years after the invasion, the Iraqi people continue to suffer because of it.
And what of those horrifying ‘weapons of mass destruction’? Well, it turns out, there weren’t any.
Now, one might say that this was just a tragic error in U.S. intelligence, although even for government officials, dismissing that much death and destruction as an “Oops! Sorry!” is a bit much. Yet United Nations’ weapons inspectors were gaining unprecedented access to any site in Iraq that they wanted; they were combing the country and finding nothing. Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader at the time, swore up, down and sideways that his country had no such weapons. But the mighty U.S. knew better, and so it brought death and destruction to Iraq, for no reason at all.
Well, at least no reason related to U.S. ‘national security’. But there was oil there that the U.S. coveted, and once the country was destroyed, U.S. companies stood to make a fortune in rebuilding it. Haliburton, founded by Dick Cheney, who just happened to be vice president when Iraq was invaded, made billions upon billions of dollars as a result. And thirteen years after the invasion, the ever-practical Hillary Clinton, while running for president, said that “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.” Add to that the fact that any Middle Eastern countries in chaos helped strengthen apartheid Israel, the lobbies of which U.S. elected officials bow down to, so that was, at the very least, an added bonus, if not a prime reason for the invasion.
And now the great orange U.S. leader, President Donald Trump, is threating another Middle Eastern country, this time Syria. He, along with the leaders of England and France, want to punish the government of Syria for a chemical attack that Syrian leaders, and the United Nations, say Syria didn’t commit. England’s Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for restraint, and wants to await the evidence, and he is condemned as a traitor for wanting to adhere to due process. Russia’s Vladimir Putin is seen as complicit in the attack, but he, too denies Syrian government involvement, and wants to see the incident investigated. It is also worth noting that, after Trump bombed Syria following another such attack, even his military spokesman said there was no evidence the Syrian government was behind it.
But in the U.S., Congress is united in demanding action, and there seems to be little resistance coming from the populace, not that that makes any difference to the oligarchs anyway.
Does it take a particularly insightful reader to see some parallels here? This writer thinks not. Another false flag is being hoisted up the pole, and U.S. citizens are rallying around it.
To whom does it make sense that the Syrian government, with the U.S. just looking for some excuse to bomb it, and while it is continually freeing areas of its nation from U.S.-supported terrorists, would commit war crimes against its own people?
If the Syrian government isn’t behind the recent chemical attack, who, we must ask, is?
Let’s look at the usual suspects, of which there is actually only one. The U.S. has been supporting terrorists in Syria for years, and seeks the overthrow of that government, as it sought the overthrow of Iraq fifteen years ago. And, as with Iraq, there need be no plan for the governance of Syria; a Syria in chaos is better, in the U.S. view, than a peaceful Syria aligned with Iran. So by arranging a chemical attack on Syrian people, Trump, filled with righteous indignation, can bomb that nation.
Is there any benefit to apartheid Israel in all this? One must remember that Jared Kushner, another close advisor to Trump, and his son-in-law to boot, who seems to have disappeared from the radar these last few weeks, has close ties to illegal settlements, and is a personal friend of Israeli Prime Murderer Benjamin Netanyahu. And Syria is closely allied with Iran, Israel’s most bitter enemy, which is assisting the government of Syria in ridding itself of U.S.-backed terrorists. Iran is growing in power and influence in the Middle East, and Netanyahu cannot countenance any threat to Israel hegemony in that part of the world. So some reason to attack Syria, any reason, even a completely fabricated one, will do just fine for the U.S.
Is it possible that some cooler heads surrounding Trump might prevail? When pigs fly. His new National Security Advisor, the unhinged and unstable John Bolton, has described himself as ‘not much of a carrot guy’, indicating that he prefers the use of the stick. That apparently means that he would rather use bombs than diplomacy. He disdains international law, saying it is designed to constrain U.S. power (he might actually be right there; anything that can be done to constrain U.S. power is beneficial to the world).
Trump needs to tread cautiously, however, although he probably won’t. Russia and Iran will not take kindly to any U.S. attack on Syria, and there are rumours that such an action would also displease the government of China. While Trump may consider each of these countries an enemy to the U.S., he will be much better served by tiptoeing around them, rather than provoking them. But Trump never tiptoes, and he always provokes. The consequences of doing so this time around could be cataclysmic.
Originally published by AHTribune.