Really...it's getting to be like a bit of theater isn't it? It would be laughable, were it not for the loss of life and suffering involved. We've seen every excuse in the world trotted out, it seems, to justify an "intervention" by the West in Syria, with the usual "human rights" leading the charge. That, of course, didn't pan out too well. So now, it seems, Syria has a lot of uranium we should all be worried about:
This, it seems, is the latest scam. But for once it also seems that The Daily Bell might be missing some possibilities in its reverse engineering of the process of reasoning the elites may be putting into play here, so permit me to indulge in my usual high octane speculation.
The mention of Iraq in this article may recall, for some who remember the whole fiasco, what happened when we were all lied to about the necessity of the need to invade that country. First we were told that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism. That one quickly fell by the wayside to be replaced by the prospect of an immanent nuclear Iraq. He was building "weapons of mass destruction" (specifically atomic bombs), and had demonstrated his willingness to use such weapons by gassing the Kurds. No doubt, the man was evil, and may even have used a-bombs had he had them. Of course, Saddam was no fool either, and may not have used them, knowing that it may have called forth a similar response from the west. But in any case, he didn't have them.
But you'll recall there was story that was quickly circulated as the invasion was under way, and the evidence for such a program was not forthcoming: Saddam, we were informed, had dismantled his whole program and shipped it, lock, stock, and German-made centrifuge, to...
So in a certain sense, invading Syria would (follow the twisted logic here), be completing what we started in Iraq.
Which brings us to Iran.
One would have to be living on top of a pillar or in a Tibetan cave not to realize that the western elite very much wants to "do something" about Iran. Blogs occur almost daily on the subject, on both sides of the issue. The logic here, though, is what interests me. Suppose they manage to sell everyone on an invasion - correction, they'll call it an "intervention" - of Syria, and suppose that the reason is, in part, that Syria has a lot of uranium which, perish the thought, could end up in some rogue state's hands. The logic here isn't what the Daily Bell makes it out to be, but is rather more simple: if we didn't shrink from invading Syria over the possession of uranium, all the more reason not to shrink from invading Iran over the means to enrich it for fuel for a bomb.
Watch this one carefully folks, because this seems to be what is happening here: a way to piggyback an Iranian project on a Syrian one. Same ole same ole.
See you on the flip side.