An Attack On Syria Would Be the Most Unpopular War Ever


Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 27, 2013

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Support for an attack on Syria amongst Americans is more than three times lower than support for US involvement in Vietnam at the very lowest ebb of the war, illustrating how universally unpopular such a move would be despite the media claiming Obama would “lose credibility” if he does not launch a military assault.

Chickenhawk politicians and the corporate press have repeatedly floated the talking point that Obama must follow through on his “red line” threat in order to save face and rescue credibility. Credibility with whom? Certainly not the American people – only 9 per cent of which support intervention in Syria according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

If Obama got the United States embroiled in a conflict with Syria, it would be the least popular war in the history of the country.

Even at its most dire point in May 1971, 28 per cent of the American people still thought it was the right decision to send troops into Vietnam.

Despite the predictable hellhole it later turned into, Obama’s intervention in Libya was supported by a comparatively huge 47 per cent of Americans back in 2011, while 76 per cent initially supported the invasion of Iraq and 90 per cent backed the assault on Afghanistan.

As Washington’s Blog highlights, other things that Americans find more appealing than attacking Syria include “North Korea, cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen, Genghis Khan, Communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill, Nixon during Watergate or King George during the American Revolution.”

Even Congress with its 15 per cent approval rating is almost twice as popular as the notion of attacking Syria.

With missile strikes set to be launched as early as Thursday, it seems the only “credibility” the Obama administration is concerned about retaining is their credibility with the military-industrial complex, which is about to lead America into yet another ludicrous, dangerous and unaffordable conflict which will empower Al-Qaeda led terrorists in seizing control of a major middle eastern country.

Forget claims about chemical weapons attacks, Syria has been targeted for annihilation for at least 12 years. As General Wesley Clark explains in the clip below, the Pentagon put the country on a list of seven nations destined for destruction in the weeks after 9/11.

This is why the White House couldn’t care less about the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose intervention – the fix is already in.

About these ads

One thought on “An Attack On Syria Would Be the Most Unpopular War Ever

  1. History shows us time and time again, who has the most to gain from a conflict will generally be those responsible for the conflict. The topic of Nazi Germany and the central banking cartel is a thread for itself, but it was only when the Nazis took charge of Germany’s money, that all of a sudden trade embargos and restrictions were forced on to them.

    Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

    These seven countries were named by U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) in a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview as the new “rogue states” being targeted for take down after September 11, 2001. He said that about 10 days after 9-11, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

    What did these countries have in common? Besides being Islamic, they were not members either of the WTO or of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That left them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. Other countries later identified as “rogue states” that were also not members of the BIS included North Korea, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

    The body regulating banks today is called the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and it is housed in the BIS in Switzerland. In 2009, the heads of the G20 nations agreed to be bound by rules imposed by the FSB, ostensibly to prevent another global banking crisis. Its regulations are not merely advisory but are binding, and they can make or break not just banks but whole nations. This was first demonstrated in 1989, when the Basel I Accord raised capital requirements a mere 2%, from 6% to 8%. The result was to force a drastic reduction in lending by major Japanese banks, which were then the world’s largest and most powerful creditors. They were undercapitalized, however, relative to other banks. The Japanese economy sank along with its banks and has yet to fully recover.

    Among other game-changing regulations in play under the FSB are Basel III and the new bail-in rules. Basel III is slated to impose crippling capital requirements on public, cooperative and community banks, coercing their sale to large multinational banks.

    The “bail-in” template was first tested in Cyprus and follows regulations imposed by the FSB in 2011. Too-big-to-fail banks are required to draft “living wills” setting forth how they will avoid insolvency in the absence of government bailouts. The FSB solution is to “bail in” creditors – including depositors – turning deposits into bank stock, effectively confiscating them.

    Countries laboring under the yoke of an extractive private banking system are being forced into “structural adjustment” and austerity by their unrepayable debt. But some countries have managed to escape. In the Middle East, these are the targeted “rogue nations.” Their state-owned banks can issue the credit of the state on behalf of the state, leveraging public funds for public use without paying a massive tribute to private middlemen. Generous state funding allows them to provide generously for their people.

    Like Libya and Iraq before they were embroiled in war, Syria provides free education at all levels and free medical care. It also provides subsidized housing for everyone (although some of this has been compromised by adoption of an IMF structural adjustment program in 2006 and the presence of about 2 million Iraqi and Palestinian refugees). Iran too provides nearly free higher education and primary health care.

    Like Libya and Iraq before takedown, Syria and Iran have state-owned central banks that issue the national currency and are under government control. Whether these countries will succeed in maintaining their financial sovereignty in the face of enormous economic, political and military pressure remains to be seen. These same socialist policies and control of a country’s wealth were exactly the same as what Germany had in place 1933-1945 and we all know what happened there.

    Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, “Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking.” Schacht replied, “You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking.”

    (Schact, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.)

    Once you realise that the banking cartel are pretty much behind every conflict, you then realise that it also includes two global wars…You then realise that a third is not that far fetched and that is a terrifying thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s