Syria - Just part of the game?

Sometimes I wonder if it all isn't really some kind of game. A bizarre game, of course. A dangerous one. But is it?

I've purposely moved a bit farther east from Greece, because it is here that this craziness becomes even clearer. Just as Saddam Hussein was useful to the US for a while, our friends in Russia have their preferences as well. Neither we nor they are very picky about who is supported, as long as we think we're getting something out of it. The question often is merely "What?" Power, prestige, natural resources, money ... it might be any or all of these these, though for those who place a lot a value on obtaining them at just about any cost, I have to think it is some personally perferred combination of them, and perhaps some others I haven't thought about. It's not my thing and I simply have a lot of trouble following that kind of thinking sometimes. So, I'd like to briefly consider three "coincidences" (for lack of a better word) that have moved into the spotlight recently.

OK, granted, the first one is an oldie: petrodollars. But, when you think about straws breaking camels backs, what did Iraq do back then that ticked off the US so badly that they were willing to risk an illegal war to stop it? The world knew he didn't have chemical weapons or WMDs; we know in the meantime that Bush & Co. and Blair blatantly lied about that. One thing Saddam did do that was, to many, the ultimate slap in the face was that he decided not to deal in dollars for oil anymore and had his account denominated in euros. Here's a serious explanation; and here's a more humorous one. After all, we did see that the euro was a bit of an issue with Greece too, even if in a very different way.

Could it be that the US is suffering from a bit of currency envy? Maybe. They are treading on somewhat thin ice. Banks can be very sensitive at times, especially when they have set their minds to do something, which brings us to the now notorious end-game memo. Greg Palast broke this one. Ellen Brown has pointed out that there were four countries not playing by the rules the WTO wanted everyone playing by: Iraq (which we just dealt with), Libya (which we dealt with in 2011, not the least of which also because the Crazy Colonel was thinking of trading for oil in gold dinars), our evergreen nemesis Iran (goes without saying), and, of course, Syria. They needed to be dealt with separately. Why? Apparently because these countries favor Islamic rules for banking operation, more specifically, the prohibition of usury, which is what western banks live for and from.

And, last but not least, there is the fascinating interview with retired Gen. Wesley Clark (from 2007) in which he makes frighteningly clear that in the aftermath of 9/11, seven countries were slated for take-down (originally, within five years), and the process appears to be progressing nicely: Sudan (destroyed by civil war, split and (predominantly Christian) South Sudan set up in 2011), Somalia (destroyed by civil war, reconstituted in 2012), our old friends Iraq and Libya (just discussed, which are mere shadows of their former selves) and then, not unexpectedly, Iran, Syria (our current hot spot) and Lebanon (just now creeping into the news ... coincidentally, of course). Or maybe it is a whole way of thinking.

I don't know about you, but this all gives me pause to wonder. I wonder what the US is really up to and why. I wonder why the Manning and Snowden disclosures have so recently erupted and have been reacted to so visciously. I wonder what is really at stake in Greece and Syria. But I also wonder why we, the normal, everyday, citizens of the world, have to put up with so much crap.