Tuesday 15 November 2011

Draining the Treasury for Israel

A report in the pro-war, staunchly Zionist Wall Street Journal raises some interesting questions. Like how much money Obama is going to spend trying to buy off Russia and China into supporting a war on Iran, a war that would be fought, of course, solely in Israel's interest? Our deficit is $14 trillion. Secret deals are being made for deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. University tuition is rising to outrageous levels. And many states are now slashing unemployment benefits and reducing the number of weeks such benefits may be received. But of course there's always money for Israel. Lawmakers never touch the $3 billion a year in direct aid, and we can thank AIPAC for that. But of course we can also thank AIPAC for much more—because in addition to the $3 billion in direct aid, there's a great deal more that gets spent on Israel's behalf as indirect assistance. You have to consider that twisting arms for votes at the UN doesn't come cheap. And of course this is an expenditure that doesn't get calculated into the foreign aid budget. The following comes from the Wall St. Journal:

Obama Seeks Agreement with Russia, China on Iran
HONOLULU—President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Russia and China to help pressure Iran over its nuclear program, in the wake of a report by the United Nations' atomic watchdog finding evidence of weapons development.
But if either country were ready to help Mr. Obama tighten sanctions, their leaders didn't say so publicly.

And ahead of a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao later, Mr. Obama said he planned to discuss "efforts to jointly assure that countries like Iran are abiding by international rules and norms."
The U.S. has used the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to try to break down resistance by Russia and China to impose new sanctions on Tehran, after the International Atomic Energy Agency cited "credible" evidence Tuesday that Iran had taken steps to develop a nuclear weapon.
What is Obama going to offer Russia and China, and how much will it cost U.S. taxpayers? Here's another quite interesting paragraph from the same story:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday the U.S. would work with other countries to put pressure on Iran, and had discussed the issue with Chinese and other officials on the sidelines of the APEC meetings. Earlier in the week, China had rejected the idea of imposing new sanctions against Tehran, urging further dialogue.

So in addition to Russia and China, are we now going to be paying "other countries" as well, and if so, how much is that going to cost? Note: China seems to be driving a hard bargain.


Mr. Obama also said that with Russia on the verge of joining the World Trade Organization, the administration would work with Congress to remove Cold War-era trade restrictions. In comments to business executives attending the APEC CEO Summit, he said Russia's entry would be good for the U.S. and global economy, while providing Moscow with additional incentives to move forward on reforms.
Mr. Medvedev said following the meeting that Russia hadn't received such support for its WTO bid from previous administrations, and that joining the WTO would benefit global trade relations.

Yes, Russia wants to join the WTO. And the U.S. wants a war with Iran—or at the very least "crippling sanctions." So which country do you think is willing to pay more to get what they want?
To rationally answer that question we have to ask ourselves how much our politicians are willing to grovel before AIPAC. On that, there doesn't seem to be any limit. The following video is quite interesting. It provides us with a look at the recent GOP debate as seen through the eyes of Iranian media. As you watch it, imagine if the situation were reversed—that is to say, imagine if it were Iranian presidential candidates talking about carrying out terrorist attacks in America and murdering American scientists. Imagine how we would feel, and imagine what the media would be saying about it.




Meanwhile rampant economic injustice prevails in America, and those protesting continue to suffer police repression. The latest police attack was carried out in Portland, Oregon.
"We were talking about what we were going to do and then they just started hitting people. Seems like a waste of resources to me," protester Mike Swain, 27, told the AP.
One man was taken away on a stretcher; he was alert and talking to paramedics, and raised a peace sign to fellow protesters, who responded with cheers.
Choya Adkison, 30, said police moved in after giving demonstrators a false sense of calm. They thought they had time to rest, relax and regroup, she said
"Camp was completely vulnerable, completely defenseless" when police moved in, she said. "I'm disappointed that they created a sense of trust by walking away and then completely trampled it." 
 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

No comments: