John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

Jens Stoltenberg has said so many stupid things in recent time that his words now come as just noise.

Russia of course has troops in Syria, troops to service their planes, load munitions, guard the base, and prepare food.

Such support always comes with an air presence by anyone anywhere. Any thinking person knows that.

To refer to them as “boots on the ground” (a dumb American expression for troops somewhere) is completely asinine.

Putin is clever, cautious, and decisive – an excellent combination in a leader – and he is not ready to march into any potential morass.

Besides the Syrian Army is doing a good job of defending its country, only being impeded by the immense secret assistance America and Israel with their associates have provided the terrorist gangs trying to destroy Syria.

What Russia is doing is simply erasing that assistance. The Syrian Army will do the rest.

Jens Stoltenberg is just pitching one more line of anti-Russian American propaganda, attempting to feed the bonfire of ignorant fear America has kept burning in Europe since its engineered coup in Ukraine.

My question is: considering its face-value worthlessness, why does The Independent bother giving it prominence?

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

This entire business is overblown nonsense – puffed up in the press owing to American efforts to make this resemble something from the Cold War.

In fact, neither this man nor his family has ever been in any serious danger.

He has managed to leverage the propaganda possibilities into free emigration to the United States.

With all the genuine horrors in the world – the United States is killing innocent people every day in half a dozen countries – it is pathetic to see the press giving any play to this non-story.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

SERIES OF POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY STEPHEN SAIDEMAN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Stephen Saideman has given us a disgusting piece of analysis which I can only describe as a foreign-policy version of gutter literature.

The quality of thinking here is stunningly impoverished and utterly lacking in ethics.

This makes you wonder just how some of our universities grant such sinecures.

But then I remember the baffling case of Margaret Somerville, perhaps Canada’s most tedious and irrelevant academic.

And then I consider the case of the ghastly Michael Ignatieff, a man who blubbered stuff about human rights at the same time he advocated torture and NAZI-like invasion of another country.

Clearly, holding a position as a professor at a major university today is no guarantee of original thought, nor even of clear thought.

_________________________

“Canadians don’t appreciate or understand what we have here in our country, we just see the cost, not the rewards of helping others.”

A ridiculous observation.

The author is blinded by his immediate experience and lack of broader knowledge.

The fact is that the world is full of backward abuse. Take your pick.

In rural India they still burn brides, and forty million widows in India live in misery because of the way the culture treats widows.

And many of those forty million are teenagers or not much older, having been child brides married off at 12 or 14 for financial considerations of a family, often to a much older man who dies a few years later.

These women cannot even eat certain food, cannot remarry, must wear only certain colors, and are left alone to eventually die in poverty.

Shall I go on about rural areas of South America? Or Pakistan? Or Bangladesh?

God, American propaganda has been so effective, it is still quoted as a reason for squandering billions and killing the citizens of a country where we do not belong.

Women are abused throughout the poor and backward world, and that includes several billion people.

America did not go to Afghanistan to free women or any other Don Quixote nonsense.

It went there to kill, something which it has done a great deal of, including killing children.

_________________________

The behavior of other NATO countries is the sharpest argument about this pointless war.

No one will commit troops and equipment in any significant numbers.

Do they not understand what a terrible place Afghanistan is? Of course, they do, but they also know the West has no real strategic interests there.

And they know too that the “mission” cannot succeed, except in killing people and creating Potemkin village projects.

They make only token commitments to give the Pentagon a fig leaf of “coalition forces” and to keep Washington from taking reprisals.

You cannot remake a society with an army. Indeed you cannot remake a society at all.

The best we can ever do is give well-thought-out assistance, monetary and technical, and offer trade concessions.

A backward place must outgrow its backwardness. And B-52s sure do not help.

America went to Afghanistan for vengeance, and then realized it didn’t know what to do beyond terrorizing the local population.

We can only hope Obama is able to reach some kind of theatrical arrangement that covers his inevitable backing out, soon.

____________________________

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

“I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933