JOHN CHUCKMAN

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

We went into Afghanistan for one reason only.

The exact quote is: we owe one to the Pentagon.

Those words were said considering Canada’s previous principled refusal to enter the insane slaughter in Iraq and to participate in one of America’s projects for the militarization of space.

The Liberals, in agreeing, thought Canadians would not be in front-line duty and serve only as the kind of behind-the-front (fairly token) support true so many other NATO nations hoping to placate America.

Also since America had managed to get a UN resolution – as it mostly does in such matters through quiet browbeating, threats to aid, cajoling, and even pay-back threats – Canada took it as a sign of international recognition of legitimacy.

But Afghanistan never had real legitimacy.

Just look at all the NATO contributions. In view of the size of the country and of the exaggerated American claims of its vital nature and world-importance, all the contributions are token, ranging in size from a few hundred to a few thousand.

Does anyone not believe that had NATO countries believed the American nonsense about the vital nature of the mission that the contributions would have been in the tens of thousands?

The entire matter has been a vast charade, a charade basically covering America’s naked desire for extreme revenge in Afghanistan.

The Taleban never attacked anyone, and to this day we haven’t one ounce of proof bin Laden had anything to do with it, other than to enjoy the spectacle of an enemy being hurt.

Nasty as the Taleban were, they were no worse than the ugly members of the Northern Alliance, the people America used – behind a front of carpet-bombing – to actually fight the Taleban and the people some of whose members rule until this day.

All the stuff about rights was the lowest form of propaganda.

After all, the Russians during their invasion and occupation did many things in keeping with improving Afghanistan’s modernity, and what was the American response? To send billions in armaments to the people fighting the Russians.

We have no better modern example of a pointless war presented as something which it was not.

Even Vietnam, that modern holocaust in which the United States killed perhaps 3 million people and left behind a hideous mess of mine and Agent Orange and craters from carpet-bombing, never had such phony propaganda about its purpose.

A fool’s mission all around I am sorry to say, but the ugly truth may better prepare Canadians against such lunatic American projects in future.

 

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY PAUL KORING IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

America’s establishment is working hard to repeat the scenario of WWII in the Pacific.

Japan was never going to attack the U.S. but after a long period of harassment, trade restrictions, and threats, Japan decided it had no choice.

This is going to become the most dangerous and fearful effort facing Canada’s current younger generation’s time.

And it is completely unnecessary, just as was America’s holocaust in Vietnam where about 3 million people were slaughtered to maintain America’s presence in Asia.

Obama is just as much a creature of America’s military-industrial complex as George Bush or Ronald Reagan.
______________________________________________

“Our US friends should understand that military outreach costs money, and today the US has little of it.”

Yes, but you forget that the United States, having the privilege of the world’s reserve currency, is in a unique position financially.

It has abused, and will continue to abuse, the nations around the world holding its currency.

It will continue inflating gradually or it may at some point devalue.

In either case, America will leave dollar holders around the world “holding the bag,” no different in any respect than a conscienceless fraudster like Bernard Madoff.

So not only does it promote war and violence, it cheats everyone to pay for its stupidity.

That is precisely how the immensely costly and pointless war in Vietnam was paid for.

I am only sorry that most people do not have a grasp of this reality which allows America to behave as an unlimited fool in world affairs.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY PAUL KORING IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

This guy is shilling for Harper.

We can “maintain our air defense” with much less costly weapons.

Besides, there are no serious challenges to our air defense. None.

We need planes to escort errant air liners and the like. That doesn’t require the ultimate sophistication.

Having a large storehouse of highly sophisticated weapons is an open invitation to getting involved with nonsense like Libya or war crimes like Iraq.

Many of the best historians agree that the useless horror of WWI started in large part because all of Europe was a heavily armed camp.

Politicians and military people will always use power if it is there.

Just so right now in Libya, a lunatic business we do not even discuss.

And just so America’s pointless crusade in Afghanistan where we have spent a considerable number of lives and great treasure.

A sheer waste.
_______________________

“However, if you throw your back out trying to shovel deep snow when it does fall, you can be very uncomfortable for a long time. That event can make the snowblower look cheap and handy.

Note to Putin or any other aggressive interloper – we understand the need for snowblowers. Don’t even think about messing with us or our pals.”

A totally false analogy.

A snow-blower is a useful and time-saving tool, used many times a year.

And snow-blowers never start wars, the most wasteful and savage enterprise on earth.

A high-tech supersonic fighter is useless unless something extraordinary happens.

It just sits on the tarmac most of the time, gets its exquisitely fine-tuning put out of tune by jet jockeys taking it out for a playful spin, and absorbs vast amounts of cash on maintenance.

Even mentioning Putin marks the writer as something of a right-wing crank.

Its the cheap Harper ploy on Arctic sovereignty, ignoring the genuine threat against which these planes are useless.

We have infinitely less to fear from Putin’s Russia truly than we do from the United States, a country which now regularly attacks and bombs countries it doesn’t agree with.

Arctic sovereignty and Great Lakes water are two great targets for American interests.

Were the United States inclined to flex its muscle on us, this small number of jets would be shot down in a day.

The contract represents little more than a subsidy to the Pentagon trying to develop this costly machine.
____________________________

Further on the silly snow-blower analogy.

If you live in Georgia, a snow-blower is an utterly useless thing with no conceivable use ever, a vast waste of money and time.

In terms of geo-politics, we actually do live in Georgia.

The world’s Frankenstein military resides next door, watching with unblinking eyes.

No one else, but I mean no one, is going to come calling.

So we do not need this plane for any possible circumstance.

The Pentagon wants us to buy it – as it wants other NATO countries to buy it – to help subsidize its astronomical cost.

Just as when the US fights its various wars, it is always cajoling and pressuring its allies to join them – effectively a subsidy of activities they chose alone to engage in.

What a damn poor way to blow tens of billions of dollars.

Remember, Harper is the most pathetically servile prime minister towards the United States in our history.

He supports and goes along with whatever they choose to do but he is always disingenuous about just what he is doing, and just so this silly plane.

His stuff about Arctic sovereignty is a cheap political game because he entirely ignores the genuine threat to it, instead serving its interests without hesitation, and even completely adopting the political methods and language of the Republican Party.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY PAUL KORING IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Absolutely true.

I’ve said many times that it is sickening to imagine the buzz-cut CIA thugs at consoles in a locked room pumping their arms after blowing up a target they know very little about.

Then maybe they go out for lunch.

Indeed, we know they kill many times more innocents – family members or neighbors – than suspected bad guys.

And that word “suspected” is very important. This kind of killing with no legal procedure and no field of combat is plain murder.

Imagine our cops doing the same thing to “suspects” after a drug killing in northwest Toronto?

The “Go get ’em USA” represents precisely the utterly unethical attititude that is the cause of so much of our woe.

It is an Israeli attitude, and the drones represent the Israelization of American policy.
__________________

“…insurgents…”

What a stupid, meaningless word you’ve added to your vocabulary, Winston Churchill.

What is an insurgent?

Many of these people are in every way legitimate freedom fighters, the expression Ronald Reagan so loved.

Others are just doing what they can to hurt the soldiers who occupied their land. They are, if you will, the resistance.

None of them are alien invaders which is what that phony word ever-so-slightly suggests.

Many might benefit by reading or re-reading Orwell’s great essay, “Politics and the English Language.” It’s as fresh and meaningful as ever.

Insurgents is a cheat word invented by Pentagon PR touts.

As for a general analysis of so-called terror, read:

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/how-terror-has-lost-its-meaning/

http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/when-terror-is-just-fine/