Monday, November 14, 2016

Nov. 14: At the going down of the sun, we will remember them...


This story did not appear in the irving press, of course.  It appeared a day ago on CBC news. Canadian troops are in Mosul, the city  being attacked by Iraqis and Kurds and various others  (who are on our side.) In fact, the Canadian troops have exchanged fire.

And why are they there?

Well, they are there to watch for and to report war crimes to the UN.

Now, in the last 75 years in which war crimes have been offences, virtually all of those declared to be the criminals were on the losing side. Not a single allied military leader in all those  years has ever been charged of a war  crime. We hanged Germans and Japanese, but not a single allied leader, not even one of those who pioneered the deliberate bombing of civilians.

In Vietnam, an American officer ordered his soldiers to slaughter a whole village, including babies. The case was investigated only after a long fight by a reporter to get it into the news. And the officer, for killing some 800 people, got one night in jail.

After killing a million and a half Iraqis in a war that was illegal, not a single American was charged with war crimes. Sadam Hussein was, though. There was a very quick trial, and he was  hanged. And, though it is now known that Bush and Blair both lied bout the reasons for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed at least 2 million, neither of them has ever been charged.

And Canadian troops are now going to report war crimes by our American,  Iraqi and Kurd allies? (not to mention by Canadian pilots)?  Get real.

So why are Canadian troops there? It's obvious. They are there to report war crimes by the other side. In short, we have put the lives of our soldiers at risk for a cheap, propaganda exercise.

Gee! And it's just three days ago we were remembering.....
Gee - This year has been the hottest year on record. But don't worry. Our governments are looking for new ways to control that by burning more fossil fuels. Curiously, the news media rarely criticized Trump for his ignorant pronouncements on the subject of climate change. Certainly, the irving press never mentioned them at all.
The Guardian's every article about Trump has been, understandably, critical. Every one about Clinton, like the one below, has been laudatory. That's been typical of The Guardian and many other news media. That's not only unbalanced reporting. It also misses the point of what has happened.

This election has not been a battle between good and evil. Clinton's views are as vicious and dangerous as those of  Trump. There is far less difference between them than there might appear to be. What we have to understand is that this election has not been about a triumph of evil over good (or of good over evil). What this election was about was the collapse of American political and social systems. There was no good side. And there is no sign of a good side developing.
Here are stories from around the world about the climate change 'that isn't happening'.
Here's a frightening development on the issue of climate change. It's run as an anti-Trump article - but Trump is by no means the only villain in this.
Here is a very one-sided look at what is happening at Standing Rock. But that's not more one-sided than the irving press position of simply ignoring it.
The following is long. But it's a great anti-dote to the 'news' we've been getting from most of our news media over the last seventy years. The Korean War, for example, did not begin in the way we have been told. Nor did most other wars.

The following is quite possible - though I would not be at all confident about the results.
This is the the New York Times; so it's reporting strays into bias. But, if true, Trump is suggesting a very sensible move. And one that never would have come from Clinton.
And here's the same story as it appeared in  Russia Today. It certainly does not appear to be radically different from such a story as it would be in most western papers.
One of the items above discusses how the rise of poverty in the U.S. is laying the groundwork for a revolution in that country. Now there's evidence it could be happening in Canada, too.

So where does the U.S. go now under Trump?

Nowhere useful. He won on a national anger. But many of those who voted for him think their anger is because of Muslims and latinos in the U.S. Trump has no answer to their anger because the greed of people like him is the real cause of the anger.

Once some realization of that sinks into American thinking, Trump will do what Clinton would do in that situation - use the powers to ignore human rights and the American constitution (powers created by Bush and Obama), and use the surveillance of the secret police to establish a far more serious police state than the U.S. is even now.

If Clinton  had won, she's be doing exactly the same because in terms of what the American people are angry about, Trump and Clinton are twins. This election was not a failure of either candidate. It was a failure of the whole American system of values.
Neither candidate even mentioned the mass theft  that is the greatest problem facing the U.S. - the cornering of wealth by a very small number at the expense of 99,9 % of the population.

I'm afraid we haven't begun to see the the magnitude of this disastrous election.

The U.S. is quite possibly on the edge of extreme violence. It was coming whoever was elected in an atmosphere largely created by extremely greedy capitalists (like Trump) and the bought politicians (like Clinton.)

1 comment:

  1. "There was no good side. And there is no sign of a good side developing."

    If you are looking for the good side, listen for what New Deal Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have to say.

    They almost won the party in 2016. It was a 50/50 split. Now that the bribe-taking Democratic party insiders (led by super-corporate-lobbyist John Podesta) handed a ridiculous buffoon like Trump a super-majority they don't have a leg to stand on. They will be eviscerated for their utter incompetence and corruption.

    That means the New Deal Democrats now control the party for all intents and purposes. By 2020, they will have a selection of presidential candidates running on restoring the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. Any absurdity they barf up, like Tim Kaine, will get slaughtered like Jeb Bush. (Although they would have a strong card to play if they got Michelle Obama in the game.)

    I think Elizabeth Warren would make the perfect FDR for our times. She is not a conqueror. She is a unifier. She stated "she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate" (Wikipedia.)

    Of course, she has her work cut out for her. The establishment has Blue and Red at each others throats mostly by inciting liberals and progressives into believing conservatives are a bunch of racist, fascist basket of deplorables. This is just as bigoted and stereotypical view of an entire group of people as any actual racist holds. (So much for intolerance of intolerance and a war on racism.)

    You won't find much of what is going on among the people in articles from elitist intellectuals who absurdly suggest a "trade war with China" will hurt poor people (the Countercurrents piece.) These people might be good for analyzing what happens AFTER the revolution is over. Or perhaps it will take the next generation of intellectuals not conditioned with establishment-agenda claptrap parading around as technocracy.

    -Bernie Orbust