Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

Saturday, 9 July 2016

NATO - NO!

Having Canada devote more money - the USA wants all member states to devote 2% of the GDP to armaments - who stands to gain by that? - to NATO seems to be done merely on the basis of a kiss-and-hug friendship between Obama and Trudeau. How much? Billions, army personnel and more.

Joseph Gerson of AFSC attended the Counter-NATO Summit in Warsaw and posted these points of interest: (Ruthlessly edited)

• There is growing concern about NATO, led by the U.S., dangerously
 ratcheting up military tensions in Europe and not respecting the very 
real limits of Russian/Putin ambitions. (See my Common Dreams 
article’s section on Ukraine

* NATO must be retired as soon as possible.

• Beginning with the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, the E.U. has been 
developing its own military. It is deeply integrated with NATO and 
provides the E.U. with the options of fighting as part of and in 
coordination with NATO or operating independently.  As Britain exits 
from the E.U., Germany will be the dominant military power. In NATO 
Germany is “just a junior partner,” while in the E.U. it is dominant. 
There is often a division of labor with NATO doing its coercive thing, 
while the E.U. takes care of the civilian dimensions of an intervention 
or nation building.

• While U.S. and E.U. interests and policies are closely aligned, at 
points they diverge. For example, Germany has deep economic interests 
with Russia, while the U.S. has few, leading to less aggressive Germany 
policies toward Russia. Also, the U.S. and Russia are reportedly 
supporting the Kurds in Syria (they declared the regional autonomy of 
their part of Syria yesterday), while Germany is backing Turkey as it 
tolerates Turkey’s assault on Kurds in Turkey and Syria (largely owing 
to the deal to keep Syrian refugees from coming to Europe.)  While the 
U.S. and E.U. collaborated in the Ukrainian Maidan coup, they backed 
different oligarchs, with the U.S. winning out and restructuring 
Ukrainian intelligence and its military along U.S. lines and to serve 
U.S. interests.

• Ilya Budraiskis of the Russian Socialist Movement is a sharp and 
courageous critic of Putin’s government. He is also clear that NATO 
and Russian militarism are dangerous and need to be opposed. The 
sanctions (both the U.S./E.U. sanction and Putin’s sanctions on food 
imports from Europe) have hurt the Russian people, with the former 
leading more people to support Putin. Sanctions should be targeted 
only against the persons of Putin & his cronies.

• North America has little awareness of the dangers of increasing the 
U.S-led militarism in Europe.

• The slogan on the banner lead the NATO protest today says (in Polish) 
“We’ve suffered Russia and We Don’t Want Washington. No to 
NATO.” Poland is now the front line in this new Cold War. A poll 
released yesterday indicated that 20% of Poles oppose NATO, a 
number larger than expected. 

• Militarism in Europe is choking democratic culture and institutions, 
with Poland being a prime but not unique example. NATO and the E.U. 
military make decisions in secret and are not accountable to any 
democratic processes.

• U.S. demands that all members of NATO devote at least 2% of their 
GDP to their militaries is oppressive, especially in the context of the 
austerity budgets which have slashed essential social services and 
people’s incomes. SIPRI reports that U.S. military spending is 34% 
of the world’s total. Adding NATO gets to more than half. Russia’s 
spending is 4% of the world’s total, which says something about 
relative (not nuclear) power.

• The military-industrial complex and elites require enemies to prosper. 
Putin, while hardly loved by people here, is being demonized for this 
purpose.

• Some Eastern European and Baltic states joined NATO only because 
they thought it necessary to do so in order to gain E.U. membership.

• The German Left Party (De Linke) forced a debate in the German 
Parliament recently over whether NATO should be dissolved. It was 
apparently quite a passionate debate on all sides. The European Left is 
developing a resolution calling for the dissolution of NATO to be 
introduced into the parliaments of many European nations for debate 
in November.  They don’t expect to win these debates but to open up 
the public discourse.

• The British Chilcot report, which is holding Tony Blair’s government 
accountable for lying and committing to the war in Iraq before all 
peaceful alternatives were exhausted is inspiring to people from across 
Europe. Jeremy Corbyn has been shown to have been correct in his 
opposition to the war and his criticism of Blair and his cronies.

• German Foreign Minister Steinmeyer referred to the massive 
Anaconda military exercise in Central Europe and the Baltics as 
“warmongering.” (Reference was made to anaconda snakes strangling 
their prey – i.e. Russia.)  

• A video of Rep. Barbara Lee was inspiring. She was the one member 
of the USA Congress with the wisdom and courage to vote against the 
authorization of the disaterous Afghanistan War.  Her remarks focused 
on the urgent need to prevent nuclear war and to move for the complete 
elimination of nuclear weapons.

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Hard-on for War?


 A number of years ago, my sisters and I were sailing in the Virgin Islands – bare boat style. I swam in to the shore to do my exercises, carefully cradling my towel over my head. I picked a shaded portion of the beach overhung with branches and unobtrusive to most passers-by.

Sometime during the forty minutes, I heard a clearing of the throat and then humming. Following the sound, I saw a big pink belly on a large balding white man. He was looking out to sea, one fat little hand shading his eyes, the other resting in a fat fold over his thigh. He looked extraordinarily pleased with himself.

He was nude and deep among his fat folds, it was obvious that he had a hard-on.

Men can do this. They can have hard-ons. They have a part of their body that enlarges several times greater than at rest.

Women cannot do this – sure our nipples get hard and pointy and we can get warm in the crotch, wet even – but visible engorgement is limited to nursing mothers.

As we puzzle over the existence of war – the purchase of bigger and bigger killing machines – often shaped like penises, should we be considering the “hard-on” and how it affects our male partners?

War is not integral to the human race. We are soft, easy prey for carnivores. We developed in family groups and tribes working cooperatively for survival. We have enormous empathy – studies show that even babies empathize! Our needs are met when we cared for, nurtured for the first years and then allowed to explore the world safely and independently.

We have to be taught to kill other people (aside from the few psychopaths or sociopaths to whom it comes natural); the military spends millions of dollars creating and using desensitization techniques. Governments in turn spend great sums of money churning out their rational for weapons and armies and promotion of the necessity of wars. The poor kids – never the wealthy - get to go and kill or be killed on someone else’s land. Generals often retire in their fifties, could it be that if they stay any longer they gain perspective and lose blood lust?

Meanwhile the rich get richer.

Does it all come down to whether or not you can get a hard-on and what you turn to if you can’t?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_3Qg-SADY