Tell It Like It Is

I have written nothing about the Iranian missile that brought down the Ukrainian flight, frankly because I don't know what to say beyond the fact that it is an immense tragedy, not only due to the loss of life but because of who was killed: primarily young people with their entire lives ahead of them, and young people who were immensely talented, many PhD students, researchers and doctors. We will never know what they could have achieved, both for themselves and for the world.

What is clear, however, is the fact that Donald Trump has much blood on his hands. Had he not assassinated an Iranian citizen on sovereign soil, the Iranians would not have been on high alert and mistaken the doomed flight for an incoming missile. That the Psychopath-in-Chief feels no responsibility or remorse is a given here.

Canada's response to Trump's responsibility, of course, has been non-existent, so if we want some honest dialogue about this terrible event, we could do far worse than scanning the letter-writers' page in The Star:

For now, U.S. President Donald Trump’s vanity project — taking out Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani — has cost the lives of scores of Iranian mourners killed in a stampede at the general’s funeral, and scores of foreign nationals killed in a plane crash while desperately fleeing Tehran.

The only thing this self-serving president cares less about than Iranian lives is the lives of Iranian Canadians.

There is no room in Trump’s personal world view for effective diplomacy. Having turned Soleimani to smouldering ashes, he was too immature to remain quiet about it, but crowed and gloated, even as millions of grief-stricken mourners flooded the streets of Iran.

Trump may well be re-elected, such is the powerful pseudo-intimacy between him and his adoring followers.

Having said that, I understand Trump’s skepticism about handing back billions to the current Iranian regime, which clearly had a long shopping list of terror-related activities.

It is time now to reinstate a better version of the Iran nuclear pullback, or for Canada to quit the region entirely.

Ron Charach, Toronto

Three things are important to note on this crisis in the Middle East with Iran and the US.

One, U.S. President Donald Trump does not take ownership (or blame) for bringing the crisis to a head, but instead blames the Iranians and the late Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Two, Trump has had his face slapped by the retaliatory missile strikes by Iran. He will not like this and inside it makes him feel humiliated and insecure. (My guess is that this personal response by him has been kept hidden.) He will be left surly, vindictive and unforgiving toward the Iranians.

Three, Trump will not abandon his goal of containing Iran and trying to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. Whether this is realistically attainable or not is another question.

Chaos, confusion, uncertainty, lack of clarity, worry and emotion, and nothing solved — once again the results of Trump’s actions. Both sides now know the other can strike with missiles.

Through all of this we must wonder, how come the U.S. defensive equipment did not knock down the Iranian missiles? Was the range too short for response, was the equipment even in place? Was all this puffery?

Norm Ferguson, Richmond Hill

It is often said that talk is cheap. I beg to differ. Had talk substituted for Trump's pathetic, impulsive and deranged behaviour, many, many people would still be alive today.

Psst! Wanna Know A Secret?

On A Certain Dysfunctional Commander-In-Chief

Chip Franklin may be somewhat coarse, but he certainly has insights into the dysfunctional entity known as Donald Trump:

Watching Trump's announcement in front of all those generals reminds of the kid who dresses up in his dad's clothes...ya know, and then kills 1000’s of innocent people pic.twitter.com/96LZ6dPqzA

— Chip Franklin (@chipfranklin) January 9, 2020

Nice Beard Though

As a Canadian, there are a number of things that cause me to feel ashamed: here in Ontario, it was the election of the dumb demagogue Doug Ford, while federally it has to do with my many fellow citizens who believe the government propaganda that we can have our climate-change cake (more pipelines, more tarsands} and eat it too (bitumen extraction as a way to afford reducing our emissions!)

But given current events, most cringe-worthy for me is the absence of a Canadian response to Donald Trump's latest effort to destabilize the Middle East through the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. While few would argue that the general was not responsible for much death and mayhem, his killing at the hands of Donald Trump will likely have far-reaching implications.

Yet despite that, only silence from Mr. Trudeau.

Contrast that with the fact that even a right-wing government like Boris Johnson's is now speaking out, this time over Trump saying he will target cultural sites in Iran if the latter retaliates for the murder:

Britain’s foreign secretary has said that targeting cultural sites in Iran would breach international warfare conventions in an implicit rebuke to Donald Trump for threatening to bomb protected heritage sites.

Dominic Raab did not criticise the US president directly over his threats, but said: “We have been very clear that cultural sites are protected under international law and we would expect that to be respected.”

Trump’s comments amount to threatening a war crime because such action would violate international treaties that the US has signed up to.

The director general of Unesco, which lists 24 protected sites in Iran, highlighted that both the US and Iran were also signatories to a 1972 convention prohibiting states from taking “any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage” of other states.

The UN security council also passed a unanimous resolution in 2017 condemning the destruction of heritage sites following attacks by Isis, including on the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and on the Mosul Museum in Iraq.

Canada's craven and submissive silence should not be a source of pride for anyone. If history teaches us anything, appeasement never works.

But in other news, Trudeau has a nice beard, eh?

Hmmmm ......

Just sayin'.

This Is Quite Powerful, And Also Quite Relevant

A Facebook friend posted the following, which appeared on Dandelion Salad, a site I intend to explore as time permits. Bracing and sobering, this video about the cost of exercising one's right to free speech in the home of 'brave' and the land of the 'free' seems more relevant than ever:

Words, Words, And More Words

I haven't been writing much these days, in part due to a stubborn bug I've been battling, and in part because I often wonder if there really is much more to say that I haven't already said over the years. However, today I read an article that seems particularly germane to our troubled times, and hence, back into the fray for another go.

Ever since I was very young, I have had an avid interest in the English language, an interest no doubt fostered by my love of reading. That love of books led me into a career as an English teacher, and it was while teaching Grade 13 (OAC) that I think I began to truly appreciate the often insidious power of language. George Orwell's Politics and The English Language, about which I have written in the past, here, here and here, is especially instructive in that regard.

One of Orwell's key warnings revolved around the political use of euphemisms, words that often mask some unpleasant truths. We use them all the time without ill-intent (think, for example, of referring to the deceased as having 'passed away', or a beloved pet that has been 'put to sleep'). However, those in positions of power, whether they be, for example, employers or politicians, often use them to pervert or conceal truth. Consider, for example, the last time you heard that someone was fired, axed or terminated. These days, people are 'laid off' or 'furloughed'. Nice not to have to think too closely about the desperation that unemployment can bring, isn't it?

But the above illustration is still pretty innocuous. In his column today, Rick Salutin has some thoughts about the more sinister of use language:

Since this is the season for Word of the Year nominations, like quid pro quo and CBD, let me propose a late entry and long-shot (whoops, bad word choice): contractor. As in this report on the backstory to the assault by Iraqis on the grandiose, irritating U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad: “The U.S. carried out military strikes in Iraq and Syria targeting an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia blamed for a rocket attack that killed an American contractor.”

Contractor? Was this person renovating a basement suite in Fallujah or reshingling a roof in Mosul? Nope. Though details aren’t given, this is almost certainly what was earlier known as a defence contractor and before that, by the perfectly adequate word, mercenary. They’ve existed since the dawn of warfare and came into major use with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. It has taken since then to get “defence” dropped from the term but it was worth the effort.

The omission makes “contractor” a high-value obfuscator in a league with “collateral damage” for innocent victims, “enhanced interrogation” for torture, “extraordinary rendition” for kidnapping, etc. It’s a creative area.

Why this evolution (devolution?) of mercenary?

The UN has a “convention” prohibiting mercenaries that was initiated, perhaps prophetically, in 2001, at the start of the endless, U.S.-incited wars in the Mideast. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen). UN conventions are fairly easy to create but fade after that, since they must be signed, ratified, declared etc. Only 35 nations signed this one, not including the U.S., U.K. and Israel, the big providers of mercs. Canada signed but didn’t ratify.

But there is another reason as well, one that has allowed private companies to accrue huge profits at the public's expense:

Before the post-millennium invasions, the U.S. miltary-to-merc ratio was about 50-1. It has since dropped to 10-1. They often contract through the CIA and take up about half its payrolls.

By 2006, there were about 100,000 “contractors” in Iraq, most of them ex-U. S. military, trained on the taxpayers’ dime. They were actors in horrors like Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. When you hear about the U.S. removing its last 5,000 troops there (unlikely at best since, in fact, they’re adding forces), you should know there are still 7,000 contractors who aren’t going anywhere.

And so our 'masters' continue their rampant pillaging, public accountability becoming merely an increasingly quaint notion.

So what is to be learned from this? Perhaps only one thing: the prescience and the ongoing relevance of George Orwell's insights, almost 75 years after he wrote Politics and the English Language.