Canada and the F-35's

From the wonderful Dr. Neil Kitson and his blog Canadians in Afghanistan

Canada's Purchase of the F-35 explained

They also did a wonderful explanation of the subprime mortages.

Why don't you come up and see me?

The leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan are over in Washington visiting Obama. When the emperor calls, all tremble and obey.

He's very, very sorry about the 100+ civilians killed by U.S. air strikes. Not as sorry as the Afghans, I bet.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the escalating civilian casualties?

Record bombs dropped in Afghanistan in April

"Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show.

In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever."

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper decided to make a surprise visit to Afghanistan.

Surprise! Glad to see me?

I didn't like the sound of this much, though. He's thanking the U.S. for their "help".

"...I believe ... we will have the numbers we need to begin what we really hope is irreversible progress," he said.

"...Remember friends, before you came here, the Taliban ran this country, Afghanistan, like a medieval gulag," said Harper. "Those dark desperate days are ending."

Something irreversible has happened, alright. I don't think it can be described as progress. The dark, desperate days are just beginning.

The CTV story had this headline:

PM goes off base during surprise Afghanistan visit

One thing...Harper is always way off base, no matter where he is.

Meanwhile, reports are coming out (this one from 2006, so gawd knows what's happened since then) of U.S. interrogators killing dozens of detainees and then covering up the evidence.

US interrogators may have killed dozens, human rights researcher and rights group say

"United States interrogators killed nearly four dozen detainees during or after their interrogations...In all, 98 detainees have died while in US hands. Thirty-four homicides have been identified, with at least eight detainees — and as many as 12 — having been tortured to death..."

"...[M]ost of those taken captive were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They include at least one Afghani soldier, Jamal Naseer, who was mistakenly arrested in 2004. “Those arrested with Naseer later said that during interrogations U.S. personnel punched and kicked them, hung them upside down, and hit them with sticks or cables,” Sifton writes. “Some said they were doused with cold water and forced to lie in the snow. Nasser collapsed about two weeks after the arrest, complaining of stomach pain, probably an internal hemorrhage.”

"...[A]nother Afghan killing occurred in 2002. Mohammad Sayari was killed by four U.S. servicemembers after being detained for allegedly “following their movements.”

"...“Nagem Sadoon Hatab… a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed while in U.S. custody at a holding camp close to Nasiriyah,” the group wrote. “Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death – Hatab’s body – was rendered unusable in court. Hatab’s internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering Baghdad heat, the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner’s findings of strangulation was never found.”

"...In another graphic instance, a former Iraqi general was beaten by US forces and suffocated to death. The military officer charged in the death was given just 60 days house arrest."

They just can't shut up, can they?

Longer troop deployments urged

Last month, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates frayed tender NATO nerves by suggesting some allied troops in southern Afghanistan come up short in the battle against insurgents.

Now the senior U.S. commander on the ground in Afghanistan has elaborated on the theme, saying that six-month deployments such as those undertaken by Canadian soldiers lack the longevity to get the job done American-style.

Are they kidding here? Getting the job done American-style. Uh-huh. They're doing a bang-up job in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just look at the peace and prosperity enjoyed in the areas where the U.S. has full sway.

I don't suppose they even see the irony in this next bit.

Praising the "absolutely amazing" progress in U.S.-controlled sectors of eastern Afghanistan against the struggles encountered by Dutch, British and Canadian troops in the south, McNeill contrasted the elongated 15-month rotations of American troops against the six-month rotations that are the norm for Canadian soldiers.

American soldiers are coming back from the optional wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan with horrific injuries, PTSD, depression and who knows what else. Homelessness among returned veterans is approaching Vietnam era standards. They are killing others and themselves at a record rate when they do return. Maybe other countries don't want to destroy their citizens and civil society in this way, to help the U.S. spread all over the world like an oil slick.

"They probably are not as well-endowed by their governments as U.S. soldiers are. Some of them don't have the same level of pre-deployment training."

The families of U.S. soldiers are sending them body-armour because the stuff they get from their government is sub-standard. They send them cans of silly string to help find trip wires for roadside bombs. I guess the Pentagon doesn't have the silly string manufacturers on their payroll. They have also had to take ever-lower level recruits and cut short their training to keep the troop numbers up. This crap is unbelieveable.

"But he also suggested that NATO should consider the idea of U.S. forces taking charge of the southern command, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest."

So they could drop bombs on them from a great height, the U.S. strategy of choice. Civilians, women, children blown to atoms? No problem. We got them Taliban but good, yee-haw! What they don't get is that the Taliban are civilans who want the western types the hell out of their country.

Robert Gates, ¿por qué no te callas?

Can nobody in the U.S. administration say anything without inserting both feet in their mouths up to their considerable asses?

"In comments reported Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times, Gates said that while U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan are doing a terrific job, he is concerned that NATO allies are not well trained in counterinsurgency operations."

Now, he says NATO troops are doing a wonderful job.

Wow! Gee, Mr. Gates! Thanks!

"Gates made the remark a day after Pentagon officials acknowledged he has concerns about the allies' ability to battle an insurgency in Afghanistan."

..."Our NATO allies are playing a significant role, particularly Canada and the United Kingdom and the Dutch. This kind of role, even with the addition of our marines, will remain essentially the same."

Oh, you mean getting killed at a rate higher than any other forces there, and then getting slagged off by the U.S. Defence Secretary?

If you don't mind, I think we'll pass on that one.

These asinine remarks came close to the sixth anniversary (April 18, 2002) of the date when U.S. pilots dumped bombs on Canadian troops on night exercises on the ground in Afghanistan and killed four of them and wounded a further eight. Nice work! Canada's first casualties in the war, and the U.S. did it.

Then they killed another one in September, 2006. Dropped a bomb on him too.

And they've been finishing off the British troops, too.

As far as I know, the Dutch have escaped the U.S. bombs - so far, anyway.

As far as Canadian expertise goes, they had this to say:

"I think our allies over there, this is not something they have any experience with," he told the Times.

First of all, Mr. Gates, I think the number of your allies is diminishing by the minute.

Your NATO "allies" might do a bit better if you'd stop blowing them up.

And as far as our success with counterinsurgency: "Pentagon officials acknowledged he [Gates] has concerns about the allies' ability to battle an insurgency in Afghanistan."

By the way, how's it going in Iraq, eh?

Oh, what a funny war! (part two)

Chalmers Johnson isn't very amused by funny wars either.

The historian who brought us Blowback, Nemesis, and other tales of American imperialism, Johnson gives us the history behind the war in Afghanistan, the "freedom fighters" armed and trained by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, then dumped when no longer useful, who turn on the U.S. and anybody daft enough to side with them.

See the funny side of it yet? Neither do I, and neither did he.

This line will stay with me for a long, long time.

"What to make of the film (which I found rather boring and old-fashioned)? It makes the U.S. government look like it is populated by a bunch of whoring, drunken sleazebags, so in that sense it's accurate enough."

Our mission in Afghanistan?

"...One of the severe side effects of imperialism in its advanced stages seems to be that it rots the brains of the imperialists. They start believing that they are the bearers of civilization, the bringers of light to "primitives" and "savages" (largely so identified because of their resistance to being "liberated" by us), the carriers of science and modernity to backward peoples, beacons and guides for citizens of the "underdeveloped world."

And what is going to be the outcome? Maybe the original story can tell us.

"...we are told by another insider reviewer, James Rocchi, that the scenario, as originally written by Aaron Sorkin of "West Wing" fame, included the following line for Avrakotos: "Remember I said this: There's going to be a day when we're gonna look back and say 'I'd give anything if [Afghanistan] were overrun with Godless communists'." This line is nowhere to be found in the final film."

So where has all this fighting, dying, and endless military expenditure gotten us?

"...Today there is ample evidence that, when it comes to the freedom of women, education levels, governmental services, relations among different ethnic groups, and quality of life -- all were infinitely better under the Afghan communists than under the Taliban or the present government of President Hamid Karzai, which evidently controls little beyond the country's capital, Kabul."

But don't take my word for it. You can either listen to the historian or you can listen to Tom Hanks.

Now I'm SURE we're doing something wrong

Praise from the Liar-in-Chief and his cohorts doesn't warm the cockles of my heart, I'm afraid.

"President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Canada and other allies Thursday for their combat roles in Afghanistan while saying the U.S. administration is worried NATO countries will eventually tire of the mission and leave."

I'm afraid I'm still not too sure I know what this mission is. What are we doing there, again?

"...Canada also wanted to know whether more U.S. troops would be available for Afghanistan as they leave Iraq. The response was that it won't happen in the short term; a point U.S. Defence Minister Robert Gates has been making."

Sorry, but you're on your own. Afghanistan is important for the U.S., but just not important enough to send soldiers. NATO countries can die for the U.S. war, and should be PROUD to do so.

"...Earlier in the day, Bush mentioned the Canadians - along with the British, Dutch, Danes and Australians - at a news conference, thanking them for their "contribution of shooters, fighters, people that are willing to be on the front line."

Hey, what happened to humanitarian intervention, schools, women's rights, all that stuff? (Don't worry - I never believed that snowjob anyway.)

"It's a dangerous mission but it's a mission that we're proud of," said Bernier, noting the Conservative government is hoping to stay longer.

Most Canadians aren't proud. They're angry, confused and sad. And the Egyptians already told us what the Conservative government has in mind. Anybody who doesn't have their head buried in the sand or up their own fundament knows that this is Stevie's War, and he won't let anyone leave while there's still a man standing.

"...Rice called Canada "an extraordinary partner" making an "invaluable and effective" contribution to what is an "absolutely essential mission ... crucial to the future of the United States, Canada and all civilized nations."

The only one Rice is worried about is the U.S., and she's done such a wonderful job so far, Americans are terrified. When did Canada become a U.S. colony? Praise from Condoleezza Rice makes me acutely uncomfortable.

"... It was the United States that was attacked on Sept. 11th..."

She's starting to sound like Giuliani - the Sept. 11th mantra, over and over and over...

And - oh, yeah - Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.

"...Canada also raised concerns about U.S. rules that prohibit military manufacturers from employing dual nationals and foreign-born citizens on American projects in Canada."

This could be a good thing. Why should we be manufacturing the materials of slaughter?

Going the wrong way up a dead-end street

I wonder if it's a gift or does it have to be learned.

I'm talking about the Harper government consistently backing the wrong horse, or whatever metaphor you might want to use.

"Critics at the Bali climate change conference are lumping Canada with the U.S., which they say is refusing to commit to deep emissions reductions, thereby hijacking the conference."

We are lumped in with the U.S., thanks to the Harperites and their forelock-tugging to the almighty Bush administration. Harper backed the invasion of Iraq, he thought the mining of southern Lebanon with unexploded cluster bombs by Israel was a "measured response", and now he thinks that backing Bush in his destruction of the planet is a good idea.

"There is a wrecking crew here in Bali, led by the Bush administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others," said Jennifer Morgan, of the Climate Change Network."

Canada is a key part of the dispute, Chao said. On Thursday, Environment Minister John Baird told members Canada is feeling first-hand the effects of climate change, but said the proposed targets are impossible for Canada to achieve.

Of course we can achieve them, but the oil and gas business might take a hit, and the major polluters would have to put some of their gazillions in profit into cleaning up their act. Can't have that. Profit is king, and they paid to get this government elected. They OWN it.

The plan being proposed by Baird would reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 regardless of what comes out of the Bali conference. But the reductions would be from 2006 emissions levels, instead of 1990 levels, which many nations agree is a good starting point for emissions reductions.

"So right after this speech, Bangladesh's representative came out to call Canada's position immoral, dishonest, working against the interests of the planet and working against the interests of individual Canadians," Chao said.

I'm glad to see the rest of the world hammering the Canadian delegation. Do they know that they only represent a little over a third of Canadians? And that's whom they're protecting. The rest of us can just drown in their effluent or choke on their emissions.

"The members, on learning that Canada was trying to set targets at 2006 levels, said that Canada was being misleading and trying to undermine the trust of the talks here among nations," Chao said.

Don't worry. It's all under control.

Michael Klare says what all Canadians kind of thought anyway.

Thanks, Stevie, for further selling out the country.

From Thursday, Nov. 28th Democracy Now podcast:

Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. He is author of several books including “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.” Klare’s latest article for the Nation is called Beyond the Age of Petroleum.

"Well, there’s a lot going on all at once that ensures that this oil crisis is qualitatively different from those of the past. And this is much more long-lasting. And one of the qualitative differences is that we have used up, over the past thirty years, most of the remaining oil in the global north—in the United States, in Canada, in Europe and other places that are near at hand and relatively under our control."

Well, Professor Klare, you might have Stevie and the boys (and a few of the girls) under your control, but you don't have the majority of the Canadian population under the imperialist thumb...yet.

White guys with guns: Canada's military in Afghanistan

White guys with guns: Canada's military in Afghanistan

by Dave Markland, a member of the Vancouver Parecon Collective, organizes with StopWar.ca and contributes to their blog chronicling Canada's war in Afghanistan: www.stopwarblog.blogspot.com

Some quotes from the article. Lots more where this came from, fully referenced.

"In total, some 2500 personnel make up the conventional forces deployed in Afghanistan. Additionally, an unknown number of JTF-2 special forces work alongside special forces from the US and other countries as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Very little is known about their role."

The one Canadian member of the JTF-2 who was killed hardly even made it onto the public radar. I found the guy's name by accident (Master Corporal Anthony Klumpenhouwer) on a military uberfan's blog when I was trying to find out who he was and what he was doing. They said he fell from a communications tower. What was he doing up there? Sniping, perhaps? We'll never know. But there was no ramp ceremony, no pictures of the body's return, no publicized military funeral. Really strange.

"...A Norwegian newspaper caused a stir early this year when it reported on sworn testimony by several US interrogators who had worked at the [Kandahar] base and described some of the goings-on, including the widespread use of torture."

Everybody else is doing it. I don't see any reason why Canadians would be an exception, especially since there is so much joint training with the U.S. military.

"Another soldier reports vengeance and geopolitics as his motivator: "I have absolutely no problem killing them," asserts a battle group sergeant. "They started this on September 11. We're just bringing the fight back to them"

Wonderful - ignorance of what's really going on combined with unfocused rage and a gun. Only good could come out of that.

"Shortly after arrival in Kandahar, members of the Van Doos regiment "étaient un peu frustrés de participer à une mission de reconstruction et auraient préféré combattre à leur arrivée en Afghanistan." ("were a little frustrated to be taking part in a reconstruction mission and would have preferred to fight upon their arrival in Afghanistan").

I guess all those "Fight...fight...fight" recruiting ads for the Canadian military have worked. Always attracts the best and the brightest.

"If all this Rambo-style readiness sounds to some like an echo of American military bravado, there may be good reason for it. Working in close quarters with their US counterparts seems to have caused a certain mindset to rub off on Canadian officers..."

Great role models.

"One of the key tools in Canada's version of "peacemaking", the British-made M777 Howitzer gun, which can shoot 6 inch-diameter bullets a distance of 30km (22 miles), has reportedly been dubbed the “Desert dragon” by insurgent fighters. Acquired by the Canadian Forces in the fall of 2005, the weapon has gained a devoted fan base among military brass. "When the infantry, for example, come up against a couple of houses where they would suffer casualties going in and clearing that house of the enemy, even though they would win, it's sort of nice to be able to stand back and turn to the tanker and say, 'Take that house out.'" So explained retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who has been doing near full-time public relations for the war. Afghan bystanders, ceaselessly endangered by NATO operations, might disagree with MacKenzie that the experience is "sort of nice".

Winning hearts and minds, one atomized Afghan at a time.

And we're even hiring our own mercenaries. Is this the proper use for Canadian's money? Would they agree if they were asked? I doubt it. That's why we're not asked.

"Canadian forces, too, are getting in on the action. "For five years Col. Toorjan, a turbaned, tough-as-nails, 33-year-old soldier, has been working alongside U.S. and Canadian forces in Afghanistan as a paid mercenary commander," reports Canada's National Post. "Today, his militia force of 60 Afghan fighters guards Camp Nathan Smith, the Canadian provincial reconstruction team site (PRT) in Kandahar, and guides Canadian soldiers on their patrols outside the base." Toorjan and his armed men "wield significant influence in Kandahar's complex security web", making him a treasured ally, though before 9/11 he was "in effect a warlord", said the second-in-command of Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team."

The use of mercenaries, it should be noted, runs counter to the International Convention on Mercenaries (1989). Canada, however, along with the USA, the UK and many others, is not a signatory to that treaty.

Just like the Americans. Never sign treaties that might prevent you from doing horrible things. That way, your ass is covered.

Frankly, Mr. Gates, I don't GIVE a damn!

When U.S. warmongers criticize you, you know you're doing something right.

U.S. criticizes NATO over Afghan commitment

KIEV -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized NATO on Monday for failing to send enough troops and other resources to Afghanistan, setting the stage for tense alliance discussions later this week.

"I am not satisfied that an alliance whose members have over two million soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen cannot find the modest additional resources that have been committed for Afghanistan," Mr. Gates said.

Maybe they don't want to send their soldiers and equipment to fight U.S. wars of aggression. Do ya think?

There have been some that have not yet announced their commitments, according to the report.

Another coalition of the unwilling? Wonder what the almighty U.S. threatened them with - nuclear obliteration?

Illegal and immoral war in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan was wrong, too

...even U.S. intelligence agencies are admitting that the continuous killings of Afghanis and Iraqis continue to provide al-Qaeda with a steady stream of recruits.

"...The Taliban refused to accede to Bush’s unconditional demand. The result was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban from power, the installation of a U.S.-approved regime, a nation ruled by regional warlords, the deaths of countless Afghanis, the failure to capture bin Laden, and an ever-growing terrorist movement generated by ever-deepening anger and hatred against the United States."

"...Did the United States have the legal and moral right to invade Afghanistan upon the Taliban’s refusal to turn bin Laden over to the United States? Many Americans would undoubtedly respond, “Yes, absolutely. When a country experiences a terrorist attack, it has the legal and moral right to attack and invade a sovereign and independent country that refuses to comply with an unconditional demand to give up the suspected perpetrators.”

"...Well, if that’s true then how would such proponents respond if, say, Venezuela attacked the United States for harboring terrorists? Would the proponents say, “I’m going to fight on the side of Venezuela because in the war on terror a country has the right to attack countries that are harboring terrorists”? Not likely."

Hitching Canada's wagon to a falling star

Philip S. Golub is a journalist and lecturer at the University of Paris VIII.

He likens the U.S. to a setting sun...

"The disastrous outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a crisis in the power elite of the United States deeper than that resulting from defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago. Ironically, it is the very coalition of ultranationalists and neo-conservatives that coalesced in the 1970s, seeking to reverse the Vietnam syndrome, restore U.S. power and revive "the will to victory" that has caused the present crisis."

...[N]or can the cause of their dissent be attributed to conflicting convictions over ethics, norms and values (though this may be a motivating factor for some). It lies rather in the rational realization that the war in Iraq has nearly "broken the U.S. Army," weakened the national security state, and severely, if not irreparably, undermined "America's global legitimacy" – its ability to shape world preferences and set the global agenda. The most sophisticated expressions of dissent, such as Brzezinski's, reflect the understanding that power is not reducible to the ability to coerce, and that, once lost, hegemonic legitimacy is hard to restore.

...[T]ransnational opinion surveys show a consistent and nearly global pattern of defiance of U.S. foreign policy as well as a more fundamental erosion in the attractiveness of the United States: The narrative of the American dream has been submerged by images of a military leviathan disregarding world opinion and breaking the rules. World public opinion may not stop wars but it does count in subtler ways.

...[H]istory is moving on and the world is slipping, slowly but inexorably, out of U.S. hands.

...[B]ut Vietnam and the Nixon era were a turning point in another more paradoxical way: Domestically they ushered in the conservative revolution and the concerted effort of the mid-1980s to restore and renew the national security state and U.S. world power. When the Soviet Union collapsed a few years later, misguided visions of omnipotence resurfaced. Conservative triumphalists dreamed of primacy and sought to lock in long-term unipolarity. Iraq was a strategic experiment designed to begin the Second American Century. That experiment and U.S. foreign policy now lie in ruins.

...[F]or the U.S. power elite, being on top of the world has been a habit for 60 years. Hegemony has been a way of life; empire, a state of being and of mind. The institutional realist critics of the Bush administration have no alternative conceptual framework for international relations, based on something other than force, the balance of power or strategic predominance.

...[T]he present crisis and the deepening impact of global concerns will perhaps generate new impulses for co-operation and interdependence in future. Yet it is just as likely that U.S. policy will be unpredictable: As all post-colonial experiences show, de-imperialization is likely to be a long and possibly traumatic process.

So, why is Canada looking to the U.S. for its safety and prosperity and not elsewhere...perhaps even to itself?

Dying to supply Wal-Mart

Thomas Walkom in the Toronto Star.

Our role in Afghanistan really about ties with U.S.

By appointing his new advisory panel on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has inadvertently underlined what this war is about. It is not about Afghanistan. It is about the U.S.

...[Aghanistan panel member Pamela] Wallin still focuses on the Canada-U.S. border. "This is fundamental to Canada's future," she said in the same interview. "The north-south axis is crucial. Canada exports more to Home Depot in the U.S. than to France."

In effect, he decided to risk Canadian lives in Kandahar to keep trucks rolling across the Detroit River.

As did Harper.

Now, as he tries to finesse the political unpopularity of the Afghan war, the Prime Minister is doing his best to ensure that official discussion remains tightly focused on what he sees as our real interest there – our relationship with Washington.

This makes me so sick, I am lost for words. Sending cheap crap to Wal-Mart in exchange for the lives of young men and women is a good deal?

And it's 1,2,3...what are we fighting for? (part trois)

The neverending war in Afghanistan is on the brink, and it's really not too surprising that NATO are forces are staying away in droves if they have to deal with this kind of thing.

In a pebble-strewn river valley enclosed by bare jagged mountains, smiling Afghan boys run alongside the foreign soldiers, as boys often do. The foreigners are US Marines and the boys often ask them for a dollar, a biscuit, a pen. And they ask: "How are you?"

On this day a Marine gives his standard reply to a mate, who records it on video.

"I'm on a field op. I have no f---ing money." As for the biscuit: "Do I look like Little Red Riding Hood, carrying around a load of biscuits? What the f---?"

What about the pen? "What the f--- they want a pen for?"

And how is the Marine doing? "I'm doing bad. That's how I'm doing. I'm in this shit-faced country."

The scene, and what it revealed about the attitudes of US troops, shocked US officers when it was posted on Liveleak.com, a video website, earlier this year.

In the video a Marine says to one of the boys: "You know your country stinks like ass? What you think about that? You think it sucks? You stink like ass, too."

The same Marine gives a group of boys an impromptu English lesson, and they recite after him: "I am an idiot! We beg too f---ing much! F--- this country!"

One one level, the video is harmless. Soldiers grumble, their humour is raw. The Marines are young, tired, not knowing what they are doing so far from home, and the Afghan boys seem not to know that they and their country are being mocked.

While world attention is focused on Iraq, experts are warning that the US and its NATO allies risk losing another war.

..."[A]fghanistan is in danger of capsizing in a perfect storm of insurgency, terrorism, narcotics and warlords," according to US experts Thomas Johnson and Chris Mason, writing in Orbis, a US foreign policy journal.

"The US is losing the war in Afghanistan one Pashtun village at a time," they write, "bursting into schoolyards full of children with guns bristling, kicking in village doors, searching women, speeding down city streets, and putting out cross-cultural gibberish in totally ineffective InfoOps (information operations) and PsyOps (psychological operations) campaigns — all of which are anathema to the Afghans."

NATO's efforts are also under domestic political threat, with European and Canadian public opinion increasingly questioning the involvement in Afghanistan.

The trouble, the MPs said, is that the 37 countries contributing to NATO's International Security Assistance Force lack a "well defined strategic vision for its presence" in Afghanistan. While NATO troops performed "brilliantly at the tactical level, the alliance does not yet have a sufficiently explicit goal for what it wants to achieve".

Nuclear waste? Sure. Just dump it here.

As far as I can tell, the deal reduces to this. Because of behind-the-scenes deals some Canadian governments have cut with the U.S., they can have as much of our oil and water as they want, and are even allowed to use a pre-emptive strike if their energy "security" is compromised (read, they can use as much energy as they want and the rest of us can freeze in the dark). In return, we are required to deal with their nuclear waste because nuclear disposal sites are unpopular in the U.S.

Well, guess what? They're not very popular here either.

Canada to decide within days whether to join new U.S.-led nuclear initiative
By BRUCE CHEADLE

SYDNEY, Australia (CP) - Canada will make a decision on joining a new U.S.-led nuclear initiative "within a matter of days," Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said Thursday at a summit of pan-Pacific leaders.

The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is denying reports that it has been suppressing information about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership after documents obtained by The Canadian Press showed negotiations between Canada and other governments have been ongoing for at least a year.

If it's denying the reports, you can be pretty sure they are very, very miffed about being found out.

...The GNEP, initiated and funded by the U.S. government, is controversial because it proposes that uranium exporting countries bring back spent nuclear fuel for long-term storage.

Harper has made one public statement on the initiative, 15 months ago, in which he promised to defend Canadian interests.

I wish I could believe that, but I'm afraid I simply don't. The defense of Canadian interests only comes out when they've been exposed as clearly not doing that.

...Last week, the government issued a statement saying it had been invited to Sept. 16 talks in Vienna on the GNEP but still hadn't decided whether to attend.

Yet documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show that the Canadian government has been actively considering the initiative since at least March 2006. Negotiations with the United States began as early as May 3, 2006, and the government had internal talking points praising the GNEP proposal as worth pursuit.

Liar, liar...need a fire extinguisher for those pants?

...[A government briefing document prepared by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, dated March 31, 2006, states that dealing with spent U.S. nuclear fuel is "the main driver" of the proposal:

"With regard to the proposed GNEP fuel cycle, we understand the main U.S. driver is to avoid the difficult issues associated with finding waste disposal sites beyond Yucca Mountain," a former nuclear test site in Nevada that is home to America's nuclear waste repository.

Why would anybody think that any U.S. proposal has anyone's else's interests but theirs at the forefront?

...[The Harper government has yet to publicly state whether the disposal issue is negotiable for Canada or is a non-starter.

That's because they were hoping nobody would find out. They'll probably try to put a positive spin on it by saying it will provide jobs for Canadians. Mmmm...dealing with spent nuclear fuel. Now that's something we need to do more of.

I'm thinking of the nightmare of transporting highly toxic nuclear waste back to its country of origin. Apart from the very real risk of accidents schlepping this stuff all over the world, any such transport would be a target for terrorist activity. Sounds like a win-win deal for Canada to me.

Sorry, Mr. Harper, but I think most Canadians would rather refine their own oil rather than sending unrefined bitumen to the U.S. - value added jobs and all that. We don't even have a very satisfactory long-term strategy for our own nuclear waste. It would be a good selling point in the U.S., though. Build as many nuclear plants as you want, guys. We'll dump all the lethal waste in Canada.

...[Australia, by contrast, has been forthright that nuclear waste repatriation is not on:

"We won't agree to do that, and we've always made that clear, we're not planning and we've never planned and we've never said we would," Downer said Thursday.

Until Harper and the crew say that, I won't believe anything else they say. Even if they were to say that, I'm not sure they'd be able to convince me.

...[C]anadian officials have already indicated Canada is ready to join the AP-6, a climate change group that some environmental groups see as a rival to the UN-mandated Kyoto process for reducing greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, they'll just get on with destroying Kyoto and the environment we all have to live in and making us look like regressive fools.

No energy plan except to sell to the U.S.

Gordon Laxer was a victim of the Conservative dirty tricks campaign when he was invited to give evidence, then was rudely cut off and the committee hearing ended by one of the lock-step, black shirt (neo)Conservative government lackeys.

From "Easterners could freeze in the dark"

Instead of guaranteeing U.S. energy security, how about a Secure Petroleum Plan for Canada?

War...what is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'!

As Conservative government defense officials and the likes of Rick Hillier go on (and on) about the need to increase defense spending, they might want to take a look at this, a piece from Chalmers Johnson on the fate of empires and the self-defeating practice of manufacturing and buying armaments. Originally posted on TomDispatch and linked from AntiWar.com.

Sooner or later, higher military spending forces inflation and interest rates up, reducing demand in interest-sensitive sectors of the economy, notably in annual car and truck sales. Job losses follow. The nonmilitary construction and manufacturing sectors experience the largest share of these losses. The report concludes, "Most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."

With the Canadian economy already too closely linked to the U.S. and our energy security coming a distant second to that of the country to the south, we don't need to give it a further kick into the black hole that is the sphere of U.S. influence.

Drink Canada Dry

Harpercrits and the Conference Board of Canada are busy arranging the sale of our vital resources, including water and energy, to the U.S. Since the U.S. is running out of water and energy due to their massive overconsumption and refusal to conserve or alter their lifestyle in any way, the country to the north is the new place to pillage. The fate of other countries that have what the U.S. wants should give us a foretaste of what will happen to us.

[N]orth America, and particularly the United States and Mexico, will experience water scarcity as a result of arid climates coupled with growing populations and increased water consumption.

...One such option could be regional agreements between Canada, the United States, and Mexico on issues such as water consumption, water transfers, artificial diversions of fresh water, water conservation technologies for agricultural irrigation, and urban consumption.

...Water control presents even greater challenges, because international water policy is primarily rooted in decentralized state laws in the United States and in provincial statutes in Canada. Consequently, the federal governments of these two countries have limited jurisdiction over water control issues.

Since provinces, municipalities, and other local groups now have jurisdiction over these resources, the secret meeting at the end of April will discuss ways of wresting this control away from them and into the sweaty hands of the New Canadian Government. They will justify this removal by either fear-mongering or disguising it as a benefit.

When did losing control of the necessities of life to a government that nobody trusts suddenly become a good thing? Since the (neo)Conservatives told you so. Now, just lie back, close your eyes and think of Stevie or Peter. It will make what is about to happen much nicer.