John Kerry’s Tender Sensibilities


by Kevin Carson
http://c4ss.org/content/21078

In response to Bashir Assad’s crossing of a “red line” by allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people, Secretary of State John Kerry cites his own fatherly feelings as justification for the all-but-inevitable looming US military intervention in Syria. “As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head, of a father who held up his dead child, wailing …”

Hopefully CNN will try extra hard to sanitize the war footage from Syria once the bombing starts, now that we know how badly dead Syrian kids upset Kerry. Because you can be sure there are a lot more dead Syrian kids on the way.

Of course, Kerry’s sensitivity to dead children is a bit like Carter having a problem with liver pills. This is the same John Kerry who served in Vietnam, and who backed two attacks on Iraq and one on Afghanistan, is it not? One of the most iconic images in the history of journalism is a little girl, naked and burning, running down a Vietnamese road after a chemical weapons attack by the United States. And the US all but condemned Al-Jazeera as a terrorist organization for airing images of Iraqi children incinerated in the American attack in 2003.

For that matter, US “redlining” of a country for using chemical weapons is also a bit odd. In the same press conference, Kerry spoke of holding Iraq accountable for violating international, historically established norms. But the US itself has quite a history of violating such norms. In WWII, for instance, the U.S. holds pride of place not only for the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, but for being the first and only military power in history to burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive with atomic weapons in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As for chemical weapons, aren’t Agent Orange and napalm — the liquid fire used on that screaming little girl mentioned above — supposed to count? The cumulative effect of US chemical weapons use in Indochina is millions dead during the war in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia — and millions more dead of cancer and genetic defects in the decades since.

While we’re on the subject of chemical weapons, the story just came out — at about the worst possible time for the US, as it’s rolling out its propaganda for another war — that the US actively aided Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in targeting Iranian troops with nerve gas. It was known for some time that the Reagan administration had shared intelligence with Iraq at the same time it was using chemical weapons in the Gulf War. But it turns out Washington was supplying intelligence in full knowledge that that intelligence would be used to identify Iranian troop concentrations for targeting with nerve agents. Iran was preparing for the strategic exploitation of a huge hole in Saddam’s defenses, which might well have turned the tide of the war and led to enormous Iranian gains at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates, increasing military pressure on Kuwait and other Arab Gulf states.

The overall American policy arc in Iraq from the ’80s on seems to be: 1) Help Saddam to make war on his neighbors; 2) help Saddam use weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors; 3) encourage Saddam to invade Kuwait; 4) bomb the hell out of Saddam in 1991 for invading Kuwait and making war against his neighbors; 5) bomb the hell out of Saddam in 2003 for possibly still having weapons of mass destruction.

In short, the United States simply does not give a rip about Saddam, Assad, or anyone else using chemical weapons or committing war crimes of any kind. The US routinely supports regimes that engage in war crimes — and then publicly condemns them for war crimes only when they stop taking orders from Washington or otherwise become a liability. War crimes by official enemies are just a propaganda point for selling wars to the public.

In short, don’t buy a used war from this man.

flattr this!

About these ads

8 responses to “John Kerry’s Tender Sensibilities

  1. I think that, as a Libertarian Alliance officer (I’ll pull rank here for once) this attack on the US is a bit over the top. it equates a western power with nasty fascist scumbag tyrannical “eastern” (which is to say: pre-capitalist-barbarian) or socialist powers.

    Do remember, that I do “see things in shades of black and white”. Socialism is bad, for example…the USA is not fundamentally a socialist country and can’t be by definition, unless subverted from within by “democrats” and its treasonous academics.

    Therefore the USA – just like the UK – is not inherently bad, and its desire to have its nose rubbed in awful smelly socialist shit by the “democrats” can be cured.

    We must remember that the USA was very reluctant to become in involved ni France’s mess in Indo-China in the late 1950s. It was really the fascist pig Kennedy that pulled his country deeply in there.

    But I agree to the extent that we in the UK ought not to go to war in Syria, sonce there’s nothing there that threatens our interests.

    I must add as an edit:- I do agree with certain posters on here that the USA has been badly misbehaving itself in the last decade or so. Having Obama as a President obviously doesn’t help matters, since he is a Nazi, and having all its universities stuffed to the gunwales with leftoNazi fascist Gramscian lecturers and professors makes everything much worse than it would need ordinarily to be, with the result that the majority of its young people graduate with a corrupted and distorted picture of the world and how things really are. We do of course have the same problem in the UK, and we have not found a solution either.

  2. I think the USA needs to be thoroughly attacked (with words- we have no sticks and stones) for its now utterly predicatable, tiresome and repugnant war policy.

    You see, we know why. It is a thing called Neoconservatism. And we know what Neoconservatism is. It is an Americanised flavour of fascism, which sees war as the health of the State and the force that binds citizens to that State. Hence, they need constant war. This is deliberate policy.

    They lie to whatever degree necessary each time they start a new war. Some of the things they say may be true. But where there is no truth, they simply lie. For instance, they are claiming that they have intercepted Syrians admitting to chemical weapons use. Ten years ago, they claimed they had Iraqi intercepts admitting to WMDs. We now know that they had no intercepts at all, and Colin Powell was lying.

    Even if it were true, there remains the issue of why a country gets to be jury and executioner for war crimes. Where is it written that one country may decide the merits of “evidence” itself, and administer its own chosen “punishment” on another? Nowhere. This is not law. It is international vigelanteism, a word I sadly cannot spell, probably, but am too lazy to look up the correct spelling of.

    Anyway, this is the same old monkey with the same old grenade. A nasty fascist scumbag monkey.

  3. Parts of the Middle East are still in a pre-Reformation state – much as Europe was in the early middle ages. You can not expect its governments and citizens to live up to Western values and standards in a heartbeat – especially with constant aggression and meddling from the Western powers.

    “An advanced group is, by its very nature, expansive, and simply can not bear to leave things alone and mind its own business. It tries to influence other groups, either by dominating them or by ‘helping’ them… If the advanced group helps other groups and makes them stronger, but in its own image, then the day will come when they repel the advanced group with its own weapons.”
    – The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris in the chapter ‘In-groups and Out-groups’.

  4. Only Kevin Carson could attack John Kerry (who gave aid-and-comfort to the enemy whilst in American uniform) for serving in Vietnam (rather than lying about Vietnam before Congress – and going to enemy organised conferences in Paris) – thus reversing the actual attack that should be made upon him (that he aided the socialist enemy, which led to a vast number of civilian deaths).

    This is why, even though I oppose intervention in Syria, I am very wary of any “alliance” against intervention – because such an alliance might turn out to contain creatures such as Kevin.

    Ron Paul was not careful enough in the company he kept – I hope Rand Paul (and I support what Senator Rand Paul said in reply to John Kerry) is more careful.

    Being “anti war” is not enough – one must check out, carefully, who one is allied with. Allowing one thing like Kevin in such an alliance would discredit it.

  5. I think that America would be wrong and mad to intervene in Syria, but this stupid article is almost enough to make me change my mind.

    To seriously compare the actions of the USA in world war 2 with Saddam Hussein is morally retarded.

  6. Julie near Chicago

    More of Carson’s slander: “One of the most iconic images in the history of journalism is a little girl, naked and burning, running down a Vietnamese road after a chemical weapons attack by the United States.”

    Forgive me, but I have had ENOUGH of this s**t. Kim Phúc was NOT napalmed by United States forces. Here are excerpts from one correction of the myth.

    http://www.ndqsa.com/myth.html

    The Fraud Behind The Girl In The Photo —
    Hijacking the history of the Vietnam veteran

    by Ronald N. Timberlake © Copyright January 1999
    All rights reserved.

    [Photo — Vietnam ‘Napalm Girl’ Kim Phuc]

    Since Veterans Day of 1996, the world has been told of an American who ordered the bombing of the village of Trang Bang, Viet Nam, that resulted in the famous photo of the naked and terrified little girl running toward the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer.

    It is a heart-wrenching photo, told since 1996 with a heart-wrenching story, but if a picture speaks a thousand words, most of the words now associated with this photo are false or misleading. It is a counterfeit commercial parable to generate maximum donations, and relies not on what actually occurred in 1972, but on dramatic fabrications that appear to have been invented specifically to enhance the impact of the Canadian produced documentary, and increase revenues for certain foundations.

    The photo is an accurate depiction of about 1/500th of a second of the immediate aftermath of an all-Vietnamese accident in an all-Vietnamese fight in June of 1972, and it was originally reported that way.

    Newly manufactured details have changed the perception and altered the reported history of that tragedy. The Canadian documentary crew and the heads of foundations that collect money for themselves created and continue a gross misrepresentation that quickly evolved into a new memory and new history of the event. It is a fraud advanced for profit, and is a lie that continues to be published as late as December of 1998.

    The Girl In The Photo was accidentally burned by her own countrymen, who were fighting her future countrymen. The only American participants of any nature were the journalists who reported the event and made her famous, and the doctors who saved her life.

    [ … ]

    Peter Arnett, Fox Butterfield, and Christopher Wain were three who independently reported on the incident at the village of Trang Bang, when it happened in 1972. Their news reports showed it to be an accidental bombing by the Vietnamese Air Force, during an all-Vietnamese fight.

    ….

    See also the Associated Press story, “‘Napalm Girl’ Photo Turns 40,” at

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/01/napalm-girl-photo-turns-40.html

    Here is a 2-minute video of Kim Phúc with Nick Ut from last year:

    [At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb6rq9SNDSg. ]