“The Civilized World” Strikes Again: Donald Trump, a Complete Puppet of the Military Industrial Complex

Views: 955

It is apparent given the timelines and the lack of time given to verifying the validity of accusations concerning the gas attack in Homs, Syria, that plans had already been coordinated for such an attack. Watching the mainstream media the viewer receives the impression from the wording of the announcers reports and questions for the “experts” that the matter was already decided in favour of the U.S. military strike on the airbase. I see pictures of Colin Powell at the UN holding up glossy photos of supposed chemical weapons manufacturing plants.

It demonstrates to a high degree how easily manipulated Trump is and how there is not an iota of critical thinking occurring in Trump’s prefrontal cortex. He has become a complete puppet to the military industrial complex regardless of his bold rhetoric during the election. Now that he is doing Hillary Clinton’s work for her, his approval ratings are sure to improve. Trump likes to win, and if winning, or being perceived as a “winner” means doing as others say without any concerns for logic or rationality, so be it – of course he is incapable of the latter anyway.

As Trump was dining with Xi Jinping at the moment of the attack, the generals in the background probably offered this up as something that could happen to North Korea as well. Admittedly China is not happy with North Korea, but they would be whole lot less happier with U.S. nuclear missiles stationed in North Korea. China is capable of looking long term, unlike politicians and businesses in the west, and is also capable of destroying the US$, not without harm to itself, but there is certainly a point where that would be an acceptable asymmetric counter to U.S. hegemonic desires.

Who benefits?

As for the chemical attacks, if one does use some rationality, meaning who benefits from it, the answer is definitely not Assad, and Assad should not be mistaken for either stupid or irrational. The beneficiaries are ISIS and al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria). One of the side line winners as always with U.S. military mayhem in the region, is Israel, a country all our politicians seem to fawn over in spite of their terrible human rights and international law record. Israel would love to have all the rest of the Middle East broken up into fighting little fragments of tribal groups in order that their tribe can dominate the region, its resources, and perhaps find a ‘final solution’ to the Palestinian demographic problem.

Another favourite ally, Saudi Arabia, also benefits. Canada is also enamoured of the Saudis, perhaps because they are the ones keeping the US fiat petrodollar afloat through its use as the reserve currency. Canada of course needs that as well as Canada’s economy is very highly dependent on the U.S. economy and the US$. Canada also enjoys a degree of manufacturing trade with Israel and Saudi Arabia, mostly in the field of armaments and ‘security’.

In Turkey, Erdogan may benefit as he claims he wants more of the same, but he is playing a very dangerous double game. Being allied to the U.S. through NATO has some benefits, but it also has some drawbacks  – obedience and subservience to empire in order to maintain its integrity geographically. The drawbacks concern the same item, geographic integrity, as the Kurdish people are at the cusp of establishing their own autonomous/independent zones, assisted by Canada and the U.S.  The U.S. has supported then rescinded support for the Kurds, a people seemingly of ‘convenience’ for U.S./Israeli efforts at control of the Middle East.

Being tied into Russia’s economy, especially for agriculture,  trade, and petroleum resources, another set of problems could occur.

Domestic Reaction; Canada

The Canadian public is generally ignorant of the complexities of foreign policy – well really they are not that complex when the baseline is U.S. desires to be global hegemon, supported by its ever favourite lap poodle, Canada. As mentioned above the MSM provide no real insights into this kind of overall picture as they are fully supportive of U.S. war efforts regardless of legality or intention.

Trudeau’s response was that of a very much junior partner seeking to avoid abrading Trumps tender ego. He supported the action, a quick turnabout from his days earlier pronouncements about verifying the source, means, and accuracy of the attack (anytime I see ”white helmets” now something fake must be going on). His thinking is fickle, a weather vane turning to avoid any harsh winds that might blow our way from criticising Trump or the U.S.in its imperial drive – and with NAFTA perhaps up for significant changes.

Of course Pierre Poilievre, the House Conservative opposition leader of the day, pronounced his support as well, but at least the Conservatives are consistent in their hard right support of all things USA! USA! USA! Given that several of their candidates for leadership have imitated certain Trump traits it would be surprising if they did otherwise.