Here is a video by Save the Children that rather shows the effect of war on children.
Perhaps I should qualify: three ugly politicians. They are also bad politicians.
Now, I do not mean that all bad politicians are ugly, far from it. Nor that all ugly politicians are bad. Not at all. I just mean that these three and various other villains become or are ugly. This is no attempt to draw comparisons or correlations – lets leave that to the experts! No, what I want to do is purely character assassination.
Kim Jong Il – although it would be churlish to fail to acknowledge how beautiful he is considered by his own media and owned people.
And the two on this sorry tale of appeasement. The sad figure is now bankrupt non-player and BNP leader Nick Griffin who seems to desperately try to take Britain back to the middle ages when a man could have surfs basically defending cruel dictator “I have a right to murder all my people” Bashar Assad because Damascus is not in ruins (as if he would bomb himself) but is leading a bustling life. Because Mr Griffin is able to deny what he sees he is able to maintain a set of beliefs.
How much of our image of Assad is formed by propaganda? Or is he the real thing, more evil than ugly but about as evil looking as Hitler?
How Obama could deal with Syria. Play the long game and make Assad do it. Invasion seems pointless. Everyone appears to be at war with everyone else – want to join in? Get the chemical weapons out of the equation
President Obama drew a red line in the sand and to maintain any dignity he has to make good his threat. That is yesterday’s thinking. The need to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons by someone in Syria points to one thing. Syria has illegal weapons and he needs to be made to get rid of them. Not by invasion, that is too expensive. Not by trying to blow Damascus into the ground – you would kill large numbers of civilians, too.
But by negotiation. Imagine this?
President O: President Assad, you are guilty of possessing chemical weapons and they are being used. We suggest that you have lost control of your weapons and are therefore now a danger to the world. You have to now stop your war and we have to destroy your weapons or the world will force my hand and we will have to hunt you down. Your crimes against humanity are well documented, both before and largely since the war.
President A: We will never hand over our weapons. If you attack us, we will defend ourselves.
President O: We have heard that one before, and look what our generals did to Saddam. Now we have nothing against the good people of Syria. We have a problem with you harbouring and allowing or using deadly gas against any people. We can destroy them safely and if you hand them over now, we will do it for no charge and help the new Government rebuild.
President A: I will never agree to this.
President O: Then I would not stand so close to the window, Bashar. [CLICK!]
Twenty years ago, that would be pure paranoid conspiracy. Today, that is probably how this will pan out. Bombing Damascus would simply be sad. It is not the fault of the inhabitants. Destroy Syrian air=power – now if that was achieved then more chemical weapon attacks would be a significant risk. The only strategy is to force the most influential actor in this, Assad, to rid Syria of Chemical Weapons so when he inevitably faces trial for his crimes against humanity, there would be something positive in the balance.
Ron Paul says that the US is in an undeclared war after the French incursion to rescue Mali from Islamic invasion, now being backed by the junior horse in the “Special Relationship” between the UK and USA may start to imply US involvement. Perhaps in an “Expendables” kind of way, a secret order of ageing knights gather in a glade on horseback are rearranging pieces in case USA involvement in a declared “war on terrorism” and invasion is one of those things that the West sees as troublesome and terrifying to swathes of civilisation.
Iran is angry that Israel conducts a military attack on a convoy of weapons headed toward Lebanon. Syria’s borders are not exactly secure with a vicious civil war that the West maybe can not justify an intervention as the rebellion does not appear to be one that will bring peace.
So now we have a war of assassins.
While the West attacks the Taliban leadership with remotely controlled preditory model aircraft attempting to pin-point terrorists they still managed to kill random civilians and innocents. It is brutal but compared to territorial fighting it out, wars of attrition, tank battles or the most extreme forms using WMD – it is essentially an attempt to assissinate. To chop the head off the snake. And from the other side, suicide bombers with increasingly bizarre ways to conceal explosives attempt to assassinate a leader of the Afghan military. Recruitment for these two armies seems a little lopsided. On one we have something like video game playing soldiers. On the other, self mutilation.
In the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-wont-be-used-in-rebellion-syria-says.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120724 – it is evident that Syria has a large cachet of WMD. Why? Well Saddam’s stock must have gone somewhere when sabrés were rattled.
Syria is all that is left of the common Ba-athist political party that fell with Saddam in Iraq. What is Ba’athism? It is an Islamic form of Socialism. Possibly a good thing for the Arab World to balance the many dynastic totalitarian ruled cultures that seem stuck in feudal existence. That Syria has many weapons of mass destruction was predicted. It was reported on the news that weapons were probably hidden in Syria, the storage place inheriting Saddam’s WMD. There may well have been much political cooperation between their governments both under the iron grip of a leader past his use by date, slaughtering dissidents. His domination of a country by going to war with factions is in common.
And now the Assad regime is bombing Allepo. And denying that they would use chemical weapons on Syrians. Foreign invaders would be a completely other matter. Will Romney start to threaten to invade Syria? Seems a natural. Or he will he be beaten to it. The temptation must be terrible on both candidates. They see it in different terms.
All the more so as it is probably quite correct – that Syria indeed has WMD and that someone is going to do the equation that constructed history. The problem is going to be the brutal Assad regime. It is going to be the WMD, and now it seems only natural that the UN will demand that Syria give them up. Or face terrible consequences.
Who would America trust in such a scenario. The guy who killed that terrorist guy.
Syria has shot down a Turkish jet without warning after the jet had allegedly entered Syrian airspace when it was flying low 1km off the coast. The Turkish government has vowed “necessary action” in response. Syria has issued some apologies but face international condemnation for killing thousands of protesters and those fighting the Assad regime. What happens next may help oust Assad from power or it may even drag NATO into the conflict.
A limited exchange of nuclear weapons could kill a billion people in ensuing famines as the climate destabilises is the latest horror story about the greatest human mistake. Investing in racist murder. Genocide is the crime committed by any Government using nuclear weapons, and if so isolated would make themselves a target of every major nuclear power, but if retaliated against, would risk collapsing a house of cards sufficient to cause genocidal murder.
Therefore, any state that uses nuclear weapons is committing an international crime and makes itself a target. In the final analysis, the nuclear deterrent is a waste of money, a waste of energy, a waste of human effort.
America declaring war on Iran because it may be developing nuclear weapons is a war without precedent or meaning. MAD is total faith in an endgame scenario. Iran would be extremely stupid to get a bomb, but then look who is in the club of the stupid. Gambling is stupid and the stakes are so high it would be robbing a future in the same way that the USSR collapsed and the economies of the West appear to be in terminal tailspin. Nuclear proliferation is the game with no winner like that one with a revolver, five bullets and four players.
Nuclear proliferation is an expensive shield and humanity hides under a shadow of total annihilation for idealogical enforcement or redundant residual racism? The world does not want a nuclear Iran, nor the tens of thousands of these weapons pointed at each other. Nuclear proliferation is an extremely expensive path.
Is Iran a threat to world peace?