TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

After the catastrophe that was created they can't just abandon the Syrian people to their own devices. It's a bit late. And Putin's not a good guy, and Assad's not a good guy.

But they created the catastrophe. By arming an opposition that was then taken over by extremists. By leaving a power vacuum in Iraq that opened the door to extremists there. A situation thay could be repeated in Syria if Assad falls without a clear, popular replacement. By f***ing around in the region with no apparent plan on what to replace the governments they were bringing down with or by replacing them with governments that were so unpopular, they had to be propped up. By letting the Saudis get away with murder in Yemen. By supporting Israel in its continued oppression of the Palestinian state and continued avoidance of any kind of meaningful peace process. Where was the international condemnation and action when Israeli snipers fired on demonstrators on Palestinian territory? We are very selective in who we help and who we condemn over there. They are likely better off without our help at this point.

Short version: Why would we trust the US to clean up a mess in the Middle East when history shows that they just keep making things worse. Possibly deliberately.
 
With enough screwing around with what's underfoot ... we can demolish the whole thing ... instead of letting problems settle themselves ... an individual can almost see what comes next ... if it were not for myopic fear of seeing what we've created sociologically ... pathology? Even rattled Einstein's senses ...

Can you create anything upstanding from runes and aches? Back fires ... banked hearths ...
 
How can it be stopped? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's okay to turn a blind eye to Assad's actions either. Don't you think Obama tried anything else? What was that 'hot mic' moment with Obama, and Putin's wingman at the time (forgot his name - younger than Putin, slick looking guy), about? Do you thing diplomacy re:Syria was tried? Putin has backed Assad from the beginning, even after he committed atrocities on his own citizens in their own country - and back then, when it first happened, everybody (except Putin) agreed that Assad was a monster. Putin, a couple of years later, went into East Ukraine and acted as though the whole world was hallucinating about conflict there, until he had Crimea. Just making the point that...Those two have not been good guys all along, regardless of Trump. Putin is trying to ally eastern forces in the world, on his side. He has an agenda to restore Russia to its former 'glory'. What we are learning is Trump was supposed to be Russia's puppet, but he seems to be taking advice from his General, just like Obama did. If it was Obama in office, he'd likely do the same, and unfortunately Canada would've likely still followed along instead of trying to broker peace. However, I don't know how you broker peace when somebody's agenda is not up for discussion. I don't like Trump but this move doesn't seem to be a Trumpy move, imo.
 
Last edited:
Seems a shame that most world countries that are capable of destroying the world, tend to elect war mongering representation, and if they are not elected, they are allowed to stay in power without any major objections.
 
brexit, Trump...I think those were about Russia. Throw off the world order. Leaders have to then occupy time and attention and resources to stemming chaos within western countries, created by these enigma...media focuses on it...then...Divide and conquer.
 
Seems a shame that most world countries that are capable of destroying the world, tend to elect war mongering representation, and if they are not elected, they are allowed to stay in power without any major objections.
people certainly, did object once Assad started violently attacking them in their own country. (Didn't he attack them for protesting, originally?)The effect would be the same if they'd objected to the tyrant sooner. Chaos, civil war, then other countries getting involved. If it's defensive rather than offensive - I think many hope not to be 'warmongers'. Fighting backing causes death by war. Pacifism allows it to continue anyway.

Psychopaths can't be reasoned with unless they think they are going to come out on top.
 
I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's okay to turn a blind eye to Assad's actions either.

Why not? There are plenty of oppressive totalitarian regimes that the West does turn a blind eye to or even sanctions (the Sauds come to mind, though the current ruler is starting to back down a bit). If bringing down a government does more harm than leaving it in place (as happened in Iraq) then maybe measures other than violent regime change need to be used. The lack of a controlled transition in Iraq combined with the West's half-assed support for anti-Assad rebels is ultimately what gave us ISIS and the current civil strife in both Syria and Iraq. IOW, us intervening created this mess so I ask once again, how can we be trusted to clean up our own messes, esp. when some of those messes were the result of us cleaning up our previous messes (Saddam Hussein was back by the US at one point). If Assad falls in the same way Hussein did (ie. without a strong replacement government), are the people really going to be better off? The Middle East would be better off if left to its own devices. We can act through the UN if we feel a need, but we should not be getting militarily involved and we should definitely not be picking winners given our record of doing so badly (e.g. the ongoing Western support for Israel, who are as morally bankrupt as anyone in the region).
 
The Syrian people asked for intervention early on. Instead, rebels were given weapons and told to help themselves. That went very badly, and created terrorist radicals. There was a mass exodus, certainly unlike anything in most of our lifetimes. That's a pretty good indication that it is not safe to be there, and people want help! Not sure it's okay to turn our backs on any of it, anywhere, really. Much of it is caused by the west and so maybe we should help set it right, and what isn't caused by the west we should help with anyway. We live in a global village now, whether people like it or not. And a multi-cultural country with people who have loved ones around the globe. When we live in a country as great as this and we know that somewhere, some Canadian's or American's family is being gassed, or at imminent risk, we shouldn't turn our backs. Unless you think only the "old stock" ancestors of white colonials are real Canadians. And people do think that - consciously or subconsciously - too many think that. That ship has sailed, a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
People were evacuated from the bombed facility in Syria, first, were they not? Yesterday, I mean. They were given warning, and infrastructure containing chemical weapons was destroyed. So, there are several fewer chemical weapons in the world - and some tyrant cannot use them on his own citizens. Objectively, that makes sense.
 
I know a Syrian woman who emigrated here about 20 years ago. She and her husband have been very helpful around translation services and other adaptive help with our sponsored family. Obviously, she keeps in touch with family and friends at home and has a very deep understanding of the Syrian situation 'on the ground'. In short, she describes it as a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.
 
Probably true - almost definitely. It doesn't mean that both sides fighting it are equally bad. (I know Graeme will say so). I might've thought so once, but I see that democracy definitely is better than oligarchy and tyranny. Putin wants to hang onto his eastern backers and take back countries that were once Russian. Putin has a record of corruption and grievous human rights abuses in Russia itself. So does Assad in Syria now. The same can't be said of western leaders on their own countries. Corrupt, yes, but not to the extent of what's going on other places (though, Trump is worrisome as per the future). There there are a lot of people in those parts of the world who are anti-oligarchy, anti-tyranny pro-Western-democracy. And if they are pro-western democracy they expect help from western countries. It doesn't mean the people affected should be ignored.

Diplomacy if it works, is best, but it wasn't working. Putin would say, yeah yeah yeah, and do what he wants anyway. This is not about common citizens anywhere - my opinions, that is. It's about systems and leaders.
 
Last edited:
Using depleted uranium weapons violates UN Convention on Human Rights:

Legality test for weapons under International Law

puce-cebf5.gif
Temporal Test: Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.

puce-cebf5.gif
Environmental Test: Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.

puce-cebf5.gif
Territorial Test: Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

puce-cebf5.gif
Humaneness Test: Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.

International Human Rights and humanitarian lawyer, Karen Parker, determined that depleted uranium weaponry fails the four tests for legal weapons under international law, and that it is also illegal under the definition of a ‘poison’ weapon. Through Karen Parker’s continued efforts, a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission determined in 1996 that depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that should not be used:
  • "But scientists working for the World Health Organization, the UN Environmental Programme, and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium."

In Afghanistan where 800 to 1000 tons of depleted uranium was estimated to have been used in 2001, even uneducated Afghanis understand the impact these weapons have had on their children and on future generations:

"After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death. When I saw my deformed grandson, I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good, different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silent death from which I know we will not escape."
Jooma Khan of Laghman province, March 2003)

In 1990, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) wrote a report warning about the potential health and environmental catastrophe from the use of depleted uranium weapons. The health effects had been known for a long time. The report sent to the UK government warned "in their estimation, if 50 tonnes of residual DU dust remained ‘in the region’ there could be half a million extra cancers by the end of the century [2000]." Estimates of depleted uranium weapons used in 1991, now range from the Pentagon’s admitted 325 tons, to other scientific bodies who put the figure as high as 900 tons. That would make the number of estimated cancers as high as 9,000,000, depending on the amount used in the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2003 Gulf War, estimates of 2200 tons have been given — causing about 22,000,000 new cancer cases. Altogether the total number of cancer patients estimated using the UKAEA data would be 25,250,000. In July of 1998, the CIA estimated the population of Iraq to be approximately 24,683,313.

Ironically, the UN Resolution 661 calling for sanctions against Iraq, was signed on Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1990.
Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War , by Leuren Moret
 
There is a feeling that middle people are OK to dispose of in lieu of the salvation of primaries ? Unthinking mediums!
They (being leaders everywhere) want the middle people to bring them in line with the upper classes' ideas. They don't want the poor people, which includes those struggling for equal rights for decades who are poor from grievous discrimination and lack of opportunity..
 
It's telling that you have to ask that question.....seems world leaders don't bother to dig that deeply for answers to that question either.


Hoo does this indicate as shallow and all just in the face? Fascists ...

Stretch out in the dirt and wisdom will look after it ... then you're dead to the world ... like high on something ... or other (alternate is other than the primal)!
 
What is it telling about, in my case? It was more rhetorical because even if I had an answer I have no power. And none of us started this. We are not responsible for the original seeds of the war machine, the MIC, and the high level decisions. The leaders are.

It seems like neither doing something, nor doing nothing, will have good outcomes.
 
Back
Top