Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Can the 4 NT be assisted with the right foreign policy?
Why are so many wrongs ignored in our own backyard while a media blitz is focused on whipping everyone up into a frenzied state of self righteousness about problems on the other side of the world, which historically have not been helped by our invasions.
As long as we simplify political views into boxes that credit one man with the suffering of a country then our solutions will likely be just as simple mindedley ineffective.
Suffering exists. It is uncomfortable to watch it unfold anywhere. All I know is that responses to suffering that produce more attachments don't reduce suffering. This is not to say that responses are not called for but if sufferings reduction is really what one wants, then the solution must manifest as compassion, love & wisdom.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ThailandTom I've seen far too many conspiracy theories on youtube already. I stopped wasting my time with them. That doesn't mean I blindly trust the media, whether our own or any other country's. But there are several videos out there that also show how very easy it is to fake conspiracy theory videos, such as all the ones that came out about the Boston bombing. Not everything is a conspiracy. I absolutely believe our government does things that they shouldn't be doing in order to protect it's own interests. But I'm not going to waste time on every internet blogger who likes attention and thinks they have something to say. There are people out there who still believe the world is flat and that the world leaders convince us it's round for their own reasons. If you listen to their arguments, they even start to make sense. That's how conspiracy theories work. It doesn't make them true.
Misinformation is a big problem. Conspiracy theories always seem to come in groups as to hide like the proverbial needle in the haystack. The more conspiracy theories exist on a certain subject, the better off are the conspirators.
Yes, he does provide interesting insight, although I wonder if an avowed pacifist can be anymore objective than anyone else with a preconceived viewpoint on any issue.
I do believe that US wants regime change in iran and syria. and is doing its best to support the opposition. But, I still cant believe that Obama will kill hundreds of children with chemical weapons to achieve this. It will take very concrete evidence to convince me.
I do believe that US wants regime change in iran and syria. and is doing its best to support the opposition. But, I still cant believe that Obama will kill hundreds of children with chemical weapons to achieve this. It will take very concrete evidence to convince me.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Obama will or has used chemical weapons.
I do believe that US wants regime change in iran and syria. and is doing its best to support the opposition. But, I still cant believe that Obama will kill hundreds of children with chemical weapons to achieve this. It will take very concrete evidence to convince me.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Obama will or has used chemical weapons.
Yeah, I'm not clear where jll's comment is coming from.
The only possible connection I can think of is that there have been concerns about a bombing raid possibly striking chemical weapons, which could release the agents.
I am far from happy with my government. I also think that I am not naive. But I find it quite astonishing that some Americans ( what proportion of the population I don't know ) so loath their government that they believe them capable and willing to kill thousands of their own citizens on 9/11 or of gassing thousands of innocent people to provoke a situation. I cannot imagine the mindset involved here.
I'm with @Zayl on this one. Granted, I admit right off the bat that I am not in any way, shape or form any sort of foreign affairs expert, especially about Syria and neighborhood.... but that aside, I do think it IS about time the US changes the pattern of "Big Brother Jumps In To Save The Day"... and lets others take a turn. Others whose economies are not on the verge of collapse, others whose presidents aren't under constant, debilitating scrutiny (and attack) by our own extremists- looking to pin The Ultimate Failure to his lapel. Other countries whose closer proximity to the "troubled areas" lends itself to easier blockades and running interference.
I know that sounds selfish (of me and the US) but we can't keep doing the same thing, all over the world, in every war torn shit hole or country with a failing government -- over and over and over again. We just can't. Let the rest of the world do some of the clean-up for a change. And if they don't.... well then let the chips fall where they may- most likely right in their back yard.
In the meantime, the US can continue to bring home troops from other areas, worry about fortifying our OWN country with new and improved military bases, (which boosts the economy in towns all around them) organize and control borders, and rebuilding our astoundingly horrible infrastructure - all of which would be adding JOBS to our economy. Charity and compassion begins at home. Our home is crumbling- fast.
The same with the UK. Cameron and Hague can do their Churchill impressions til they are blue in the face..I think they still think that the sun never sets on the British Empire. The fact is Syria and Egypt and Iran and Libya are None Of Our Business. I am sure that this will mark me down as the most inhuman and uncompassionate person on the forum..but I have got compassion fatigue. The sight of women in hijabs wailing around corpses now induces mild ennui in me. There ... I said it.
With Rwanda, we did not get involved on a military basis. The situation resolved (as far as the genocide went) without our involvement. Is it impossible for it to happen in other situations? We (our govt) chose not to get involved because of what happened in Somalia prior to the Rwanda situation. Clinton says it's the one thing he wished he had done-to help in Rwanda. Would our help have made much of a difference or would it have made things worse? Just an example of a problem that was resolved without our military might. But they still have ongoing problems, largely related to such a drastic reduction in the male population. Lots and lots of children without fathers, few men to reproduce with because so many were killed. How well they rebound still remains to be seen.
I always find it interesting that so many Americans are so against genocide (obviously most people are) yet they still aren't willing to do anything that resulted from the genocide our invasion of the US cost, and is still costing the Native Americans. Just another area we could fix in our own country, to help them become more able to contribute to the economy and such, to invest money in our own people.
I know I am flip flopping a lot, but like I said, it's just because I truly don't know how I feel. I think a lot of good point have been made on both sides, and I think they are all valid.
As far as the conspiracies, personally, yes, I feel that the US does things to keep their own interests afloat. I think we cherry pick what to get involved in, often for all the wrong reasons. But I do not like that the US govt. carries out these bizarre attacks in other countries, making it look like someone else does it just so we can attack them. The Iraq WMD mess was just that-a mess. But it doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. These types of conspiracies have been around forever, and as far as I am aware, not a single one has even been shown to be true, even far after the fact (ie the moon walk was fake, we caused the attack on Pearl Harbor etc). Not only are they not worth the time, but they don't solve any problems, either. Say this one about Syria is 100% true. Then what? The US people are already unhappy with their elected leaders, but the system is pretty much set up to run itself at this point (making it very very hard for anyone not in the mainstream parties to even get in the debates). It would take an uprising and a bit of a civil war to change it, and while I do wish it would change, I'm not really down with a civil war. I try to make sure my vote is an educated one, and I communicate with my elected officials on a pretty regular basis, from the local school board and city government to our state agencies and representatives and our federally elected officials as well. I can't really do much more, holding up a protest sign on the side of a dirt road in northern MN won't do much other than getting me run over by a drunk, lol.
@karasti said, in part: "I always find it interesting that so many Americans are so against genocide (obviously most people are) yet they still aren't willing to do anything that resulted from the genocide our invasion of the US cost, and is still costing the Native Americans. Just another area we could fix in our own country, to help them become more able to contribute to the economy and such, to invest money in our own people. "
Flip flop or not, that is an extremely good point, and something I feel this country is about 150 years behind the times on; reparations to the NA's. The degradation of reservation life and - as a nation/government- how we (continue to) mistreat our own native peoples is an ongoing monumental disgrace. And yet this disgrace seems to be mostly invisible and forgotten isn't it? But we are always on the lookout for other country's injustices and human rights violations to wag our finger at. What about our own, eh? Right ON, @Karasti! Thanks for bring that up!
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23822440. well, it's finally happening, Assads regime has gone to far and a coalition of nations is about to step in. Could this possibly trigger more widespread use of sarin agent and other heinous activity? I am very seriously concerned right now, could see massive loss of life .
I think starting yet another war/military action in the Middle East is a bad idea, and I'm extremely skeptical of the US's reasons for doing so. US military intervention across the world has rarely, if ever, been for purely humanitarian reasons; and the majority of our repeated interventions in the Middle East have been detrimental to all parties involved, in my opinion. That said, I can certainly understand the feelings of people who think that Assad has crossed some kind of moral line by using chemical weapons, assuming he has (evidence is sketchy at the moment), and that immediate, international intervention is now required. But assuming that Assad did use chemical weapons to kill people, what's the difference? How is using chemical weapons to kill people fundamentally different than using conventional weapons to kill them? Why is one acceptable and not the other? Why does Kerry feel that killing people with things like drone strikes and troop surges (which kill civilians along with militants) is OK, but killing people with poison gas is a 'moral obscenity'? It's like, "Well, they're only killing the opposition and civilians with guns and tanks and bombs, so we'll just sit back and let things play out. Oh no, they're killing people with chemicals, now's the time to step in!" Killing people in general is terrible and should be unacceptable, not just killing people with x method. Why does the precise method of killing really matter? It just seems kind of arbitrary to be honest.
@Jason -- I tend to agree that choosing to stomp on CW use and not conventional weapons use is kinda a two-edged sword, with pros and cons on that. But, I think that the world is getting tired of large-scale having of weapons of mass destruction.
As to the evidence, saw the amateur telephone pics on TV and found them heart-rending. Frankly, had trouble keeping my equinamity. I think that given that Assad said when queried previously that the chemical weapons were secure, that he and his regime is the first obvious fall-guy if not responsible and lying about it.
As i think more about this, I think the warring needs to end some, especially as to weapons of mass destruction. One of the clips of video I saw was a doctor in Syria being interviewed and handing blood samples over to the UN reps with suggestion they get processed post-haste because the chemicals fade in blood rapidly. hope the UN folks analyze that blood. They also took blood and tissue samples on their own, with cooperation from doctors.
So, as to evidence, looks like some is in hands of UN. Will wait and see what develops on news. Getting evidence that is incontrovertible here in US will be difficult. The US cannot afford to go off half cocked again, though.
...How is using chemical weapons to kill people fundamentally different than using conventional weapons to kill them? Why is one acceptable and not the other?...
It isn't that dying by one is worse than dying by another...although when I hear descriptions of what death by sarin is like, I'd much prefer a bomb.
It's sort of like what Richard Pryor, very late in his life, said...that he wished he hadn't used the word "nigger" so much, because every time someone uses it, it becomes just a little more acceptable.
That's the whole point about bio and chem weapons. If we start accepting their use in war they will become more and more used.
...How is using chemical weapons to kill people fundamentally different than using conventional weapons to kill them? Why is one acceptable and not the other?...
It isn't that dying by one is worse than dying by another...although when I hear descriptions of what death by sarin is like, I'd much prefer a bomb.
It's sort of like what Richard Pryor, very late in his life, said...that he wished he hadn't used the word "nigger" so much, because every time someone uses it, it becomes just a little more acceptable.
That's the whole point about bio and chem weapons. If we start accepting their use in war they will become more and more used.
You know, Poptart, the guns-and-butter argument used to be quite powerful through...well, I'd say the Vietnam War. I'm not so sure it's so true anymore.
Um, war has boosted economy in countries involved but on the soil of which the damage is NOT done. And apparently boosted economy after a war ends in some countries damaged by war. But I would say the latter is boosting economy due to recovery.
@oceancaldera207, there are reasons to be very suspicious of the USA. Only 25 years ago they helped Saddam Hussein to attack the kurds with chemical weapons.
It would be naive to believe that they completely changed their ways in the last 25 years. Also keep in mind that their allies in the middle east are Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes you could imagine. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but I would be more at ease if the UN would take the lead, not the USA. Of course the countries in the UN are not necessarily better than the USA, but perhaps they will be keeping checks among themselves, and not allow one member to follow a hidden agenda.
IMO the only way to really end this mess is for us normal citizens to wake up and say "enough is enough". However, this would demand a revolution. It would mean that we put peace, social justice and nature conservation before our own pleasures. It would require radical change. As long as we vote for crooks, put our money in banks that invest in cluster bombs, and as long as we buy our goods from companies that believe that profits are more important than human suffering (I know that some people have no choice, I'm talking about the people that do have that choice), we will have these kinds of wars happening. If we stop doing these things, it will still take long for the world to become sane, but at least we'd be going in that direction. Fortunately, there are forces that are helping us to move in the right way, because due to modern technology (such as new energy sources, 3d printers, DIY techniques that you can learn on the internet), we can become more independent of companies and politicians.
To convince people to change their habits, we'd have to show them that they can be happier if they do (I think this is possible because once a group of people start to bring about positive changes, they will surely become happier, and this could attract more people). How to do this is something I have not yet figured out, I'm also largely apathetic just like most people, but I believe the only way things will improve is when normal people like us stop looking for the conventional powers to fix things, and start changing things ourselves.
...How is using chemical weapons to kill people fundamentally different than using conventional weapons to kill them? Why is one acceptable and not the other?...
It isn't that dying by one is worse than dying by another...although when I hear descriptions of what death by sarin is like, I'd much prefer a bomb.
Yeah, because if it was, then somebody should've probably intervened when we killed tens of thousands of civilians with two atomic bombs, including thousands from radiation exposure, or when we dropped napalm on French towns like Royan near the end of the war, or when we dropped Agent Orange all over the jungles of Vietnam, etc.
A lot of citizens already think this is too much. It doesn't seem from what I read online that the popular support is there for another strike/war. But most people aren't going to rally and put their lives on the line in mass protests to bring the changes necessary. It would need to threaten them personally, first, i think.
One of the reasons I saw online for why chem, biological and nuclear weapons are so frowned upon compared to other weapons was the accuracy. I'm only putting this out there because I read it, not because I agree with it, to see what others think. It seems to make sense, but there is usually more to things that I don't know about.
Even though bombs deployed by military obviously killed innocents and unintended targets, they are usually, in this day and age, more accurate. They might take out a building (and yes kill innocent people) but the building can be specifically targeted (whether the target is right or wrong). The problem with the other options is how wide- spread, how non-descriminating, how inaccurate they are. They are meant to inflict widespread damage on no particular target, and the effects can spread quite far, and those who aren't killed often live the remainder of their lives in states of pain and suffering as a result, and even give birth to children who are affected and so on.
Why is one better than others? I don't think they are. But war has rules like anything else. In sports you can throw a ball one way, but not another. If you wiggle your foot too far, it's a foul. If you tackle someone in an unacceptable way, it's against the rules. Yet people repeatedly break the rules in order to try to get away. We basically turn war into a game just like everything else in the US, and while we expect everyone else to play by the rules, we often don't ourselves. Not really a surprise. It's part of our mentality. Win at all costs, but the rules are there to keep other people from winning, and the person who manages to break the rules the most without getting caught, wins. Or as it seems in the case with the US sometimes, whoever is the biggest bully that manages to be the keeper of the rules, wins.
Why is one better than others? I don't think they are. But war has rules like anything else.
Yeah, 'rules' that seem to be arbitrarily imposed by those with the most/biggest weapons. When we use them, it's cool and they save lives or something, but when other nations we don't like at the moment use them, they've broken the 'rules' and get bombed/invaded. Seems fair.
I think (from what I have heard) is that Obama is wrestling with this-- is destroying Assad's CW reserves worth some human life, or is he to be free to use them again at possible greater cost of life?
...How is using chemical weapons to kill people fundamentally different than using conventional weapons to kill them? Why is one acceptable and not the other?...
It isn't that dying by one is worse than dying by another...although when I hear descriptions of what death by sarin is like, I'd much prefer a bomb.
Yeah, because if it was, then somebody should've probably intervened when we killed tens of thousands of civilians with two atomic bombs, including thousands from radiation exposure, or when we dropped napalm on French towns like Royan near the end of the war, or when we dropped Agent Orange all over the jungles of Vietnam, etc.
EDIT I can't get the video without posting a horribly graphic picture. Use google 'Ten Years Later, U.S. Has Left Iraq With Mass Displacement & epidemic of birth defects, cancer' 'youtube'
This video shows the increases in cancer in Iraq since the 91 golf war and going up. The US military allegedly used depleted uranium and white phosporus.
WARNING the images may be very distressing. If you are not wanting to harm your emotions just play the audio ie close the screen small. There are mutations that there are not even any medical terms for. It is common for new borns to have massive problems. For example two heads and half of their organs outside their bodies.
Sorry MaryAnne I didn't anticipate the graphic. Sorry. I fixed it to a google search rather than seeing a graphic thumbnail. I changed it before your post even.
@Jason I know, if you read my whole post it should be clear that I basically said the same thing as you. I didn't say the rules were fair or equally used by any means. My post was more convoluted than what you said, lol. It made more sense in my head at the time but I was in a hurry to get out of our 87 degree house. I agree with you. The rules are made up by the same people who consistently break them yet insist on holding others to them. Having high standards or particular rules means nothing if you don't follow them yourself. Whether you are talking about raising children to have good manners, or keeping countries from such weapons.
Yes, I understand. My intention was for people to realize the ramifications of a war. I didn't mean for it to be 'porn'. I reserve 'porn' as in food porn to pictures of everyone's dinners!
WAR I abhor, and yet how sweet The sound along the marching street Of drum and fife, and I forget Wet eyes of widows, and forget Broken old mothers, and the whole Dark butchery without a soul.
Without a soul, save this bright drink Of heady music, sweet as hell; And even my peace-abiding feet Go marching with the marching street— For yonder, yonder goes the fife, And what care I for human life!
The tears fill my astonished eyes, And my full heart is like to break; And yet ’tis all embannered lies, A dream those little drummers make.
O, it is wickedness to clothe Yon hideous grinning thing that stalks, Hidden in music, like a queen, That in a garden of glory walks, Till good men love the thing they loathe.
Art, thou hast many infamies, But not an infamy like this— Oh, snap the fife, and still the drum, And show the monster as she is! - Richard Le Gallienne
Yeah if 'everyone else' is every wack job ultra paranoid blogger who gives great talking points for coffee shop warriors like you, trying to impress your gf with ultra polarized world views and snappy answers.
Hey. Take a timeout. We don't unload on other people here. There's no points for being a jerk.
I love that, @vinlyn! I could use that in my FB status! That's a good quote. :thumbsup:
Having brief talks in our house, my husband and my oldest son (almost 17) both support doing something to stop the attacks. I learned today that the rebels are associated in some way with Al Queda? That'll be an interesting twist. But even with that, both of them insist that we cannot allow innocent people to be attacked randomly with sarin gas.
Me, I'm still on the fence. I see the pros and the cons of action and inaction, but at the same time I don't trust our government to get involved for the reasons I find consider important.
@karasti, 91 golf war was when I was in 8th grade and I thought we should stop the invasion of kuwait. I think this is an example of "damned if you do and damned if you don't."
I think so. I don't have to make the decision and I still can't pick a side. I remember being fascinated by the Gulf War. I was in 9th? grade I think. It started right around my best friends birthday and ended on my sister's birthday. It was really hard to fathom that all the glowing green blobs were killing people.
At this point in time, my preference is a very limited action...probably the cruise missiles, and at most a no-fly zone.And yes, Jeffrey, it is a good example of "damned if you do and damned if you don't."
Comments
Can the 4 NT be assisted with the right foreign policy?
Why are so many wrongs ignored in our own backyard while a media blitz is focused on whipping everyone up into a frenzied state of self righteousness about problems on the other side of the world, which historically have not been helped by our invasions.
As long as we simplify political views into boxes that credit one man with the suffering of a country then our solutions will likely be just as simple mindedley ineffective.
Suffering exists. It is uncomfortable to watch it unfold anywhere. All I know is that responses to suffering that produce more attachments don't reduce suffering. This is not to say that responses are not called for but if sufferings reduction is really what one wants, then the solution must manifest as compassion, love & wisdom.
insight on the mid-east.
and is doing its best to support the opposition.
But, I still cant believe that Obama will kill hundreds
of children with chemical weapons to achieve this.
It will take very concrete evidence to convince me.
The only possible connection I can think of is that there have been concerns about a bombing raid possibly striking chemical weapons, which could release the agents.
/Victor :coffee:
/Victor
I cannot imagine the mindset involved here.
Granted, I admit right off the bat that I am not in any way, shape or form any sort of foreign affairs expert, especially about Syria and neighborhood.... but that aside, I do think it IS about time the US changes the pattern of "Big Brother Jumps In To Save The Day"... and lets others take a turn.
Others whose economies are not on the verge of collapse, others whose presidents aren't under constant, debilitating scrutiny (and attack) by our own extremists- looking to pin The Ultimate Failure to his lapel. Other countries whose closer proximity to the "troubled areas" lends itself to easier blockades and running interference.
I know that sounds selfish (of me and the US) but we can't keep doing the same thing, all over the world, in every war torn shit hole or country with a failing government -- over and over and over again. We just can't. Let the rest of the world do some of the clean-up for a change. And if they don't.... well then let the chips fall where they may- most likely right in their back yard.
In the meantime, the US can continue to bring home troops from other areas, worry about fortifying our OWN country with new and improved military bases, (which boosts the economy in towns all around them) organize and control borders, and rebuilding our astoundingly horrible infrastructure - all of which would be adding JOBS to our economy. Charity and compassion begins at home. Our home is crumbling- fast.
The fact is Syria and Egypt and Iran and Libya are None Of Our Business.
I am sure that this will mark me down as the most inhuman and uncompassionate person on the forum..but I have got compassion fatigue. The sight of women in hijabs wailing around corpses now induces mild ennui in me. There ... I said it.
http://www.ifrc.org/en/news-and-media/news-stories/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/
Explore their site, they accept donations also.
John.
I always find it interesting that so many Americans are so against genocide (obviously most people are) yet they still aren't willing to do anything that resulted from the genocide our invasion of the US cost, and is still costing the Native Americans. Just another area we could fix in our own country, to help them become more able to contribute to the economy and such, to invest money in our own people.
I know I am flip flopping a lot, but like I said, it's just because I truly don't know how I feel. I think a lot of good point have been made on both sides, and I think they are all valid.
As far as the conspiracies, personally, yes, I feel that the US does things to keep their own interests afloat. I think we cherry pick what to get involved in, often for all the wrong reasons. But I do not like that the US govt. carries out these bizarre attacks in other countries, making it look like someone else does it just so we can attack them. The Iraq WMD mess was just that-a mess. But it doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. These types of conspiracies have been around forever, and as far as I am aware, not a single one has even been shown to be true, even far after the fact (ie the moon walk was fake, we caused the attack on Pearl Harbor etc). Not only are they not worth the time, but they don't solve any problems, either. Say this one about Syria is 100% true. Then what? The US people are already unhappy with their elected leaders, but the system is pretty much set up to run itself at this point (making it very very hard for anyone not in the mainstream parties to even get in the debates). It would take an uprising and a bit of a civil war to change it, and while I do wish it would change, I'm not really down with a civil war. I try to make sure my vote is an educated one, and I communicate with my elected officials on a pretty regular basis, from the local school board and city government to our state agencies and representatives and our federally elected officials as well. I can't really do much more, holding up a protest sign on the side of a dirt road in northern MN won't do much other than getting me run over by a drunk, lol.
"I always find it interesting that so many Americans are so against genocide (obviously most people are) yet they still aren't willing to do anything that resulted from the genocide our invasion of the US cost, and is still costing the Native Americans. Just another area we could fix in our own country, to help them become more able to contribute to the economy and such, to invest money in our own people. "
Flip flop or not, that is an extremely good point, and something I feel this country is about 150 years behind the times on; reparations to the NA's. The degradation of reservation life and - as a nation/government- how we (continue to) mistreat our own native peoples is an ongoing monumental disgrace. And yet this disgrace seems to be mostly invisible and forgotten isn't it? But we are always on the lookout for other country's injustices and human rights violations to wag our finger at.
What about our own, eh? Right ON, @Karasti! Thanks for bring that up!
As to the evidence, saw the amateur telephone pics on TV and found them heart-rending. Frankly, had trouble keeping my equinamity. I think that given that Assad said when queried previously that the chemical weapons were secure, that he and his regime is the first obvious fall-guy if not responsible and lying about it.
As i think more about this, I think the warring needs to end some, especially as to weapons of mass destruction. One of the clips of video I saw was a doctor in Syria being interviewed and handing blood samples over to the UN reps with suggestion they get processed post-haste because the chemicals fade in blood rapidly. hope the UN folks analyze that blood. They also took blood and tissue samples on their own, with cooperation from doctors.
So, as to evidence, looks like some is in hands of UN. Will wait and see what develops on news. Getting evidence that is incontrovertible here in US will be difficult. The US cannot afford to go off half cocked again, though.
It's sort of like what Richard Pryor, very late in his life, said...that he wished he hadn't used the word "nigger" so much, because every time someone uses it, it becomes just a little more acceptable.
That's the whole point about bio and chem weapons. If we start accepting their use in war they will become more and more used.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9090730/CIA-helped-Saddam-gas-Iran
It would be naive to believe that they completely changed their ways in the last 25 years. Also keep in mind that their allies in the middle east are Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes you could imagine. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but I would be more at ease if the UN would take the lead, not the USA. Of course the countries in the UN are not necessarily better than the USA, but perhaps they will be keeping checks among themselves, and not allow one member to follow a hidden agenda.
IMO the only way to really end this mess is for us normal citizens to wake up and say "enough is enough". However, this would demand a revolution. It would mean that we put peace, social justice and nature conservation before our own pleasures. It would require radical change. As long as we vote for crooks, put our money in banks that invest in cluster bombs, and as long as we buy our goods from companies that believe that profits are more important than human suffering (I know that some people have no choice, I'm talking about the people that do have that choice), we will have these kinds of wars happening. If we stop doing these things, it will still take long for the world to become sane, but at least we'd be going in that direction. Fortunately, there are forces that are helping us to move in the right way, because due to modern technology (such as new energy sources, 3d printers, DIY techniques that you can learn on the internet), we can become more independent of companies and politicians.
To convince people to change their habits, we'd have to show them that they can be happier if they do (I think this is possible because once a group of people start to bring about positive changes, they will surely become happier, and this could attract more people). How to do this is something I have not yet figured out, I'm also largely apathetic just like most people, but I believe the only way things will improve is when normal people like us stop looking for the conventional powers to fix things, and start changing things ourselves.
One of the reasons I saw online for why chem, biological and nuclear weapons are so frowned upon compared to other weapons was the accuracy. I'm only putting this out there because I read it, not because I agree with it, to see what others think. It seems to make sense, but there is usually more to things that I don't know about.
Even though bombs deployed by military obviously killed innocents and unintended targets, they are usually, in this day and age, more accurate. They might take out a building (and yes kill innocent people) but the building can be specifically targeted (whether the target is right or wrong). The problem with the other options is how wide- spread, how non-descriminating, how inaccurate they are. They are meant to inflict widespread damage on no particular target, and the effects can spread quite far, and those who aren't killed often live the remainder of their lives in states of pain and suffering as a result, and even give birth to children who are affected and so on.
Why is one better than others? I don't think they are. But war has rules like anything else. In sports you can throw a ball one way, but not another. If you wiggle your foot too far, it's a foul. If you tackle someone in an unacceptable way, it's against the rules. Yet people repeatedly break the rules in order to try to get away. We basically turn war into a game just like everything else in the US, and while we expect everyone else to play by the rules, we often don't ourselves. Not really a surprise. It's part of our mentality. Win at all costs, but the rules are there to keep other people from winning, and the person who manages to break the rules the most without getting caught, wins. Or as it seems in the case with the US sometimes, whoever is the biggest bully that manages to be the keeper of the rules, wins.
is US.
why are countries like israel and pakistan allowed
to have nuclear weapons?
This video shows the increases in cancer in Iraq since the 91 golf war and going up. The US military allegedly used depleted uranium and white phosporus.
WARNING the images may be very distressing. If you are not wanting to harm your emotions just play the audio ie close the screen small. There are mutations that there are not even any medical terms for. It is common for new borns to have massive problems. For example two heads and half of their organs outside their bodies.
Words are plenty descriptive enough. Don't need the pity porn
The sound along the marching street
Of drum and fife, and I forget
Wet eyes of widows, and forget
Broken old mothers, and the whole
Dark butchery without a soul.
Without a soul, save this bright drink
Of heady music, sweet as hell;
And even my peace-abiding feet
Go marching with the marching street—
For yonder, yonder goes the fife,
And what care I for human life!
The tears fill my astonished eyes,
And my full heart is like to break;
And yet ’tis all embannered lies,
A dream those little drummers make.
O, it is wickedness to clothe
Yon hideous grinning thing that stalks,
Hidden in music, like a queen,
That in a garden of glory walks,
Till good men love the thing they loathe.
Art, thou hast many infamies,
But not an infamy like this—
Oh, snap the fife, and still the drum,
And show the monster as she is! - Richard Le Gallienne
And then we have to deal with things the way they are.
Having brief talks in our house, my husband and my oldest son (almost 17) both support doing something to stop the attacks. I learned today that the rebels are associated in some way with Al Queda? That'll be an interesting twist. But even with that, both of them insist that we cannot allow innocent people to be attacked randomly with sarin gas.
Me, I'm still on the fence. I see the pros and the cons of action and inaction, but at the same time I don't trust our government to get involved for the reasons I find consider important.