Skip to main content

Syria

Syria - orthographic by L'Americain
Last night I watched the news.  Images of children burned in what was reported as a chemical weapon attack.  The image of Bashar Al-Assad speaking in his own language, apparently claiming he did not use these weapons. A report from British Prime Minister David Cameron saying that the House of Commons does not support military action in Syria. Representatives of the UN unable to find out conclusively that the Al-Assad regime used these weapons. The White House threatening to take action but unwilling to say how much.

After all the news coverage on this issue I cannot decide what is true and what is propaganda.  There are two things I can perceive however. One, is that the turmoil in the Middle East is overwhelming and families of all faiths are suffering unimaginably and will continue to suffer even after the violence stops. Two, is that no-one is winning except the military industrial complex.

As I think about this I am reminded of all the wars that have happened over the centuries and conclude ordinary citizens never benefit.  War never grants or promises freedom to the people.  The ruling elite may win or lose but those who are beneath them always lose.  They lose a sense of peace, loved ones and limbs. Whenever rulers decide we must go to war, it is for their gain, their purse, their territory, while it is the soldiers, the wives, the husbands and the children who are asked to sacrifice their lives.

How can we know any military intervention is a just intervention when the truth is only available after the conflict is over and the facts become the subject of history? How can we respond thoughtfully and ethically?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.


In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…