thoughts on syria (not all mine)
I’m struggling to get to grips with what’s going in Syria. I can’t bear to read or watch much of the news coverage, not only because it’s disturbing, but because of the impending sense of ‘I know where this is going’.
What troubles me most is the dialogue we get via the media from politicians and commentators telling us ‘we’ (the good people of the west) have two choices:
- save people’s lives by mobilising military forces
OR
- allow people to suffer and die by not mobilising military forces
Does anyone truly see it as being that simplistic? When ‘our’ military get involved lots of people are killed. When ‘our’ military get involved in the Middle East, resentment is built up for the lives of all the people who are killed as a result of the intervention, and more people get killed. I just don’t buy that military intervention is the only option, or an option that holds the promise of anything resembling a happy ending. In no way does refusing to wade into a messy situation firing weapons at the ‘baddies’ undervalue the lives of the people suffering at this point in time.
On a less depressing note, I had an opportunity to cross into another dimension of thought on this matter. Apparently, if the pope would follow the instructions below, it’ll all be over, as a positively unique interpretation of history from some renegade Catholics shows us:
For all that Pope Francis says he has a love of Our Lady, still there is no liklihood that he or the Bishops are willing to obey her requests to Consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.
Pope Francis and all Bishops need to remember that they follow the King of France into ruin, when the King failed to Consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as He requested. 100 years later to the date of Our Lord’s request the French Revolution began and the King went to his execution.
And is it not strange, that the French revolution unleashed a reign of terror organised by Robespiere. That reign of terror ended with the martydom of the 16 Carmelite nuns who had offered their lives to God. The only one to be executed after them was Robespierre himself.
WTF? Consecrate Russia… does this mean subdue a nation of 17,098,242 km2 by force and make her yield to the Holy Roman Church?
OK, these people are categorically insane.
LikeLike
You should follow them if you’re not already – it’s not just culture shock, it’s like stepping into a dark fantasy world.
LikeLike
Like Alice!
LikeLike
Are you trying to make up for your flimsy, loose, derogatory anti-Alice jibe the other day? 🙂
LikeLike
Just trying to encourage you to get involved. But honestly, it’s exactly like Wonderland!
LikeLike
Oh, so now you’re a fan of Wonderland, are you? Humph!
They’re too crazy for me. I would like to do a meme on that “I’m sorry, but…” quote. That’s a gem. Have you swindled a photo yet?
LikeLike
How do you know it came from where you think it did anyway? Maybe I’ve found a new blog full of nutters …
LikeLike
This is the Pictland Catholics, right?
LikeLike
Great pic Violet!
Where do these people live? Why would their god if it exists want Russia consecrated to it if as they claim he is the author of everything? Why not just do it himself/herself or itself whichever will is the case
LikeLike
Apparently their god only acts if officials from their church perform divinely inspired rituals. It doesn’t sound very modern. Perhaps a sacrificial virgin would do the trick too.
LikeLike
Mr Cameron lost that vote, when delay for the UN inspectors might have made the difference.
I wondered if he were being Machiavellian: not wanting military involvement, and wanting not to tell the US his decision was against it.
But perhaps he is an idiot. Who on the “World Stage” cares what he thinks if he cannot do what he wants?
LikeLike
I’m pleased he lost it, it shows something about our democracy is functioning. One of the main reason’s I support not getting rid of the ridiculous monarchy (aside from generation of tourism income) is avoidance of the cult of personality that comes with presidential systems. The prime minister post has already become too much of a feature of our elections – it should merely be to co-ordinate the work of our chosen representatives in parliament. Don’t you think?
LikeLike
People in the ‘west’ per se have not experienced living under any sort of Theocracy since the days of the Crusades.
It is sad , that one is so often tied for life to the culture one is born into and this includes religion.
Intervention will not necessarily change this – though some may claim Afghanistan is better because of intervention(?)
The Western (military)Powers and predominantly the US shift allegiance as and when it suits – this is the impression – and in the Middle East it appears all about the end game which ultimately involves two things. Israel and Oil.
This many Middle East experts ( even in Blogland) may well argue is not the case. yet these two factors have featured in one form or another.
Some are saying the US has nothing to gain by interfering – helping(?) – and their presence would be solely because of the use of Gas.
So therefore, the 100,000 or so lives that have already been lost are somehow inconsequential, or a least of less importance than those who have been gassed?
And who helped arm all these people in the first place, if not directly then supplied the means to manufacture such weapons including the gas?
America loves a good war, it keeps their European lackeys in line and maintains their arms industry, which is worth a bob or two, is it not?
This is rather appropriate…
LikeLike
Good points all Ark. I can’t help but fall down conspiracy theory paths in all this – what are the other motives at play? But also why at the end of the day are we always indoctrinated with the idea that the only way to stop violence, is violence? We all respect the peaceful protesters who stand up to violent regimes and bring about change within their own countries (Ghandi, Suu Kyi, Mandela). There must be Middle East equivalents that can be supported to provide figureheads for positive change.
LikeLike
Here in the US there is general apathy about Syria. The State Department wants to drop a few cruise missiles because a few months ago our Messianic President commented off the cuff that Assad had better not use chemical weapons, and you can’t give third-world dictators the impression that the greatest, wisest of American Presidents is a useless dilettante.
It seems that while his cabinet was debating Syria, the Heroic President was having meeting with an ex NBA star. Prince Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize winning foreign policy (piss off allies and kiss the asses of totalitarian dictators) is bearing predictable results.
And all the media here can talk about is Miley Cyrus.
Sigh.
LikeLike
I’m surprised there’s apathy anywhere after the images that came out earlier this week. Why Messianic?
LikeLike
Apathy: not that people are unmoved by images of human suffering, but feeling moved is not the same as wanting to get involved. “Sad, but not my problem” is the general mood. And with regard to Syria, that is probably not unwise: it is unclear what foreign intervention can achieve, and the cost of any meaningful intervention, beyond dropping a few bombs, will inevitably be high.
Messianic: didn’t you know that Obama is the second coming of Christ? He was so anointed by the US media back in 2008, and they have offered him their unquestioning service ever since.
LikeLike
A ‘sad, but not my problem’ attitude would disturb me. I’m sure most people are more along the lines of ‘sad, but what can usefully be done? Certainly not pouring fuel on the violence’. The pro-military action camp just likes to portray it as the former to make people feel bad.
I haven’t followed US media coverage of Obama. Apart from the fact that he hasn’t closed Guantanamo, uses military drones and is another US president trying to start a war, I think he’s the best you’ve had in years. I like to hope his hands are tied somehow in his poorer decisions.
LikeLike