So, let's look at three BBC headlines in my newsfeed, all related to the SCROTUS:
1. China is worried about a war between North Korea and the United States, which it says could break out at "at any moment".
2. The United States is currently defending its use of a massive bomb on Afghanistan; this weapon is dubbed the "mother of all bombs".
3. The White House will no longer be publicly disclosing visitor logs.
How many more "chances" does this president need before his supporters (besides the alt-right, who apparently turned against him after he bombed Syria) wake up and realize that they've made a horrendous decision by electing this awful man to President of the United States, as well as then start the process of persuading Congress to remove him from office? "Give him a chance" - how many "chances" are enough?
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Friday, 14 April 2017
Friday, 7 April 2017
Another mess in the Middle East
After campaigning against Hillary Clinton and whining that she would bomb more Middle Eastern countries, the current President of the United States has...bombed a Middle Eastern country - Syria. By his standards, he is now the warmonger he accused of her being. Bear in mind that just a few days ago, his administration was saying that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was no longer a priority to "force him out of power" and now they're warmongering.
Perhaps the only change in perspective that was faster was the alt-right's support of the president:
Turns out, a lot of them actually are against US military intervention in other countries. As such, alt-rights have turned against the president, calling him a warmonger and a "neo-con shill". Given that he has broken all other promises he made, it's interesting they chose this one to finally turn against him.
Perhaps the only change in perspective that was faster was the alt-right's support of the president:
Turns out, a lot of them actually are against US military intervention in other countries. As such, alt-rights have turned against the president, calling him a warmonger and a "neo-con shill". Given that he has broken all other promises he made, it's interesting they chose this one to finally turn against him.
Friday, 3 March 2017
End of Global Week 2017
Today marked the end of 2017's Global Week at NTU. Yesterday consisted of the Middle East being represented, although Libya and Syria were the only two countries with the own stands; aspects of the region as a whole were given focus rather than from any specific country other than the aforementioned two. The Libyan and Syrian desserts I sampled were delicious; I don't recall ever eating anything from them before.
As for this afternoon, the Americas were on display; however, it was the United States, Peru and Cuba who each had their own stands. I visited the American stand and spoke to the student there for a few minutes; when she asked if I've visited the US, it was fun telling her that I'd actually lived there. Later in the day, as Global Week was ending, my Irish friend and I photographed each other standing next to the cardboard replica of the Statue of Liberty.
It's been a fun Global Week; my only disappointment with it is that I didn't attend anything on Monday. Better correct that next year!
As for this afternoon, the Americas were on display; however, it was the United States, Peru and Cuba who each had their own stands. I visited the American stand and spoke to the student there for a few minutes; when she asked if I've visited the US, it was fun telling her that I'd actually lived there. Later in the day, as Global Week was ending, my Irish friend and I photographed each other standing next to the cardboard replica of the Statue of Liberty.
It's been a fun Global Week; my only disappointment with it is that I didn't attend anything on Monday. Better correct that next year!
Thursday, 3 September 2015
Safe Iran
I've have stated before that I oppose war against Iran. Nothing will shift me away from that view and the current migrant/refugee situation currently occurring in the Middle East reinforces my position. Iran is a safe and stable country, which has been accepting people fleeing from war-afflicted areas. War with Iran would mean that those people would then have to flee to other countries and Iran itself would be turned into a war-afflicted region, which would then create additional refugees. Further destruction in the Middle East will not solve any problems.
Iran is a heavily armed country, with a strong military and a large cache of weapons. If Iran were to become de-stabilised due to foreign military strikes, ISIS would likely infiltrate the nation and take large swaths of it over, much like it has in Iraq and Syria. Having significant amounts of Iran's military personnel and weapons absorbed into ISIS would be a far more dangerous situation than the current status quo, even more so when Iran is opposed to ISIS and ought to be included in the coalition against it.
Needless to say, anyone who supports war with Iran is terrible at military strategy, as well as a warmonger and a fool.
Iran is a heavily armed country, with a strong military and a large cache of weapons. If Iran were to become de-stabilised due to foreign military strikes, ISIS would likely infiltrate the nation and take large swaths of it over, much like it has in Iraq and Syria. Having significant amounts of Iran's military personnel and weapons absorbed into ISIS would be a far more dangerous situation than the current status quo, even more so when Iran is opposed to ISIS and ought to be included in the coalition against it.
Needless to say, anyone who supports war with Iran is terrible at military strategy, as well as a warmonger and a fool.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
A thought on the debate in Denver
The media in the United States - and to a point, here in the United Kingdom - is currently buzzing with activity over President Barack Obama's unexpectedly flat performance in last night's debate. Not surprisingly, my family and I have been discussing the debate extensively for much of today, and there was something we thought of that may help explain why Obama wasn't on his game: Syria.
Just before the debate, the situation in Syria had changed with a mortar explosion in Turkey, and Turkey retaliated against Syria. Naturally, everyone is worried about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria especially, but the media, the general public, and even other presidential candidates are not privy to the same information that the president is.
We think there's a possibility that Obama was informed about the changing circumstances in the Middle East before the debate. We think that any intelligence briefing prior to the debate could have contained incomplete facts about Syria and Turkey (not because of poor reporting, but because not all information may have been available yet), and given how volatile the Middle East is he could have been expecting a far worse briefing after the debate, which could have said that the two countries were at war. If that had happened, I doubt anyone would have wanted to have been in Obama's position at that particular moment...even his opponent.
If this was the case, it does not show weakness on behalf of the president: he is entitled to worry about the situation in the Middle East as the rest of us are, and anxiety may have caught him at the wrong moment. On one hand, I think Obama is concerned about the continued loss of life and the affect the conflict may have on the rest of the world, but on the other it is likely that he would be blamed - regardless of whether or not anything was his fault - if the situation exploded...and so he could have been worrying about that, too.
We are speculating, of course, but let's face it: Obama is the president. He has been running the country for four years, and he hasn't exactly had an easy time. This year has been especially difficult for him, with having to govern the country and face excessively challenging international challenges while running for re-election in the most vitriolic presidential race we have ever observed. Even George W. Bush had a difficult time in his debates against John Kerry, and he was under less pressure than Obama currently is. One could just say "deal with it, you're the president, forget any sympathy/leave if you can't handle it" or mock him outright, but he is human, and all sane and reasonable people will find intense pressure too much. The important thing is to find the path to bounce back, and it will be interesting to see how Obama recovers and handles the next debate.
Again, this is all only a possibility, maybe there is another reason. I don't know all the facts and I do not speak for the president, nor do I want this post to be interpreted as "making excuses" for him or making some sort of questioning of his mental state when that is not the intention. I think Obama and his team are very much aware that he will have to pick up the pace in the next two debates and avoid the mistakes of the first round.
Just before the debate, the situation in Syria had changed with a mortar explosion in Turkey, and Turkey retaliated against Syria. Naturally, everyone is worried about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria especially, but the media, the general public, and even other presidential candidates are not privy to the same information that the president is.
We think there's a possibility that Obama was informed about the changing circumstances in the Middle East before the debate. We think that any intelligence briefing prior to the debate could have contained incomplete facts about Syria and Turkey (not because of poor reporting, but because not all information may have been available yet), and given how volatile the Middle East is he could have been expecting a far worse briefing after the debate, which could have said that the two countries were at war. If that had happened, I doubt anyone would have wanted to have been in Obama's position at that particular moment...even his opponent.
If this was the case, it does not show weakness on behalf of the president: he is entitled to worry about the situation in the Middle East as the rest of us are, and anxiety may have caught him at the wrong moment. On one hand, I think Obama is concerned about the continued loss of life and the affect the conflict may have on the rest of the world, but on the other it is likely that he would be blamed - regardless of whether or not anything was his fault - if the situation exploded...and so he could have been worrying about that, too.
We are speculating, of course, but let's face it: Obama is the president. He has been running the country for four years, and he hasn't exactly had an easy time. This year has been especially difficult for him, with having to govern the country and face excessively challenging international challenges while running for re-election in the most vitriolic presidential race we have ever observed. Even George W. Bush had a difficult time in his debates against John Kerry, and he was under less pressure than Obama currently is. One could just say "deal with it, you're the president, forget any sympathy/leave if you can't handle it" or mock him outright, but he is human, and all sane and reasonable people will find intense pressure too much. The important thing is to find the path to bounce back, and it will be interesting to see how Obama recovers and handles the next debate.
Again, this is all only a possibility, maybe there is another reason. I don't know all the facts and I do not speak for the president, nor do I want this post to be interpreted as "making excuses" for him or making some sort of questioning of his mental state when that is not the intention. I think Obama and his team are very much aware that he will have to pick up the pace in the next two debates and avoid the mistakes of the first round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)