You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2017.
The United States has placed, and continues to place a great deal of geopolitical importance on the Middle East. The problem is that, as the record shows, everything they touch turns to ash or is reborn as a even greater threat to America and American interests world wide.
Recent events have not done much to dissuade me that the American conflict in the Middle East is only going to get more intense, more bloody, and have greater ramifications for not onyl the US, but the rest of the world.
Of course, with the Commander in Cheetoh Chief at the helm of the American military, the situation is unlikely to get better. Case in point being the thought (and the following actions) that adding a cruise missile strike into an already chaotic civil war situation, is somehow going to make things better.
(?)
“Without any recourse to international law or the United Nations, the Trump administration has embarked on an act of international aggression against yet another sovereign state in the Middle East, confirming that neocons have reasserted their dominance over US foreign policy in Washington. It is an act of aggression that ends any prospect of détente between Washington and Moscow in the foreseeable future, considerably increasing tensions between Russia and the US not only in the Middle East but also in Eastern Europe, […]”
It’s like, hey we had really shit results with this whole intervention strategy, what can we do.
*insert institutional black memory hole* .
Oh! Hey! Let’s intervene with military strikes in Syria, what could go wrong?
*The noise of near infinite headdesking & facepalming from the rest of the world*
” […] only the most naïve among us could believe that this US airstrike against Syria was unleashed with justice in mind. How could it be when US bombs have been killing civilians, including children, in Mosul recently? And how could it be given the ineffable suffering of Yemeni children as a result of Saudi Arabia’s brutal military campaign there?
No, this US attack, reportedly involving 59 Tomahawk missiles being launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean, was carried out with regime change in mind, setting a precedent that can only have serious ramifications for the entire region.”
And they will welcome us as liberators and greet us with flowers…
“Trump has proved with this unilateral military intervention that he can easily be dragged into conflict. Just a few days after his administration confirmed that regime change in Syria was off the table, that its focus was on defeating terrorism, he unleashes an airstrike that will only have emboldened the very forces of terrorism whose defeat he had stressed was the focus of his foreign policy previously.
So what now?
Clearly, this military action places Russia in a very difficult position. Since joining the conflict in Syria at the end of September 2015, at the behest of the country’s government, Moscow had been working tirelessly to bring about a negotiated settlement, one involving opposition forces and parties deemed moderate relative to the Salafi-jihadi fanatics of ISIS and Nusra, etc. It is a diplomatic process that has just been dealt a shattering blow, with the opposition now undoubtedly convinced that regime change is in the offing via Washington and therefore encouraged to work towards this end.”
From the dynamo that is George Orwell in his grave:
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”
“On a wider note, the lack of short-term memory in Washington is staggering to behold. Fourteen years after the disastrous US invasion of Iraq, which only succeeded in opening the gates of hell out of which ISIS and other Salfi-jihadi groups emerged, and six years after turning Libya into a failed state, in the process sparking a refugees crisis of biblical proportions, here we have yet another act of aggression against a sovereign state in the Middle East by the US.
Destroying countries in order to save them is the story of every empire there has been. But as history reveals, every empire carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Donald Trump is now on course to end up going down in history as a leader who rather than save the US from itself, may only have helped speed it down the path to its ultimate demise.”
[Source:Counterpunch – John Wight]
Well said Ms.Adichie.
A great conversation between a Radical Feminist and Trans Person; with commentary.
Neither does anyone else, to be honest. I am so tired of males telling me to shut up and listen to trans males. I’m tired of them acting like women don’t have things so bad and that horrible things that females face is nothing like their gender feels, and shrugging when the harm that trans ideology is doing to women because a “few men slipping through the cracks” and assaulting women is a small price to pay to make sure that the transgender males are taken care of first.
I don’t know why this popped up in my medium feed, I don’t even read political articles on there, but it did. I decided to respond to this one based on the title. It looked like this conversation was going to be productive for at least one of us, at first. (I’m not including the original article, but it was some…
View original post 3 more words
Woo! Let’s check out all the privilege “cis” women have.
Oh.
Women do not willingly identify with any of the above conditions. This is precisely why the term “cis” resides in the realm of fatuous, patriarchally-approved bullshit. If women (adult human females) actually had the choice to identify their way out of their oppression we wouldn’t have any women left on the planet. It’s almost like there is some sort of material reality that women’s oppression is largely based on.
JB is on the case:
{spoiler alert:biological sex.}
So many conversations start like this:
“If you think trans people are all rapists or degenerates, celebrate when trans people lose rights and get attacked, and deny the sexuality of people who accept trans people, you’re an oppressor and a bigot and nobody should take you seriously.”
radicurious answered:
I disagree with transgender ideology, yes, but that doesn’t mean that I hate transgender people or that I want them to be attacked, murdered at high rates, discriminated against and harassed on the street. I want all transgender people to be safe from violence and discrimination, so I definitely wouldn’t celebrate any kind of violence or discrimination towards them. Let’s take a much discussed example – the bathroom issue: I don’t think all transgender people are rapists or “degenerates” – I know that the vast, vast majority of transgender people are decent people just wanting to be accepted and allowed to express themselves and live their lives as they please. That being said, transgender women have the same crime rates as “cis” men – also when it comes to violent crime. This means that they, statistically, are just as likely to assault or rape a women as a “cisgender” male would be, and thus placing them in the same bathrooms, changing rooms and shelters as biological women would compromise the safety of the biological women using said restrooms, shelters and changing rooms. There’s no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of trans women simply want to pee without experiencing the risks and the dysphoria that going to the mens room might involve, but allowing a group which is statistically as violent and as sexually aggressive as “cis” men into women’s restrooms and changing rooms is a recipe for disaster. Just look at some the numerous cases of biological males claiming to be/dressing as women attacking and harassing biological women in women’s changing rooms and bathrooms. My worry about letting transgender women use the women’s bathrooms doesn’t come from irrational hatred of transgender women – it comes from statistics and recorded cases which prove that allowing transgender women in women’s bathrooms would pose a threat to biological women’s safety.
I share ‘Radcurious”s assessment of the situation. And it comes down to this, which is a of a higher priority – the feelings of men or the physical safety of women? And if it is ‘transphobic’ to prioritize the safety of females, so be it, because it is the right call in this situation. Women are under constant male threat and surveillance in our society and should have spaces where the panopticon of male dominance cannot reach.
That being said, I am also in full favour of having 3 washrooms available in public spaces, and that space should be taken from existing male facilities when new ones cannot be constructed to accommodate the variable gender constituency of our populations.
[Source]
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…