May my opinions gather wind under their wings and fly, perchance to soar. |
"Question of the Day!" : Should the US and Western Europe intervene to help the International Red Cross by protecting humanitarian corridors for refugees (including women and children) to escape from the Invasion of Ukraine? 1. It's a sexist question. It assumes that all men are warmongerers and expendable and that all women and children are innocent! 2. It assumes an us versus them dichotomy as if the rest of the world isn't involved. The Russians are saving the Ukrainians from a puppet government underpinned by Nazis. The Russian Orthodoxy is bringing Ukrainians back into the fold by ousting the heretical renegades. Russians are hugging starved civilians and providing food. So speaketh Tsar Vladimir. So saith the Russian Partiarch Kirill. So agreeth the Russian media. So believeth the Russian people who have no access to outside media. We are already at war. Americans are isolationists but busy-bodies. Sticking their nose in where it isn't wanted; ignoring pleas for help when it means they have to get their hands dirty. Sorry; but, Americans care more about the price of gasoline than whether civilians die in a country they couldn't find on the map until now. Ask the Rwandans. And those living in ~56 shithole (according to Emporer Donald) countries in Africa. Countries like Morocco that recognized the fledgling USA in 1777 but refuses to acknowledge the Sahrawi. We cry for Ukrainians but considered dead Iraqi civilians to be collateral damage. Not to re read by WDC authors ▼ I have only been to 43 countries; but I've met wonderful people from 100 or more (including someone who is Sahrawi) and took in refugees from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Somalia and Argentina. I've lived in Tahlequah, Oklahoma (and met people from 20+ Native-American Nations). For instance, few folks here understand Cherokee culture or the concept of red/white villages at war/peace. Two sets of chiefs with Peace/War determined by Beloved Woman. I believe in Peace; but, we are at War. And imho should act accordingly. I don't disagree with what others have posted. In Montana we ignore Syria and don't want their refugees. We consider Taiwan to be a pawn that we need to keep away from China while blaming all Chinese (and Asians) for Kung-Flu. We accept Congolese reluctantly because they are Christian but consider Muslims to be terrorists. We call Central Americans Mexican thugs. Yes, I note how irrational and hateful people can be (I do look into the mirror from time-to-time). I don't always point that out... because... why bother. Playing whack-a-mole is tiresome. I read hundreds of blog entries here and hundreds of bleats on spazebook and follow the news, opinion columns, comments and try to avoid fake-news memes. My chattiness at times hides the fact that I'm paying attention. We are at war. Anything we do will be perceived as a threat. The question is whether we will intervene while there is still something left or wait until we cry crocodile tears over the ruins of what once was. Here's looking at you Antwerpen, Dresden, Hiroshima. Humanitarian Corridors? Weak response. It helps a few thousand while condemning millions to die. It appeases the do-gooders wringing their bloody hands. As Zelenskyy said, "I need weapons not a ride." We pundits at home worrying over the price of gasoline and the effect on consumer goods can argue over an 'appropriate' response. But... We are already at War. 875 |