democracy now has had it's head lodged in it's rear around the syria issue for years, now. it still doesn't seem to have figured out that there never was an internal uprising, and these people they pull in are a combination of western intelligence agents and their naive useful idiots.

what should the united nations do about the situation?

well, where is international law being broken?

1) the russians were invited by the syrians.
2) the turks were invited by the russians.

so, they are not breaking international law.

however, nobody invited the kurds. and, nobody invited the americans.

it is the kurds and the americans that are in breach of international law, here. so, the united nations really ought to be acting to fund an expeditionary force to expel the americans and kurds, and reassert syrian sovereignty over the east of the country.

but, that would start a war, you say.

no. it would be the american refusal to withdraw, and obey international law that would spark the war. the united nations has a mandate to uphold international law. it can't be avoiding conflict out of consequence, it has to lay the law down on the americans and kurds, who are operating as a rogue state.

and, it is the activist left that is eating cake, here. for, it wants to argue that the united nations should step in to protect the kurds, under a concept of international law that it pulled out of it's ass. rather, a legal un operation would differ from a turkish force only in ability. the turks are the ones upholding the law, here.

we have entered a new world, where the russians are the ones upholding the rule of law, and america is the rogue state that requires sanctions.

no, really.

it doesn't matter what dead people might think, if they were to magically arise from the dead and look at us now. dead people are dead. their feelings are irrelevant.

it doesn't matter if they were your ancestors or not: they are still dead, and their feelings are still irrelevant.

i repeat: the people of the past will never understand the present. so it doesn't matter what they might have thought.

but, the people of the future will understand the present, which will be their past. their views matter. and, it should be the focus of the contemporary government to govern for the future, and not for the past.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i'm going to close this down by making a request, and this request is not limited to this issue, or this government, or even this country.

to all those bastards that would wield power to harm others, however necessarily or unnecessarily, let this point be clear: a leader, be they a prince or something else, should always be judging themselves through the long lens of history, rather than the short term fluctuations of public pressure.

democracy would be preferable. but, despite the heavy and thick propaganda, it's really not possible to synthesize republican government with any kind of democracy. there is no stable way to build a government where representatives are constantly being replaced via plebiscite; either you elect people and walk off, or you move to direct democracy. our system is not a direct democracy, and is therefore not really a democracy at all, and in such a system a government is really truly required via obligation to be unpopular, when it feels it is necessary, for that is the reason we have a representative government, and not a democracy.

the system requires benevolence, which in context means having the integrity to make unpopular decisions that will eventually be seen as correct.

so, this is my request: fuck populism. be benevolent.



jagmeet singh must cut his beard.