A firecracker, President Trump and shadows of the holocaust
April 12, 2017
……..it was almost 60 years ago when I was standing beside Pennypack creek in Philadelphia with a few of my older friends from school. I had followed them because they said they would show me something I would go nuts over. When John proceeded to throw a coffee can into the water I was definitely underwhelmed, but withing a few seconds a bright underwater flash appeared and then as a bubble broke the surface of the water an awesome boom echoed through the woods. He said it was an M80 and it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. I was hooked when he gave me a number of them and I experimented with blowing up trash cans and soda bottles. I had played with firecrackers before but the shear power and noise of the M80 made me feel like a king.
The news reported that just after the missile attack in Syria a United States Navy strike group was heading to the coast of North Korea. Apparently President Trump, unlike President Obama’s backing down after he drew a metaphorical line in the sand against Syria, is taking action rather than not backing up his words.
After seeing news footage of the gas attack in Syria where local activists clam that 70 people were killed including 10 children, the President after consultation with his security team deemed the missile attack on a Syrian military airbase to be the best response with the least number of civilian causalities. Of course at a security council meeting at the UN the United States was condemned for its unilateral action. Then again based the UN’s normal policy of meetings and verbal condemnations, I am sure their words would influence President Assad more than crippling his air force.
For many I guess the question is should the President have taken action or waited for a consensus from the UN. First I have to interject with a personal question…. why is a gas attack that kills civilians worse than civilians killed by artillery or aerial bombing? Having ones body ripped apart by an artillery shell seems to me to be just as horrific as a gas attack. That said I have to pose the next question should the United States be a unilateral police force for the world when it encounters mass murders by a foreign power?
Most of us remember Germany’s rise to power in the 1940’s. Many Americans at the time supported Hitler and his regime for bringing his nation back from the destruction of the first world war. Even as he started to systematically segregate the Jewish people in his country there was no actions taken by other nations, this inaction eerily similar to what is happening today with regard to the Syrians. The results being millions of people of the Jewish faith were murdered. So which is better the UN and its endless meetings and condemnations or swift reaction to another nations atrocities?
Is our Presidents actions justified
or did he realize
the difference between a firecracker
and an M80
is the same as verbally drawing a line in the sand
and an air strike?
7 Comments
leave one →
Pete's Alaska 
You pose and interesting question. However, who gives the U.S ( Trump) the moral compass to police the world’s atrocities. No doubt it is horrific to watch dozens of innocent civilians be wiped out by its own ” leader” ( I use that word lightly) however, is the US going to start bombing Egypt, the Congo, Burundi, Sudan, or lets’ even throw Brazil into the mix as they systematically kill off their own indigenous people for the sake of progress. Let’s not forget the U.S. and the UN condemnation of the policing tactics in your own country where far more people are viciously assaulted and killed by your own ” militarised” police forces. If ONE thing we have learned from history is that NO ONE POWER should have the authority to police the world. Have we not learned from the Babylonians, the Romans, Gangus Khan right up to Hitler, NO empire has the right to bring about its own UNILATERAL decision to police anyone other nation, NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!! However, it is said, ” The only thing we have learned from history is that we have NOT learned anything from history”.
LikeLike
In response to both the meaningful points laid across and a reply that characterizes some people out there. Why should the US take action versus the inaction of the UN? Well, the person with the most ‘policing’ power should do something and the Obama/Putin/UN’s history on the subject of Syria has proven inadequate at BEST, for starters. I guess some people believe that it is an abuse of power to take action against murderers/rapists/kidnappers/pedophiles. To stand and watch and do nothing is akin to agreeing with the criminal perpetrating the crime and saying “it’s okay to do that”… The US may not have the best moral compass when it comes to domestic matters, yet there are guidelines for “Human Rights” that have been setup post WW2. Also, if Assad STILL has Chemical Weapons, whose to say he doesn’t turn around and send them abroad to where next they will be on your doorstep? It’s never okay to ‘murder’ and Chemical weapons, just like Nuclear weapons target an ‘AREA’ and are not precise. We can all go back to our armchairs while our neighbours may abuse their families and close friends and then complain where are the ‘police’ when they are at our door abusing us, well because it is an abuse of power to stand up for the innocent :sic:
What gives the US the right to be the world’s “Police Force”, What gives you the right to stop ‘abuse’ if you suspect someone is abusing their child? What gives you the right to sue a restaurant over HOT coffee you spilled on your lap, or because YOU thought that was candy that came with your new Electronics equipment, or sue someone for killing a family member because of medical malpractice or DUI?
Some people obviously think it is okay for them to ‘POLICE’ others Morals because the offending party doesn’t believe in ‘Same-Sex’ Marriage, but do nothing when innocent women and children are slaughtered by Chemical weapons that were supposed to have been removed by the Russians/UN years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a lot of speculations about them attacking you guys.To answer ALL your questions about policing is simple. There are LAWS to protect people. The UN LAWS say unilateral action against a sovereign nation is ILLEGAL! No one person or nation has the rights to set the moral compass for the world.!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael I believe your opinion has much merit and personally believe the laws on the books are made to be enforced. But I am still waiting for the UN to do something other than talk about the thousands of murders perpetrated by isis. You comments and beliefs are always welcome on this blog and though they may not change my way of thinking they do make this old man see things in a different light, and plant seeds that may one day flourish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KD7LTN I have to agree with you when you say, “The US may not have the best moral compass” and add that someone has to stop the slaughters around the world if not the US then who. The UN like Washington is a place for speeches full of outrage and other than sanctions… not much action. Yes they sent troops into countries around the world but little change came from those troops being there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right about the UN being a tit on a bull. I served for an NGO during the war in Kosovo. The UN ” peacekeepers” were there in full force. However, they had a clear mandate to NOT fire unless fired upon. The Kosov Liberation Army and Yugoslavian Republic Army knew this and gingerly passed by UN convoys on the way to systematically wipe out the defenceless civilians as a form of ethnic cleansing in the region. I was front and centre for the atrocities happening.and sickened my the UN’s mandate. They primarily sat on the sidelines collecting information which AFTER the war say many Serbs tried as war criminals, including. However, to backtrack 4 years, The UN created ” safe zones” for the Muslims. and did use air strikes against any KLA and the URA to protect the safe zones. So they do occasionally serve a purpose. The issue with the way it UN is set up if that it allows rivalry nations to sit in veto’s ing power. So as much as many countries would like to take action, other countries often veto the votes so nothing really happens. With all that said, Pete, I would much rather have a useless tit than a world without any oversight at all. That would almost be equivalent to a country that has no laws what so ever. It would almost be like the movie ” The Purge”. Though I’d feel safer having a guy with a gun standing beside me even though he may or may not use it to help protect me if need be.That is what the UN is.
One issue I have though and I know you are a big Trump supporter so take this for what it is worth. But Trump is unpredictable as is most of his staff. He appears to be swayed far too easily by his emotion and knee jerk reactions as evident in his spontaneous tweets which have often contained false and misleading information. Really a President that doesn’t know where different countries are? He may be a great businessman and stand apart from your typical politician. To be honest when he first said he would be running. I was on his side. I thought WOW. that is one refreshing person who can make a different. However, sadly as time passed his ignorance about world affairs became more and more evident and all his emotional outcries made me fear him. There is certainly something to be said about the devil you know or the devil you don’t Hilary was the devil you knew, Trump took the other corner. I’m just glad I am on the More Eastern side of Canada. I won’t likely have to deal with the nuclear fallout when North Korea responds to something that Trump will likely do. I honestly do not hope for the Western Seaboard that the NK have not put a nuke on one of their ICBM.
P.S sorry for such a long response.This was a great blog and well worth the read and having the opportunity to respond to.
LikeLike
‘Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’!!
LikeLike