The shelling of civilians by the Syrian Government forces is a civil war crack down by a brutal Ba’athist regime of Bashir al-Assad against a popular uprising in the Arab Spring.

9 Feb LATE – UPDATE: The slaughter continues.

“The patterned plastic sheets the medics had placed on the floor were slick with blood and iodine as more and more war wounded were brought in by their colleagues.” – The Guardian

10 Feb AM – MORE: Obama.

Obama speaks out against outrageous bloodshed as 100 people are confirmed dead due to the military slaughter by the Syria Armed forces attacking its own citizens.

President Bashir al-Assad’s acts of genocide to suppress a viable opposition to his rule. This kind of act usually results in a more widespread and more determined underground effort. Al-Assad appears to suffer the same delusions that George Bush did – that hard assault will quell an enemy when the reverse is true.

Any appeal to the humanity of the situation is lost under the rain of rockets. Al-Assad has shown the world that he is a dangerous criminal and nobody welcomes a war criminal.

Both are expensive and do not target funds to the disabled, because if you assume the year on year growth is down to false claims then penalising the disabled is not the solution.

Education does provide a return on investment so it is worth doing, always. State-run family planning however seems to have a terribly high cost. I am all for reducing the world population but there is no reason to dictate to evolution.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16545017

Foolishly, left as a comment on youtube

Not at a civil level, nor at a parliamentary level either. In fact the conflict between super powers is counter intuitive and regressive.

See also

New York Times

Independent (UK)

Would it be correct to say that the 1% have the world’s capital reserves locked up in tax shelters? How long before former world powers wake up to this? And what will the consequences be?

On one hand we have 27 countries agreeing that there is a solution in unity, and on the other protecting London’s financial influence and therefore effectiveness – a crumbling cornerstone – a shambles of belief in a system that has massively artificially inflated the economy without deflating the currency because electronics and computer muscle provide a sea changing wealth of opportunities to create capital, that is financial obligations committed with regard to imbalances in the ratio of risk vs return when things went wrong.

A Unification of the rights and obligations of all European citizens is commended by all but the British. Mutualising the benefits of “state capital” to the benefit of Europe would require considerable contribution of raw capital power that London City is and unlike other major sponsor economies in the EU – Great Britain is reluctant to play ball. Being singled out as the new Switzerland is one thing.

Europe becoming what it will become is probably a better destiny for the entire zone with the UK integrated into it, but is what Cameron has done a bad thing for Great Britain? In the final analysis that is not what matters.

References:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/09/cameron-no-bad-britain-europe
http://disturbingtrends.org/union-of-europe/

It seems logical that the US may need to withdraw from its Afghan adventure, and this could leave Afghanistan to the Taleban and for Iran to engage as the local Shi’ite power. The US can probably repair the damage done in Pakistan with reparations of some sort which probably would be protecting Pakistan from its neighbours.