THE 2013 G8 AND SYRIA
Now it does not apply like it is put forward a lot that I am
getting into more and more trouble with powerful Politicians - I believe I have declared myself properly enough to avoid such things; that is media
games, the real reason I respond to it is that I obsessive about my relations
with other statesmen and want nothing to disrupt them, however it should be
noted in any case that domestic Politicians in the UK are another story, in
that I have had everything I own avoid me on grounds I have too many problems
because they believe it is okay for their children to wake up every day to
abuse me on account I am single unto desperation and then turn out to attend
schools to be better persons than I am and have done these things for the last
12 years on a daily basis and hence apparently do not seem to be consistent in
their actions with suggesting it should all go away quietly while they continue
to pass insults at me every day for it to make their children feel superior or
feel better about themselves – hence the reasons I need to crush it for them
too. Now one issue seems to come to mind on the matter of the 2013 G8 and the
idea the rest of us do not know what is going on in there when in actual fact
we do very well i.e. the middle east is split between the US and Russia and
there are questions about what we in the UK are up to; hence Syria is a typical
example; having been the two powers control interests there, why would
President Assad approve a process where people shoot protesters who want
democracy with sniper rifles? What are the chances if the rebels are not armed,
that the conflict will eventually degenerate into government sponsored genocide
and ultimately since the Syrian Government and its leadership have continued to
boast about regional instabilities if things went bad in Syria, why they have
acted in such ways as well, bearing in mind it could never have been
pre-emptive if the rebels were plans to do the sniper attacks first when they
are aware of the regional ramifications, hence there is no suggestive evidence
to point to the idea that such a thing was being planned and that the way they
were treated was a pre-emptive action and not a genocide that started the war
itself in the first place? What are the implications of the Syrian conflict
ending in genocide bearing in mind what the nature of the Middle East is like? Why
we are always sceptical about middle easy democratic efforts just because of a
few who think that any change has somehow mentioned the phrase of Islamic states
about which we all know the true nature and character of a country always plays
out at the end and hence the most important thing is the security of a
parliamentary government and an independent judiciary? We all understand the US
wants to arm the rebels and that Russia wants those who want to arm the rebels
but the US to chose whom the buy arms from – while the Russian position creates
competent diplomacy, the reality will remain on the ground that the Assad
Regime has access to an entire state to buy arms with and hence there is no
means for the rebels to raise any funds to defend themselves but never the less
the influence of the US as the main player for the rebels has not shown itself
to be a good record necessarily. Hence to answer the question of what the UK is
doing there we must go back to 9/11 where bomb trade centres and kill UK
citizens, to put up videos for the world to watch owning up to it – we knew Bin
Laden needed to be brought to justice just like we knew he had something in for
the Americans, however there was the copycats issue to deal with as a matter of
security; what I am saying is that although the US and Russia both control the
Middle East, there has been a very strong upsurge of relations between the UK
and middle east countries in the last decade, most of which is not initiated by
the UK and therefore cannot be turned away as that would mean something akin to
conflict in itself; these are the interests that need to be protected and Syrian
rebels seeking more democracy, while the current president plays into the hands
of nuclear armed world powers is a matter of grave concern in deed and explains
therefore why the Rebels hate him so much and so does it why everybody else
does because in his view it is not just that if you mess with him the Middle
east will implode but it is also perfectly apt that the rest of the world will
implode with it as well and hence people like that especially their fellow
counterparts that love to create Islamic states need to be made to understand
it is important that they do their illustrious sons thing outside of the
affairs of a Country doing otherwise of which tends to mean that it affects the
entire world and that at least has definitely got to be bigger than them. It is
never that the UK wants the entire world for itself because it is not content
with the Common wealth as such, it is just that people tend to rally these days
from all over world to a place they think they get the most competent career ideas
for work they do which involves serving a general public in a country and that
is why there has also been an upsurge in relations with the South Americas too. In the end it comes right down to the fact Statesmen and women must be realigned with the fact that their Prime duty is to see that there is career connection between them and a process where their electorate since there are no other ways of acquiring public support, have homes in which children have proper sleeping patterns and proper eating patterns.
In : Freedom and Economy