You have to remember that the Pope is South American and to the political leaders of South America, especially those on the left, the US is evil and therefore Ukraine has the wrong friends.
In this regard, the bias of Pope Francis against the United States has put him on the wrong side of history.
He could have unified the Orthodox (minus Russia) with the Catholic Church but he has failed a huge failure. He could have increased support for Ukraine and end the war faster. He could have condemned the Russian Orthodox clergy that promote this evil was against the people of Ukraine. He has failed.
You may be interested in the recovered journal of a Soviet infiltrator whose given mission was to establish such pedophile rings among other sabotage missions. These evils were planned and plotted from long ago. Certain places had problems already but this plot certainly made matters much, much worse.
Neither does the church when it comes to child abuse. At least Europe is providing financial, medical and military aid as opposed to victim blaming church has been doing.
Also, Putin publicly stated their conditions for victory about this time last year: quite literally the total obliteration of Ukrainian identity as a separate culture, and the total integration of the whole of Ukraine into Russia.
You cannot negotiate any form of lasting peace with an enemy that is fighting to deny your very existence. It just doesn’t work that way.
I think they are failing to emphasize the novel method Ukraine used to attack. Using submersible drones. Ukraine has been trying to build a drone navy.
“I’m just gonna pay off this maxed credit card with this other credit card that has an infinitely variable interest rate and sends people over to my house to trash my lawn. What could go wrong?”
Interesting. I think the average Mexican has close to 0 contact with to Africanmexicans, k think most of them are in coastal towns or cities. It won’t surprise me if there are some people who has never seen one. So it makes sense that most of them are segregated. But it got me curious why should there be a specific policy to combat afro-Mexican women instead of just afro-Mexican people.
The concept of suitable housing as a right is too uncommon. I wish the US government would put more focus on tangible needs like housing, access to healthy food, and healthcare.
While I feel like I might understand some of the impulse to restrict resources as a way to ensure all members contribute to society, we can see that this isn’t actually the outcome of such restrictions; this tells me that the motivation isn’t about improving society but rather improving the standing of a select few. It is all about power and control. How do we change the social structure at this point?
Care to explain the “another iteration of the problem”? Abolishing slavery ends slavery, abolishing serfdom ends serfdom, abolishing rent ends rent. The Venezuelan case is an example of the latter. You asked how to change the social structure, here’s a tried and true method that has worked from Russia to China to Vietnam to Cuba. You’re free to present your own with better track records.
I see I was looking at the conversation from a wider perspective and likely misunderstood the context added by the image. I don’t disagree with your comment “abolishing ‘x’ ends ‘x’”. However, abolishing any given inequity, one at a time, in one area at a time is not the progress I was speaking of when I asked how to change social structure. Before we can abolish anything, we need people who believe it should be abolished, and we need enough of them to institute change. My question was directed more toward the earlier steps: identifying necessary change and then creating/maintaining a movement which can enact that change.
The UN is not here to enforce anything. It’s a forum for nations to talk to each other, in the hopes that a peaceful resolution can be reached. They condemn things in the hopes that this soft pressure on heads-of-state makes them reconsider their actions.
Unexploded cluster bombs will be discovered in Ukrainian dirt for generations to come — probably by farmers and children. The UN has to condemn it.
UN is irrelevant in some sense I guess but that depends on what you expect them to be. If they could enforce things everyone would leave at once. It’s a place where countries can talk to eachother that might otherwise not. And that is at least worth something.
High ranking UN official obviously speaking in official capacity said that UN rejects use of cluster munition. Imagine being the sort of scumbag who jumps in to defend the use of cluster munitions.
You spend all day posting sketchy ass news from sketchy ass websites that have sensational, nonsense headlines.
This is serious shit, not your play place. The use of cluster munitions and the US’ decision to send them are very important, very real things that are happening.
I don’t have an opinion, and haven’t expressed one here on the use of cluster munitions. My opinion is that you’re a spamming misinformation spreader whose @ pops up in my feed 30 times a day.
I’m not gonna waste my time arguing with a troll, but just going to leave this here so people reading this thread understand what use of cluster munitions means and why most countries and UN advocate banning these munitions.
There are a couple variants of these shells, but given that the M483A1 has already been delivered to Ukraine from Turkey in 2022, I’m going to focus on that one for now. Failure rate of the submunitions is reported at between 2.4% to 4.1% depending on the source, so we can take 3% as a probable number.
Each shell contains 88 submunitions - 64 anti-personnel, 24 shaped charge. To be conservative, let’s count the shaped charge submunitions as I find them less concerning for the civilian aspect in this regard. This would give about two undetonated fragmentation submunitions scattered in an area of 30,000 square meters per shell.
Assuming these shells are being supplied because Ukraine is running out of conventional payloads, which Biden appeared to admit to be the case, it is logical they will not be used only for “specific targets” but used for general artillery.
Given reports of around 5,000 shells fired by Ukraine per day, that gives us up to about 10,000 undetonated fragmentation submunitions left behind per day, with each having a 10 meter kill radius if detonated.
This is the real issue with these munitions. These will present danger to people living in this area long after the conflict is over. Any country that chooses to supply these munitions to Ukraine clearly does not care about the people living there. Anybody who tries to rationalize or downplay the horror of these munitions is a piece of human garbage.
Yes? Wtf do you mean? Does UN secretary general asserting his own opinion through a deputy spokesman does not equate to the UN rejecting shit.
Antonio Guterres is the Secretary General of the Secretariat. He does not speak for the UN on policy. Which, is exactly why your quote from Forbes says “Guterres was against the use of cluster munitions” not “UN Rejects”. The UN hasn’t done shit. They’ve not made a rejection statement or vote. They’ve not “condemned” anything.
One dude, through a deputy spokesman, at a morning briefing, said he didn’t like it.
telesurenglish.net
Active