55 F
New York
Sunday, September 20, 2020
Home Law International Law Does the US care about human beings killed in Gas Attack?

Does the US care about human beings killed in Gas Attack?

Photo: “Non-Violence”, Carl-Fredrik Reuterswärd, 1988, United Nations

The short answer to the question is “maybe,” the shorter answer is “fuck no.” Why do I say that? Well, let’s look at the record. How did the US respond to the “attack” by Assad (unverified by UN/independent)? Well, they shot missiles because that will teach them a lesson not to commit war crimes. So the US Government (Trump Administration) launched 60 cruises missiles roughly (59) the result of such was destruction to fighter aircraft and actually the destruction of some villages accidentally hit. So you respond to the killing of innocent people by killing more people so the government will stop killing innocent people even though in the process you killed innocent people. Do you see the hypocrisy? Furthermore, the attack is a violation of international law (not that I support laws) and violation of the Nuremberg principles. I do not recognize the right of one Nation to use force against another in anything other than a purely defensive matter, meaning directly attack or invasion on sovereign soil (embassies don’t count). Why does the United States get involved in “conflicts” that present no direct threat to the United States?

There are plenty of reasons that answer that question but let’s focus on a few of them. Is the United States a nation that cares about the loss of human life or the wants to reduce it to a sheer minimum? Short Answer No, real answer once in a while. What is the easiest way to end the Syria Proxy war? Cut off arms to both sides, have they done this?(NO), Well Obama had a chance to do such in 2012- it didn’t work out because they thought Assad would fall quickly like Libya (Failed State). So if we look large in the Middle East (MENA) has the United State done everything to minimize deaths? Well, there is a major famine in Yemen (minor in other places as well but mostly Yemen) then we see the US is not only cutting aid to humanitarian assistance worldwide but also helping create the famine with the aid of Saudi blockade of the country(Yemen Imports 90% of its food). It should be noted the Houthi rebels are also causing starvation of own people on a smaller scale- just increasing desperation of the conflict.

Costs

Can the United States save millions of lives in the next year by changing its budget? In the United States alone 45,000 people die every year from lack of health insurance(medical treatment). By creating a single-payer health care system you can likely saved most of those people while also distributing better quality care to large portions of the populations- preventive care and direct care. Reasons for the US not switching? Money would be lost by large corporations, health insurance companies, doctors salaries might decrease and loan companies that give people loans(borrowed money) would make less cash. So we see the monetization of the need to make a profit and keep embedded systems in power(political/economic/social). How many people starve to death every day? Wide variation on that answer but one estimate is a person every 4 seconds. That’s 21,000 a day. The Tomahawk Missiles cost about a million dollars each(500,000 for production solo but at a link below it explained why that’s not so simple{WebArchive}). How many people could 60 million dollars feed? That’s a research topic and I don’t have the answer for you here but here’s a link that describes what money can be put toward and you can do the math on your own.

“Compared to the cost of living in the United States, the cost of eradicating hunger is minimal. For example, it costs just $10 USD to feed a boy in Kenya’s refugee camps for 3 weeks – this is less than the cost of lipstick in Manhattan.(1) It costs only $50 USD to feed a school-aged girl for an entire year in many developing nations.(2) It costs only 20 cents to feed one child a nutrient-rich serving of Plumpy’Sup®, a nutritional food supplement.(3) In 2003, the FAO estimated that an additional $24 billion in public funding each year would be needed to reach the goal of halving global hunger by 2015 (with inflation, the figure becomes $36 billion in 2008 dollars

http://www.uniteforsight.org/hunger/module3
An estimated 60 million/10= 6 million people for 3 weeks.

Additional Reading:
http://www.fao.org/emergencies/crisis/yemen/intro/en/
https://web.archive.org/web/19990220120419/

http://www.fas.org:80/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

http://www.unf.edu/~dtanner/4361StudyHall/test1/Chapter9/4361Ch9probes_sol.htm
https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-global-hunger
http://www.poverty.com/

Marco Palladino
Senior Completing Under Graduate in Political Science Minor in Sustainability at MU Competition is for the Weak. Jobs are for the sick. Hammers, Nails, One Tool, One Solution. Homo Homini Lupus.

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

OurWeek In Politics (September 9, 2020-September 16, 2020)

Here are the main events that occurred in Politics this week: 1.In A Sign Of A Shifting Middle...

US Median Income Hit Record Level In 2019, Census Data Shows

US Median Household Income hit a record high in 2019, and the poverty rate fell, according to a government survey released on...

In Major Victory For Coronavirus Lockdown Opponents, Federal Judge Rules Unconstitutional Lockdown Measures Put In Place In Pennsylvania

On September 14, a federal judge ruled as unconstitutional some of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s orders to control the Coronavirus outbreak, including...

US Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of President Trump’s Plan To Phase Out Immigrant Humanitarian Protections

A US Appeals Court on September 14 sided with President Donald Trump over his administration’s decision to end humanitarian protections for hundreds...

Recent Comments

© Matt Rose and Ourpolitics.Net, 2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Matt Rose or Respective Authors and Ourpolitics.net with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.