Wherein lies the HOPE for Mankind???

Watching the movie "Atomic Blonde" makes me think that life was so much simpler back then, around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ending of the Cold War.  In the 80's and 90's it was so much easier to identify "right from wrong" and "good from evil." So it seems, but perhaps that's just because we're viewing past events through the lens of History? Although these days, even our history seems malleable.  Truth now depends upon your perspective? And nowadays everything comes riddled with the added bonus of layer upon layer of obfuscation, compounded largely by our technology.  We now have social media, where everyone has a supposed platform to express opinion and share truth, but the tech actually regulates what gets promoted and shared as "truth."  Then we have multiple media outlets competing with one another in a  24-hour news cycle --in both on-line/print content, as well as television/cable broadcasts-- where far too many of these outlets masquerade as purveyors of honest journalism while spewing veiled propaganda 24/7... I kind of miss the days when omission was 'sin'.  Bottom line, these days you really have to work to get at a version of truth where national and global events are concerned. Quite frankly most people are too busy just trying to make ends meet while chasing after a veritable banquet of bright-shiny distractions to even ponder the notion of searching for truth.  Leaves me wondering: wherein lies the hope for mankind?  For I find it hard to fathom that in the world of the 1980's and 90's that a cruel and brutal dictator like Bashar Al-assad of Syria would be able to repeatedly launch chemical weapons attacks against his people --among these defenseless women and children-- over the course of near-on an entire decade, while the world just stands silently by.

4/10/18  The narrative of absolutes rears its ugly head yet again, this time on the Right.  With the prominent  question for restraint being  "What exactly are U.S. interests in Syria?"  The answer: probably none, at least w.r.t. to our borders or our country's national security.  The problem is that what is going on Syria, what has been going on for over 8++ eight years, is a crime against Humanity and those in a position to act in defense of the innocent have a moral obligation to do SOMETHING.  I agree this shouldn't be a U.S. only issue.  The world's leaders need to act together, in unison --not piecemeal or unilaterally-- in order to bring the reign of Bashar Al-assad to an end.  That being said, it will probably be up to the United States to provide leadership in this united effort.

I also have to wonder, why does Russia still have its seat on the U.N. Security Council? If the United Nations is to have any legitimacy moving forward they must punish Russia for its repeated failure to live up to its promise (obligation) to have successfully overseen the removal of chemical weapons from the Al-assad regime --dating back to their initial obligation back in 2013.  The punishment for Russia's failure in this respect should be that Russia loses its seat on the Security Council, whether this removal be for the short term or long term.  Perhaps Russia can do something to eventually earn its seat back in the long term?  I mean if the U.N. is merely to be a venue for the airing of grievances on the world stage, with no teeth for enacting meaningful and timely responses to real world crises then why are we pouring billions of dollars into its upkeep and operation?  Seems kind of pointless to me? Surely a "grievance only" board should at the very least cost a whole heck of a lot less than what we are currently paying.  In the aftermath of yet another chemical attack upon the people of Syria, I think the U.N. is at a crossroads.  They either stand for something and have the power to enact meaningful change or they don't. It's pretty black and white from where I'm standing. What say you???  I can think of at least a dozen other ways the money we pour into the U.N. could be better spent. 

Side thought:  The country of Jordan has repeatedly stood against terrorism and mad dictators in the region for decades now.  And their country is pretty small compared to Syria.  If Assad is ousted, perhaps the time has come to carve up Syria and hand its control over to more stable actors, someone who will act in the better interests of the beleaguered Syrian people?  Surely the Syrian people could not do any worse than Assad, the lone exception being a vacuum filled by Islamist extremists? In an effort to avoid the later, I vote for giving Jordan control of a huge chunk of Syria. Maybe Turkey gets another piece?

4/15/2018  Reassuring that the United Kingdom, France, United States, Jordan, Turkey and UAE worked in coordination to strike strategic chemical weapons targets in Syria over the weekend.  May God Bless and keep the Syrian people during these troubled times.