World Politics

[Echoes]

This "pope" is not the Pope. He's an anti-Pope. He believes in the Vatican II Council.

There are no more Popes since 1958.

Thanks for the hatred, though. Don't be surprise if it's reciprocal.

 

[hrotha]

Since there's no pope, maybe you should do something to reinstate the papacy. Maybe go to the Holy Land and create a Papal State of the Levant?

 

[python]

...catching up with news after skiing in the wilderness - the world seems messier than 3 days ago.


'france deploys special police force after shots fired in Marseille' (DW), 'anarchy in the UK: England's Increasingly Messy Politics' (the national interest), 'merekel sudden visit to the us may signal a political split with america' (reuters)..etc etc

the last piece of news was particularly curious. i have long been of the opinion that germany sooner or later HAS TO become more assertive, that given its economic weight and the special place in europe, deutschland simply can not be submissive to the washington foreigh policy designed to serve no one but the us blatant self interests.

is merkel's sudden trip to moscow and now to washington an idication of such a turning point in the german assertiveness ?

i wish it was so, but the more likely variant it is an old game of good cop/bad cop. why ?

b/c almost simultaneously the western msm - as if the switch was flipped - got filled with 'leaked facts' that vlad was given an ultimatum by merkel over ukraine, that hollande traveled to moscow as a face-saving move to give vlad his paid mistrals over any 'progress', that europe is united against the us idea of giving weapons to the ukrainia govt troops.

of course, this is a bunch of apparent nonsense. germany will continue to prostitute itself, france will continue to bask in its own delusions of former grandeur and the old europa will continue to be manipulated against settling europe's own business in ts eastern part

 

[blackcat]

So you hate Catholics is it. Well, at least you didn't say you hated Jews.

The reaction would certainly have been more than simply contrary to your intellectual merit.

ok, when removed. I can see what you did there.

my pavlovian response, admittedly, I am aware, was not a catholicism equivalence to anti-semitism. Even tho overwhelming emotive in my motive, it had a rational stimulus.

but, I do concede, in abrogating rationality with such behaviour <akin to anti-semiticism>, but the syllogism or equivalence, I would make a sound position for why I was not guilty of this. emotive, yes. guilty of that.

 

[blackcat]

This "pope" is not the Pope. He's an anti-Pope. He believes in the Vatican II Council.

There are no more Popes since 1958.

Thanks for the hatred, though. Don't be surprise if it's reciprocal.

aint this a paradox.

I thought the catholic doctrine was immune from projecting hate. even when raping.

 

[blutto]

....some say that the latest move in the neocon plans for The Ukraine, namely arming Willie Wonka's stooges, is not the best idea....at the very least anything of any real military value will be in Russia's hands by days end....

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/

Cheers

 

[hrotha]

All that article says is that Realpolitik dictates Ukraine should be Russia's ***** forever and ever. It fails to address the US's guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity, and while it's right to point out Western diplomacy has been very reckless, short-sighted and downright stupid, it's also true that many Eastern European countries are drawn towards NATO because they feel threatened by Russia in the first place.

 

[blutto]

All that article says is that Realpolitik dictates Ukraine should be Russia's ***** forever and ever. It fails to address the US's guarantee of Ukrainian territorial integrity, and while it's right to point out Western diplomacy has been very reckless, short-sighted and downright stupid, it's also true that many Eastern European countries are drawn towards NATO because they feel threatened by Russia in the first place.

....exactly what territorial integrity ?....

Cheers

 

[hrotha]

....exactly what territorial integrity ?....

Cheers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

 

[python]

...to the question of who is who's bitch.

if you are going to use wiki as a source (which is legit) do so consistently and widely to get a proper glimpse in the european history.

the point is, at one time or another, most europeans where someone's bitch while looking to other bigger powers as their protectors. the modern european history has always been a patchwork of constantly shifting allegiances, protectorates, fiefdoms and provinces that changed their rulers as fast as a peasant could change his dirty robe...

the examples are endless. who would now remember that the northern germans and the baltics were sweden's bitch, that in the south most balkan peoples where turky's bitch while looking up to tsars as protectors etc etc.

such turbulent history has resulted in 'unnatural' state-conglomerates (austria-hungary, poland-luthaunia, for instance) that up on their disintegration became new states with their own set of ethnic and cultural problems...again, the examples of various ethnic minorities with their own language imbedded within a dominant population are endless.

the modern ukraine's problems can not be separated from its history b/c it was a bitch of almost a dozen of sons of bitchs...the modern ukrainian state in its pre-crimean borders has existed only for several decades. the fact is, ukraine was and is a deeply divided country - the result of various invasions and cultural influences. poland and hungary in the west. russia in the east...only recently ukraine started to establish its own identity.
even the ukrainian language (which western dialect i more or less understand) is used daily by only about 50% of ukrainians...the rest, yes, prefer russian language. in schools for their children, on tv, in the shops etc.

the language is by far not the only divider...the economic cross-border ties, the common orthodox christianity (the western uki's are catholics), the common ww2 heroics still deeply revered by older generations etc..

the fact is, and this was mentioned endlessly, the ukrainian 'revolution', while certainly having its own grass roots, was sponsored by the new bitch owners. one half, with the help of those new owners, attempted to drag the other half to the new ***** owners w/o asking their opinion..

to be certain, russia stepped in and took advantage of the divide to defend its kin and its own interests, just like the west did, yes via its own proxies...

one can't assess the ukrainian problems in a balanced manner w/o paying due respect to the historic facts. ukraine cant change overnight its current 'bitches' at the whim of other bitches, particularly those it never bordered.

 

[rhubroma]

A minor diversion:

Forget about Greece going into default; let?s talk about the raft of cash just sitting in the various fiscal paradises and off-shore safe havens around the globe. Ah but the ?rules? must be respected, the apparatus maintained: as if the economy (especially the financial one) weren?t just another narrative we?ve been telling ourselves. In light of these considerations Piketty's crtique of financial capitalism was poignant.

?The off-shore accounts?the economist Piketty says, commenting on the so called Swissleaks scandal?is the greatest threat to the democratic institutions and for our social contract.? Now even if, as in my case, one is technically unprepared to ?read? into the enormous bubble of financial opacity; to comprehend Piketty?s drastic affirmation it?s enough to measure the (enormous) quantity of money that travels, throughout the world, outside any fiscal control, which is naturally at the expense of the social contract. Moreover it is often even at the expense of the beneficial fallout from those monetary resources which constitutes ?classical? capitalism: namely, productive investments.

In this sense the concealment of capital, in so far as it is done in extremely refined and ?modern? means, paradoxically takes us back to the archaic accumulation of wealth, to the treasure of the feudal lord?s coffers, to the well hidden hoard, to the greedy monger?s chest filled with its heap of gold coins. Money is like water: if it sits stagnant it stinks; if it flows it produces life. And even if it were ?devil?s dung,? strewn about it becomes fertilizer. There exists, to the contrary, a kind of closed network pond, put in a safe place from intrusive eyes, in which money is at the service of money, reproduces itself, eludes society. Every perforated hole those secret pipes is like water that comes back into circulation.

 

[rhubroma]

This "pope" is not the Pope. He's an anti-Pope. He believes in the Vatican II Council.

There are no more Popes since 1958.

Thanks for the hatred, though. Don't be surprise if it's reciprocal.

History has taken its course and you guys loose.

At any rate, in regards to this pope, no, the Pope isn?t communist. He is the chief of the Roman Catholic Church. What makes him seem ?communist? is the radicalness of his social glance. For example the brief discourse he gave on the occasion of the pre-Expo day of Milan, directed to the Italian minister of agriculture, and indicated that in the structural means of food production, as with all other goods, lays the very cause of global iniquity, poverty and hunger. If the pope seems ?communist,? it?s, therefore, because that radicalness of glance has disappeared, and it has also because of the end of communism (for its own demerit). We are thus so disaccustomed, and for quite some time by now, to actually discuss the structure of society; such that every concept and each discourse that places it back at the center of the debate appears revolutionary. We are, therefore, no longer capable of seeing the grass from the vantage of its roots. The debate about food is, in this sense, exemplary. And it?s rather easy to comprehend: we produce enough food for 12 billion people (World Food Organization statistic), but waste, the poor distribution and financial speculation leave hungry and undernourished a fifth of the human species. One consequently doesn?t live with the infamy of hunger because there isn?t enough food; one lives with the infamy of hunger because one is poor, marginalized and impotent. It would truly be a miracle (to use a papal term?) if the Milan Expo, beyond a parade of the rich and powerful, were able to be in some way faithful to its ?ethical? calling, which is to place food and the question of agriculture back at the center of the global political debate.

 

[blutto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

....that is a nice piece of paper that to buttress your contention,has a good point or two, though only on a technicality ( read their relevance to your contention is awash in truthiness )....unfortunately, the reality on the ground is much more complicated and has a history of centuries of nice pieces of paper drawing lines thru reality that do not even remotely reflect that reality....to quote Alfred Alfred Korzybski who famously remarked that "the map is not the territory", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself.....and that is the problem in The Ukraine today....a bunch of bureaucrats drew a map that had little to do with reality...

...in fact in you read further into the Wiki entry you posted you will find an example of how the agreement you bring up didn't reflect the legitimate wishes of peoples in parts of the territory you are talking about ( and I may add well before the current crisis exploded )...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"1994 Crimean crisis[edit]

See also: Yuriy Meshkov and President of Crimea

In 1990, Meshkov was elected as a deputy to the Supreme Council of Crimea (the republic's parliament). There he became the co-founder of the RDK Party (Republican movement of Crimea). In 1994, he stood at the helm of the electoral bloc "Rossiya" for the republican presidential elections, where he easily defeated in the second round of elections Mykola Bahrov who ran as an independent. At that time, Bahrov was the head of the Supreme Council of Crimea. During the second round of the 1994 Crimean presidential elections, Meshkov won with 72.9 percent of the vote, and was elected as the republic's only president.[17][18]

Meshkov's main political platform was to facilitate much closer relationships with the Russian Federation up to the possible annexation of Crimea by Russia.[citation needed] He tried to initiate a military-political union with Russia and completely disregarded opinions of the Ukrainian government.[citation needed] He also tried to force the circulation of the Russian currency,[clarification needed] issue foreign passports to the Ukrainian population, and even transfer Crimea to the same time zone as Moscow. Due to the unforeseen resistance of the local opposition, Meshkov only managed to put his autonomous republic into Moscow's time zone. He also appointed the Russian economist Yevgeny Saburov as vice prime-minister; Saburov virtually became the head of the government.[citation needed] Other government officials[who?] disputed the appointment, arguing that Saburov could not hold the position because he did not have a Ukrainian passport.[citation needed] Saburov was forced to resign. After that he[who?] managed to paralyze the work of the Supreme Council of Crimea.[citation needed]

In 1995, the Ukrainian parliament scrapped the Crimean Constitution and abolished the post of president on 17 March.[19][20] After a couple of warnings in September and November 1994, on 17 March 1995 the President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, signed the Law of Ukraine that scrapped the amended Crimean Constitution and some other Laws of AR Crimea, on the grounds that they contradicted the Constitution of Ukraine and endangered the sovereignty of Ukraine.[citation needed]"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....now fold into the Ukrainian situation cries from the Willie Wonka side for annihilation of Russian speakers in The Ukraine as defined by the agreement you bring forward and leaven with how the situation in Kosovo played out and you have conditions that give the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine legal precedent for their actions that overrides pieces of paper that have no basis in reality ( much the same as the example of Yugoslavia which was just the product of a piece of paper that was burned when the frictions that were the result of forcing reality into an unreal container produced way too much heat and exploded.. )....

...also be aware that one of the main drivers for this great need to maintain territorial integrity is the shale gas potential that exists in Eastern Ukraine...

Cheers

 

[blutto]

...to the question of who is who's bitch.

if you are going to use wiki as a source (which is legit) do so consistently and widely to get a proper glimpse in the european history.

the point is, at one time or another, most europeans where someone's bitch while looking to other bigger powers as their protectors. the modern european history has always been a patchwork of constantly shifting allegiances, protectorates, fiefdoms and provinces that changed their rulers as fast as a peasant could change his dirty robe...

the examples are endless. who would now remember that the northern germans and the baltics were sweden's bitch, that in the south most balkan peoples where turky's bitch while looking up to tsars as protectors etc etc.

such turbulent history has resulted in 'unnatural' state-conglomerates (austria-hungary, poland-luthaunia, for instance) that up on their disintegration became new states with their own set of ethnic and cultural problems...again, the examples of various ethnic minorities with their own language imbedded within a dominant population are endless.

the modern ukraine's problems can not be separated from its history b/c it was a bitch of almost a dozen of sons of bitchs...the modern ukrainian state in its pre-crimean borders has existed only for several decades. the fact is, ukraine was and is a deeply divided country - the result of various invasions and cultural influences. poland and hungary in the west. russia in the east...only recently ukraine started to establish its own identity.
even the ukrainian language (which western dialect i more or less understand) is used daily by only about 50% of ukrainians...the rest, yes, prefer russian language. in schools for their children, on tv, in the shops etc.

the language is by far not the only divider...the economic cross-border ties, the common orthodox christianity (the western uki's are catholics), the common ww2 heroics still deeply revered by older generations etc..

the fact is, and this was mentioned endlessly, the ukrainian 'revolution', while certainly having its own grass roots, was sponsored by the new bitch owners. one half, with the help of those new owners, attempted to drag the other half to the new ***** owners w/o asking their opinion..

to be certain, russia stepped in and took advantage of the divide to defend its kin and its own interests, just like the west did, yes via its own proxies...

one can't assess the ukrainian problems in a balanced manner w/o paying due respect to the historic facts. ukraine cant change overnight its current 'bitches' at the whim of other bitches, particularly those it never bordered.

....yup!....the religious issues, the ethnic issues, the political issues, the historical issues all make this a unholy mess that can't be reconciled by just a simple map....the map is not the territory, and this is nowhere more true than in this crisis....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

...the other thing you have to consider here is that piece of paper is something other than an iron-clad agreement..

"In the U.S. neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, nor did they believe the U.S. Senate would ratify an international treaty, so the memorandum was agreed as a political agreement.[16]"

...do note that political agreement is not the same as a legal agreement or treaty and it cannot be seen as necessarily binding....so for instance if the US of A doesn't like something that falls broadly within this political agreement they can simply say its is non-binding...

"The government of Belarus said that American sanctions were in breach of the Memorandum; the United States government responded that, although not binding, the Memorandum is compatible with its work against human rights violations in eastern Europe.[22"

...much the same as the agreement that US of A centered NATO would not push into Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall/dissolution of the Eastern Bloc...read, the US of A has a rather checkered history of not living up to conditions it has agree to in political agreements ( and lets not get into the legalisms that were trampled on the way to slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and destroying the country ) ....so why should this case be any different now that the shoe is on the other foot...

...btw, thanks for bringing that Wiki entry to our attention....it was quite good at illuminating some key issues that are presently, and have been, at play in the Ukrainian crisis....

Cheers

 

[python]

....the map is not the territory, and this is nowhere more true than in this crisis....

...the other thing you have to consider here is that piece of paper is something other than an iron-clad agreement..

if i was to guess on the relevant particulars of the 2 statements (which are true enough in general) we are talking about the ukraine map as was applicable just after the disintegration of the ussr and the 2 agreements that were supposed to settle that map - 1) the borders as agreed upon by the former ussr republics (the agreement title escapes me, even if i could spell it, the belovedski treaty?) and 2) the territorial guarantees given to ukraine by big powers (inc. russia) in exchange for it giving up its nuclear weapons.

true to my approach, i once was trying to arrive at my own, independent, as accurate as possible, a judgement on what exactly those agreements said, if they were binding and if ukraine was on firm legal grounds. believe it or not, i DID find an answer. not in an alternative or pro-this or anti-that source, but in a blue-blooded western think tank. i will have to go back and find the details (will post if successful), but the gist was this - all agreements were kosher enough but their interpretation, if a signatory desired, could be controversial and ambiguous if challenged. this was particularly true, iirc, to the non-nuclear status guarantees. the think tank even went into the legal language (which always gave me a headache) to make the point. NO ONE PROMISED UKRAINE IT NOW CLAIMS. though, i have to be frank, i feel lost as to what international security is based on, if the treaties are so porous

of course, we all know the answer - the might is always right. nevertheless, the govt legal eagles responsible for writing the treaties, make them deliberately ambiguous to give THAT MIGHT its chance, if required

long story short, most global powers (not just the us) have referred to some useless treaties to actually cover up its power politics.

the key point that most fail to understand, is that vlad, unlike his predecessors like gorby and yeltsyn, has decided that THIS TIME around, he does not feel like he agreed with the us definoion of russia's own core security. and why should he, given he can annihilate the us if the push come to shove.

he drew the nato red line in ukraine. he said it clearly for at least the 15 years he'd been the defacto tsar.

and most important, he knows his local power politics and military advantage is obvious even to the pentagon's most insane strategists..

the trouble for us all is that washington is ruled by the idiot politicians who keep mus-assessing what they're told loud and clear by the cooler heads.

 

[blackcat]

to be certain, russia stepped in and took advantage of the divide to defend its kin and its own interests, just like the west did, yes via its own proxies...

one can't assess the ukrainian problems in a balanced manner w/o paying due respect to the historic facts. ukraine cant change overnight its current 'bitches' at the whim of other bitches, particularly those it never bordered.

for outsiders, its white noise. basically unknowable. the paradox of achieving an awareness, then making ground shift(ing) geopolitik(sic) decisions from either Moscow or DC.

I dont care if the State dep't or CIA staffers have done strategy and international studies at johns hopkins, what has been shown in the past, DC cant make a decision that accords to solutions for the people on the ground. These are major decisions to shift the political ground, and thinking there is a science to their strategy and they know the effects when they instigate the policy. They dont know the counter-factual, they dont know their own effects and the counter push-back from Moscow.

freedom at home, non-freedom in foPolicy, =/= rigorous meta freedom. thats forgetting police behaviour in the less privileged municipalities.

Python how co-ordinated was the Holodomor? Was it Stalin's f-up or did he take some resentment out post WWII on some people in part of Ukraine. This was pretty well hidden in the USSR archives was not it, and only in the last decade has the material come out. I wonder how it compares to Mao's cultural revolution and famine deaths because of the command control decision

 

[Echoes]

It has been acknowleged that taking the kid to the gendarmerie was probably a mistake.

Apparently he was taken there with his father because the father became very violent at the school, not because of what the kid said.

It wasn't just that the kid didn't respect the minute of silence (a stupid idea if you ask me), but he said the terrorists were right to assissinate the Charlie staff. A future Echoes in the making.

I'm still waiting for apologies for the last sentence

So I was referring to a 9 year old kid called Ayman [in Villers-Coter?t, in the North] but in your idyllic Freemasonic republic, you don't just have one Muslim kid who is subject to the system's violence. Ayman was unfairly accused.

The kid who said "I'm with the terrorist, against Charlie" was an 8 year old kid called Ahmed, in Nice. Obviously his 8 year old mind could not realise the gravity of his comments and his father lectured him.

But the violence of the school headmaster was unheard-of. The kid was dragged by the hair, was confiscated his dextro (he's diabetic), banged on the blackboard, etc. And the minister of education obviously supported the headmaster against the kid ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rUB9Uc5tiI (In French with English subtitles)[worth watching ]

 

[blackcat]

for outsiders, its white noise. basically unknowable.

makes me think of This American Life NPR, podcast Serial, gumshoe, thinking they could possibly know the unknowable, and parse words and truth and lies or just tall tales from 16yo and 17yo highschool students from 20 years ago.

the stupidity, it, the stupidity itself, defies belief. And it is sooooo unethical. obviously, knowing an unknowable, a priori defies belief; and this sounds very greco-roman wrestler Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[frenchfry]

I'm still waiting for apologies for the last sentence

Athiests never say sorry. You can add that to your list of faults if it isn't already on it.

 

[blackcat]

Athiests never say sorry. You can add that to your list of faults if it isn't already on it.

hehehe

what is to be sorry for?

 

[python]

Python how co-ordinated was the Holodomor? Was it Stalin's f-up or did he take some resentment out post WWII on some people in part of Ukraine. This was pretty well hidden in the USSR archives was not it, and only in the last decade has the material come out. I wonder how it compares to Mao's cultural revolution and famine deaths because of the command control decision

quite honestly, i don't know the subject well enough to be fair and objective in answering the question.

my understanding of the ukrainian word combination 'holodomor' is 'to starve and freeze to death intentionally' or to 'starve to death intentionally' (depending on how the word 'holod' is translated, which could mean either 'cold/freeze' or a 'starvation', depending on how the 'g' is pronounced. golod= starvation. holod=freezing. it is typical for the ukrainian sound similar to the english 'g' to be pronounced in ukrainian as 'h'. consequently, those who introduced the 'holodomor' term into english were,imo, probably sloppy with paying attention to the details i just outlined).

either way, an important (unintentional) inaccuracy in your question is that the holodomor took place after the ww2. in fact, it happened in the early 30's. way before the ww2 spreading to ukraine.

what i read about stalin and his bolshevik thugs is that true to their perverted theory of class struggle they were conducting in the 30s a vast 'raskulachinye' - basically seizing property, grain crops, cattle and whatnot from the rich peasants, the kulaks. it was considered a response to those who the stalin thought hid the food stuffs from the hungry working people - the poor peasants and the city factory workers.

sure, ukraine being the classic bread basket of the russian empire, had bore the brunt of the economic terror. was it intentional ? i dont know. but given that stalin, a non ethnic russian, (actually a georgean, like a more recent 'revolutionary' saakashvili) was an equal opportunity despot, i seriously doubt that the ukrainian nation was the target of some 'russian-inspired starvation'. stalin killed and terrorized based on how he perceived the subjects threat to his personal rule or his perverted class struggle. he did not give 2 rats ardses to nationalities/ethnicities. he shut scores of bolshevik jews, russians, ukrainians, poles while promoting other jews, russian, ukrainians, poles... in the name of the survival of the revolution was the motive.

thus, imo, the holodomor was another politicized term to inflame the issues from which all the soviets suffered. but gain, it is a guess.

 

[blutto]

Python how co-ordinated was the Holodomor? Was it Stalin's f-up or did he take some resentment out post WWII on some people in part of Ukraine. This was pretty well hidden in the USSR archives was not it, and only in the last decade has the material come out. I wonder how it compares to Mao's cultural revolution and famine deaths because of the command control decision

....certainly had nothing to do with WW2 since it occurred well before and even if the WW2 was a typo and should have been WW1 your reference still makes no sense....hidden?, certainly at least 50mil odd survivors knew about it and they may have told a friend or two or son or daughter...

...and btw it was very well coordinated...from the sealing of the borders, to the collection and sale of the crops, to the buying of the media ( in this regard the New York Times punched its ticket to the train to journalism hell as it managed to help paper over the death and disappearance of, some argue, 12mil souls....and as an extra added insult to injury the Times reporter on this story managed to get a Pulitzer...)...

...and as long as I'm ranting should point out that its funny how a story of such magnitude gets such scant coverage compared to other more highly publicized outrages against humanity...

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

I don't like Putin, his manners, nor ways; but the situation demands seeing beyond the barriers of ideology, good vs. bad. Now, having said that, the following link demonstrates the nuances that international diplomacy, historically, must confront:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40885.htm

 

[blackcat]

....certainly had nothing to do with WW2 since it occurred well before and even if the WW2 was a typo and should have been WW1 your reference still makes no sense....hidden?, certainly at least 50mil odd survivors knew about it and they may have told a friend or two or son or daughter...

...and btw it was very well coordinated...from the sealing of the borders, to the collection and sale of the crops, to the buying of the media ( in this regard the New York Times punched its ticket to the train to journalism hell as it managed to help paper over the death and disappearance of, some argue, 12mil souls....and as an extra added insult to injury the Times reporter on this story managed to get a Pulitzer...)...

...and as long as I'm ranting should point out that its funny how a story of such magnitude gets such scant coverage compared to other more highly publicized outrages against humanity...

Cheers

I thought it was after WWII. so thanks for the correction.