EU --- Return The Nobel Peace Prize!

In 2012, the European Union (EU) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for over six decades of having contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". It is time that the EU consider giving the Prize back to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

None of the crises which are currently shaking the EU in its foundations came as an overnight surprise: the Euro-Crisis would have become apparent to anyone watching Eurostat statistics about capital flows during the 2000s; the replacement of strong internal borders with weak external borders (Schengen) would have become apparent to anyone taking a look at the quality of external borders; the radical Islamization of many large cities would have become apparent to anyone driving through those cities; and now - the refugee crisis is not an event of 2015. Instead, it seems like a long time ago that Italy was governed by Silvio Belusconi but already during his time the first pictures about Lampedusa crossed TV screens all over Europe.

Major problems can and will occur all the time. As nice as prevention sounds, not everything can be prevented. However, the issue is whether major problems are recognized in time and whether decisive corrective action is taken. The EU has failed miserably on those counts.

The EU's reckless failure to recognize major problems in time and to take corrective action will, in all likelihood, become "a threat to peace and reconciliation, to democracy and human rights in Europe". In short, the oppositve of what the EU was awared the Nobel Peace Prize for.

In light of the above, returning this Prize to the Norwegian Nobel Committee seems an appropriate action and/or reaction on the part of the EU. Perhaps even an overdue action.

A Highly Restricted And Top Secret Document On Syria!

President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the rebels (who are good) started winning (hurrah!).

But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State (who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)

So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.

By the way, there is a breakaway state in the North run by the Kurds who want to fight IS (which is a good thing) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.

So President Putin (who is bad, because he invaded Crimea & the Ukraine & killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) (which is sort of a good thing?).

But Putin (still bad) thinks the Syrian rebels (who are good) are also (bad) and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good.)

Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel and are good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian rebels (who are good) which is bad.

Now the British (obviously good - except for Mr Corbyn, the newly elected Communist leaning Labour Party leader who is probably bad ) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good /bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).

So Assad (bad) is now probably (good) being better than IS. Since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them (good). America (still good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also good) and so they may be forced to say that the rebels are now (bad) or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as (good. )(Doh!.).

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmm, might have a point) and hence we will be seen as (bad.)

So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (good/bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

(I hope that clears up all that confusion for you!)