North Korean conflict

> World prepares for possibility of nuclear war

Braeden Mandrusiak
Contributor

 

ince the start of 2017, North Korea
has been all over the headlines

surrounding the continuation of its
highly-criticized nuclear program, but
the recent election of Donald Trump in
the US has certainly caused a flare-up
to an already contentious relationship
between the two countries, bringing
it to a potential breaking point.

The North Korean government
has launched a multitude of
missiles this year, with some
narrowly missing Japan.

A recent UN security council vote
has imposed a new set of sanctions
on North Korea, which limits the
country from receiving crude oil and
petroleum imports; Russia and China
went against their old ally to vote in
favour of the sanctions to appease
Trump, who has asked for more
cooperation from those two countries.

Based on recent North Korean
nuclear threats directed towards the
US, Trump said they will “face fire
and fury like the world has never
seen.” Kim Jong-un responded by
releasing invasion plans for the
US territory of Guam to quell the
rhetoric coming from Trump.

Joint US-South Korea military
exercises against North Korea
went ahead, even though Russia

and China proposed a halt to
them to appease Pyongyang.

The US and Japan are the primary
targets of North Korean aggression,
but Canada may be caught in the
middle of a nuclear conflict if one does
occur between the two countries.

Officials in Canada have
considered joining the US ballistic
missile defense program to protect the
country from a possible nuclear attack;
however, the Liberal government
vetoed such efforts to retain a
previous judgment made in 2005 by
former prime minister Paul Martin.

“The extent of the US policy
is not to defend Canada,” said Lt.-
Gen. Pierre St-Amand of NORAD
during a parliamentary committee
meeting. Although the threat of
nuclear war is serious, it seems as
if the US and North Korea need
to settle their playground feud
through diplomatic action.

Diplomacy has been used in
the past to resolve conflicts, and
it seems like the best option that
the world has. Military means will
certainly bring about an unnecessary
amount of grief for both sides,
which will harm overall stability in
a developing region of the world.

The use of empty threats
will not lead to a resolution, so
a solution must be implemented
by the major players if the world
hopes to avoid total annihilation.

When intimate, let go

> The need for ego-less, sensual play

Klara Woldenga
Humour Editor

 

Te is a deep need for releasing the
ego while surrendering into sensual
games with others. By ego, | mean our
mental structure of ideas of who we
want to be, or who we should be, based
on certain expectations we hold for
ourselves. These expectations arise from
the narratives we blanket ourselves with.
Those narratives can be constructed
positively—if you have spent your entire
life learning to be a doctor it makes sense
to have the personal narrative that you are
a doctor. Unfortunately, many narratives
are based out of confirmation bias based
from negative experiences, such as “I
never win,” “No one cares for me,” or “If
I do not finish this I will be worthless.”
Positive narratives can also hold us back.
For example, a person who tightly holds
onto the previously mentioned doctor
narrative for decades may emotionally
crumble if they are forced to suddenly
leave the practice, or eventually retire.

To sensually play while releasing
the egotistical idea of who we are, and
who we should be, allows us to embrace
the moment, ourselves and others. We
are not able to be successfully present
unless we let go of our expectations
created by a future that does not exist
yet, along with releasing who we should
be based on shaky, bias memories.

I believe we cannot fully physically
enjoy ourselves, or another, without
letting go of our attachments to the false

ideas of self-worth—the fake idea that
we are simply the products we create;
products that will simply never be good
enough in the eyes of capitalism. If we
let go of the idea that we must impress
ourselves, or the partner we are with,
we are finally able to let go and patiently
enjoy who we are in this moment.

We can't deeply celebrate ourselves
and others if we can’t release the ego-
fueled idea that we are never good enough
to be loved unless we do this or that.

If we do not let go of this falseness we
will always be unsuccessfully grasping
onto others for unlikely validation
instead of enjoying the present, physical
moment. Being sexually connected
while holding onto unrealistic
expectations of yourself, or another, will
always lead to disappointment simply
because our desires will never fully
equal reality based on our inability to
perfectly control our environment.

The orgasm and human body
cannot become another impatient
goal or product that reflects our own
self-worth, as we will then rush to
receive and create what should have
been savored and explored without
pressures, demands or expectations.

It is when we calmly explore and
communicate with ego-less, vulnerable
enjoyment and curiosity that we
truly connect with who we all are:

An ever-shifting essence of being.

Sensual play and love have
no fixed narratives, paces, or
ideas, and neither should we.

The refugee crisis is not just the east’s burden

> The blame, and the solution, lies in the hands of partnering countries

Sameer Siddiqui
Contributor

 

Sn 2001, the US, along with monetary
support from oil rich gulf allies,

has engaged in wars in countries like
Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and
Iraq. These wars have displaced the people
of these countries and western countries
have taken in refugees by the millions
since the wars have started. However,

the oil-rich Middle East has taken in very
few. Their pursuit of bringing democracy
to those parts of the world, which have a
very different structure, has not worked.

It is quite ironic that many oil rich
Arab countries, which themselves are
ruled by families are, through proxies,
supporting the removal of Arab dictators
in other countries. Also ironic is the fact
that these countries do not give citizenship
to immigrants, as they fear people from
other countries could corrupt their
culture. If western countries would have
done the same, the cries of racism could
be heard loud and clear by the established
media in the west, yet they remain silent
on the situation in the Arab countries.

To the credit of the west, they have
indeed welcomed in millions of refugees.
But there is a limit to the extent of how
many they can take in. In comparison,
the oil rich Arab countries, which are
similar to countries like Syria, Iraq and

Libya in terms of cultural and societal
norms, have not taken in enough.

Europe has also had strict guidelines
on allowing in refugees. European
countries have a strong identity, culture,
food, as well as music and they expect
people who come to settle there to
integrate into their culture. Their point
of view is that if you come into their
country, then the responsibility is on you

to adjust, not on them to make concessions

to adjust you. This has at times created

friction between people and led to a more

nationalist-bent political discourse.
The western countries have an
economic interest for their involvement
in the Middle East and that interest
is oil. Gretchen Daily, professor of
Environmental Science at Stanford
University rightly posed this question
about the situation in the Middle East—
“do you suppose we'd be attacking Iraq
if its most important export product
were broccoli?” People often wonder
why the US—which lectures the whole
world on human rights—supports the
oil-rich countries in the Middle East,
which are often accused of human rights
violations against their own people.
The simple explanation for that is, in
return for guaranteeing their security
of these countries, they promised the
US that they would sell their oil in US
dollars, which benefits the US currency.

This is the fundamental underlying
equation. It was only after Saddam
Hussein started selling oil in Euro’s in
2003 that the US began attacking Iraq.

To conclude, a solution to the refugee
crisis will have to be one which is created
in partnership by the US, Russia and the
oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, as all
of them share the blame in creating it.

Safe zones should be created in countries
like Syria, Iraq, and Libya where the
people are placed and protected until the
war is stopped. A ceasefire agreement
should be made between the countries
involved and a gradual reduction in
military personnel should follow, as the
presence of a foreign military gives rise
to negative sentiments, and rightly so.

  

Image via beliefnet.com