By Kyle Lees at Ski Ninjas
Track team continues strong season at Indoor Championships
Last week, the SFU track and field team headed to Idaho to compete in the GNAC Indoor Championships. They came home with plenty to show for it.
The Clan entered as potential favourites in a number of events, particularly the distance medley relays where both the men’s and women’s sides were ranked number one going in — and neither side would have to wait long to get their opportunity.
Both sides raced on the first day of the champiosnhips, and both sides came away victorious. Keir Forster opened the race for the Clan, followed by Stuart Ellenwood, Adam Reid, and anchored by Ryan Brockerville. Brockerville quite literally ran the race of his life, setting a new personal best on his leg of the race. Meanwhile the quartet’s time of 10:04.48 set a new meet record, and gave the Clan the victory.
On the women’s side, the team of Lindsey Butterworth — fresh off GNAC Athlete of the Week honours — followed by Abbey Vogt, Sarah Sawatzky, and Michaela Kane earned another victory for SFU, finishing with a top time of 12:11.42.
“Our team’s performance was great [on the first day],” said head coach Brit Townsend. “We have the smallest team here and are getting some great results.
“Our goal was to come away with some strong performances to build a foundation . . . to match the top schools.”
The Clan’s success continued on day two, earning two second-place finishes and one more win. Andrea Abrams ran well enough to earn second place in the 60-metre hurdle event, while Brockerville did the same in his mile-long race.
Butterworth, who has been a star for the Clan all season, and in just her second year, earned the team’s final victory with a one-second victory over Seattle Pacific’s Heidi Laabs-Johnson in the one-mile race. To round out her weekend, she finished fourth just behind teammate Michaela Kane in the 800-metre race.
All in all, it was a very productive weekend for the Clan, and they are no doubt well on their way to asserting their spot as one of the top teams in the conference. And now, with the 2012 GNAC season officially in the books, the Clan have
the opportunity to make their mark on the outdoor season come March.
Rings of honour
At half time of the men’s basketball game against MSU-Billings, the men’s soccer team was honoured for their historic 2012 season. The Clan finished the year with 18 wins to just one tie, finishing not only atop the GNAC standings, but also as the number-one ranked team in the NCAA Division II. The list of accolades is truly incredible; from Carlo Basso being named GNAC co-player of the year to Alan Koch being named the conference’s best coach, the Clan deserved every ounce of respect heaped upon them on Thursday.
It’s been a while since the Clan earned their final, record-setting win of the season back in November, but the Clan were finally presented with their GNAC-champion rings in a presentation headed by SFU president Andrew Petter.
“I knew tonight was going to be special,” said Koch, “but tonight was honestly the most amazing experience.
“To see all those people there — from the president down to the fans — was incredible. We really felt a great wave of SFU pride.”
As the team exited the West Gym floor to the familiar tune of SFU bagpipes, they received a standing ovation from the Clan faithful at the game. For some, it was a remarkable way to cap off their SFU careers.
“I’ve had a lot of great times here,” said graduating senior Carson Gill, “ but it’s extra special this year. Going out like this . . . it’s incredible. I felt like I’ve left my mark and now I’ve got a memory to take with me.”
And while some, like Gill, get to look back on what was, it’s almost time again to look ahead and prepare for next year.
“It was a fantastic season,” said Basso. “Everything about it, except maybe that one tie, was fantastic. But we can’t sit on this because this is just a starting point.”
Quite a good one, you could say, but it’s hard to imagine the bar could be set any higher.
“We want to win a national championship,” added Basso. “Hopefully we can do that next year, but we won’t be happy until we get it.”
Given the structure of the GNAC, that could be an impossibility, but that, like most things in the GNAC, isn’t stopping Basso and the Clan.
“We’re a competitive group of guys, especially with each other,” he said. “We’re always getting better; we’re always pushing each other to be better.
“We’ll improve; we’ll take it one game at a time like we did this year, but until we get that championship we won’t be content with anything else.”
Needless to say, the Clan are motivated to improve on what truly was incredible season — one that seems almost impossible to improve upon. For now, though, the Clan deserve their praise — but don’t think for a second they’re about to bask in it.
“It seems like it’s been a long time since our last game,” said Koch, “and maybe it has, I’m not keeping track. But, am I ever proud of this group of guys. But this almost feels like last
year’s team now. Every year is a brand new one, and we start all over again.”
Clan stung by Yellowjackets
A jump shot is nothing special. It’s something the Clan have practiced their entire lives; it’s the product of continuous repetition. Methodically, and in their own style, each creates space to rise up and follow-through. At this point in their basketball careers, they are simply expected to shoot the ball without fear and without hesitation.
In a tumultuous seasons marred by injuries and losses that have pushed the undermanned Clan out of playoff contention, the team is also still expected to play without fear and without hesitation. With an 8–16 overall record, compared to Montana State University – Billings’s 14–10 record, the Clan had nothing to lose and all the pride to gain in Thursday night’s match against the Yellowjackets.
With their last meeting against MSU still on their minds, a game in December in which the Billings fought back from a 19-point deficit at halftime to eventually beat the Clan by three, the second to last match of the Clan’s season was also a chance for the Clan to exact revenge against their opposition.
Thursday’s game, however, proved to be a night of shooting woes and defensive errors for the Clan.
The ‘Jackets got hot early, breaking out for a couple of fast-break layups, as well as two consecutive threes, causing SFU to call a timeout within the first four minutes of the game. Before things could get out of hand, the Clan applied an aggressive full-court press to shut down MSU’s transition offense. With the Clan’s ability to refocus defensively, and getting much-needed hustle and drives to the basket from forward Jordan Sergent, MSU could never completely pull away early on. And with a swooping reverse layup around two defenders, Justin Brown finally gave the Clan their first lead, a 38–37 edge with less than two minutes to go in the first half. Despite these efforts, a buzzer beating tap-in basket by MSU’s leading scorer, Antoine Proctor, gave the Billings the momentum going into the half.
With his blinding crossover and fearless attack at the basket, the second-half saw Justin Brown trying to keep the Clan in the game almost singlehandedly. With another one of his body-contorting reverse finger-rolls around MSU’s agile big men, Brown tied the game at 49–49 early in the second. But with 15 minutes left in the second half, it seemed as though MSUB simply lifted their offense to another level. The Yellowjackets were able to capitalize on four straight turnovers by the Clan, giving them a couple of fast-break layups and pull-up jumpers to extend their lead. To add to the Clan’s woes, MSUB continued pulling down offensive rebounds, kicking the ball back out for two consecutive three point field goals, and a 63–51 lead for the Billings with 11 minutes left in the second-half.
Never losing their composure, the Clan were able to battle back, even coming within five points with nine minutes to go. Although Brown and Lewis continued to be aggressive, MSUB’s hot outside shooting, pushing their lead to 20 with two minutes left to play, proved too much for the Clan to handle. As the case has been all season, a strong first half went to waste and the Clan suffered another loss.
“We played one half of basketball today,” said sophomore guard John Bantock on his team’s inconsistency throughout the game. “They just outrebounded us in the second half, [we] didn’t shoot the ball very well, [and] didn’t really play any defense.”
“There’s no excuses, it was just a bad game, really,” Bantock said when asked about his team’s mentality going into the final game of the season. “[We just] have to come with a whole new different attitude to the next game.”
But a whole new attitude may not be what the Clan need. They could use some manpower for one, but as the season wraps up, as cliché as it may sound, it’s the heart and drive of the team that’s got them the few positives they’ve had. For this tirelessly working seven-man roster that has faced adversity all year long, it’s a tough loss to suffer. And although the season is over, next year will bring a fresh start that will be an opportunity to demonstrate a skill they practiced for their entire lives — the ability to rise back up and follow-through.
School spirit at SFU needs a doctor
By Jeff McCann
Let me tell you a story about Dr. Milt Richards. He was hired on November 1st as SFU’s new senior director of athletics. His first day working at SFU was a long one. He showed up from the airport, spent half the day figuring out his visa and the other half getting his bearings in the office. There was also a gala dinner in Surrey that evening, which he was invited to attend. I was fortunate enough to be seated at the same table.
It didn’t take long for his enthusiasm and excitement to get us into a long conversation about the SFU campus community and student body. It was during our first conversation he said something I didn’t expect.
“How do I get in touch with the clubs? How do I talk to students?” he asked me. I was surprised. This guy has been on the job for all of 10 hours and he refused to talk about anything but his focus on students as part of athletics. I began to tell him about some of the barriers to student involvement: gym hours, admission fees to games, and awareness. His response? “No problem, lets take care of that”.
Within his first month on the job he eliminated fees for games.
Richards has committed to increase gym hours, and work on anything else in his portfolio that will benefit students. SFU students are all he is interested in, and all he wants to do is talk to students and hear how we think athletics can be improved. Many administrators spend their days talking about students, but never actually talking to students.
His dedication to student engagement at SFU is not restricted to athletics either. He is a strong partner in the BuildSFU project, and is relentless in his pursuit to increase campus involvement.
SFU Athletics has a rich tradition, with many highs and lows. We have put more Canadians into the CFL than any other Canadian school, we have the best men’s soccer team in Division II, and our women’s basketball team showed its CIS championship posture by upsetting Alaska two weeks ago. We are the only Canadian school in the NCAA, but likely the NCAA school with the lowest student involvement.
The athletic program encompasses so much more than the varsity teams. The department includes some of the longest-standing and most established recreational teams in the province and an intramural program that rivals any. Recently, SFU went through a facilities upgrade, and with Richards at the helm our facilities are now more accessible than ever.
Don’t be misled: supporting your school and teams can be rewarding in and of itself, even if you don’t have a passion for sports. For example, when the University of Michigan plays a home football game they have over 110,000 fans in attendance. They don’t have 110,000 fans because that many people love football, they have 110,000 because that many people love their school. Taking pride in your school and involving yourself with Clan activities makes your piece of paper more valuable at the end of your four years.
So my dear apathetic students, it’s time for us to get off our butts and go get involved. Go to a game and be proud of your school, win some free swag and make some noise. Join intramurals, keep your new year’s resolution and get in the gym, and, if you have any excuses about why you can’t (hours, price) well, too bad. Richards is taking care of that for us. Why? Because this guy has it figured out.
Human settlements in space: a primer
To understand the recent moon colony discourse in the United States requires understanding the historical trajectory of the country’s space program, not just the current political calculus embodied by Newt Gingrich’s pontifications to the “space coast”, regarding employment for the space industry or Obama’s endorsement of the Mars-Direct Phobos exploration program. There are several groups competing for funding and attention within the American space community. I label the first group, which most furiously contends for moon and mars colonization as ‘inevitable’ and ‘logical’ under the grand rubric of the von Braun school. Within this larger umbrella there are two major competing groups, for whom I will use the terms Heinleinists and Roddenberryists. But I am getting ahead of myself.
The von Braun school, largely derived from aerospace enthusiasts within the United States Air Force at the end of WWII (and their international accomplices), at about that same time, proposed a long term vision for America’s future in space. The four-tiered project involved ambitious space exploration and colonization including, more or less in this order: the building of a rocket-plane (1) to be used to build a space station (2) to be used as a waypoint for (3) lunar colonization and (4) exploration and colonization of Mars. The Cold War, for better or ill, interrupted this framework. The Space Transportation System (STS) and the entire ensuing agenda became a hidebound project in the face of JFK’s aggressive lunar exploration project. Subsequent funding and enthusiasm for the von Braun long-term project withered away amongst competition for resources, floundering public interest, and lack of unified strategic vision within the space agency itself. The result, as we all know, was an inadequate, dangerous, and unprofitable STS, endless technological and policy drift of the space-station programme under Nixon and Reagan, its final realization — over-budget, inadequate, and basically pointless under Clinton — and then a failed third-phase under George W. Bush in the 21st century. Make no mistake, the current Democratic administration’s Phobos project is more or less an attempt to reinvigorate the same stale von Braun agenda.
Knowing how this splits along cultural literary and media lines is crucial to understanding the nuances of how anyone could support such a dead-end and crazy proposal. This brings me back to Gene Roddenberry and Robert Heinlein. Those who support moon and space colonization can be divided into doves and hawks, respectively. The former, represented by their messiah, Roddenberry, believe in the neo-Turnerian notion that space is literally some kind of replacement frontier for the American West, and therefore, must be exploited to ensure the continuation of American greatness. The hopeful belief of the Roddenberryists is that international cooperation in space can produce a more humane, cooperative, and technocratic world. Crucial to the Roddenberry agenda is the abandonment of pre-scientific or pre-technological humanism or moralism. In the Roddenberry world we are all technological determinists in complete agreement with Benthamism and scientific positivism. Luddites and Popperians need not apply, and the categorical imperative is obsolete.
To the Hienlinists the question is rather different. Here technological determinism and post-humanism become transcendent. For the Roddenberryists, the warp-engine might be a dream, acknowledged to be possibly beyond realization, but to the Heinlein faction there is no debate: the Cherenkov drive’s invention is only a matter of time. Neorealism and the anarchical view of international relations is the prevailing leitmotif of the Heinleinist. Space is ‘empty’ and therefore might as well be American before it ends up communist or Chinese or god help us whatever. The moon and the other material bodies of the solar system are resources awaiting exploitation, rather than the combined heritage of the species as the UN mandate on space exploration maintains. But then again, to the Heinleinist, the entire international framework is merely a superficial facade for the American space-empire, at best its legalist cover.
Within the space community there are essentially two groups opposed to the von Braun school: conservationist astrobiologists and radical proponents of robotics. The former oppose the von Braun holistic agenda as destructive to the alien environments on the moon and Mars; the latter considers the entire ‘manned’ space agenda as obsolete and economically wasteful compared to their own efficient programs. Two third parties external to the space program seem to exist: anti-government minarchist tea-partyers and neoliberal occupiers who together seem to feel that domestic political economy outweighs interplanetary ‘progress’. Naturally enough, there is a tiny fourth group basically worth ignoring completely who question the historical and philosophical legitimacy of the undemocratic anti-humanist discourse of space-empire itself. But, thankfully, these people are either incomprehensible, annoying deconstructionists, or crazy arts students and can be safely disregarded as ineffectual losers with few career prospects and no ability or interest in actually engaging the space-empire ideology anyway. Therefore: onwards to space, Christian soldiers!
Fat happiness: Is it wrong to be fat?
As a child, Kalamity Hildebrandt was put on diet pills by her doctor in order to lose weight. By age nine she was bulimic, which progressed to the point where she was throwing up blood in her teenage years. By 19, she could barely function emotionally in the world because of her overwhelming fear of harassment.
What changed her view of being fat was fat activism, the social justice movement that believes that, just like any other discrimination, oppression of people because of their weight is unacceptable and should be fought against. “I know for me, when I discovered fat politics, I actually think it saved my life. It was such a surprise because it was the first time I encountered the idea that maybe I was fine and society was messed up,” Hildebrandt, a founder of the political group Fat Panic! said. “I spent my whole life, every minute of my life, hating myself, contemplating how I could surgically alter my body at all times, throwing up, cutting . . . to punish myself for being fat.” Hildebrandt is currently working with SFPIRG to organize a series of Fat Happiness Days workshops that invite conversation about issues surrounding fat and society.
“When I discovered fat politics, I actually think it saved my life. It was the first time I encountered the idea that maybe I was fine and society was messed up.” – Kalamity Hildebrant, Fat Panic! co-founder
Fat activism is a lesser known political movement that started around the 1970s, but has recently received more notoriety with the rise of blogging. A common reaction to the idea of fat activism is disbelief and uncertainty. Many people hold to the idea that being fat is a matter of choice or lifestyle, and that fat activism should not be put in the same category as other political movements. Hildebrandt, however, argues that in many cases, it is not due to individual choice, but to the socio-economic environment that an individual is put in. Furthermore, those subscribing to this movement believe that oppression in any form and towards anybody is unacceptable, and that includes oppression based on body size. Lesley Kinzel, a body politics activist, explains on her blog Two Whole Cakes: “For. . . those who would identify as fat activists, [fat activism is]about changing culture, and confronting the social pressures that seek to either depress us into fruitless dieting, or shame us into living as invisibly as possible.” She continues, “Fat acceptance isn’t just for me, or just for fat people; everyone needs fat acceptance, because this is a lesson that benefits us all.”
The movement also rejects the medicalization of terminology used to describe weight. Hildebrandt explains that by using terms such as ‘obese’ or ‘overweight’ (rather than ‘fat’), it turns the body and its weight into a medical symptom; it defines the body in a medical way. Fat activism takes the word ‘fat’ and turns it into a political term. Michelle Allison, a nutritionist invested in body politics who advocates for “eating normally”, explains how she understands the word ‘fat’ on her blog The Fat Nutritionist. “I call myself fat because not only am I fat . . . I’m also not especially bothered by it,” Allison wrote. “Because the size of my body, and your body, is morally neutral. Fat doesn’t equal lazy or ugly or even, necessarily, unhealthy. It’s just a word.”
“The size of my body, and your body, is morally neutral. Fat doesn’t equal lazy or ugly or even, necessarily, unhealthy. It’s just a word.” – Michelle Allison, nutritionist and body politics activist
Loving your body at any weight and size is an admirable attitude, and one that our thin-obsessed society is in dire need of. However, what about the ‘obesity epidemic’ we’ve heard so much about? Have we not seen a huge increase in obesity rates and overall less healthy lifestyles in North American society? According to Hildebrandt, however, the term ‘epidemic’ is misleading in describing the trend occurring in our society. “One thing to realize is that the term ‘epidemic’ is misused in this context because what we see in an epidemic is a sudden increase,” Hildebrandt said. “What is actually seen is that there has been a gradual increase in the average weight of people in Western society. That’s not an epidemic. The term alone is being used to stir up fear . . . but actually, everybody is living longer.” Hildebrandt, along with other fat activists, believe that it is not an obesity epidemic that is the issue, but the moral panic that is causing the fear of fat in people. Dr. Scott Lear, an associate professor of kinesiology at SFU whose research has focused on obesity and cardiology, agrees that the term ‘epidemic’ is an overused one in terms of obesity rates. However, he said, “it is a public health concern, just like any other risk factor, just like cholesterol, just like blood pressure and diabetes, and that it needs to be treated in a professional way, from all aspects, from health professionals to society at large.”
Furthermore, fat activism strives to dispel the idea that fat is necessarily associated with being unhealthy. “Another thing to realize about the whole fat–health debate is that all studies that have looked at large populations over time . . . find that there’s a ‘U’-shaped curve. So, it’s not like you’re thin, and then you get fatter, and then you die faster. There’s a curve and what they find is that, actually, the people who live the longest are in the overweight category . . . It doesn’t make sense [to define] fatness as a health problem, [or to try and] make people thinner in order to improve public health.” Many studies that support this idea, however, use the contentious Body Mass Index (BMI) to determine categories. Researchers often suggest that the distribution of body fat is more important in determining risk for mortality than an individual’s BMI. Lear agrees that there are many misguided perceptions against people carrying extra weight, and dismisses the common belief in our society that fat people should just ‘eat less and exercise more’. “With that kind of thinking,” Lear said, “we’re not going to get anywhere.” However, contrary to the fat activist belief that weight and health are not directly correlated, Lear acknowledges that there are health consequences to being overweight. “There’s undeniable evidence that it is unhealthy to be carrying excess body fat,” he said. Possible consequences of carrying excess weight range from high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes, to psychosocial stress and other societal consequences. Just as Hildebrandt is attempting to bring the political and social issues surrounding fat oppression to light, so too does Lear believe that “by ignoring [these issues], it’s not going to help anybody . . . the solution is as complex as the cause. It needs to be taken on from a societal point of view, as well as an individual one.”
“There’s undeniable evidence that it is unhealthy to be carrying excess body fat.” – Dr. Scott Lear, SFU kinesiologist
When it comes to being overweight, there is a habit of placing blame on individuals and their habits. Lear, however, does not see this as the solution at all. “What we need to do is not so much focus on whether people are obese or not, but focus on healthy behaviors,” he said. “We all make choices, but we make choices presented with the opportunities we have . . . [We need to] give people the education and the tools with which they can make healthy life choices.”
Lear explains that obesity is only one of many public health issues — the only difference between obesity and most other health problems is that obesity is always visible to others. This is exactly what Hildebrandt and other fat activists are fighting against: the oppression of those that are noticeably different from what is considered the norm, be that according to race, gender, or body weight. Lear, too, acknowledges the social stigmas involved with obesity, but also notes that it is a public health issue that must be addressed on several levels. Obesity has been addressed as an epidemic, as a public health issue, and as a personal failing. What fat activism is trying to accomplish is to address fat as a political issue, as an issue of oppression like any other. What health professionals like Lear are making clear, however, is that while obesity is subject to unnecessary social negativity, it is nonetheless a public health issue that must be dealt with in a holistic manner — addressing both the individual and the society. Obesity can be a political issue, but it is first and foremost a growing health concern, and not necessarily because more people are becoming overweight, but because our society is failing to provide individuals (especially those with lower socio-economic standing) with the necessary choices and opportunities to embrace a healthy lifestyle.
Blood on our hands: How the international community has failed the Syrian people
In February, 1982, Hafez al-Assad ordered his army to besiege and shell the city of Hama in order to quell an uprising so strong that it threatened to overrun his regime. The army followed the orders to a tee and effectively destroyed the city, using a scorched earth tactic that left much of the city lying in rubble and as many as 40,000 dead. The uprising was quelled, and the remaining protesters either fled the country or stopped operations. Hafez al-Assad remained in power until his death in 2000.
History is unfortunately repeating itself. Beginning last weekend, the Syrian army once again encircled a city — this time, Homs — and began a campaign of suppression. This time it is Hafez’s son, Bashar al-Assad, giving the orders. After almost one year of protests asking for democratic change, Bashar has seemingly channeled his father and ordered the destruction of the rebellious city. If reports out of the city are to be believed, that is exactly what is happening, with Syrian snipers picking off citizens who dare to venture outside, tanks targeting civilian buildings, and artillery lobbing shells indiscriminately into the city.
The Syrian uprising is turning into a slaughter. The Free Syrian Army, the opposition military force made up of defected Syrian soldiers and civilians, are not strong enough to challenge the official Syrian forces alone, and — unlike the Libyan rebels, who held Benghazi — those fighting in Syria have no safe haven to retreat to.
The regime in Damascus is likely feeling the pinch as international sanctions are taking its toll on the economy. However, instead of hastening his deposition, the sanctions have likely increased the resolve of Assad to put down the protests. After a suburb of Damascus fell into the hands of the Free Syrian Army, the loyalist Syrian Army was unleashed in a way it had not been before, driving the opposition from the capital and then moving on to Homs. International sanctions have done nothing but push Assad into a corner, and like any wild animal in its situation, he has responded aggressively.
More crucial to the Syrian conflict is the inactivity of the international community. Besides few economic sanctions and strongly-worded statements, no outside country has done anything of substance to stop the slaughter of people. Following the increase of the violence, the UN Security Council scheduled a meeting to vote on a resolution drafted by the Arab League to resolve the conflict. The resolution called for the stop of violence from both sides and a start to the dialogue between the opposing forces. As expected, Russia and China — two countries with strong ties to Syria — vetoed the motion.
That Russia vetoed the resolution was not surprising. Syria is Russia’s last true ally in the Middle East. For a country that had almost half of Middle Eastern countries in their back pockets during the Cold War, the loss of Syria would be a disaster. There are also bellicose reasons for Russia’s decision: the Russian Navy has a base in the Mediterranean city of Tartus. To lose this would mean that a Russian Navy vessel would only be able to enter the Mediterranean from its Black Sea ports through the Bosporus — which would require dependence on Turkey, a country with an increasingly chilly relationship towards Russia.
The reasons for China’s veto are more forward thinking. For the government in Beijing, the open-worded nature of the resolution was similar to the one used in Libya last year, where a mission to protect civilians quickly became a reason to depose Gadhafi. China likely fears that a similar decision in Syria would lead to the foreign deposition of the Assad government — which, swiftly following the demise of Gadhafi, would quickly set a precedent for how to deal with authoritarian rulers. The communist leaders in Beijing are in their own way similar to Gadhafi and Assad, authoritarian rulers who reign with an iron fist and crushing dissent at every turn. The difference is that China is a country whose economy is growing and its people seem satisfied — for now. What will happen when the people demand more liberties, or if the economy stops satisfying its people? Would the Chinese government crack down on protesters as strongly as governments in the Middle East? All evidence shows that it would.
It would be accurate to blame Russia and China for the lack of action and the escalation in violence. However, it is also near-sighted. Western governments, especially the U.S. and those in the European Union, have come rapidly to the defense of the Syrian opposition and condemned the actions of Russia and China, but the responsibility for the blood spilled in Syria rests with every country in the world that can do something. For the international community to be dependent on the Security Council, where these two members are permanent members, or on the Arab League, a group of countries led by despots that would not think twice about doing what Assad is doing, is simply ridiculous.
The world is in danger of witnessing another humanitarian disaster similar to the Rwandan genocide and the human rights violations in the Yugoslavian wars. In both cases, the UN was tasked with resolving the conflict and failed to do so. It has become clear that the UN and other diplomatic means will not work. So if Assad is not willing to listen to diplomacy, it may be time to speak with him in the only way he seems to understand: with force.
