Can we avoid mass extinction?

45 Comments

1. Rosemary,

   You can never be too optimistic because there can only ever be one optimum result – the best that is possible under the circumstances. An optimist, as Voltaire pointed out, is essentially an idiot who happily believes that whatever happens will be the best that can possibly happen – no matter how bad that “best” turns out to be. If only ten or five or even one per cent of the Earth’s species avoid the coming extinction, then optimism will be vindicated.

   I notice that your article doesn’t mention the principal cause of this mass extinction, that is, the over-population of needy and greedy humans on this planet of limited resources. There were about two billion people on Earth when you were born. Now there are eight billion and rising. All that in one lifetime. The Earth is no longer capable of meeting the demands of so many people. Back in the 1960 we were warned about this and some of the more populous countries like India and China tried to address the issue, but the optimist’s belief that everything would be OK prevailed and now there is hardly any public concern or discussion of the effects of overpopulation. Instead, the optimists tell us how growing the population will grow the economy so that eventually we’ll have an economic pie big enough to give everyone a slice of it – even the undeserving poor.

   Also, Putin is not trying to carve a place in history for a Russian Empire. Thet place was carved by Peter and Catherine the Greats. Putin is reacting to incessant and intolerable hostility, provocation and expansion by US led NATO that threatens the national security of Russia. Are you aware of that history? I find it painful watching the blatantly one-sided, anti-Russian propaganda that is being used to deliberately escalate the conflict in order to make obscene profits for the Arms Manufacturing Industry, but not as painful as watching all the gullible people in the western media who uncritically accept whatever they are told to believe. When are the US and NATO ever going to be held to account for what they have initiated by our fearless free media that prides itself on talking truth to power?

   But let us look on the bright side of all this stupidity. The nuclear exchange that the “free world” is trying to provoke the “bad guys” into starting may trigger a nuclear winter effect from the smoke and ashes of burning cities that may ameliorate the more serious effects of global warming that is already destroying so much of the life on Earth. Perhaps there will be a minor extinction event instead of a mass extinction. A positive result for the optimists!

   Or perhaps it would just make it worse.

2. Rosemary, at a mere 80, I am still an incurable optimist. We will become nocturnal, live underground and eat hydroponic vegetables.

   In the long run, we are still stuffed but we will worry about that one when we get to it.

3. “We need to STOP using fossil fuels NOW”. Those who provide us with fossil fuels have a great reset in mind whereby the crashing of economies through either the extreme pricing of fuel or the restricting or rationing of its use is seen as a required precursor to said reset. Petrol & diesel vehicles are being phased out by 2030, so good luck to our petroleum reliant societies when that happens.
   And what solution do we get from the media – I watched one journo plead for more subsidies so that she could buy a Tesla the other night. That’s it, no consideration of the damage done to the environment by the mining of highly subsidized ‘green minerals’, just a begging for handouts.
   I agree with B Sullivan. The media have proven they are adept at hiding relevant facts in order to protect the manipulators responsible. If you flip everything the media says and start with the premise that the opposite is probably true, the story as it unfolds then makes more sense.
   fossil fuels – try abiotic oil and the serpentinite process for a more plausible explanation of how oil/gas were made.

4. America’s percentage of global population is around 4-5%; it’s energy usage around 17-18% (more or less depending on the age of the collated data) of the gross global usage; its citizens only marginally outranked by Canada (colder in the north) in terms of total energy consumption per person, and as a generalisation, a country firmly wedded to the extraction, refinement and usage of fossil fuels as primary energy sources.

   Bill McKibben’s 2012 Rolling Stone article, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math makes quite clear the scale of the challenge to decarbonise energy sources. Bear in mind that he wrote this ten years ago, and the situation has steadily worsened over the last decade, with the Secretary-General of the UN issuing increasingly alarmist warnings regarding the perils facing us through reluctance to take action.

   The USA is not alone in its continued willingness to harvest and use carbon-based fossil fuel energy sources. China continues to outrank the States in primary energy extraction, of which 70% is coal, cf. America’s 13%. Not far behind is Russia, then all other countries rank considerably lower. All in all, the trends are not comforting, with a 12 year statistical data set (2005-2017) showing worldwide consumption of coal increased 23%, oil and gas by 18%, and electricity by 41%.

   Coupled with this data demonstrating greater demand is the primary driver, increased population growth, along with the ongoing development and higher energy demands in developing countries; and further to the mix, increased rates of mineral resource extraction, destruction of habitat to allow for food & fibre production as well as harvesting materials such as timber for housing and other usages.

   Given the commitment of tens of thousands of scientists to study & understand this current epoch, and their wide dissemination of their findings regarding the emergence of the well-named Anthropocene extinction period along with the disastrous impacts of global warming, humanity has never been better informed as to what the state of the planet is, in actuality.

   Perhaps the term ‘meltdown’ might sound a little hyperbolic. I don’t believe so. The glaciers would agree, if they had a voice (they do, actually…. it’s the sound of icebergs calving at ever-increasing rates, and the sound of melt-water flowing off frozen landscapes like Greenland in the trillions of litres).

   And meltdown isn’t just confined to the frozen waters of the earth. Ecosystems are collapsing, whilst a large percentage of humans, a majority I suspect, are still firmly wedded to the illusion that somehow or other, nature is ‘out there’ and is ‘separate’ from us, and that we are ‘insulated’ from the more dramatic consequences of what is self-evidently happening all around us, if only we care to open our eyes and take careful notice.

   We hear a lot about tipping points these days. I wonder how much attention the average lay person pays to those words, or ponders on their implication? Not so many, I’d guess. In my observations of life lived by folks just like myself, I see very little indication or evidence of real concern. It’s understandable. The problems facing us seem so huge, (they are), so opaque (they’re not), so out of reach and beyond our capacity to engage with (to some extent true), that it’s far far easier to just turn a blind eye and continue with business as usual. We vest our wishes for change in politicians, who by and large are as impotent as we are. We rail against the global energy corporations for their massive profit-taking and their continued extraction of carbon resources while at the same time driving our vehicles that rely 100% on those fuel products for their mobility capacity. And the same at the domestic level with our gas and electricity usage… all tied back to carbon-based production at source.

   It seems hopeless. I have no answers at this level.. it’s hard to imagine the global population rising up as one to tackle moribund governments or the rapacious energy corporations. It’s less difficult to imagine the waters rising, the fires burning, the floods & famines and a vengeful Gaia wreaking death and destruction on the humans (along with other creatures whether of the air, earth or waters).

   Paraphrasing from the 2009 docudrama The Age of Stupid, … ‘ We were warned, we knew this would happen, but we did nothing.’

5. “Mankind is basically presenting a very good case for allowing climate change to end in another mass extinction!”‘

   Mass extinction is not appropriate. There is only one species that needs too be removed and that one, alas, is not one of those that has so far been eliminated or even directly endangered. Yet.

6. “We were warned, we knew this would happen, we did nothing.”

   An epitaph for a sleeping humanity, nothing more to be said, really, is there. Rosemary says we are at real risk of losing choice in the matter, mate, that ship has sailed, left the room, yes, we have that greatest gift and greatest curse, choice, it would seem we have chosen to follow this construct. Ground down by the pressures of existence.

   Is there hope? I fucking hope so, 4 grandchildren for me, gives me impetus to keep going.

   Now, off subject, FUCK RUSSIA, FUCK PUTIN, there is absolutely no justification for this megalomaniac and his empire building wank.

7. Climate change is but one of the challenges facing the world–in total they are known as Overshoot. Google Overshoot day. Look at this website and the link at the bottom for Trigger points. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

8. B. Sullivan: Let me blunt – what a load of rubbish you’ve written about Putin. Ukraine along with Russia and a lot of others were founding states of the UN post WW2, the last time their state boundaries were “confirmed” due to declared war. Sure, there has been a lot war over thousands of years in Europe and Russia. It is not helpful that various communities choose to “remember and pine” for ancient boundaries be reinstated, which I can understand may be vexing, but is not grounds for war.

   If you read the transcript of Putin’s last address (available from the Kremlin http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/69390 ), you will find a 8700+ word diatribe of someone that is clearly certifiable, who has cherry-picked facts and dates to suit and then filled in the gaps with lies. His representation of history and NATO is incorrect. (Where’s Dr Kampmark’s article in support?)

   BTW, there is no evidence of any threats by NATO countries to attack Russia or use nuclear weapons. If you think there is, please provide references. The first threat of nuke use came from Putin. Putin is a disgusting POS, a coward and has no regard for anyone other than himself. Anyone that is prepared to send others into mortal combat without being provoked, with losses in the many thousands of his own citizens, let alone preside over attacks on unarmed civilians, is not worthy of being in power.

9. Was Russia provoked–many think so

   Caitlin Johnstone: It’s not okay for grown adults to say the Ukraine invasion was “unprovoked”

   To me the question is also–is this the 1st major resource war that this century is going to be known for? Regretably I expect humanity to collapse in an orgy of tribal fighting. To my mind every dollar spent on a bullet or a uniform is a dollar not saving the planet–and us. But with military industry being 60% of US manufacturing (the result of offshore outsourcing) and the US military being the single biggest enity in fossil fuel use then I do not hold out much hope of a liveable future.

10. Do people seriously think Putin was “provoked” into a war he didn’t want?
    Such statements suggest Putin is able to be manipulated, whereas the greater likelihood is that he misjudged Ukrainian resolve to resist invasion and the willingness of western democracies to provide support.
    The west taught Putin bad habits with the past lack of decisive response to Crimea and Chechnya
    The invasion of Ukraine is Putin’s vanity project. He has failed

11. Caitlin Johnstone has a credible history of calling out bullshit in media and government pronouncements; of ripping off propagandist scabs and exposing the ugly truths that lie beneath them. She is a provocateur simply because of her disgust at the lies and falsehoods and untruths repeated endlessly by western media in their obsequious acquiescence to the structures of power that maintain the portals of ’empire’, even as its facade of righteousness and appropriateness at the head of the tree is shown to be just that, a facade, an opaque shawl flung over its long history of mercenary exploitation & plunder for profit, whatever the cost in human suffering and environmental vandalism.

    As for Noam Chomsky, he is beyond refutation, and his reputation as one of the west’s outstanding intellectuals and truth-tellers remains unvarnished, despite the best efforts of his detractors.

12. Oh please! The only credible statement in Caitlin’s diatribe is “You’ve got a brain between your ears and an entire internet of information at your fingertips. Use them.” I did and soon tired of following links in her tome to garbage sites full of conspiracy theories, “extensions” to the truth, opinion, etc. I had a look around the various sites while there and found most were in the fringes.

    She might have a history of calling out BS, but shows being capable of producing plenty of her own. She does not provide any credible evidence of “provocation” of magnitude great enough to go to war over. Positioning of troops in NATO countries and sending weapons to the Ukraine isn’t sufficient. Utterances by leaders that Putin may have disliked/taken exception to… are only words. NATO has not attacked Russia.

    Noam Chomsky remarked: “Though the provocations were consistent and conscious over many years, despite the warnings, they of course in no way justify Putin’s resort to “the supreme international crime” of aggression. Though it may help explain a crime, provocation provides no justification for it.”

    ref: https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/

    Putin’s behavior has the hallmarks of a serious bully, including claiming being a victim to justify violence. Even if Putin was “forced” into going to war, it still wouldn’t justify how he has waged war – targeting civilians, use of phosphorus bombs on non military targets, genocide, attacking dams, killing prisoners and other war crimes.

13. I always think it is intellectually lazy to post an opinion piece, with a comment along the line of- “here’s a writer I agree with, read it an you’ll understand my opinion”
    The clearest sign of intelligence and independent thinking is the ability to read a range of opinion pieces, review facts and distill this into your own views…then express it in your own words.
    It’s clear that-
    * Putin is too strategic to react to provocation and manipulation
    * Every former Warsaw Pact signatory is now opposed to Russia
    * NATO has expanded mainly due to the legitimate security concerns of the former Warsaw Pact countries who joined voluntarily
    * Putin has now failed in his objectives and his escalation is evidence of this

14. Fred:

    I agree with that quote of Chomnsky’s. There was provocation by NATO and the USA, and most of it deliberate. None of that justifies what Putin did, is doing, and may do during this war.

15. I was playing with another kid of my age when I was a youngster and this kid took it upon himself to jump off the roof of his father’s car. He landed awkwardly, fell over, scunned his knees, announced to the neighbourhood – thanks to an almighty scream – that it hurt, turned on a fake cry before running to his mother to explain the series of events, and pointed to me (with his fake) sobbing; “He made me do it.”

    Very Putinesque of the kid.

16. AC: Yes he is strategic having played the victim card as far as it will go, but also dangerous and should not be underestimated. With such disregard for human life, I fear that Putin would push the button if his life was threatened. The number of lives that will be lost in the coming winter “stalemate” doesn’t bear thinking about and unmotivated conscripts will be slaughtered. Not what you would call a “great” leader.

17. Canguro.Thanks for the introduction to Caitlin….quite a talented Aussie.
    And for anyone who contradicts Chomsky, well which planet are they on?

    I did notice the PM of a Pacitic Island nation talking at the UN about being intimidated by Australia, and I quite believe that he is just another victim of the sort of diplomacy that we dish out as a minor cog in the US domination of all things. I admire Penny W, but she has had to fall in line, and that is sad.

    As Caitlin says it is tricky to get out of the cycle.

18. Fred, when you show that you’re capable of writing something of the calibre of the lyrics in this song, I’ll accord you the level of respect that you seem to deny Caitlin Johnstone. It seems that, for some, being a little Aussie battler no longer has the cachet that the term once imputed. From this commentator’s perspective, we need people like her more than ever; as the stressors increase, as political nastiness increases, as lies and falsehoods strive to dominate and infiltrate the consciousness of people just like me and you, as oligarchs and corporations ruthlessly continue to rob & steal and plunder the common future of not only mankind but all life on this planet, truthtellers like Caitlin Johnstone are urgently more necessary than ever. Enjoy this little masterpiece of her poetry set to a perfect set of images!

19. Caitlin Johnston is hardly the oracle on Russia or international issues. While not overtly supporting Putin’s vanity project, she seeks to contextualise and advance it.
    * She calls for the reduction in western support for Ukraine. The effect of this can only advance Russia’s expansionist objectives.
    * She points to the hypocrisy of the US. But neglects to identify any United Nations reports on US war crimes that are as damning as the findings against the Putin regime. The carping about the US is a typical “look over there” tactic.
    * She calls for “detente” without acknowledging the fact that the Putin regime has shown no willingness to negotiate or make concessions. On the contrary their language has become more threatening and confrontational.
    * She refers to provocation, without showing any comprehension that NATO expanded because every former Warsaw Pact country in now opposed to Russia. They experienced generations of Russian domination and colonisation and don’t want more. It is clear that NATO expanded because of the legitimate security concerns of Russia’s former satellites.
    Johnston is a lightweight and belongs in the weird coalition of conspiracy theorists, anti vaxers, fascists, old fashioned communists (that pine for the return of the Soviet Union) and Trump supporters. They give comfort and context to Putin’s expansionist objectives

20. AC. You may not have noticed but Angela Merkel also advised against arming Ukraine, but then what would she know against the blind beligerance of the USA/NATO need to exist, and fuel the arms industry.

21. Let’s take a step back and have clinical look at the current situation. While not a wordsmith, I’ve been around long enough to know there is a spectrum of views on any subject and the truth is often drowned by opinion but can be found by digging. There’s a lot of history to Russia, so for the moment leave aside the annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatists in Donetsk and from an Australian perspective the downing of MH17.

    Keeping opinion to one side, can we agree:
    1) The Ukraine state boundaries were agreed after WW2 when the UN was set up. (The fact that Ukraine was for some time part of the USSR does NOT make it part of Russia.)

    2) While the US is not model world citizen by any measure, up to Feb 24 2022, it and its NATO partners have not physically attacked Russia.

    3) As of Feb 24 Russia, under the name of a “Special Operation”, has sent troops into the Ukraine uninvited (an invasion) and attacked civilians.

    If you disagree with these basic facts please supply the supporting evidence proving otherwise

    I cannot think of any rational/logical/factual justification for number 3. If you can, then our moral compasses point in different directions.

22. Take a step back and have a clinical, and accurate look, Fred. Your point one…Ukraine state boundaries were confirmed after W W 2. not agreed as if contested. Ukraine was an entity of the USSR and had never been a sovereign state. It had always been regarded as part of Greater Russia. Catherine the Great had occupied and re-occupied all that area, including all of Crimea. (study the Crimean war) Your point two…NATO was and is a murderous treaty system of USA power projection, originally aiming to curb the occupations of USSR forces as they physically got Hitler in Berlin,and nearly did so. The USSR had been attacked by allies of Hitler, from most areas of central and east Europe, especially from Rumania, Hungary, Italy and detachments from most others. NATO has always had the full potential of ultimate thermonuclear weaponry of the USA, U K, France, thousands of bases, fleets in the Mediterranean, Pacific and Gulf, immense air fleets with refuelling, endless stocks and logistical resources. Since the fall of the Soviets, USA power projection has been aimed at the ultimate elimination of “Communism” anywhere and everwhere, with overthrows, assassinations, intrusions. Is the USA a model world citizen? It has murdered at least a QUARTER of a MILLION Islamic civilians in the last two decades, to add to its crimes in the old Indo-China. Putin is faced with a manipulator sending the fruits of its policies eastward, without needing to commit people, but merely enough taunting weaponry to see both Russians and Ukrainians killed. Ukraine had c. fifty millions population in recent decades, of which c. eleven millions are RUSSIAN, and in Donbas particularly, c. 14, 000 have been murdered since 2014. SO, Putin, who should be understood and NOT admired or supported, is faced with a destiny of nightmares, as the USA pursues policies which are worse than any nightmare of the times of Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, enough to make anyone shudder, especially a paranoid Putrid. Diplomacy principles and negotiation are the only way now, but cannot be foreseen. So, do not absorb unrefined comment, ignoring half a centry of observation and history (including mine if you wish!!) but, the mass of world potential for aggression, anti-Muslim, anti-Communism, anti-coloured power projection and confrontation is in the USA, from James Baker, M Allbright, to Blinken, available in CIA and Pentagon releases, documents, joint chiefs of staff documents etc.A full on thermonuclear MIRV dominated W W 3 will take minutes, so enjoy taunting Putin as we atomise and evaporate…

23. I don’t know why people are opposed to or critical of NATO. For those who are, take a look at one of the reasons the EU was formed:

    European political leaders realized that the only way to maintain peace was through the economic and political integration of the countries.

    (I forgot to copy link).

    The EU wants to keep the peace. So does NATO.

24. On a side note.

    Just got a piece of cardboard spruiking, with no details at all, Starlink now available in Australia. Went to the site and this is one of the first things you are greeted with:

    “Order Starlink
    High-speed, low-latency broadband internet in remote and rural locations across the globe. A$139/mo with a one-time hardware cost of A$924.”

    Only $924.00 for the hardware. Wow, gosh, geewhiz. Then you scroll down the page only to find that:

    “Easy self-install
    Your Starlink Kit arrives with everything you need to get online in minutes including your Starlink, WiFi router, cables and base.”

    So not only do you fork over $924.00 you also get to put all the hardware together yourself. Screw that for a joke!

    https://www.starlink.com/

25. Phil Prior, just post a copy of any United Nations report on US war crimes that is as damning and comprehensive as that regarding their report on Russia’s.
    It is clear that Putin has used war crime as an approved military strategy.
    People like Caitlin Johnston don’t bother to deal with such matters.
    They’re too obsessed with their anti western democracy diatribes

26. A C, you must improe your spelling (Pryor, Johnstone) as people cannot trust low quality comment. The USA has manipulated legality to avoid certain criminality, e g, Abu Graibh. Lt. Calley in Vietnam, drone murdering, no evidence, trial. The USA will not submit to any international tribunal so as to be free of consequences, utter degradation and hypocrisy. Putin, like basic USA policy, has used war crme as an approved military stategy. Let us condemn all such criminality. Some are obsessed and cannot strive for a “balanced” peace, whatever that may be, but, only a negotiated, diplomatically controlled peace will stop this horror.

27. If you’re going to be pedantic about spelling and grammar, you’ll need to show vast improvement…first line. “improe”
    And do you have a United Nations report on US war crimes?

28. Roswell:

    I don’t know why people are opposed to or critical of NATO.

    Where have you been living for the last fifty years? The other side of the Moon? Don’t tell me that you are one of those inveterate jingoists, cast from the same mould as Tony Abbott (or the former US Colonel Oliver North, remember him?), who insist that one must uncritically barrack for one’s own side, no matter what.

    I, for one, remember well the days of US arms contractors charging $600 for a toilet seat, and have been suspicious long since before that about pecuniary and mercenary motivations unduly infecting high-level political and corporate decision making within the state-military-industrial-financial complex in all matters pertaining to war and peace.

    A Commentator:

    Do people seriously think Putin was “provoked” into a war he didn’t want?

    I don’t think that “provoked” is necessarily the most apposite term. But it is, or at least should have been, clear that Putin is a loose unit – and you seem to acknowledge as much with your remark that “The west has taught Putin bad habits …”

    I’d go a step further: if an otherwise responsible adult prods, provokes and revs up an egocentric and highly reactive toddler, and feeds him copious amounts of red cordial to boot, and that kid then goes on to wreck the place, without any concern for the consequences, either for himself or for those around him … – who do you blame?

    As to the question why this “responsible” adult may have done so: maybe he wasn’t quite as responsible as he made himself appear? Maybe he had his own (pecuniary, mercenary) ulterior motives?

29. A Commentator:

    … first line. “improe”

    Muphry’ (sic) Law strikes again!

30. Phil P: Ukraine signed the Charter of the United Nations as the UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC on 26 June, 1945, and it came into force on 24 October, 1945. Ukraine was among the first countries that signed the United Nations Charter, becoming a founding member of the United Nations among 51 countries. NATO was formed several years later on 4 April 1949 and after Hitler was dead, so I don’t understand your take on NATO and Hitler.

    The history of the planet is littered with wars, often at the end of which there are revised boundaries. The last declared war to affect Ukraine’s borders was WW2. During the collapse of the USSR, on 1 December 1991 at the second referendum, the Ukraine people voted (84.2% participation with 93% in favor) to become an independent state with the borders as per the UN formation. These borders are generally accepted by most countries.

    There is a nice summary written in 2015 of the shifting borders at:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/09/maps-how-ukraine-became-ukraine/

    Sure you can go back in time and find a boundary that suits an arguing point, however it is generally accepted the last war or other agreed official border change is “it”. Otherwise we would have Italy claiming ownership of England if we sanctioned claims back to the Roman era. I don’t accept “It had always been regarded as part of Greater Russia” as the basis for determining borders.

    You do not provide justification for war.Your discussion of NATO and USA is dramatic with “taunting weaponry”, “destiny of nightmares”, etc. Of course the other side of the argument is that Europe feels threatened by Russia and therefore needs to be ready, a point borne out by the actions of Feb 24.

    The cold war was propagated by both sides. Mutually Assured Destruction was the supposed deterrent to nuclear war however it is estimated that Russia has 2000+ short (???) range tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) for use on the battlefield. Given the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons and TNWs are classified as between 1 kiloton and 1 megaton (66 times greater), you would want be a long way away from where one of the big ones landed.

    When it comes to taunts, Putin can hold his own and keep up with the west.

31. Arnd, I was going to ignore your insults but I’ve decided to respond in a few choice words:

    You don’t know me, so don’t judge me or make presumptions about me. In other words, shut the fck up.

32. Choice words noted!

    Roswell, I didn’t mean to mortally offend you. Sorry that I did!

    Seriously, though: I figure that there is a lot of room for criticism of the western “state-military etc. etc. complex”, without having to be outright “opposed” to defence treaties like NATO.

    Or do you see this differently.

33. All good, Arnd, I shouldn’t have got hot under the collar. I apologise for taking today’s frustrations out on you.

    I’m an American by birth, yet I don’t trust them but nor do I trust Putin. I don’t trust China, either.

    What a sad state of affairs it is when the three super powers of this world don’t have an ounce of morals or ethics between them.

    However, when we finally reach the point where push comes to shove I will be on America’s side, as will my adopted country.

34. Phil P: Could you please forward a link to where I might find out about the US having “murdered at least a QUARTER of a MILLION Islamic civilians in the last two decades”, as I cannot find anything sensible on the subject.

35. A Commentator on September 26, 2022 at 2:18 pm asks another commentator whether he has ‘ a United Nations report on US war crimes?’ Is the implication of that question that a UN report needs to exist before US war crimes take on a firm reality rather than unsubstantiated allegations? It’s unclear what A Commentator is driving at, but then muddying the waters and engaging in sophistry as a means of disguise and skirting of core issues is an all too common tactic in the parry & thrust of debate and discourse.

    Of course the USA has committed war crimes, repeatedly. From the earliest inception of the republic to this present day. From the deliberate infection of Native North Americans through the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets, massacres of Filipino civilians during the early twentieth century’s Philippine–American War, during the US occupation of Haiti (1915-34), during WWII,including mutilation of Japanese war dead and rape of Okinawan women in 1945, again in Europe, same era, and again in Korea, and in Vietnam, and, indefensibly, the use of atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, neither of them military targets.

    To argue otherwise, that the US has not committed war crimes, is facile, futile, foolish, and indicates a severe unwillingness or incapacity to deal with facts & reality. No UN report is required to substantiate the veracity of these extremely well-documented atrocities. And people like Caitlin Johnstone, rather than attracting criticism for lifting scabs and exposing the filth that lies beneath, deserve encouragement and support in their endeavours to shine light on politically-endorsed criminality. To argue that she is obsessed by an anti-western focus is facile. One chooses one’s targets and remains focused. There’re plenty of people on the planet who are willing to swing the stick against Putin. That she isn’t currently so doing is utterly irrelevant.

    A Commentator’s request of another commentator for a UN report on US war crimes is indolent, lazy; a quick google furnishes results.

36. Fred. Dont bother looking.
    Not because its not there, but that you are programmed to ignore evidence that does not fit your narrative.
    Just relax in the knowledge that it happened.

37. Watson institute of Brown University (USA) gives an outline figure of relevant times and areas, of c. 370,000 deaths. My calculations as I recall up to Trump’s inauguration was of c. 250,000 including Yemen and African areas, as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and some other minor totals. One other USA commentator went as far as possibly 600,000 deaths of all types and classifications. But I cannot prove with documents which have been cleaned out and thus you need not rely on belief in my recall.

38. Further, look up “Salon”, which offers a figure of 400,000. And, there are no UNO reports on Much to do with USA crimes because of the veto networking, suppressions and non-participation in the ICC. Even Guantanamo Bay barely exists in “reality”. All of us must wish for general peace, and end to suffering now, first.

39. Fred and Phil, back in 2005 Eric Schmidt in an interview with Charlie Rose hinted at how info will get disappeared by future Google.
    “One perfect result”
    “When you use Google, do you get more than one answer? .. Well, that’s a bug. .. We should be able to give you the right answer just once.”
    In other words, Google reserves the right to hide info from your search. US military campaign deaths of Muslims, an inconvenient fact?
    Most people can juggle 2 or more ideas and arrive at a decision or worldview, but in GoogleWorld, you must be spoon-fed single answers.
    Idiocracy by another name.

40. Roswell:

    … yet I don’t trust them but nor do I trust Putin. I don’t trust China, either.

    Nor do I, as German, trust the Germans! Take the sad tale of former German Chancellor Gerhard “Gazprom Gerd” Schröder, who was appointed to a very lucrative position with the very Nord Strom that he negotiated as politician, two weeks after losing high office.

    All in all, German industry has painted the whole country into a very tight corner with its addiction to plentiful and cheap Russian gas.

    Or the Brits and their addiction to the obscene ill-gotten gains of Russian oligarchs successfully swindling that country out of its public wealth.

    Etc.!

    As far as I am concerned, the present misere is the inevitable outcome of three decades’ worth of seriously ill-conceived politics and commercial bloody-mindedness informed by unrestrained greed following the collapse of Bolshevism.

    As for taking sides: I’m in my sixties now. Despite my misgivings about militarism generally and the (aptly named) Cold War doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), I did complete my military service in the German Army. 15 month of peace-time, blanks-firing toy-soldiering. But that was thirty years ago. I’m not certain I remember which end of an assault rifle the bullets come out. In any actual conflict I’d be more of a danger to my own side.

    No loss to anyone then that even when “push comes to shove’ I would probably remain informed by the dictum that “Truth is the first casualty of war”.

    The time to defend peace is during peace, not after it has ended. We have failed on that count, and will now increasingly suffer the consequences of that failure.

41. Commenting friends, I enjoy the info, boxing, insights and always remain open and honest of position. My piles of accumulating references get turfed after a year of U3A. This world situation is very difficult, as nobody of repute, from leading powers, organisations, UNO, religious blocs, egotisticsupremearistocracy, seems to be able to initiate even an opening for peace talks, Borders must change, people must move, deals must be struck, sense must eventually prevail. No more Donbas as with Sudetenland, Polish Corridor, Alsace-Lorraine, Kashmir. Current estimates of up to seven thousand thermonuclear big burners per side, with half or so operational, meaning armed, triggered, positioned, is frightening and reduces us to ants farting into a cyclone, a blowing contest of sure failure. Nobody will be guilty when no courts exist, to prove nobody or anybody was right, wrong…

42. i am an optimist and a pessimist. The human population growth inevitably means extinction for other organisms. There is a finite amount of organic creatures that can exist on this planet, add more humans take away other species. I am an optimist in that technology and knowledge being accumulated everyday can break this equation. I am a pessimist because I understand humans only change when the shit hits the fan. Scientist are warning us that a big turd is floating in the air but we are doing our utmost to ignore it. To me the human race will survive but at a great loss coming. People fear population growth, but thats slowly turning around. Its the same environment we are trashing that will come back and wipe half of us out. Extreme heat, extreme droughts and floods, rising sea levels and loss of arable land. We in australia are in a privileged position, the question is will we squander that too. Like children , we defecate in our own plates and wonder why things turn out , well, like shit.

43. DP: How dare you tell me that “you are programmed to ignore evidence that does not fit your narrative”. Oh really – from where do you know me? You have no idea of what I did professionally or how I dealt with people in my working life and you certainly don’t know how I relate to my friends. I suggest you take some guidance from Roswell to Arnd at 3:58 PM above.

44. Andy56,

    Does mean you are a pessimoptist?

45. “Is the implication of that question that a UN report needs to exist before US war crimes take on a firm reality rather than unsubstantiated allegations?”

    The United Nations has compiled a huge amount of direct evidence of Russian war crimes, and has published plenty of it. It is persuasive and leads to the conclusion that war crime is an approved military strategy in Russia.
    I’m not aware of similar findings regarding other countries.
    Therefore those that try the ” look over there” tactics don’t provide a compelling rationale