Rainforest on Fire On the Front Lines of Bolsonaro’s War on the Amazon, Brazil’s Forest Communities Fight Against Climate Catastrophe
(...) Scientists warn that losing another fifth of Brazil’s rainforest will trigger the feedback loop known as dieback, in which the forest begins to dry out and burn in a cascading system collapse, beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret. This would release a doomsday bomb of stored carbon, disappear the cloud vapor that consumes the sun’s radiation before it can be absorbed as heat, and shrivel the rivers in the basin and in the sky.
The catastrophic loss of another fifth of Brazil’s rainforest could happen within one generation. It’s happened before. It’s happening now. (...)
Rainforest on Fire On the Front Lines of Bolsonaroâs War on the Amazon, Brazilâs Forest Communities Fight Against Climate Catastrophe
(...) Scientists warn that losing another fifth of Brazilâs rainforest will trigger the feedback loop known as dieback, in which the forest begins to dry out and burn in a cascading system collapse, beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret. This would release a doomsday bomb of stored carbon, disappear the cloud vapor that consumes the sunâs radiation before it can be absorbed as heat, and shrivel the rivers in the basin and in the sky.
The catastrophic loss of another fifth of Brazilâs rainforest could happen within one generation. Itâs happened before. Itâs happening now. (...)
I am with you on this one. NATO was necessary initially because of Stalin's unbridled aggression, but has long outlived its usefulness and have been equally as offensive as the USSR during its run as well.
NATO was indeed a military alliance answer to an expansionary Soviet Union. I am not so sure that NATO as a broad military alliance between (mostly) rich, developed countries, has completed outlived its usefulness.
A number of recent decisions and developments have been counter-productive but the organization still has merit. I worry not about Russia because I believe that Russia is relatively easy to co-opt. Other emerging powers will not be so easy to co-opt. It is sad that America cannot provide better leadership. Worse yet, Europe looks like it is on occasion still figuring things out.
In an ideal world, the USA would likely spend one third of what it currently spends on the military and national defence. In an ideal world, any military intervention would be rare, would enjoy broad citizen and ally nation support and would directly expose US soldiers to harm in order maintain strong and widespread public support. In an ideal world, lower-cost political solutions would be seriously explored at every opportunity.
Is you ask the Poles, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians if NATO membership is essential to their security you'll get a resounding "yes", as demonstrated by their petitioning for entry. History is on their side here. All have been invaded and subjugated by Russia in living memory, and Russia's continuing creeping imperialism is evident on the ground as we speak in Ukraine, Georgia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia, along with a long list of smaller conflicts.
The pattern in many of these cases is familiar: Russia asserts that ethnic Russians (or some group they are sympathetic to) are being mistreated at the hands of a neighbor and invades/finances a revolt to separate a province or region, then annexes it. In the case of Chechnya the country was taken wholesale. Does that sound familiar? It ought to: it was the German justification for annexing the Sudatenland of Czechoslovakia.
That undoubtedly irritates Russia, tho it's hard to imagine this as anything but a defensive move. Maybe some of our reflexively anti-western knees could jerk on this. RP? Care to chime in?
..........................
Naturally many Poles and citizens of the Baltic states wanted NATO membership. That does not mean that it is in NATO's interests to oblige.
If an older adult male from Montana meets a shapely, voluptuous 14 year old and she wants to have sex with him, is it appropriate for the older adult male to oblige the 14-year old girl?
If it was up to many Latin American conservatives, American soldiers would directly help in a violent purge of Marxist militants and supporters. Maybe 1/6 of the country in some cases. Should the USA oblige?
So what if there is a pattern to Russian intervention in FSU states? It was a lot more complicated than you suggest but nonetheless. Are you suggesting, your fellow citizens should look at these matters as a question of the 'good versus bad guy', a variation of 'us versus them'?
And for the glaringly obvious question. Does the presence of NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic states help Chechnyans and other ethnic minorities in violent conflict with the Russian federation?
How about a more rational collective decision making process? How about taking in expected costs before undertaking these gratuitously aggressive and provocative measures? Or like so many Americans patriots, do you simply discount the probability of expensive blow back to zero? Right now, it appears that you are staring directly at the hugely costly blow back and yet fail to recognize it.
First Israel.
Yes Israel, the USA-supported nuclear weapons backed affirmative action ethnic cleansing program. The whole ugly project is yours, it is American. It is proof in the pudding of America's Antisemitism. You have no moral authority. As long as you firmly support the settlers, the Hilltop Youths, the illegal nuclear weapons arsenal and regional monopoly, the deportations from East Jerusalem, the 5:1 kill ratio, the lovely discourse of cultural superiority, etc. Zero moral authority. So much for secure economic property rights without ethnic, racial or some other sectarian exception. The War on Terror, a lovely blow back gift from Israeli nation building process, tells us a lot about Americans. It is unusual propaganda to the extent that the USA figures among the world's great contemporary nation state killers of civilians. It is an odd choice because without terrorism, Israel would not have been born. It is an odd choice because the USA clinched WW II by deliberately aerial-bombing civilians. (I would not have done anything differently.)
It is an even odder choice given that current American military intervention almost always leads to civilian deaths. As if civilian deaths were almost as easy to predict as the weather.
Why the War on Terrorism? Well, so the USA can label groups or governments as 'terrorist', thus demonizing them, creating an excuse for no dialogue and quickly earning a justification to kill their civilians.
The War on Terror informs as to the moral bankruptcy of Americans or the willingness of elites and special interests to maliciously manipulate uninformed American views. (Any resemblance to modern-day Russia is purely coincidental.) It hints already at the vulnerability to outside manipulation.
Costly blowback Russia 1, USA 0 It looks like Russia managed to hit back at the USA in the 2016 to 2018 presidential elections. With stunning success. Operating under a low budget and involving relatively few people, individuals from Russia managed to catalyze an all-out cultural and political brawl in the USA. The always earnest and never too strategic Democrats played along beautifully.
One has to admire the elegance of it all. The American hegemon can only decline/fall from within. Ultimately only the American people can rapidly reduce their ability to influence world events. The Russian hackers sure seeded that ugly cloud to perfection. Now sit back and watch Americans rip each other apart.
As for any of this being anti-western (your comment for RP), I must admit confusion. I view your politics as going against rich western country interests. I view your politics as unnecessarily putting American citizens at risk.
Nonsense. Nazi Germany posed an existential threat to the rich west; the former Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the rich west. Modern day Russia does not pose an existential threat to the rich west just like Muslims do not pose an existential threat to the rich west.
Was NATO membership necessary for the security of the Baltic states and Poland? No. Absolutely not.
Would NATO membership and NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states irritate and provoke the Russians? Absolutely yes.
Did not an American President threaten to blow up the entire world when Russia installed missiles in Cuba? After the USA installed missiles along the Communist block's borders?
Now if you Comrade Lazy8 subscribe to the Neo-Marxist Baran and Sweezy view that more military expenditures are good because they are inherently wasteful and prevent the capitalist economy from going into collapse, well you might have an argument. If you are a fan of US agricultural exports and weapons exports, then definitely you have an argument.
Frankly, I would be really careful about making analogies to WW II given the fondness of US-backed Israel to use strategies and tactics popularized by the Nazis during WW II.
Is you ask the Poles, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians if NATO membership is essential to their security you'll get a resounding "yes", as demonstrated by their petitioning for entry. History is on their side here. All have been invaded and subjugated by Russia in living memory, and Russia's continuing creeping imperialism is evident on the ground as we speak in Ukraine, Georgia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia, along with a long list of smaller conflicts.
The pattern in many of these cases is familiar: Russia asserts that ethnic Russians (or some group they are sympathetic to) are being mistreated at the hands of a neighbor and invades/finances a revolt to separate a province or region, then annexes it. In the case of Chechnya the country was taken wholesale. Does that sound familiar? It ought to: it was the German justification for annexing the Sudatenland of Czechoslovakia.
That undoubtedly irritates Russia, tho it's hard to imagine this as anything but a defensive move. Maybe some of our reflexively anti-western knees could jerk on this. RP? Care to chime in?
An American president did in fact blockade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis—an act of war. It worked, the missiles were removed (as were the US missiles in Turkey that had provoked the Russians to counter that move) and the world didn't blow up. Somewhere in that keen statement of the obvious is a point, I think. Maybe you could connect it somehow to the argument at hand.
I am a fan of peaceful engagement with the world. NATO countries are not obliged to buy American weapons (and most don't, with the exception of military aircraft, which we also sell to non-NATO allies) or agricultural exports (which have faced notable resistance in Europe due to superstitions about GMOs). Maybe you had something else in mind. Hard to tell.
Not sure what Israel has to do with NATO expansion; maybe you could enlighten us. On second thought...never mind. Criminy.
I don't have time to fall down a WW2 rabbithole today, much as I'd like that, so I'll enlist a couple of scholars to help out.
The following is a discussion from 2008 between Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hansen about Patrick Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. First a tedious disclaimer: no, I am not equating your assertions with the ravings of neo-fascist Patrick Buchanan. I doubt you have many thoughts in common—or at least I hope you don't.
The two make some carefully considered points about resistance to aggression, and how appeasement and delay in that makes the situation worse in the long run. They extend that analogy to Saddam Hussein but hear them out. It'a entertaining if nothing else, and I always enjoy seeing a blowhard like Buchanan taken down a notch.
Further tedious disclaimer: yes, I know Hansen became a Trumpalist in 2016. He's one of the reasons I don't reflexively hate Trump supporters—some of them are people I otherwise respect, just as Hitchens was a socialist I respected. Smart people can reach bad conclusions.
Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies. Which begs the question of why NATO had to make Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens? Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?
...or maybe it's because we remember how WW2 started, and what the cost of inaction to the early acts of aggression was. The German military* would have been easier to stop had the allies reacted forcefully to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland instead of standing aside and wringing their hands.
And neutral Finland (and Denmark, and Norway) were invaded in WW2 by various players. Neutrality is not safety, nor is it a guarantee that a country won't be strategically useful to an antagonist. After WW2 Finland was (at least on paper) an ally of the Soviet Union and hosted a Soviet military base until 1955.
*Yes, I know Germany was allied with the Soviet Union early in the war and that the two cooperated to split Poland between them, but the Czech invasion preceded that and was an all-German affair.
Nonsense. Nazi Germany posed an existential threat to the rich west; the former Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the rich west. Modern day Russia does not pose an existential threat to the rich west just like Muslims do not pose an existential threat to the rich west.
Was NATO membership necessary for the security of the Baltic states and Poland? No. Absolutely not.
Would NATO membership and NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states irritate and provoke the Russians? Absolutely yes.
Did not an American President threaten to blow up the entire world when Russia installed missiles in Cuba? After the USA installed missiles along the Communist block's borders?
Now if you Comrade Lazy8 subscribe to the Neo-Marxist Baran and Sweezy view that more military expenditures are good because they are inherently wasteful and prevent the capitalist economy from going into collapse, well you might have an argument. If you are a fan of US agricultural exports and weapons exports, then definitely you have an argument.
Frankly, I would be really careful about making analogies to WW II given the fondness of US-backed Israel to use strategies and tactics popularized by the Nazis during WW II.
I am with you on this one. NATO was necessary initially because of Stalin's unbridled aggression, but has long outlived its usefulness and have been equally as offensive as the USSR during its run as well.
Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies. Which begs the question of why NATO had to make Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens? Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?
...or maybe it's because we remember how WW2 started, and what the cost of inaction to the early acts of aggression was. The German military* would have been easier to stop had the allies reacted forcefully to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland instead of standing aside and wringing their hands.
And neutral Finland (and Denmark, and Norway) were invaded in WW2 by various players. Neutrality is not safety, nor is it a guarantee that a country won't be strategically useful to an antagonist. After WW2 Finland was (at least on paper) an ally of the Soviet Union and hosted a Soviet military base until 1955.
*Yes, I know Germany was allied with the Soviet Union early in the war and that the two cooperated to split Poland between them, but the Czech invasion preceded that and was an all-German affair.
Nonsense. Nazi Germany posed an existential threat to the rich west; the former Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the rich west. Modern day Russia does not pose an existential threat to the rich west just like Muslims do not pose an existential threat to the rich west.
Was NATO membership necessary for the security of the Baltic states and Poland? No. Absolutely not.
Would NATO membership and NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states irritate and provoke the Russians? Absolutely yes.
Did not an American President threaten to blow up the entire world when Russia installed missiles in Cuba? After the USA installed missiles along the Communist block's borders?
Now if you Comrade Lazy8 subscribe to the Neo-Marxist Baran and Sweezy view that more military expenditures are good because they are inherently wasteful and prevent the capitalist economy from going into collapse, well you might have an argument. If you are a fan of US agricultural exports and weapons exports, then definitely you have an argument.
Frankly, I would be really careful about making analogies to WW II given the fondness of US-backed Israel to use strategies and tactics popularized by the Nazis during WW II.
Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies. Which begs the question of why NATO had to make Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens? Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?
...or maybe it's because we remember how WW2 started, and what the cost of inaction to the early acts of aggression was. The German military* would have been easier to stop had the allies reacted forcefully to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland instead of standing aside and wringing their hands.
And neutral Finland (and Denmark, and Norway) were invaded in WW2 by various players. Neutrality is not safety, nor is it a guarantee that a country won't be strategically useful to an antagonist. After WW2 Finland was (at least on paper) an ally of the Soviet Union and hosted a Soviet military base until 1955.
*Yes, I know Germany was allied with the Soviet Union early in the war and that the two cooperated to split Poland between them, but the Czech invasion preceded that and was an all-German affair.
