Flagging the False Flags

[Mark]

Yet another false flag operation, the Oklahoma City bombing. Was Timothy McVeigh a patsy, or as Fred Burks suggests, a Manchurian candidate?

You can always spot a government coverup. Tapes are erased, stories change, black boxes disappear, films are confiscated, and on and on.....

Oklahoma City bombing tapes erased

So the truck bomb alone couldn't have done it and there were other explosives planted in the building that apparently didn't go off. I guess the Murrah Building bombing wasn't as well thought out as Operation Northwoods. There wasn't enough evidence pointing to foreign terrorists to justify a war. Of course there wasn't with 9/11 either. Some blurry photos at the wrong airport, a miraculously unsinged passport, some supposedly fanatical Moslems who were drinking and womanizing, names of alleged hijackers who turned out to be still alive, no black boxes from the planes at the WTC, all the film confiscated at the Pentagon, and on and on.....

[pan]

Not exactly a false flag but AP is certainly catapulting the propaganda here:

Iran tests longest-range missiles

Just exactly what does "longest" mean? Oh.....the longest range that Iran has. But the headline suggests as long as the US has. Something that could threaten US on US soil!

Reading the article:
Both can carry warheads and reach up to 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel, U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe within striking distance.

Yep! It can strike the US! Oh.....that means US military bases in the near region. OK.....they can strike Europe! Oh....Iran is actually pretty close to "parts of Europe". Well, it does say it can strike Israel and that is good enough for me! Call in the bombers!

[BO]

More war, damn it!

[Mark]

Helps solve the unemployment problem. Helps solve the overpopulation problem. About time that Israel stopped bragging about how tough it is and picked on somebody like Iran, which unlike the Palestinians, actually has real weapons and can fight back. As for the U.S., the more militarily overextended we get, the quicker our empire will fall. What's not to like?

[Mouse]

It mustn't happen.
These wars are leaving such devastation in their wake, total devastation of a kind we haven't seen before.
Cultures obliterated and widespread depleted uranium contamination.

[BO]

Humans have exceeded the carrying capacity of the globe, hence, overpopulation is driving resource wars. Shoulda done something about it 50 years ago.

Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict

"This sobering look at the future of warfare predicts that conflicts will now be fought over diminishing supplies of our most precious natural resources.

From the barren oilfields of Central Asia to the lush Nile delta, from the busy shipping lanes of the South China Sea to the uranium mines and diamond fields of sub-Saharan Africa, Resource Wars looks at the growing impact of resource scarcity on the military policies of nations. International security expert Michael T. Klare argues that in the early decades of the new millennium wars will be fought not over ideology but over resources, as states battle to control dwindling supplies of precious natural commodities. The political divisions of the Cold War, Klare asserts, are giving way to an immense global scramble for essential materials, such as oil, timber, minerals, and water. And as armies throughout the world define resource security as their primary mission, widespread instability is bound to follow, especially in those places where resource competition overlaps with long-standing disputes over territorial rights.

A much-needed assessment of a changed world, Resource Wars is a compelling look at the future of warfare in an era of heightened environmental stress and accelerated economic competition."

[Mark]

Well, BO, we're fighting two wars of aggression for oil, which supposedly is a precious resource because we can't fight wars without it, but I didn't know those wars were driven by our overpopulation. Are we that greatly overpopulated in the U.S. that we have to fight wars of aggression for scarce resources?

Or do we just like to drive big cars?

I don't know of any overpopulated countries that have been driven to wars of aggression by their overpopulation, do you?

I know lots of countries that don't consider themselves to be overpopulated, that overconsume and fight wars to get more resources to overconsume, but that's not driven by overpopulation. Can you explain to me how our wars for oil are driven by overpopulation?

I don't think our overpopulation has driven us to fight wars for scarce uranium either. We already have more nuclear weapons than any other country on earth. Diamonds? Our overpopulation problem will drive us to fight wars for diamonds? Bullshit.

Maybe we're afraid that other countries where people are starving because we've turned much of their land into oil fields, diamond and uranium mines, and monocrop plantations to grow stuff for export to us, might try to get their land back to grow food. But I don't see where any of that is driven by overpopulation.

Precious natural commodities, my ass. Nobody needs uranium or diamonds. The wars are greed-driven, not need-driven. We just decided that we need other countries' land to feed our cars and weapons factories and power plants, more than they need it for food.

Klare isn't an international security expert, he's an apologist for neoliberalism. The only possible basis for international security is for countries to adhere to the Nuremberg Principles, and we won't. Not because we're overpopulated and need-driven, but because we're gluttonous and greed-driven.

[BO]

Mark, I don't have time to point out the same issue for you again and again. Obviously you disagree with the sources I've cited. Or, more probably, choose to block out those facts which you find in contention with your view of the world.

Do you even know what petrochemicals are used for? Or do you really think the world mines oil just so we can drive big cars? Do you know what a precious natural commodity is? Is it possible that they may include water and air?

I know you want to drive home the fact that Americans are pigs. Can't disagree with you there. But you still don't seem to understand the concept of carrying capacity. That even if the western world were to modulate its consumption, it won't make a difference as long as the underdeveloped nations keep breeding away.

Now, if you want to argue that we should all be living in third-world slums, then you won't get much agreement outta me. I would prefer that the world population was reduced so that we all could live a better life. Unfortunately, the religiously deluded have always fought against such notions--in America as well as the third world.

Your notions of patriarchy seem somewhat similar to my notions of religiosity. Both of which I consider evil forces on the planet. But to continue to deny that global overpopulation has no relation to global conflict, is again, to be in direct contention with the scientific community at large.

For the last time.

[Mark]

Yes, BO, I know what petrochemicals are used for--they are used to produce unnecessary goods, and their production and use irreparably pollutes our water and air. In other words, if you cut out the unnecessary goods, things which all people did without for tens of thousands of years and which most third and fourth world people still do without today, petrochemicals are used to irreparably pollute the things we need for basic survival, like water and air.

Name a petrochemical product that is as necessary to basic survival as water and air.

If you can't, then why are petrochemicals more important than water and air and worth destroying our water and air for?

Water is not a petrochemical. We can live without water for a few days.

Air is not a petrochemical. We can live withouit air for a few minutes.

There is no petrochemical that we cannot live without, so why are petrochemicals worth more than the water and air they pollute?

I know what carrying capacity is. When I talk about the ecological viability of a species, i.e., its ability to control its reproductive growth in accordance with available resources, the available resources are the carrying capacity of its habitat.

Do you agree that we need air and water to live?

Do you agree that we don't need petrochemicals to live?

Do you agree that petrochemicals and their byproducts pollute our water and air?

Suppose that an animal, say a species of deer, lives in a forest. It does not use petrochemicals. It does nothing to destroy the water or air that it needs to survive. But it overpopulates and outstrips its food source. It then dies off. If there are any survivors, they can replace that population because there will now be enough food for them and the water and air has not been destroyed. If none of the deer survive their die-off, other species can still thrive in that same habitat because the water and air have not been polluted.

Suppose instead that it is a population of people that do not use petrochemicals. Because they do not use petrochemicals, they do not pollute the water and air that they need to survive. If they overpopulate and outstrip their food source, they then die off. If there are any survivors, they can replace that population because there will now be enough food for them and the water and air has not been destroyed. If none of them survive their die-off, other species can still thrive in that same habitat because the water and air have not been polluted.

But if it is a population that uses petrochemicals they irreparably pollute the water and air. Whether or not they overpopulate, sooner or later they will not be able to survive, because they will have polluted the water and air.

I don't advocate that anyone lives in third world slums or in cities. I'm an anti-civilizationist. I don't think that people should live in any circumstances where they cannot produce enough food for themselves and have to import food.

I don't know what your definition of a better life is, but mine is a life where everyone has enough basic necessities so that war is not necessary, and nobody takes more than they need at the expense of the basic needs of others. Only when there is a surplus should people be allowed to take more than they need. If I have enough to feed five people at dinner and five people show up, everybody gets one serving. If seven people show up, everyone gets smaller servings. If only three people show up, some people can have seconds. But if there are five people and one takes everything and piles it on their plate like Mr. Creosote and leaves nothing for anyone else, they aren't welcome at my table and never will be invited back.

I am, if you have read my posts, in direct contention with the scientific community at large. I believe that science is the business of taking things out of context so as to misunderstand them better.

I believe that civilization is the business of separating people from their food supply in order to domesticate them and turn them into cattle-like slaves.

I believe that technology is the business of turning living things into dead things, and that progress is just a euphemism for genocide because it means killing poor people so that the Mr. Creosotes can gorge themselves.

I have lived for much of my life without electricity, running water, toilets, refrigerators, TV, computers, etc., and I've never had a car, a cell phone, an iPod, or a Blackberry. And I was happy. I have all the luxuries of civilization now and I am not happy because I know that they are the products of genocide and that their manufacture and use is irreparably destroying our air and water.

I don't think that asking a primitive tribe what plants they use to cure various diseases is science, I think it is theft, pure and simple. But it isn't even smart theft. Smart theft would be bartering goods for those plants and using the plants to cure diseases here the same way the primitives do. Instead we try to synthesize the plants and what we get are pharmaceuticals which are one of the leading CAUSES of death in this country. We take curative plants and try to simulate them, and what we get are poor simulations with deadly side effects.

What you call "a better life," is a lifestyle based on nonrenewable resources that irreparably pollute and destroy the basic necessities of life. I'd much prefer that everyone has clean air, clean water, simple nutritious foods, and there were no petrochemicals polluting our air and water and poisoning our foods. I'd call that a better life. I think you've been conned into selling your birthright, the clean air and water, and the nourishing food that the earth provided, for a mess of pottage consisting of unnecessary consumer crap that is destroying the planet. In fact, people with simpler lifestyles are happier, work less, have fewer diseases, and enjoy life more. We have longer lifespans if we don't happen to be people of color or live in slums, but most of the people in my senior building are in constant pain and aren't enjoying their extra years at all.

We have different ideas about what quality of life means. I think it means having everything that I need (water, air, food, simple clothing, shelter when necessary) and a little bit more (friends, music, books), and being happy. You think it means having a lot of petrochemical products that are destroying the planet so that it will soon be uninhabitable. A monkey in a cage will have more toys and live longer than a monkey in the wild, but I don't call that living.

[pan]

Food is a necessary resource and petrochemicals are used for making fertilizer. Larger populations need more food, thus driving the demand for fertilizer.

Yes, sustenance farming based upon renewable, organic methods is desireable but then, that wouldn't sustain an enormous population growth centered in the cities.

[Mark]

Pan writes, "Food is a necessary resource and petrochemicals are used for making fertilizer. Larger populations need more food, thus driving the demand for fertilizer. Yes, sustenance farming based upon renewable, organic methods is desireable but then, that wouldn't sustain an enormous population growth centered in the cities."

Do you know what the word "sustain" means, Pan?

When you replenish the soil organically it can produce more food. When you do it with petrochemical fertilizers, the soil becomes more and more depleted and you have to use more and more fertilizers to make it produce. And the food that it produces is poisoned with those petrochemicals.

Enormous population growths centered in cities aren't sustainable, Pan. It costs more to get the fertilizers to grow the food than is possible without a centralized money system that impoverishes billions of people while increasing income disparities worldwide. It deplenishes precious nonrenewable resources and is destroying the planet. Ten times as much food can be produced though organic biointensive farming methods than with carcinogenic petrochemical fertilizers.

You can't sustain anything using unsustainable methods. Ten times as much food per square foot is produced on organic biointensive rooftop and urban gardens as is produced on farms using petrochemicals, and organic biointensive farming doesn't deplenish the earth's nonrenewable resources. By forcing farmers to use chemicals they can't afford, they are eventually forced out of business by big agra. Then big agra raises its prices so that more people starve.

Food is a necessary resource, but petrochemicals are not. They don't produce more food, they produce a tenth as much food and at much greater cost. Read the book (now in its 7th edition), How to Grow More Vegetables (and fruits, nuts, berries, grains, and other crops) Than you Ever Thought Possible on Less Land Than You Can Imagine, by John Jeavons. Monsanto isn't feeding the world despite what its advertising tells you, it is destroying the earth. Since the so-called Green Revolution where big agra was going to use technology to feed the world, there has been MORE hunger, not less. It isn't because population is outstripping technology, it is because the technology isn't sustainable and is wholly dependent on depleting nonrenewable resources. Monsanto has made billions of dollars, but it does it by replacing sustainable farming methods with unsustainable methods. When the world runs out of oil, Monsanto is out of business, but organic farmers will still produce food. If more land has been devoted to Monsanto's unsustainable farming methods than to sustainable organic farming methods, billions of people will starve.

[pan]

Thank you Mark for elaborating upon the point I (and BO) was making:

Enormous population growths centered in cities aren't sustainable

As the title of the new discussion I started states, "Overpopulation AND Overconsumption" - both.

Oh, and for future reference, snarky comments like "Do you know what the word "sustain" means, Pan?" don't add to a civil discourse.

[Mark]

Okay, let me modify that. Sustainability means being able to produce as much as you consume, regardless of population density.

If you consume more than you produce, your population isn't sustainable, regardless of its numbers. One person living on ten thousand acres of nonarable desert isn't sustainable. A thousand people living on the same amount of arable land, is sustainable if they can produce their own food.

You and BO are focused primarily on the reproductive rates of dark-skinned people, without regard to the fact that their lifestyles are more sustainable than our own. While your topic is entitled "Overpopulation AND Overconsumption," the only thing you mentioned was what you call overpopulation, which is darker-skinned people having children they can feed, as opposed to lighter-skinned people having children they can't feed without waging wars of aggression. BO has made cursory references to overconsumption, but doesn't address it to the same extent that he addresses what he calls overpopulation, which he apparently defines as darker-skinned people having children they are able to feed without waging wars of aggression, while he does not seem to think that lighter-skinned people who have more children than they can feed without wars of aggression, are overpopulating. He accused me of not understanding the concept of carrying capacity, but he has posted nothing to show that he understands it himself.

All you did in your new topic was cite birth rates of darker-skinned people. You made no mention whatsoever of carrying capacity, consumption rates, or sustainable lifestyles. It's those Mexicans and Africans and Indians and Chinese having kids instead of letting us use ALL the world's instead of just ten times as much as they use.

It is racism pure and simple.