“THE Pentagon and the [US] State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents…” according to John Broder writing in yesterday’s New York Times.
“Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.”
The same article explains the planning, at least in part, is about reviewing critical military installations and their vulnerabilty to rising seas and storms – both natural hazards. This would seem all very sensible.
But Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, is apparently hoping to use the issue to push through the cap n trade legislation. He has even claimed the war in southern Sudan is a result of global warming.
No doubt the actual article by Mr Broder is a useful part of this campaign it begins: WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.
The article suggests a need for military intervention as a consequence of global warming.
Here we have alarmists starting to sound like neo-conservatives. Is this the sort of the thing the New York Times would normally advocate or even condone?
Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security
August 8, 2009. John Broder. New York Times.
Christopher Game says
Besides the possibility of a military response to natural processes, we need to note that the gnomes of Wall Street are now billion dollar deeply into carbon futures. They will not rest till they have got what they need because of their carbon futures commitments: carbon restriction and tax laws to enforce their financial schemes. Besides the years of billions of dollars of support for greens by the megarich who thereby act to assuage their consciences for their abuses of the environment and of the poor, and the force of the gnomes of Wall Street, we are now to be hit by the Obama government’s use of the Pentagon as an instrument to crush us with the carbon restriction and tax laws. At least in the old days we could recognise the enemy in Russia, except for those of us who wanted Stalinism.
Schiller Thurkettle says
It’s not quite accurate, or at least, not consonant with recent experience, to claim that “alarmists starting to sound like neo-conservatives” in this instance.
Climate alarmism owes much of its success to the fact that anyone with a politically vulnerable product or proposal can portray it as being politically correct, by the simple expedient of tying it to global warming. (Or to “climate change” or “climate chaos” if they want to hedge their bets.)
Some might find requests for improvements to military installations to be unpalatable. Others might be embarrassed to admit that they don’t actually understand the root causes of strife in the Sudan. Both problems can be politically “fixed” by pointing a finger at “the climate”.
Persons of any political stripe can use “looming climate catastrophe” to their benefit, hence the broad popularity of the notion — and this NY Times article.
Jeremy C says
So boys and girls,
Tell me how long has the Pentagon been studying issues of national security wrt to global warming…….. ?
Five years ago……?
or just as long as it took your collective fevered imagination to latch onto it?
Evidence to be entered ona on a plain card please.
What’s interesting is that yesterday the NYT played the card – as a consideration for cap n trade.
As regards how long its been an agenda item for the Pentagon – I don’t think John Broder actually quotes anyone from the Pentagon – though the impression is given that he does and also that its only really been a focus since Obama.
Indeed the article itself is something of a propaganda piece – don’t you think? It is big on inference and short on substance?
I accept your reasoning – But – Isn’t it unusual for the NYT to be almost advocating the idea of an interventionist policy for the US military? And would Al Gore agree with the sentiment?
The only thing better than dealing with real challenges that good policy and hard work can deal with, is to deal with bogus problems using pretend strategies that will not do any good at all, but will allow insiders to make huge profits.
Next we will have Obama march the Army to the sea shore, collect seashells, and claim he has conquered the ocean.
The NYT must be getting very desperate – with their alarming financial position, akin to that of the Boston Globe, any sensationalist guff would seem a good idea, and what better to promote than non-existent global warming. And throw in the usual suspect, John Kerry, who most certainly would be ready to ‘use’ any dodgy data to promote a crippling cap ‘n’ trade .
As for Al Gore agreeing – he’d sell his grandmother to stuff a few more notes in the carpet bag.
From 2001 to 2009, $2m to $100m – what does that tell us about this fellow?
Schiller Thurkettle says
It is most certainly unusual for the NYT to be almost advocating the idea of an interventionist policy for the US military. This is proof that citing global warming can get you nearly anything you want — even from the world’s foremost Leftist rag.
Al Gore would absolutely agree with the sentiment. A world in which US military policy is governed by climate catastrophism would, for him, be Utopia.
For instance, I have no doubt that the notion of dropping ‘smart bombs’ on coal-fired power plants in countries refusing to limit planet-baking CO2 emissions *would* enjoy great appeal among those truly committed to AGW. Some of them will be attracted by the “direct action” element of such an intervention, while others would say that it’s only common sense in light of the perils these plants pose to the planet.
And in general, those who favor militaristic interventions will salivate over the notion of “green warfare”.
Al Gore could easily countenance such an unholy compromise with the military-industrial complex. After all, his carbon-credit fund invests heavily in General Electric — a company that builds wind turbines *and* nuclear submarines.
Schiller Thurkettle says
Friends and others,
It occurred to me that I should offer better background for the plausibility of the notion of “green warfare” and how it could gain wide appeal.
Fact is, the notion of “green warfare” is already out there, along with products and methods of killing people that are environmentally friendly.
See, “Come, friendly bombs”, New Statesman, January 8, 2007, http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2007/01/green-friendly-bullets-lead and “Green Warfare?” Canada Free Press, May 28, 2008, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3267
We’re talking reduced-emissions fighter planes, lead-free bullets, biodegradable land mines, and stuff like that. Since these devices are more environmentally friendly, they can of course be used with an easier conscience — making them more likely to be used.
We’re also talking about re-branding biological warfare as “green” warfare. See, “The natural war”, EMBO Reports 1, 3, 216 (2000), reviewing “The Biology of Doom”, http://www.normalesup.org/~adanchin/archives-HKUPRC/The-natural-war.html
We’re also talking about the neo-Malthusian/’Deep Green’ contingent of the environmental movement we’re all familiar with — those who claim the world is overpopulated, that humans are a planetary disease, etc. For them, killing people is environmentally friendly *per se*.
The appeal of being able to say “for the environment” instead of “regime change” in explaining the virtues of a particular war to the general public is so obvious that it needs no discussion.
So, to those who are so shocked by the notion of “green warfare” that they’re inclined to reject it as completely fanciful, I say: it’s not a new notion — and arms manufacturers are embracing it already.
Eli Rabett says
Since at least 2004 and probably before that. Google
“climate change” pentagon report
Jeremy C says
However, I think its rather wonderful how the posters here have gleefully and imaginatively run with Jennifer’s insinuation that the the article speaks of an offensive posture by the military on the security issues behind global warming. You gotta hand it to denialists, they certainly don’t lack for imagination (even if its fevered).
BTW I seem to remember a speech by John Kerry on CSpan long, long before he became a candidate in which he talked about the security issues behind AGW.
Larry Fields says
Thus far, the responses on this thread have been more cogent than the article itself. Good for you! Some random observations.
Schiller wrote: “This is proof that citing global warming can get you nearly anything you want — even from the world’s foremost Leftist rag.”
The New York Times is a Leftist rag by Merkin standards, but not necessarily by world standards. Tom Friedman, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist and regular op-ed contributor to the NYT, was initially a cheerleader for Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq. (Since then, he’s had a few second thoughts.) That doesn’t sound very Lefty to me.
About Obama. Until reading the article, I wasn’t sure where he was coming from. A part of me was hoping that he was simply shining on his fellow Dems about AGW, while secretly hoping for a NO vote in Congress, so that he could move on to more important issues. The recent moves by the Pentagon mentioned in the article have convinced me that Obama really is as scientifically illiterate as he sounds. It’s depressing.
A general consideration. We Merkins do have a legitimate national security interest in the stability of certain parts of the globe–and not just in the Middle East. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and most of its citizens do not hold the US in high regard. If a humongous natural disaster–not necessarily associated with climate change–hit Pakistan, there would be a strong temptation to raise cash by selling some of its nukes to Islamic terrorist groups.
After the terrorists do a surreptitious importation strike against Israel, we’d probably be next on their list. An unconventional nuclear attack would be extremely costly to defend against. And if it did happen, we wouldn’t know who or where to bomb in retaliation.
just filing this here:
Desperation time: NYT Promotes ‘National Security’ Climate Fears – But claims are merely ‘a redux of 1970’s laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity’
Climate Depot’s Inconvenient Rebuttal to ‘National Security’ Climate Argument
“To find oil, companies use everything from remote sensing satellites to seismic prospecting. But could verses of the Old Testament be used to find oil in the Holy Land? Maybe so, according to an article in World Net Daily, which describes how Israel’s Zion Oil company is using verses of the Torah to look for a huge reserve of oil. Deuteronomy chapter 33 speaks of Asher “dipping his foot in oil” while Genesis 49 mentions the “blessings of the deep” being on the crown of Joseph. Zion is therefore drilling in the area of Biblical inheritance of these tribes, and found encouraging signs of petroleum storage deep underground. Only time will tell if the Bible blesses Zion with a gusher of black gold. ”
Climate Denialism is a religion.
The left have always liked violence to settle arguments, the 20th centuries most accomplished murdering psychpaths have all been from the left.
Mao, pol pot , stalin, lenin, trotsky plus the green worshiping adolph with his national socialist german workers party managed to kill around 100 million people.
So it comes as no surprise when the left shows an interest in a violent solution.
“Tell me how long has the Pentagon been studying issues of national security wrt to global warming…….. ?”
It was USAF research into the atmosphere that discovered the enhanced greenhouse effect.
“1) The “national security” angle is based on unproven computer models which even the United Nations IPCC admits are not “predictions.” UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth refers to climate models as “story lines.” “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature’s blog on June 4, 2007. So the mighty New York Times is reporting that some members of the military, led by Sen. Kerry, are essentially playing no more than “what if” “war games!”
Memo to New York Times and Senator Kerry: Climate Models “predictions” are not evidence. ”
Morano once again shows his utter ignorance of what climate scientists are saying. Trenberth has correctly stated that they cannot predict what people will do, (unlike economists), hence the ‘what if’ scenarios. He is not saying climate models are not useful for helping us understand what may happend in those scenarios.
If climate causes massive human disruption, times of disruption are often associated with confict. Sudan is one example. Two disctinct ethnic groups lived seperate lives from each other. One group found it’s lifestyle as desert nomads was no longer viable due to climate change, and we can see the result today.
Ian Mott says
Jennifer, the term “war mongering neoconservative” tells us more about your own baggage than anything else. Deposing a murderous dictator with a proven propensity to invade his neighbours, and who did absolutely nothing to dispell the very widely held view (including the view of the UN inspection team) that he had weapons of mass destruction, does not constitute “war mongering”. And despite the spin of the bull$hiterati, the subsequent discovery that the chemical weapons he had previously used on his own people were either well hidden or dismantled does not convert the previous well founded suspicions of WMD’s to the status of misrepresentation.
I supported the Vietnam War, not because I was a war monger, nor out of some intellectual fall from grace but, rather, because I was the son of a landowner at a time when a very active ideology believed they had both the right and duty to shoot people like me and my father and confiscate my property. In fact, they had done exactly this every time they were given the opportunity to do so and people like me rightly concluded that the best place to fight a destructive battle to prevent them doing so to us was on his doorstep, not ours.
It is now a matter of historical record that the landless urban constituency in the US and Australia, who were much less likely to be shot or have their property confiscated in a communist revolution, did not recognise the validity of our shared concerns with the Vietnamese farmers or their right to determine their own governance. More correctly, they initially supported the South Vietnamese in principle but the price they were willing to pay was a whole lot lower than Uncle Ho was demanding.
This ideology also regarded it as their perogative to deny the right to self determination of the people of South Vietnam, in blatant violation of the UN Charter, in exactly the same way that this ideology currently denies the right to self determination of the Tibetans and the Uigers and still refuses to recognise the right to self determination of the Taiwanese some 60 years after the fact.
The obvious war mongers were Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot who sacrificed millions of lives to impose an ideological straight jacket that their own people discarded as totally inappropriate just 10 years after their so-called victory in 1975.
And once again we have the green/left reverting to form. It is they who will seek to force the adoption of their ideology on others and justify it on some perverse notion of greater good. To suggest that they are somehow morphing into conservatives is to assign all their demonstated faults to their intended victims.
Mottie, I was beginning to think you were intelligent but you couldn’t help yourself. Its clear that you need to read up a little more on the causes of the Vietnam War, which was largely an American induced product. History has moved on since the 60s.
Here’s what the NYT article actually says:
“Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.”
In other words, the push is coming from the Pentagon, not the loony lefties. This sort of thing is inevitable as the AGW monster proceeds to give birth to the nightmare of the future.
This theme in the AGW alarmism lexicon is not new;
And neither are the lies;
“But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest”
Temperatures are not rising, the seas are not surging and the glaciers are not melting; but it is already established that proponents of AGW can exaggerate and lie so as to stress the importance of the threat which they are exaggerating and lying about.
The Sudan war is not about resources; it ‘merely’ is another front in islamic hegemonic ambitions; just the usual C.R.A.P.
Gordon Robertson says
Neville “Mao, pol pot , stalin, lenin, trotsky…”
None of the above were socialists and Mao does not belong with them. By and large, socialist movements have not been violent, except in self-defence.
As I have said before, global warming is not a socialist cause. It is being perpetuated by environmental anarchists who are trying to impose their way of life on the rest. Socialism has never been about anarchy, it has been about workers rights and conditions.
Neville, I suggest you do a bit of objective reading on Mao. He was from peasant stock, but as a kid, he was gentle, taking an interest in reading and arts. He was not a communist to begin with and his revolutionary methods were bred into him by us in the west. In fact, the Russians, who ran Chinese communism kicked him out of the party. He had been talked into embracing communism by an intellectual friend but he did not agree with the excesses of Russian-style communism.
In his formative years, Mao took part in general strikes, which could quite easily get you killed in China during those times. Why do you think they were striking? Western democracies were using the Chinese as a source of cheap labour and they were selling them opium. It was our capitalist representatives who were the scum in China and Mao quite understandibly hated us. He wanted nothing to do with any socio-economic system that originated in the West.
I have no argument that he was violent in his later years, as a rebel leader, but he did not begin life as a violent person. He had to helplessly witness the execution, by strangling, of his young wife. They tied her up to a post and methodically strangled her. Who wouldn’t feel violent toward a class who could do that to your loved one? As I said, violence was bred into him.
Circa 1910, some Chinese under Sun Yat Sen asked western democracies to help implement a democracy in China. They were refused that help because we in the west did not want a democratic China, for the same reason capitalists don’t like unions. Besides, Chinese peasants did not understand democracy, having never experienced it. They had been suppressed for so long under a feudal system, the concepts of democracy were foreign to them.
Ian Mott says
How appropriate that you would use “dribble” as a pseudonym, Dribble. Since when has conducting research on the implications of a set of assumed climatic outcomes constituted a “push” for certain responses? It is core Pentagon duty to examine the full range of possible security circumstances and to suggest that the inclusion of one or more potential outcomes is akin to promoting such outcomes is ludicrous.
Stress of all kinds, economic, social and climatic, can cause conflict, as they always have. Attaching a label to some of those stresses, and blaming it on CO2, is nothing more than a demonstration of how the truth is always the first casualty in any war.
And FYI, I have read all Chomski’s bumf, and the “pentagon papers” and all the intervening bull$hit analysis about so-called interfering in civil wars etc. I was also alive and thinking at the time and was aware, even then, of the difference between what must be said in public and what must be done in private.
I can also give you the names of Uni lecturers who told me, calmly, to my face, that ultimate takeover by global communism was inevitable and the likely victims, (me and my kind) was the price that had to be paid (by me, not them) for the mooted ascendancy to the workers utopia.
I was only 17 in the last year of the Draft (’72) and was the last CUO of my Cadet Unit. There was no doubt at all as to why it was a just cause. It was our version of the precautionary principle, the lack of absolute certainty of harm was no excuse to omit measures to minimise that harm. The uninformed like to portray “domino theory” as a myth but they choose to ignore the fact that the Indonesian domino came very close to falling just 7 years earlier. This provided us with a great deal more certainty of a threat than the output of some bogus global climate models. Dominoes stopped falling because the cost of pushing one over was made prohibitive. The rest is history. So tell us, please Dribble, were you even alive then? Do you have even one single first hand link to those times or is it all regurgitated MSM spin?
Ian Mott says
And FYI, Dribble, I also spent some time on the beaches of Malaysia and spoke to the boat people who took incredible risks to escape the life that the western media tried to tell them was their unavoidable fate. Perhaps they just needed to read up a bit too, eh?
Gordon I don’t know where you got your info on mao but it sure doesn’t begin to show the real mao that I’ve read about from more than one source.
He was a full blown psychopath from an early age ( indeed a prick of a kid) and later enjoyed watching as bandits tortured and killed people in front of him.
Alright let’s just call the other lot totalitarian marxists, but your so so lovely soft socialists are not the same as I’ve seen in unions throughout Australia.
Yes there are good people throughout the union movement but many of them plus some of the leadership are plain ugly thugs and their violent history is there for all to see.
Mottie, thanks for that blast from the past, I haven’t heard that old 60s propaganda stuff trotted out with quite so much brassy fervour since I was a schoolboy. Perhaps that’s because I do my best to avoid avoid old farts and LCP dinner functions as much as I absolutely can. Let me see now, I was 20 in the last year of the draft, so that makes me slightly older and therefore wiser than immature little pricks like yourself. I’m eternally grateful to Gough for getting rid of the callup just before I became eligible for it. I really didn’t feel like stepping on a land mine and getting my still youthful legs and dick blown off just because Uncle Sam wanted another dirty little war to feed the machine. Time hasn’t changed my mind on that aspect. My attitude was that if the commies actually landed in Queensland then I would worry about that sort of thing and take up arms when the time came.
Yes I too was a cadet, although I cannot recall what a CUO is or was, could you enlighten me on this thanks? I quite enjoyed the schoolboy military fun and reached the exalted status of NCO with a small group of oddballs under my somewhat lax or non-existent command. Those were the good old days when you could carry your (unloaded) .303 home on the bus on the way to cadet camp. What I really wanted of course was an SLR, they were the most amazing thing in the universe all right and I still lust after one to this day. One cannot be a complete human being without an SLR stashed away in the cupboard. It was only much later did I find out that you could actually buy them on mail order fresh from the government factory right up until the late 80s. Damn I missed out and its way too late for that sort of thing nowadays.
Getting down to your pathetic rhetoric, lets look at the ‘domino effect’ myth first shall we. Like many politically non-aligned, uninformed and callow youths at the time I took it quite seriously, certainly the media and political elites did. Later when I grew up, I made the effort to look at the concept a little more closely and, sorry, but it just doesn’t hold water. The domino effect myth was the 60s equivalent of the Iraqi WMD myth. It was just a smokescreen put up to delude the ignorant, another lying excuse for another stupid American war for which there was no excuse.
The domino effect presumed that, if the commies were allowed to win in Vietnam, then they would spread down through South-East Asia, knocking over capitalist friendly states as they went and finally invading good old Aussie. It sounds simple enough, and as I have said was widely accepted at the time.
But lets look at the reality on the ground. The Chinese communists (who were really the only serious contenders for this alleged red tide of death and land requisitioners) did not enter the Vietnam war until long after it started, and then only provided material assistance rather than troops. As far as I am aware, the Chinese only did this to provide to some form of Cold War counterbalance to the US war effort. If this is correct, then it was the US intervention in Vietnam that created the impetus for the Chinese intervention in Vietnam, not Chinese communist desire for expansionism.
Next up lets look at the Indonesian situation. As you correctly point out, the Indo’s had already had their communist insurgency problem in an earlier period. Did the Indonesian domino ever look likely to fall to the communists? Not likely old boy, the insurgents and anybody remotely associated with them were all quickly rounded up and massacred by Sukarno. Haven’t you seen the movie ‘Year of Living Dangerously’?
As for Malaya, the communist insurgency was successfully suppressed by the British Army during the 1950s, so no problem there. Thailand I dont know much about but its the sort of place where I doubt if a communist insurgency would get very far anyway.
Apart from Laos which was already communist at the beginning of the war, this leaves Cambodia as the only domino that was possible to fall as a result of the loss of the Vietnam war. And guess what, the formation of the Khmer Rouge and the madness that followed was the direct result of large-scale terror bombing of Cambodian villages along the Cambodian-Vietnam border by the US air force. Thus, the great irony of the domino myth is that the only domino to fall as a result of the Vietnam war was directly caused by the Americans themselves.
Since the Vietnam War was in fact won by the communist side, this gives us a great opportunity to factually determine if the domino effect actually worked. Well, no, it didn’t. Strangely enough, there was no noticeable communist tide of world domination emanating from Vietnam after the war.
Mottie, I’m a reasonable man, I’m always willing to be convinced with evidence. If you can show me how the domino effect could have worked I’m willing to be enlightened. But try to stick to the facts, don’t bang on and waste my time and yours with this ancient 60s propaganda tripe. You seem to be stuck in a timewarp in this respect.
Amazing, I thought I heard it all before, obviously not.
What an America bashing, condescending (to Ian Mott), misguided, contorted view of the Vietnam area.
Seems as we lived in a different universe, maybe we still do?
When did you leave Earth?
Gordon Robertson: “Neville “Mao, pol pot , stalin, lenin, trotsky…”
None of the above were socialists and Mao does not belong with them. By and large, socialist movements have not been violent, except in self-defence.
As I have said before, global warming is not a socialist cause. It is being perpetuated by environmental anarchists who are trying to impose their way of life on the rest. Socialism has never been about anarchy, it has been about workers rights and conditions.”
Since when do anarchists impose anything on anybody? Socialism on the other hand, is about imposing things on people supposedly in defence of the workers rights and conditions. Socialist governments will use force just the same as any other organised criminal gang or government of any stripe.
Mottie: “I can also give you the names of Uni lecturers who told me, calmly, to my face, that ultimate takeover by global communism was inevitable and the likely victims, (me and my kind) was the price that had to be paid (by me, not them) for the mooted ascendancy to the workers utopia. ”
Yes I quite agree with your sentiments here. I can recollect having arguments with left-wing Marxist type students etc back in the old days. They were very creepy sorts of people indeed. Nowadays with Marxism having been discredited these types have all moved on and turned into AGW promoters. You’ve got realize that left-wing loonies and right-wing loonies are all the same fascists underneath. They just have a different paint job on the outside.
“I can also give you the names of Uni lecturers who told me, calmly, to my face, that ultimate takeover by global communism was inevitable and the likely victims, (me and my kind) was the price that had to be paid (by me, not them) for the mooted ascendancy to the workers utopia.”
And you took them seriously? Did anyone point and laugh as you harumphed off? That’s comedy gold motty, gold.
“and duty to shoot people like me and my father and confiscate my property. In fact, they had done exactly this every time they were given the opportunity to do so”
Let me consult my Shorter History of Australia. Well what do you know, the part about the violent uprising that overthrew the Motts is completely missing? Could you post any transcripts of the show trials, oh and I hope you didn’t, you know, seek solace in the arms of another while you were in the gulag.
Keep it coming motty …
“What an America bashing, condescending (to Ian Mott), misguided, contorted view of the Vietnam area.”
Brilliant riposte Marcus, I feel Dribbles pain from here.
PattyB: “I can also give you the names of Uni lecturers who told me, calmly, to my face, that ultimate takeover by global communism was inevitable and the likely victims, (me and my kind) was the price that had to be paid (by me, not them) for the mooted ascendancy to the workers utopia.”
And you took them seriously? Did anyone point and laugh as you harumphed off? That’s comedy gold motty, gold.”
I think the point that Motty is making is that these types took all that stuff very seriously indeed. I assume that if you were old enough to be there you probably would have been one of them yourself. If not then I’m sure you will find AGW just as satisfying.
Motty:” There was no doubt at all as to why it was a just cause. It was our version of the precautionary principle, the lack of absolute certainty of harm was no excuse to omit measures to minimise that harm. ”
I’ll give you a tip old boy, notice how your argument is precisely identical to the AGW version.
And I should care for your opinion and feeble, attempted sarc., why?
“And I should care for your opinion and feeble, attempted sarc., why?”
Because you love it!
“I think the point that Motty is making is that these types took all that stuff very seriously indeed.”
As indeed we should all take note of the repeated failure of US military adventurism. Sadly I was rather young to be a uni lecturer. I still say Motty was probably an easy target for a wind up. Mind I expect he’s grateful to EJ for stopping him being sent to Iraq, sorry Vietnam. Lot at that pair, they culd have been sent into orbit by a VC landmine!
The only thing I can think of that might be considered slightly controversial in my discussion of the domino effect was the relationship between American carpet bombing of Cambodia and the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
“The relation between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians. In 1984 Craig Etcheson of the Documentation Center of Cambodia argued that it is “untenable” to assert that the Khmer Rouge would not have won but for U.S. intervention and that while the bombing did help Khmer Rouge recruitment, they “would have won anyway.”
Conversely, some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965-1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. Historian Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen have used a combination of sophisticated satellite mapping, recently unclassified data about the extent of bombing activities, and peasant testimony, to argue that there was a correlation between villages targeted by U.S. bombing and recruitment of peasants by the Khmer Rouge.”
You pays your money and you makes your choice. If one day you are lucky enough to get
carpet bombed by the forces of the free world for the purposes of your own salvation, you may be in a better position to judge the matter.
Ian Thomson says
You are so right ,about the forces in China. Every Australian should have to study up on what Billy Hughes did to China, Japan and Germany.
Silly old bugger was ,at one time ,preferred PM of GB .With’ The Hun must pay’
He was personally responsible for the deal to give German/Chinese territories to Japan , in a trade off cause Japan wanted to be treated as humans in Australia , in exchange for helping in the 1st War.
So , in that way-
He arranged the ascent of Mao , by being a dumb Aussie
He is credited with the demand for the huge War Reparations from WW! from Germany From memory 600 million pounds This reparation is generally given as the reason Adolf Hitler found fertile ground
GAWD, What’ve Little Jonnie n Little George started, 20 years down the track ?
Ian Mott says
And now we have Patrick B on stage for a bit of slapstick. These were lecturers waxing lyrical to the entire hall, moron, not engaged in some public bar wind up. And the words, “In fact, they had done exactly this every time they were given the opportunity to do so” is clearly a reference to what took place in previous revolutions, to the Kulaks for example, but your plodding intellect just wasn’t up to it all. But first to our mate Dribble.
If you were even part way up the historical learning curve, Dribble, you would have realised that my reference to Indonesia was to the attempted coup by the PKI (Parti Komunist Indonesia) in 1965 which was, indeed, put down by General Suharto who, two years later, finished the job by deposing the incompetent President Sukarno (who almost handed the country to the PKI on a platter). You then go on to list numerous other conflicts through that period, in which Australian troops were involved, and still have the gall to suggest that, in 1966 when Australian troops first went to Vietnam, there were no dominoes?
So let me get this right, in your mind the concept known as domino theory was invalid because the dominoes were not lined up in a neat line, as is the case in the domino stunt? So the metaphor defines the reality, not the other way round? Give us a break.
And then you try on some classic sophistry by suggesting that the absence of direct Chinese support negated the entire concept. The battle, like the current contest with the climate fascists, was against an ideology. And that ideology made no secret of its desire for violent overthrow with zero regard for any other perspective.
And you want us to accept the wisdom of Wikipedia on the recruitment of Khmer Rouge? Well they seem to have forgotten about the Ho Chi Min Trail, remember it? Yes, the reason for the bombing was the use of Khmer and Laotian territory by the North Vietnamese as sanctuary and supply line. And to suggest that they would have given a tinkers cuss for any local request to take their army some place else is to descend to high farce.
And you don’t even pick up the nuance in my reference to the precautionary principle. In those days the threat was real, present, well documented and the response was measured and proportionate. Meanwhile, the threats that the climate fascists use to trigger the precautionary principle today are imaginary, speculative, unsubstantiated and the proposed responses are indiscriminate and disproportionate.
And if you had a rudimentary grasp of what was actually taking place you would have known that even if your number had come up in the draft there was no way they would have sent serious dropkicks like yourself into a war zone. In the Australian Army the lives of those who were up to the task were always regarded as too valuable to be put at risk by incompetents. Make no mistake, matey, you would have spent two years peeling spuds at Pukapunyal.
Communism and fascism are not so far removed from each other ( they both remove the rights of individuals) and given Hitler’s desire to dominate the world, it was not so far fetched to be fearful of the “domino effect”. Communism’s goal of controlling the means of production to create a state of “utopia” for its workers was a concept that was hard not to be persuaded by if you were a worker not an owner. The fear that communism could sweep through Asian countries does not seem unrealistic, wouldnt you like to live in a utopian equality if you were used to poverty and misery?
Politics, like religion is all about controlling people and it seems understandable to me to have been afraid of communism and invasion ( if you were a ruler or owner/ part of the hegemony). Remember “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutley”, it does not matter what your politics is, the saying seems appropriate, leaders of the “West” were frightened of losing power and losing their “people”.
Of course with hindsight not only do we know the domino effect did not occur, we also know that communism is a long way removed from utopia for the proles. But was it unreasonable to think we could have been invaded if communism had dominated in Asia?
America is far from perfect, but I ask ;
1. Are their benefits from having allies ?
2. Does having a “super power” make countries cautious about invading others?
3. Who would you rather was the super power? China, USA, Russia, Japan or Germany? ( or any other realistic option)
Dribble rightly points to Ian’s use of the precautionary principle to defend the Vietnam war being a similar principle to an ETS and AGW. It seems we have not learned our lesson. What is it about humans that makes us think we can predict and control the future, when we so frequently get it wrong? Who thinks we will still be producing our energy needs in 50-100 years from fossil fuels?
Motty: “And then you try on some classic sophistry by suggesting that the absence of direct Chinese support negated the entire concept. The battle, like the current contest with the climate fascists, was against an ideology. And that ideology made no secret of its desire for violent overthrow with zero regard for any other perspective.”
Get practical old boy. Let us assume that the Vietnamese commos had taken over the South without a struggle, being allowed to do so by the weak, venal and lefty pollies of the craven West. This newly formed nation of unified Communist Vietnam, circa 1956, was a backward country consisting mainly of rice paddies and peasants with coolie hats. How would it, without the backing of the Chinese, be able to mount a fanatical communist jihad against even the Indo’s for example? What, would the jihadist army floated across the sea towards Indonesia on a crowd of sampans?
Yes I am aware that your reference to Indonesia was to the PKI coup in 1965, but if it mostly was all over in a few weeks of mass slaughter by the Indonesian Army then it doesn’t say much for the PKI’s ability to maintain a sustained campaign of insurgency, civil war etc etc, supposedly to be aided and abetted by the Vietnamese, who by now are supposed to have landed their sampans on the Indonesian beaches.
“And you don’t even pick up the nuance in my reference to the precautionary principle. In those days the threat was real, present, well documented and the response was measured and proportionate.”
Sorry I can’t buy that one, the threat was obviously real in your own head, but that doesn’t necessarily encompass the whole of reality. Thats what this whole AGW argument is all about isn’t it? Whats real and whats not. Five million dead Vietnamese for nothing at all, thats whats real. But not just plain dead, Motty, arms and legs hacked off, genitals ripped out, kiddies and parents burned alive, faces torn off, pain, suffering and torture like you would never believe. If you think that justifies your ‘measured and proportionate response’ good luck Motty when you meet your maker. I won’t be voting for you.
Ian Mott says
Neither Dribble nor Toby appear to be aware that the precautionary principle, when properly applied according to the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, incorporates a test of significance and is subordinate to a requirement for thorough investigation and proportionate response. It starts, “Where there are threats of serious or irreparable harm, then the absence of absolute certainty .. etc.” So the application of it by the climate fascists has not met the test of thorough investigation or of proportionate response. Warming to date remains entirely within the historical range so the change cannot be described as irreparable harm. Indeed, it has been correcting itself for more than a decade.
In contrast, the coup attempt in Indonesia, the Malaysian insurgency, the Burmese regime, the Lao, Khmer, North and South Vietnamese, North and South Korean and Taiwanese situation all involved attempts at exclusive power through the barrel of a gun, as Mao put it. The “Cultural Revolution” was in full swing, and in full voice, with purges of any sign of moderation, let alone common sense. And it was directed at the west, we, and anyone else in their manic way, were clearly fair game. Yet we have dribble suggesting that it was all just a problem in translation. As if the thoroughness of Suharto somehow negated the very clear intent of the PKI.
And dribble still doesn’t get it. My original post simply pointed out the perspective held by a very clear majority of Australians in 1967. A very large minority of us still held that view in 1972 and still hold that view today. The fact that the spin merchants and the illinformed majority of today, many of whom were not even alive at the time, see it otherwise makes zero difference. They would have us all believe that demonstrably ruthless operators would have acted entirely honourably if we were not carrying a big stick and a firm resolve to use it.
And rather ironically, the precedent set in the 1970’s makes the way very clear for those who do not support the climate fascist cause to refuse to serve in any military deployment that serves the climatista agenda. We’ll see how the urban tossers and the basket weavers go at the sharp end, shall we?
Gordon Robertson says
Eyrie “Socialism on the other hand, is about imposing things on people supposedly in defence of the workers rights and conditions”.
Just want to be clear that I am not defending socialism as an idealogue. I have my own contracting business and I understand the advantage of having the freedom of working for oneself and owning one’s own property. What I am opposed to is the notion held by many capitalists that governments are for them alone and that the rest of the people are there to serve them as labourers, at whatever pittance the capitalist deem appropriate. I think that kind of greed mentality is based on the heights of immaturity, and is irresponsible.
With reference to your statement above, are you using socialism with reference to those abortions the Russians and Chinese called socialism? If you read Chomsky, he explains that both capitalist and communist governments have shanghied the term ‘socialism’ for different reasons. Russian and Chinese communism has little in common with socialism, which is a workers’ movement, most of which happened under democratic regimes. The Russians in particular, used the term socialism to bring an aura of respectability to its fascist, despotic regime. They tried to give the impression it was a workers’ movement whereas it was a dictatorship run by a minority.
The Chinese system has similarly nothing to do with socialism. The Chinese use slogans extensively and refering to their system as socialism is nothing more than sloganeering. From the begining, Chinese communism was based on revolution, and it was a bloody revolution about human rights. Socialism has been based more on the rights of workers alone, not a wholesale revolution against a feudal system.
Capitalist governments use the term freely to discredit any movement that opposes their ideology of private ownership. Any program or movement that benefits many people on an equal basis, such as pensions, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, medicare, unionism, etc., is seen by capitalists as a threat to their perceived right to own everything and for all enterprise to be privatized. Any of those movements, which are true socialism, are linked to Russian and Chinese-style communism to discredit them.
If your reference is to unionism, under a democracy, imposing ‘things’ on people I would have to disagree as well. Unions were formed out of necessity and their only power is in job action (the strike). A strike is not about trying to harm the general public, it’s about forcing an employer’s hand in contract negotiations. Occasionally, the strike is used as an expression of civil disobedience, and none other than Ben Franklin condoned such an action. Of course, the right-wing media is always bleating about strikes harming John Q. Public. Many people see a contract between workers as something dishonest, or immoral.
I have seen more imposed on people, in my time, by capitalist governments under a democracy. They always represent the minority, which is the corporate and business class. They give them tax breaks, handouts and tax deferrals, and the public gets to pay for that. In the recent world financial crisis, the public was called upon once again to bail out capitalists. When are they going to start paying for their own mistakes instead of freeloading off the public? Labour law has always been slanted in favour of the employers.
Here is Canada, I have experienced socialist governments for close to 15 years. I noticed no imposition on my freedoms. The people complaining were those who can’t stand the average member of the public getting a break. Mind you, I have seen socialist governments in Britain do some dumb things, and apparently the Rudd government in Australia is none too bright. By and large, however, I don’t think any modern socialist government has caused an overall harm to the populace.
Check your wattage- you seem a bit dimmer than usual.
Quoting an except about an alleged oil prospector who claims to be using the Bible, and turning that into a condemnation of AGW skeptics is a bit of a stretch. Especially since the article seems to be about hoaky oil prospecting techniques, and not climate. But then to do the tired thing losers in an argument do, and to pretend the critics of AGW suffer from what they point out AGW suffers from, is a bit tedious, even for you.
Maybe the oil prospectors could hire Mann to fabricate a proxy study of ancient Judea and come up with an oil strategy..maybe that would make you feel better?
Gordon Robertson says
Neville “Gordon I don’t know where you got your info on mao but it sure doesn’t begin to show the real mao that I’ve read about from more than one source. He was a full blown psychopath from an early age ( indeed a prick of a kid)….”
Sounds like you might have been reading something from the John Burch Society.
I’ve read many accounts of Mao, the most recent being, “The Red Barbarians: the Life and Times of Mao Tse-Tung” by Roy McGregor-Hastie. I was just poking through Google trying to compare stories and came away from contrasting views on him. One from Wikipedia is close to the book I read but it has obvious errors. For one, it was not his father who encouraged him with politics, since his father was a typical peasant who was frustrated by Mao’s interest in reading and the arts. It was an uncle who encouraged him.
Secondly, the US had no time for Chiang Kai Shek, whom General ‘Vinegar Joe’ Stillwell refered to as ‘peanut’, due to Kai Sheks bald head. They had nothing but trouble with his paranoid whining and resorted to blackmailing him to cooperate with the war effort. Chiang Kai Shek represented the worst of China. If anyone was the psycho, it was him.
I have no particular interest in defending Mao. He likely was a barbarian as the book title claims, but I think he was forced into that lifestyle. Whether that is an appropriate justification or not is the question. I think it’s important to regard him within the proper context. He lived during brutal times when women had no rights and were sold as goods are sold. I am impressed by his tenacity, however, in standing up to the feudal warlords in China, and the Japanese. If you want to read about barbarians, read what the Japanese did to the Chinese and other Asians during WW II.
Motty: “In the Australian Army the lives of those who were up to the task were always regarded as too valuable to be put at risk by incompetents. Make no mistake, matey, you would have spent two years peeling spuds at Pukapunyal.”
Cripes Motty, you would probably wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in Vietnam. Peeling spuds, yes, Sir! Just job I was looking for, Sir! Would you like your balls licked as well Sir? Always ready to do my bit for the war effort, Sir!
Graeme Bird says
“Climate Alarmists Morphing into War Mongering Neo-conservatives?”
I like the title. Although its a bit unfair on neo-conservatives. But what it shows is this essentially fascist movement showing some teeth now that a marxist lunatic is President. Fascist ideas can abound in all sorts of people. But they are only going to show their teeth when they get the upper hand militarily. So you have these oddball ideas but they get dangerous when you give them the enhanced Prussian army to play with. And now that a certified loony-toon has usurped the White House it may be the case that the previously anti-war fascists might start getting overconfident again.
Graeme Bird says
“Communism and fascism are not so far removed from each other..” I’m not sure who I may be quoting here in this shorthand. But the differences really just reflect national pride, the fact that whereas Russian needed to be raped, Germany had to be seduced, and that whereas Russian was agricultural, so some pretense at communism could go on for awhile, and not everything collapse in full view, whereas Germany was industrial, hence they had to go the corporatist route.
Still Marxism. But some flexibility when taking it to industrial central Europe.
Ian Mott says
Readers who were not around in the vietnam war years can gain a valuable insight into the mentality of the time from dribble’s posts above. Note how he derived most of his rudimentary grasp of Indonesian geopolitics from a movie, the sparse factual ballast for a work of fiction. And when his tiny brain goes into factual overload he does a complete hexdump and reboot. This leaves him free to try to hold his adversary personally responsible for every friendly fire incident involving airmen of other nations and then adds five zeros to the casualty count for good measure.
And as tediously common for the time, he applied a completely different moral test to the actions of the NVA compared to his own countrymen. No-one ever asked why the NVA and VC did not first seek the approval of villagers before conducting military operations in their neighbourhood. The villagers had no choice, their homes were used as cover for offensive action, and consequently, those homes became targets for return fire. Any village leader who might have been stupid enough to suggest that the VC/NVA might do their business elsewhere would have met a quick end.
So lets spell this out for poor old dribble, one side set up bases well away from the civilian population while the other side did not. The NVA/VC had a choice but did not exercise it in a way that would protect civilians. So who was responsible for civilian casualties?
But that was one of the many ironies of the time. The people, like dribble, who made the most noise about being reluctantly sent to injury or death were the very last people on earth that a sane commander would burden a front line unit with. From the moment they opened their moronic mouths they were never, ever, going to be put in a position where their incompetence could compromise the safety of good men and women.
Objectors also had infinite ways available to them to fail at both basic training and IET so they would be culled from the deployed cohort. But they chose, instead, to indulge their narcissism and maximise their attention seeking stunts.
But I suppose conservative folk should thank them for setting the precedent that we will need to prevent our own kids from making sacrifices for a community that is no longer worthy of the death of one good man. The Australian military has always been over represented by kids from the farms and regions but any assumption that this will remain the case for bull$hit “climate wars” would be a serious miscalculation.