Who runs the Western World?  I don't think any of us know for sure but whoever it is they are going to get us all killed.  

This week, NATO III celebrates itself
As thousands descend on Washington for a anniversary summit, we posit that the alliance is broken and sleepwalking into war

No to NATO, Yes to Peace
A summit and a rally in Washington D.C. on July 6-7, 2024

 kurtster wrote:
Trump the anti-war president was always a myth
J. D. Vance Is Wrong. Donald Trump Was No Antiwar President.

In short, there are no US anti-war presidents.

 R_P wrote: 
Another reason to vote for Trump.  The most anti war POTUS in my lifetime, which goes back to Truman.

War Profiteers Are A Sign Of A Profoundly Sick Society

World War II analogies are about as useful today as carrier pigeons *
Comparisons to that war usually don’t hold up, because most conflicts don’t start or end like it did.

Will you join my new club? It’s going to be called the Society for Abolishing World War II Analogies.

Members must pledge never to call anyone “the new Hitler.” They may not dismiss peace proposals as “another Munich” or justify attacks on other countries as efforts to prevent “another Pearl Harbor.” Most important, they must recognize that wars usually end with messy compromise, not total victory.

Americans love hearing about World War II. The stream of books, movies, comics, video games, and other flashbacks to that conflict seems endless. That’s because World War II presents the United States as we want to see it: a liberating force that uses mighty power to win total victory over evil.

Very few wars, however, conclude with triumphant parades. Most end with half-decent accords shaped over the remains of devastated nations and masses of dead, wounded, and traumatized human beings. To avoid facing that reality when we launch wars, we reach instinctively back to the example of World War II. It’s the gift that never stops giving. (...)

This is the text of a talk I gave in Washington, D.C. on Sunday at the Rage Against The War Machine rally (Hedges)

German FM Says ‘We are Fighting a War Against Russia’
The comments align with Russia's view that they are fighting against the US and NATO in Ukraine

---

Ka-ching!

This year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves
the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely (though not exclusively) because of
the mounting dangers of the war in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight
—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.

 kurtster wrote:
To continue the thread jack...
Like it or not, the (capital) markets are investing heavily in alternatives (also worth mentioning how the markets contributed to our current oil supply issues by reducing exploration and production since the great recession, and again during the pandemic).

The bigger question is how do we fix our electricity infrastructure (necessary with or without the lofty alternative goals)?

 kurtster wrote:
 
Thanks for the novel Hemmingway. What do you call it "Ode To Oil"?  ðŸ˜†

 
  
 Ohhh, so many ignorant statements to unpack so little time... it must be Christmas already! 
  
We are indeed at the mercy of fossil fuels. Becoming energy independent is a dream without a radical change in the US lifestyle.
  
No, it isn't a dream nor should it be. And starting down that path doesn't require a radical change. It does however require a commitment to change and we won't ever start down that path as long as people like you dismiss it as an unrealistic dream. Not one person believes that we just can flip some kind of switch between oil dependence and oil independence though you love to try and play that up as an imminent threat to your (and everyone's way) of life.
  
Like it or not, we need oil and will indefinitely. How are windmills and solar powers going to replace everything mentioned above ?
   
In all likelihood they will not but it is imperative and only responsible to our children and future generations that we embark upon a path that makes us less reliant on energy sources that are more damaging to the environment and shift attention and development to energy sources that are not. Global warming is only going to increase, and if left unchecked will eventually cause even greater destruction to our planet. Also, many companies are not waiting for the government to act and are acting on their own to reduce their carbon footprint or is that something you are against as well?  
  
A couple of years ago I posted an article that said with the currently available technology we could only reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source to 70% by 2030. I am sure that present circumstances have pushed that date back even further because of inflation and the exporting of moneys needed for development to our enemies to buy more expensive foreign oil.
   
All the more reason to double down and refocus our effort. Or, is your suggestion we just throw up our hands and give up? We shouldn't even bother?
   
How far do I have to go and how many more dots do you need to see ?
   
You have connected absolutely zero dots in your response to me as to how access to oil or overall prosperity of nations could have prevented the Ukraine war. "Increasing the prosperity of nations is key to peace" is kind of like a sixth grader's answer to a problem. Not much different than saying making food readily available to everyone will cure world hunger. Or curing all diseases is the answer to living a longer life. Trite but not actionable unless of course you do actually have some thoughts on how any of this global prosperity can begin to be achieved that you would care to share? Would love to hear more about that than your pontification on the "history of oil".
   
And now for the stupidest statement you have ever made...
   
Over time, we will indeed move away from petrochemicals for energy, but not for sustaining life. At least the kind of life I would like to have. A life filled with peaceful abundance. You may prefer caves, huts and wars, but that is you, not me ... 
  
God forbid your life should ever be inconvenienced by any hiccup to your peaceful abundance... future generations living in climate extremes be damned! Pivoting back to my previous statement above: Not one person believes that we just can flip some kind of switch between oil dependence and oil independence though you love to try and play that up as an imminent threat to (your) and everyone's way of life. Also "newsflash", you'll note that I have not said word one about eliminating oil from the manufacture of products that sustain our life. I don't think there will ever be a suitable replacement for oil in something like the manufacture of tires but if engineers and chemists somehow do find one (with no real change in cost and performance)... more power to them. Don't be afraid Kurt, that would be called innovation.
  
I prefer caves, huts & wars? Did you just drop some acid or is that just after-effects from an acid filled adolescence? Where did I ever say this and who in the world connects the emergence of alternate energy sources to result in such extremes? If you are naive to think that, then I guess you must have actually believed Trump when he claimed in 2020 that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were secretly plotting to ban cows in the United States. Maybe you also believe Trump when he said windmills cause cancer too? We can and will continue to maintain our way of life... no huts, stone tools necessary.  
 
Oh, and I prefer wars? Let me tell you what my answer to you on that is… and it would be the same thing I would say to Trump if ever I found myself in his presence... "Stop saying stupid sh*t".
   
 
The more that you share the more that you remind me of my late father. Someone who is inflexible, antiquated and too stuck in the past to envision a different future.

Will Sanctions Against Russia End the War in Ukraine?

The U.S.A. Patriot Act, which was passed in response to the 9/11 attacks, granted the government vast new powers to combat terrorism. One provision gave the Treasury Department the authority to designate a foreign jurisdiction or financial institution a “primary money  laundering concern,” and to force American banks and other institutions to cut the entity off from the American financial system. Because the U.S. plays such a dominant role in global finance, this kind of order is usually devastating to the target. “All of a sudden, the Treasury Department found itself thrust into the biggest issue of the day,” said Daniel Glaser, who worked on those sanctions and, during the Obama Administration, became the Assistant Treasury Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes. “We were going to bankrupt Osama bin Laden. When I look back on it, I’m almost embarrassed by the stridency of it. But this idea of targeted sanctions became ingrained in the international community’s response to terrorism.” (...)

Nicholas Mulder, the historian, believes that the use of sanctions fundamentally altered the meaning of war and peace. Although often presented as a way to prevent military conflict through deterrence, sanctions are themselves akin to a brutal form of warfare whose effects fall most directly on civilian populations. “A nation put under comprehensive blockade was on the road to social collapse,” Mulder writes. “The experience of material isolation left its mark on society for decades afterward, as the effects of poor health, hunger, and malnutrition were transmitted to unborn generations. Weakened mothers gave birth to underdeveloped and stunted children. The economic weapon thereby cast a long-lasting socioeconomic and biological shadow over targeted societies, not unlike radioactive fallout.”

Members of the Biden Administration, including the sanctions experts in the Treasury Department, take pains to note that the economic weapons they’ve deployed have exemptions for food, humanitarian aid, and medicine. But Adeyemo and his team have had to confront a range of unintended consequences, from global inflation to crop shortfalls in impoverished countries. For instance, in disrupting supplies of certain fertilizers of which Russia is a major producer, E.U. sanctions could exacerbate already acute food insecurity in Tunisia and other parts of Africa.

Daniel Glaser, the former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, said that it’s important not to be coy about the damage sanctions do, collaterally or head-on. “When you talk about trying to raise inflation, or raise unemployment, or damage the G.D.P.—what do you think that is? Those are numerical representations of ways you’re hurting the people.” He went on, “I think we need to own it. I’m not saying I don’t understand the criticism. It’s tragic that someone like Vladimir Putin puts us in a position where we have no choice but to do this. But I do agree that the world sucks, and you often have to do things that are the lesser of two evils.”

Weaponizing finance/capital vs. weaponizing fossil fuels.

 VV wrote: 
This is the Anti War thread, not the Ukraine or Russia thread.  An abundance of cheap, reliable energy is the quickest way to a real lasting peace globally as most wars since Korea have been about energy resources.  Viet Nam was just as much about oil as it was the domino effect of Communism throughout SE Asia.  I was made aware of this by the Quakers who handed out information to the group I was in boarding the bus to go downtown for my draft physical.  It mentioned the oil fields in and offshore of Viet Nam.  The Middle East wars have been centered around oil, at the very least, financed by oil.  The Middle East had a strangle hold over the world regarding the supply of oil since the 70's, until a couple of years ago when the USA became energy independent and help to stabilize the global supply as well as lower the prices.  Your buddy in the WH ended our energy independence on day 1 upon taking office and the world has gone to hell since incase you hadn't noticed.

Again oil is not just about internal combustion engines.  We get fertilizer, plastics and medicine from petrochemicals.

AT THE MERCY OF OIL

Most movement in the industrialized world is dependent on fossil fuel (oil, coal, and natural gas). Not only does fossil fuel power our vehicles, but the plastics in vehicles and the roads they ride on are made in part by oil. Many of our clothes and medicines are made in part by oil. Amanda Little, who has published widely on energy, technology, and the environment, has written Power Trip: From Oil Wells to Solar Cells—Our Ride to the Renewable Future (1). Some of her observations follow.

Oil accounts for roughly half of our nation's fossil fuel usage. What it provides by and large is movement. America's transportation sector is almost entirely dependent on petroleum, which can be refined not just into gasoline, kerosene, and motor oil but into the petrochemicals that are the basic building blocks of a vast range of consumer products. What petroleum doesn't provide is electricity, which accounts for the other half of America's fossil fuel use. Electricity generation in the USA comes from coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and nuclear sources (20%). Natural gas essentially is petroleum that has been slow-cooked over time into a gaseous form.

Since nearly all plastics, polymers, inks, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides are made from petrochemicals and all products are delivered to market by trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes, virtually nothing in our offices or on our bodies is not dependent on fossil fuels. Ms. Little described sitting in her office at a desk made of Formica (a plastic), wearing a sweatshirt made of fleece (a polymer) and yoga pants made from Lycra (a polymer), sipping coffee shipped from Zimbabwe, eating an apple trucked from Washington, surrounded by walls covered with oil-derived paints, jotting notes in petroleum-derived ink, typing words on a petrochemical keyboard into a computer powered by coal plants. The breakfast cereal and veggie burger came from crops treated with oil-derived fertilizers. She spoke of Tylenol made from acetaminophen, refined from petroleum. The glossy magazines on her desk and a packet of photos were printed with petrochemicals; the mascara, lip balm, eyeliner, and perfume in her pocketbook, like most cosmetics, have key components derived from oil. The synthetic fabrics, like Spandex and nylon, as well as plastic sutures and photographic computed tomographic images come from petrochemicals. Energy, in other words, is everything and everywhere, and our survival is dependent on it.

...

Plastics are hydrocarbons, compounds consisting of carbon and hydrogen, arranged in different formations. (Some also contain other atoms including nitrogen, chlorine, and silicon.) Hydrocarbons are found in nearly all organic substances—coal, plants, and animals—but they are most abundant in and most easily extracted from crude oil and natural gas. The energy equivalent of roughly 1 gallon of oil yields 3 pounds of plastics such as polypropylene. Polypropylene is produced at a global rate of 65 million tons a year. Polypropylene is found in soda bottles, camera film, fleece jackets, upholstery blends, and most other versatile fabrics and materials. Polypropylene is used in Tupperware and is also the quick-drying insulating fiber in many types of long underwear. Polycarbonate, used in the shell of the Smart car, for example, is also used to make hard hats, eyeglass lenses, and water cooler jugs. Polystyrene comprises everything from computer and appliance casings to Scotch tape dispensers and Styrofoam. Polyvinyl chloride is used in products such as industrial-strength sewage pipes. Acrylics include Plexiglas, latex paints, and Superglue. Polyamides are used to make everything from nylon stockings and suitcases to skateboard wheels, bullet-proof vests, and fire-resistant clothing. Finally, polyurethanes are used in automobile clear coats, furniture foam, and home insulation.

Nowhere is the durability of plastics more valuable than in medicine. Pacemakers and artificial heart valves are among the dozen of implantable medical devices made from plastics. The titanium and plastic hips and prosthetic legs and contact lenses and bioabsorbable polymers are all plastics. Many medical implants and prostheses are made of Silicon, which is a flexible, lightweight, inert plastic that can be manufactured to bear a remarkable similarity to the look and feel of flesh. Countless nonsilicon plastics are commonly used in medicine, including syringes, blood bags, surgical gloves, dressings, catheters, and intravenous tubes, which are made of polyethylene nylon and flexible polyvinyl chloride. These disposable materials guarantee sterility, cutting down on potential infections that were far more common in the preplastics era.

Certain forms of chemotherapy also have core petroleum-derived ingredients called nitrogen mustards. Most pharmaceuticals come from petrochemicals. Carboxylic acids and anhydrides are used to make Novocaine and acetaminophen as well as sedatives, tranquilizers, decongestants, antihistamines, and antibacterial soaps. Esters and alcohols derived from fossil fuels are used in fermentation processes that produce antibiotics. Glycols and celluloses are used to coat pills and bind together the contents of tablets. Petrochemicals may be found in everything from penicillin, cough syrup, and rectal suppositories to radiological dyes and x-ray film. Petroleum byproducts also are in most cosmetics—lipstick, foundation, mascara, cleansers, moisturizing agents, alcohols, binders, and aromatic chemicals. Petrochemicals are the basic ingredients in industrial glues and adhesives as well as the dyes that make up ink and paint. Each year in the USA roughly 100 billion pounds of plastics are produced annually—nearly one quarter of all global plastic production.

And then there are the fertilizers. Each year American farmers apply $6.2 billion of fossil fuel–based fertilizers to their crop lands. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium are the 3 most common nutrients in the fertilizers applied to American farmlands. The main form of nitrogen fertilizer is in anhydrous ammonia, and natural gas is its primary feed stock. America's food system accounts for roughly 10% of annual energy demands. While fertilizers account for roughly a quarter of the energy that sustains American agriculture, huge volumes of petroleum and electricity are also used to operate farm machinery, power irrigation systems, process crops, and package, refrigerate, and transport them to stores, restaurants, and kitchens.

We are indeed at the mercy of fossil fuels. Becoming energy independent is a dream without a radical change in the US lifestyle.

.
Like it or not, we need oil and will indefinitely.  How are windmills and solar powers going to replace everything mentioned above ?  A couple of years ago I posted an article that said with the currently available technology we could only reduce our dependence on oil as an energy source to 70% by 2030.  I am sure that present circumstances have pushed that date back even further because of inflation and the exporting of moneys needed for development to our enemies to buy more expensive foreign oil.  How far do I have to go and how many more dots do you need to see ?  Obviously much farther than this, because this is the obvious that you should already know being an educated American.  But evidently you have forsaken your education for pies in the sky and other ideological pipe dreams brought on by the fear of dying in 10 years from global warming.  You wish.

Over time, we will indeed move away from petrochemicals for energy, but not for sustaining life.  At least the kind of life I would like to have.  A life filled with peaceful abundance.  You may prefer caves, huts and wars, but that is you, not me ...

The higher the global standard of living, the more likely we will have peace.  Our standard of living is more dependent on the price and abundance of oil than anything else.

 thisbody wrote:
I never claimed it was a never-ending supply, but has the world-wide production of diesel fuel ceased?  The point is, there is always a number of days that a supply will last if production stops - for everything - especially commodities.  Refinement of diesel fuel has not stopped.  That's the point which Tucker Carlson and his ilk have repeatedly chosen not to mention.  They just want people to believe that diesel fuel will disappear - and that it will be because of the current administration.

 haresfur wrote:

Indeed. Derplahoma was marginal land to begin with and the early agricultural excesses brought on The Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It's still marginal land that has to be manually enriched to produce anything.