Transition Whatcom

Global Climate change

 

We should have been making huge changes in our greenhouse gas productions, probably 100 years back. We are so close to the tipping point that a random environmental event could push us over. A big sustained volcano could do it. A warming of the ocean over the massive deposits of methane hydrate could do it. Continued production of greenhouse gases will do it. The arctic is getting warmer. this melts more freshwater trapped in glaciers. This surge can stop the salt water conveyer and then all bets are off.

 

The climate cannot afford for us to burn petroleum products for fuel. It ain’t about the money or the lack of oil. Doing it changes the freaking climate. We need to use petrol
products for materials, not fuel.

http://www.nienvironmentlink.org/cmsfiles/files/Publications/CCDwtR-Proceedings.pdf

This is now my stand on global climate change: 

Dick McManus for Congress, D-WA, 1st or 2nd CD

Democrat, Everett, WA

Chief Warrant Officer/counterintelligence special agent, US Army, r...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DickMcManusforCongress/

I request your endorsement, and it doesn’t matter where you live.

Chris Matthew on Hardball last night (Nov. 22, 2011) said there was no criminal
conspiracy and says Oswald done it alone. If you can handle the truth see my
latest facts on …

The CIA plotted to kill JFK a recap with additional facts parts
one to three

SEE

SOME UNKNOWN HISTORY OF THE U.S.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SomeUnknownUSHistory/messages

Seymour Hersh: Propaganda Used Ahead of Iraq War Is Now
Being Reused Over Iran's Nuke Program  -
21 November 2011 


http://www.truth-out.org/seymour-hersh-propaganda-used-ahead-iraq-w...

The plan to post up to 2,500 Marines in northern Australia by 2016-17 was unveiled by
U.S. President Barack Obama during a visit to Canberra last week.  Indonesia at the same time is building up its
own military cooperation with U.S. forces.


The U.S. Marines "Vision and Strategy" paper (June 2008) predicts that the Indian Ocean will be a central theater of conflict and competition in next decade, while the 2007 U.S.
naval strategy called for a "sustained forward presence" in the sameregion.

 

Comment:  I agree with this.   We learn in the Korean War the value of a
forward stationing of troops, equipment, and logistics.   We also need to get the hell out of NATO and cut defense spending.  

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilf2ZJREfZY5U_biDGGfGacjy0pw?docId=CNG.b7a3fb3877d741433e577299eb0a35b6.541


Our nuclear weapons arsenal can be slashed from
the current level of 5,000 to 311, as recommended by some Air Force
strategists. Since we are withdrawing troops from the Middle East and are
unlikely to need large armies there anytime soon, the size of our ground forces
can be cut back by 100,000 to pre-9/11 levels. Since the cold war ended 20
years ago, the 80,000 troops still in Europe can be reduced to 20,000. Since
the military increasingly relies on unmanned planes and precision guided
munitions, the number of carriers and Air Force fighters can be reduced by 25
percent.


Adding $500 billion to the $450 billion already
being cut would mean total reductions of $950 billion over the next decade, or
about 15 percent.


National missile defense doesn’t work, but it is one of the most expensive procurement
items in the budget.

There is no  other navy that could challenge the United States Navy, so we could retire 50
ships and scrap current plans to build up to a fleet of more than 300. The
Marines, who haven’t conducted an amphibious assault for more than 60 years,
don’t need a new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and should scrap the troubled
Osprey helicopter.

 

Since the defense budget has grown by more than 50 percent over
the past 10 years, it can easily absorb a 15 percent reduction


MELVIN A. GOODMAN
Bethesda, Md., Nov. 10, 2011

The writer, a former C.I.A. analyst, is a senior
fellow at the Center for International Policy and the author of the forthcoming
“The Threat of U.S. Militarism.”

 

What are safe cuts from military spending? In addition to Mr. Korb’s recommendations I propose these measures, and estimated savings:

 

¶Don’t build a new fleet of nuclear submarines.
Savings: $125 billion.


¶Don’t overhaul old nuclear weapons; go below
1,000 in total. Savings: $65 billion to $80 billion.

¶Reduce ballistic missile submarines and cut
ICBMs to 300. Savings: $79 billion to $100 billion, according to Senator Tom
Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.

 

¶Cut bases not only in Europe but also in Japan,
as recommended by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., former chief nuclear
negotiator. But don’t cut troops.   This is the big mistake we made after
WWII.  You can not make a military in 10 weeks.  They will end up DEAD in big numbers.   We will take 20 percent causalities even if we in battles, illness, accidents will add another 10 percent DEAD, therefore, we need lots of young troops and leaders, 18 to 35 years old and experienced. 

¶Cut waste and redundancy. Senator Coburn has
noted that the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Department’s
inspector general and others have identified about $50 billion in waste, abuse
and fraud in the budget.

EDWARD A. AGUILAR
Philadelphia, Nov. 10, 2011

The writer is founding executive director andprogram coordinator of Project for Nuclear Awareness.

Views: 15

Reply to This

© 2014   Created by David MacLeod.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service