[Keith_McClary]

His death may mean we can start to get out of Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires.

After Osama
By JOHN FEFFER

If the killing of Osama bin Laden were a Hollywood murder mystery, the shootout scene in Abbottabad would be followed by the unveiling of the sponsor who arranged for the al-Qaeda safe house. Is it the Pakistani intelligence officer who appears early in the movie to assure his U.S. counterparts that he is fully committed to bringing bin Laden to justice? Is it the Saudi construction magnate who owes several major favors to the bin Laden family? Or perhaps it's the U.S. embassy official who, it might turn out, believes that Osama is more useful alive than dead—until finally, he is useful no longer.

Who could possibly benefit from the care and feeding of the al-Qaeda legend? Audiences know to look for the suspect who benefits the most. The more intricate the conspiracy the better.

As the Navy SEALs dispose of bin Laden's body at sea, we follow the simultaneous action in Islamabad where bin Laden's secret sponsor is sitting in an office, back turned to the camera, passing over a final payment to the safe house owner. The music builds. It's hard to pinpoint the sponsor's accent. And then the camera pulls back and we realize that the action is taking place in an embassy. The flag on the wall, the sentries posted out front, and finally the placard with the embassy's name: The People's Republic of China.
...
perhaps the only country in the world that has benefited from the last decade of war against al-Qaeda is China
...
a child in Shanghai will now statistically outlive a child in the United States
...
while we were fighting the chimera of a caliphate, China was going about its business and eating our lunch.

The writer doesn't seem to think it's about oil or Israel.

(Oh, and what about that house owner?)

[highlander]

So I keep hearing the line about the victims of 9/11 being innocent and/or civilian. Don't you think that from a third world or even developing world point of view, the effects of our economic policies were essentially warfare? Isn't an attack the military, economic and political symbols of one's enemy is a legitimite use of force? it is surely a far cry from strapping on an explosive vest and getting on a bus or train.

[Keith_McClary]

So I keep hearing the line about the victims of 9/11 being innocent and/or civilian.

The US applies a very broad definition of "legitimate target" when attacking enemies. Intelligence, recruiting, propaganda and communication facilities, armaments manufacture, including headquarters and R&D, "command and control". I think you would have found many examples of these among 9/11 victims..

[Novus]

So I keep hearing the line about the victims of 9/11 being innocent and/or civilian.

The US applies a very broad definition of "legitimate target" when attacking enemies. Intelligence, recruiting, propaganda and communication facilities, armaments manufacture, including headquarters and R&D, "command and control". I think you would have found many examples of these among 9/11 victims..

It should be pointed out that not one child died on 9/11. Every victim who died in the trade center, on the planes, and in the Pentagon was over the age of 18. How many Children have we killed on this self righteous war on terror? America bombed civilian areas, hospitals, schools, mosques, non military government buildings all the while torturing POWs and poisoning the land with nuclear waste in the form of depleted uranium ammunition. Lets face it America is not the good guys in this war.

[radon]

Noam Chomsky's new article in the Asia Times, quite a long one:

Is the world too big to fail?

The democracy uprising in the Arab world has been a spectacular display of courage, dedication, and commitment by popular forces - coinciding, fortuitously, with a remarkable uprising of tens of thousands in support of working people and democracy in Madison, Wisconsin, and other United States cities.
...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME13Ak01.html

[radon]

On the bright side, the first emperor (Octavian) ushered in the two century long Pax Romana. And then after that on the whole there were more good emperors than bad.. the Empire lasted a very long time.

Octavian was an absolutely outstanding and remarkably gifted ruler, but he did not leave a mechanism for legitimate succession after his death. As a result, the history of the Emperors was the one of assassinations, suicides, plots, civil wars and army revolts. The Roman Empire had their Year of Four Emperors, Year of Five Emperors and Year of Six Emperors. At one point an opportunist bought the title for a nominal sum of money, only to be executed by his successor in a matter of few days. The Western Empire did not last too long, by the antique standards it can be said to have been quite short lived.

Apart from Octavian, the "Five Good Emperors" from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius constitute, almost exclusively, the good emperors of Rome. Nerva, an old and clever aristocrat who became an Emperor almost accidentally and with great reluctance, was in need to secure his weak position at the helm. To these ends, he introduced the practice of early appointment and grooming of the successor. The subsequent Emperors followed this practice and with a bit of luck the Romans enjoyed the time of five good emperors in a row, which is believed to have been the peak time of the Empire.

But even with that practice in place, the orderly power succession proved to be fragile, and the first unfortunate choice of the heir led to a catastrophe. In real life, Commodus was even uglier than his detestable parody in the "Gladiator" movie. He quickly managed to totally screw up the institutions of the government and direct the empire to the way to its terminal decline.

The Eastern Empire proved to be far more enduring, but probably from Constantine's times onwards an Eastern Emperor was deemed to have been endowed with divine Christian powers, not unlike a pharaoh in ancient Egypt. This divinity was a source of the Emperor's legitimacy and stability of his power. In this sense the Eastern Empire was akin to a fundamentalist state. In the western Roman lands similar divine powers were vested in the Popes, but not in the Emperors.

[Sixstrings]

As a result, the history of the Emperors was the one of assassinations, suicides, plots, civil wars and army revolts. The Roman Empire had their Year of Four Emperors, Year of Five Emperors and Year of Six Emperors. At one point an opportunist bought the title for a nominal sum of money, only to be executed by his successor in a matter of few days. The Western Empire did not last too long, by the antique standards it can be said to have been quite short lived.

Which one was that? But yeah, interesting thing about the Empire was that it was essentially a military dictatorship.. legions or the praetorian guard proclaimed new emperors. Traditionally the title Imperator was granted by the legions after a great victory. Caesar was "imperator" because his legions awarded him that acclaim.

Incidentally, the first emperors amassed power by assuming existing offices for life -- censor, etc. We see this now in the US, with the executive branch slowly but surely accumulating power over time from Congress and the states.

Apart from Octavian, the "Five Good Emperors" from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius constitute, almost exclusively, the good emperors of Rome.

There were a few good ones starting with Constantine. A personal favorite of mine is Julian "the Apostate." Interesting guy, the last to rule both east and west, the last pagan emperor, a reformer. But alas he got a knife in the back fighting on the Sassanid campaign and didn't rule long. He has some good quotes, one is something about no other group being as vicious to each other as Christian sects , another good one something about rule of law should be reason without emotion (very wise), and this is a good one:

The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? . . Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung-hill croaking and squeaking "for our sakes was the world created."

But even with that practice in place, the orderly power succession proved to be fragile, and the first unfortunate choice of the heir led to a catastrophe.

To be fair, civil war and political assassinations weren't unique to the imperial period.. the Republic was full of that too (the dictators and the proscriptions).

In the western Roman lands similar divine powers were vested in the Popes, but not in the Emperors.

Yup, probably a mistake whichever emperor gave his pontifex maximus title to the pope.

[radon]

Which one was that?

Didius

To be fair, civil war and political assassinations weren't unique to the imperial period.. the Republic was full of that too (the dictators and the proscriptions).

True. On the other hand, the Roman Republic legislation explicitly provided a framework for dictatorship in time of war. The usurpers of the dictator powers outside the scope of this framework were not considered legitimate and did not last long typically, except for Sulla, who anyway resigned the dictatorship himself once he thought it was enough.

By the time of the Emperors, the Roman territories were so big that Rome was engaged in an essentially constant war of containment of the outside attacks. This made the permanent dictatorship (emperor rule) a virtual necessity.

[Sixstrings]

Didius

Ah, he bought it from the praetorian guard. Yes there were a number of emperors selected by the imperial bodyguard. What I find interesting is just how much of a tin pot military dictatorship the empire was.. the armies usually declaring an emperor, or if the previous one named a successor he would still need the support of the armies. And oddest of all, the imperial bodyguard picking somebody after the emperor dies. It's strange, given the vast latin legal tradition, how they never figured out a better method of succession than trusting common *soldiers* to pick the emperor and then fighting civil wars if two armies pick different emperors, or even the emperor's own praetorian guard assassinating him.

Finally enough was enough and Constantine disbanded the praetorian guard for good. I forget the exact name, but later western emperors had a germanic bodyguard force -- as outsiders they owed their position solely to the emperor and were therefore more trustworthy.

True. On the other hand, the Roman Republic legislation explicitly provided a framework for dictatorship in time of war. The usurpers of the dictator powers outside the scope of this framework were not considered legitimate and did not last long typically, except for Sulla, who anyway resigned the dictatorship himself once he thought it was enough.

The proscriptions were bad though. Either Marius or Sulla (or both) simply killed all their rival senators and confiscated their land and money. Caesar chose not to do that.. a mistake, as it turned out.

By the time of the Emperors, the Roman territories were so big that Rome was engaged in an essentially constant war of containment of the outside attacks. This made the permanent dictatorship (emperor rule) a virtual necessity.

Good analysis. Also, by virtue of his conquest of Gaul Caesar was incredibly rich and powerful. I think the lesson to apply to the US today would be the danger of allowing our president so much unilateral power overseas. Presidential wars, secret prisons, rendition, puppet governments.. our executive branch pretty much has unchecked power in these areas. We even have two legal standards one for here at home and one abroad.

So longterm that's a dangerous situation.. the executive can set himself up as so much more powerful than the other branches, since our courts and Congress don't have much say in what he does outside of our nominal "borders." The House long ago ceded its constitutional role of declaring war, and the Senate mostly rubber stamps treaties. Add to that in the modern age of warfare, there are no treaties anyway.. backchannel agreements, covert ops, puppet governments.

[radon]

I forget the exact name, but later western emperors had a germanic bodyguard force -- as outsiders they owed their position solely to the emperor and were therefore more trustworthy.

Odoacer kicked the last emperor out anyway. And Janissaries did the same to the sultans later.

The proscriptions were bad though.

Wars are always bad, (with a bit of cynisim) - until and unless they result in a decidedly favorable outcome.

Also, by virtue of his conquest of Gaul Caesar was incredibly rich and powerful. I think the lesson to apply to the US today would be the danger of allowing our president so much unilateral power overseas.

The good thing about the democracy is that it does ensure legitimacy of the elected leader in the view of the public, unless the elections are totally rigged of course. Its downside is the fact that the times of crisis normally require rigid chain of command, and casting each and everyone's "+1" and "lols" is just unaffordable.

I am also wondering what is Putin's plan for succession. So far so good - he sticked to the Constitution. According himself basileus divinity would perhaps go too far . Sticking to the democratic elections should be the best approach.

[sparky]

.
@ Radon..... on the Eastern Empire
"This divinity was a source of the Emperor's legitimacy and stability of his power. In this sense the Eastern Empire was akin to a fundamentalist state "

The vision of Moscow as the " third Rome " was promoted by the orthodox church
obedience to god's appointed was seen as divine duty
when the last daughter of the last Byzantine emperor married Ivan the third ( the great )
the gatherer of the Russian lands
after the fall of Byzantium , the second Rome
he took the title of Caesar or czar

The Eastern emperors used Vikings bodyguards or Varangians , they had come on the great journey from the Baltic ,up the Neva , a bit of portage ,then down the Dnieper past their slaving post of Kiev
after a few years service they would sail their way back North by the Mediterranean
pillaging on their way , when convenient .
Harald Hardara claimant to the crown of England was one of them
.

[dohboi]

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/09/noam-c ... n-history/

...The likely end of the era of civilization is foreshadowed in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the generally conservative monitor of what is happening to the physical world.

The report concludes that increasing greenhouse gas emissions risk “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” over the coming decades. The world is nearing the temperature when loss of the vast ice sheet over Greenland will be unstoppable. Along with melting Antarctic ice, that could raise sea levels to inundate major cities as well as coastal plains...

One index of human impact is the extinction of species, now estimated to be at about the same rate as it was 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth. That is the presumed cause for the ending of the age of the dinosaurs, which opened the way for small mammals to proliferate, and ultimately modern humans. Today, it is humans who are the asteroid, condemning much of life to extinction.

The IPCC report reaffirms that the “vast majority” of known fuel reserves must be left in the ground to avert intolerable risks to future generations. Meanwhile the major energy corporations make no secret of their goal of exploiting these reserves and discovering new ones...

One of the most feared consequences of anthropogenic global warming is the thawing of permafrost regions. A study in Science magazine warns that “even slightly warmer temperatures [less than anticipated in coming years] could start melting permafrost, which in turn threatens to trigger the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in ice,” with possible “fatal consequences” for the global climate.

Arundhati Roy suggests that the “most appropriate metaphor for the insanity of our times” is the Siachen Glacier, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers have killed each other on the highest battlefield in the world. The glacier is now melting and revealing “thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice axes, old boots, tents and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate” in meaningless conflict. And as the glaciers melt, India and Pakistan face indescribable disaster.

Sad species.

[GHung]

"DISRUPTION", the movie has just been released by 350.org, et al:

Disruption is a short film about how we can change the world -- before the fossil fuel industry irreversibly changes the climate. It looks at how social movements of the past mobilized at decisive moments to shift the course of history, and applies those lessons to the decisive fight of this generation.

It features author and filmmaker Naomi Klein, CNN host and movement leader Van Jones, MSNBC's Chris Hayes, plus many more, including some of the key scientific voices sounding the alarm.

http://watchdisruption.com/

[BobInget]

Today--- we learn CO/2 levels have never in human history, been higher.

Ocean acidification and greenhouse gases hit new records

We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try to keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future. Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting.
The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has reported that the amounts of atmospheric greenhouse gases reached a new high in 2013, driven by rapidly rising levels of carbon dioxide.

The news is consistent with trends in fossil fuel consumption. But what comes as more of a surprise is the WMO's revelation that the current rate of ocean acidification, which greenhouse gases (GHGs) help to cause, appears unprecedented in at least the last 300 million years.

"We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels", said the WMO's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud.

"The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We are running out of time. The laws of physics are non-negotiable.

A 34% increase in radiative forcing from 1990 - 2013

The details of growing GHG levels are in the annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, published by the WMO - the United Nations specialist agency that plays a leading role in international efforts to monitor and protect the environment.

The Bulletin reports on atmospheric concentrations - not emissions - of greenhouse gases. Emissions are what go into the atmosphere, while concentrations are what stay there after the complex system of interactions between the atmosphere, biosphere (the entire global ecological system) and the oceans.

It shows that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing - the warming effect on our climate - because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.

About a quarter of total emissions are taken up by the oceans and another quarter by the biosphere, cutting levels of atmospheric CO2.

In 2013, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 142% higher than before the Industrial Revolution started, in about 1750. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide had risen by 253% and 121% respectively.

Reduced CO2 absorption by the biosphere?

The observations from WMO's Global Atmosphere Watch network showed that CO2 levels increased more from 2012 to 2013 than during any other year since 1984. Scientists think this may be related to reduced CO2 absorption by the Earth's biosphere, as well as by the steady increase in emissions.

Although the oceans lessen the increase in CO2 that would otherwise happen in the atmosphere, they do so at a price to marine life and to fishing communities - and also to tourism. The Bulletin says the oceans appear to be acidifying faster than at any time in at least the last 300 million years.

Wendy Watson-Wright, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, said: "It is high time the ocean, as the primary driver of the planet's climate and attenuator of climate change, becomes a central part of climate change discussions.

"If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be, since its effects are already being felt and will increase for many decades to come."

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 396.0 parts per million (ppm) in 2013. At the current rate of increase, the global annual average concentration is set to cross the symbolic 400 ppm threshold within the next two years.

Other potent greenouse gases

Methane, in the short term, is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 - 34 times more potent over a century, but 84 times more over 20 years.

Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1,824 parts per billion (ppb) in 2013, because of increased emissions from human sources. Since 2007, it has started increasing again, after a temporary period of levelling-off.

Nitrous oxide's atmospheric concentration in 2013 was about 325.9 ppb. Its impact on climate, over a century, is 298 times greater than equal emissions of CO2. It also plays an important role in the destruction of the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet solar radiation.

The oceans currently absorb a quarter of anthropogenic CO2 emissions - about 4kg of CO2per day per person. Acidification will continue to accelerate at least until mid-century, according to projections from Earth system models.

"The Bulletin provides a scientific base for decision-making", concluded Jarraud. "We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try to keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future. Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting."

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

[BobInget]

Catch 22...
Even if we were to stop ALL fossil fuel burning today, (your computer would go dark) it's like 75 years too late. The volumes of CO/2 already 'in the pipeline' are enough to drown us in our own hubris.

Dilemma: go full bore, divert so called 'defense budgets' from military to ameliorating (coping) with climate change by metaphorically (and actually) building sea-walls against rising sea levels, devising improved solar/wind desalination and power production, rationing air travel, etc.
It's almost too late. Except for the few visionaries there are really no plans in sight.

Or: BAU with lip service to 'changing wasteful practices soon'.

Kubler-Ross in her book "Death and Dying" names five stages; Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression
and Acceptance.

As most here are painfully aware, humanity, with minority exceptions are still in that first stage.

The most painful news we read... It seem to be the poorest parts of the planet are suffering most and will
die off first. The unluckiest young people are being killed off by insane wars over religious dogma.

Norm Chomsky is obviously in acceptance.

Developed societies like Denmark (I'm hard pressed to name others) will survive for many more generations adapting as humans are good at doing. Why 'Denmark' you might ask.. Denmark is far enough north for starters. Denmark already generates enough Alt. power for its small, highly educated population to survive. even prosper.

I read the other day surfers will not be getting those huge waves much longer. Apparently, as seas get warmer there are fewer 'normal' storms at sea. (note how few hurricanes we are seeing this September)
WHEN we do get storms they will be Super Storms from Hell.

[Plantagenet]

Today--- we learn CO/2 levels have never in human history, been higher.

Not only that---atmospheric CO2 is going UP more rapidly then ever before. Atmospheric CO2 went 3ppm just last year.

Either China is burning a heck of lot more coal, or the biosphere just isn't able to absord as much CO2 as it did in the past, and most of it is now staying in the atmosphere.

[Sixstrings]

Either China is burning a heck of lot more coal

Bingo.

Al Gore spent a lot of time talk to Americans, nobody talked to the Chinese. Not that it would have helped.

Al gore is all for free trade deals -- which has simply exported our pollution, to Mexico, to China.

He's got a huge house, it's not "green," he's got a big carbon footprint, he's a free trade globalist and he's one of those that's the cause of China burning so much coal with 200 more coal plants in the pipeline.

[dohboi]

6S, this is not an Al Gore thread. Start your own thread on him, if you have such an utter infatuation with the dude (or get a hotel room, for krissake! ).

[rdberg1957]

While this outcome is quite likely in the near term, I don't think it is a foregone conclusion. I don't know what would change our trajectory, but I believe change is possible. However, in the long term it is quite inevitable that we humans will exit the scene. What is most frustrating is that the problem is not visible to the naked eye of the public. Scientists who are looking closely and are busy monitoring climate changes see vast changes, while much of the public, especially those with conservative views, see no changes. The sky is still blue, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west and will probably continue to do so long after we humans are extinct. The conditions which allowed humans to thrive are most likely special and not common. Many conservatives express incredulity that our ecosystems could be so easily upset by our activity. Human activity is not purported to be the only driver of climate change because there has been climate change which preceded us. Human activity has accelerated the process, very likely with results catastrophic to many living things.

[Sixstrings]

6S, this is not an Al Gore thread. Start your own thread on him, if you have such an utter infatuation with the dude (or get a hotel room, for krissake! ).

Well, I'm getting at the general hypocrisy from climate change activists / lefties.

How many kids do you all have? You couldn't even give that up -- the one big thing to help the planet.

Al Gore's (or insert any other climate change activist") model that somehow you can save the planet and get rich while doing it, save the planet and GROW while doing it. It's a contradiction in terms, oxymoron, kind of like Al Gore's free trade deal with NAFTA back in the day -- he said it would CREATE jobs here, it didn't, it wiped the country out.

Do ya see a pattern there? "Save the planet and grow and get rich while doing it," and "free trade deals will make more jobs here."

The man hasn't done any good at all. At most, since he's a free trade globalist shipping jobs off, all's he's really done is about what Britain has done -- just export your pollution to over there, in those manufacturing countries. Dohboi I'm getting at the basic hypocrisy of your whole movement -- a UK feels so great that it meets greenhouse gas targets, yet all it has really done is just export that pollution offshore.

And so this is why we never talk about the #1 polluter in the world, China.

Because you guys don't want to talk about China. You think you can just sit in Starbucks drinking a vente grande cafe au lait or whatever it is, shopping at whole foods, driving a Prius, an eco activist's whole life sitting atop a pyramid with oil and coal and global sweatshop slave labor beneath -- and yet the treehugger feels good, because of his personal little choices, which he never sees far past his own little world off to China which made all his iStuff which was powered by coal and built by slaves in prison factories where they have to put nets on the windows because so many jump out.