New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

offsite link Turkish President Calls On Greece To Comply With Human Rights on Syrian Refugee Issues Wed Mar 04, 2020 17:58 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link ?Notable, Significant and Abnormal? Purchases of PCR Lab Equipment in Wuhan, Summer 2019 Tue Oct 05, 2021 13:44 | Michael Curzon
Researchers believe that "abnormal" purchases of PCR lab equipment in Wuhan in the summer of 2019 suggest Covid was spreading "virulently" in the city far earlier than was previously thought.
The post ?Notable, Significant and Abnormal? Purchases of PCR Lab Equipment in Wuhan, Summer 2019 appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link 12,000 Women Living with Undiagnosed Breast Cancer after a Year of Lockdowns Tue Oct 05, 2021 12:07 | Michael Curzon
Almost 12,000 women in the U.K. were living with undiagnosed breast cancer in May this year, according to new analysis ? and screening for the disease is still below pre-lockdown levels.
The post 12,000 Women Living with Undiagnosed Breast Cancer after a Year of Lockdowns appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link No Good Reason to Introduce Vaccine Passports Right Now, Says Sajid Javid Tue Oct 05, 2021 10:52 | Michael Curzon
Sajid Javid says there are currently no good reasons to introduce vaccine passports, but concedes that his comments do not mean "there can?t ever be a role for such an intervention".
The post No Good Reason to Introduce Vaccine Passports Right Now, Says Sajid Javid appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Why Are People?s Risk Perceptions So Skewed? Tue Oct 05, 2021 08:08 | Noah Carl
For months, we?ve been treated to morbid ?daily death numbers? ? but for only one cause of death. Perhaps if these figures had been reported for all causes of death, people?s risk perceptions would be less skewed.
The post Why Are People?s Risk Perceptions So Skewed? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link And Finally? Tue Oct 05, 2021 00:10 | Toby Young
In this week?s London Calling, the talking points are the recent easing of travel restrictions (unless you?re unvaccinated), unsuccessful stalking adventures, the new Sharpe novel and Irwin Shaw?s Young Lions.
The post And Finally… appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Apple intends to rummage through your smartphone ... without your knowledge Sun Oct 17, 2021 17:03 | en

offsite link Iran's allies lose Iraqi legislative elections Wed Oct 13, 2021 19:38 | en

offsite link The political power of Facebook, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Oct 12, 2021 09:28 | en

offsite link Lebanon's bankruptcy deliberately caused by IMF under Christine Lagarde's watch Fri Oct 08, 2021 16:17 | en

offsite link China-US high-level talks in Switzerland Fri Oct 08, 2021 14:54 | en

Voltaire Network >>

All the Evidence Points to World War

category international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis author Saturday September 07, 2019 15:39author by Peter McLoughlin Report this post to the editors

The pattern of history points to another global, catastrophic conflict*. For a third time in a hundred years imperial government are about to plunge us into total war: this time nuclear war, for the old reason – power.

Power, manifested as interest, has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war.

The lust for power eventually brings every empire to the war it seeks to avoid: total defeat. But leaders and their advisors delude themselves into thinking that fateful war can be avoided, limited in scale or even won.

This has particular relevance today, with much talk of ‘a new Cold War’, and the dangerous mind set it will have the same outcome as the first one. Other terms from that era are being bandied about, such as ‘deterrence’ and ‘nuclear arms race’. Deterrence can only work if it can prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction might have to be resorted to. It is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent such situations – Syria, Iran, South China Sea, Ukraine, the Baltic, Moldova to name a few potential flash points, any of which could trigger events leading to world war. We will soon face the scenario where (unlike the Cuban missile crisis or Euro missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, stumbling into a crisis they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation. The nuclear powers will delude themselves that the outcome of this crisis will be like in 1991: ending without destruction. There’s a difference, the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment; we are now in a pre-world war environment.

Nuclear war will happen because governments convince themselves it won’t: it will be prevented because peace-makers convince themselves it will. That is the paradox. Only by accepting its inevitability is there any chance of stopping it; at that, the chances are negligible if they exist at all. Personally, I don’t think they do, but accept others have a more positive outlook. I admire them. But a problem denied can never be solved (however big or small it is). To save the planet, reverse climate change, make a better and just life for all will not be achieved if we walk blindly into a third world war.

*I can’t make statements without providing evidence. My arguments are explored in greater detail on my website, an essay Patterns and Power and a FREE book, Never Forget the Ghosts of History. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/


Related Link: https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
author by Tpublication date Sat Sep 07, 2019 21:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What many people do not realize is that during the Cuban missile crisis when the US had imposed a naval blockade on Cuba is that when the stand off was at it's most intense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff consisting of the head of the Navy, head of the Army, head of the Air Force, head of the CIA and others insisted that Kennedy launch a pre-emptive strike on Cuba. And when he did not and instead negotiated his way out of the crisis they were as mad as hell with him. They wanted a nuclear war and they were unanimous about it.

It was well known then that the military felt they should have a nuclear war with the USSR and wipe them out.

What the Joint Chiefs of Staff were unaware of is that field commanders in Cuba who were in charge of nuclear artillery weapons had already been granted clearance to use the weapons if attacked. These had a range of 15 miles or so and would have easily wiped out some of the deployed aircraft carriers in the area.

There is without doubt that had they attacked there would have been a full scale nuclear war, because practically every available plane (i.e B-52s) capable of carrying nuclear weapons were already in the air and armed -on both sides.

So what people do not realize the fate of humanity on that fateful down was narrowed down to just one person and it was Kennedy. Had he NOT gone against the advice of the Joint Chief of Staffs, we can safely say that vast majority of people reading this would be alive. Only for the humanity and intelligence of Kennedy, hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons would have gone off and it would have been followed by a nuclear winter which probably would have ended human life as we know it on Earth.

Today we still have the same mentality.

BTW, within a year Kennedy was dead and it is very likely he was killed by the CIA/Military for his betrayal and cowardice as they would see it, during the crisis.

author by Bolton's moustachepublication date Sat Sep 14, 2019 01:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The missiles in Cuba were just a response to US missiles being stationed in Turkey
rather than a unilateral provocation by the USSR.

The US (i.e. Kennedy) quietly agreed to remove them in return for Kruschev standing down in Cuba.

All Kennedy did is try to fix something the US government were responsible for breaking in the first place.

And Kennedy was on so many drugs and painkillers at the time of the negotiations
that we are all really lucky to be alive frankly!!

Kruschev gets far too little credit for his part in the de escalation in my opinion.

author by Mike Novackpublication date Sat Oct 05, 2019 22:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We might have war, and war that went nuclear. For example, war could break out between India and Pakistan and both of them have nukes. But horrible as that would be, not a world war. A world war is a war between alliances, many countries on each side. Discussing the Cuba Missile Crisis simply points out how different the geopolitical situation then vs now when there isn't even a cold war.

BTW, it will probably take longer before historians consider this, but in my opinion, the "Cold War" WAS determined by nuclear, just not nuclear war. Consider the situation were the outcomes at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reversed. Instead of the Soviet Union losing the northern Ukraine, the US had lost eastern PA, NJ, southeastern NY, some of MD, Delaware, etc.

 
© 2001-2021 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy