arbilp3

But you are not giving your reasons. He has been killed it has been reported. Do you think all the problems are over now and we can all go home and watch Netflix?

I can assure you I am not apathetic and I had not heard that people get executed for watching a k-drama. I don't know if that is even true. And do you mean to say you are warm-hearted because you care about what happens in NK but are quite happy to see tens of thousands killed, if not more, by the time this war is over. People are saying it's going to drag out.

You obviously pay attention to mainstream media. I suggest you look at other sources of information for some balance. The majority of Iranians are not happy to be bombed in order to be 'liberated'. Remember Iraq? What's the situation with Iraq since the war that killed about 200,000? Was that not evil? I care about Iranian civilians (and all civilians) because they have a right to their sovereignty and through this war the civilian death toll is going to be high.

Can you please give reasons?

Could you provide some examples of where this has worked?

Has the West (with some countries being excepted) actually ever tried the above combined methods? I doubt it. I am not a historian and someone else here may have examples but from what I know, since WW2 the West (US-led alliances) has attempted "regime change" in countries in most continents by coercion and violence and it has not worked, or worked for a very short time and left the occupied countries often in a worse mess than they were before.

As for North Korea, a peace has, in fact, been maintained for the last 60 years. We haven't been at war with them, have we, nor have they been at hot war with anyone else, have they? What they do in their own country is their business. Although I'm sure if they had oil and/or rare earth minerals the West would be there attempting regime change to bring democracy and freedom to the people. On the other hand, the US has been happy to support corrupt regimes which also oppressed their peoples and they never offered to liberate them.

At the moment, I just feel grief. For nature and for all the innocent people who are going to be annihilated by our war-mongering leaders and the industries that thrive on all the destruction and ruin.

As if there's not enough military violence in the world, our government has to support more? Is this the best we can do?

Thank you for that insight and info. I agree with your sentiments.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

The majority of nations have grown in population. In 2005 there were nearly 6.6 billion people in the world and now there's about 8.3. A higher population plays a role no doubt, but given our exposure to sunlight and the amount of space we have in Oz, we should have done a lot better than what we have. Seventy percent of coal mined is exported (Wikipedia) and 80% of gas (Australian Institute), so our population is not the main driver of the emissions our fossil fuels produce. Imo, our governments have not done enough to extend solar power. We could be way ahead than we are now. Too many vested interests.

I tend to agree with you and with James Steph. Nevertheless, imo to give up and say it's all too late is to be complicit with or subjugated by the spiritual and cultural decay of our time. That is exactly what the current 'system' wants: us falling into "I can't save anyone else so I'll save myself" and/or "I don't feel I can do anything so I won't do anything", nihilistically and even cynically watching the Titanic sink (and even want it to sink) - i.e. inhumanity.

Every act of care for nature and humanity counts. For example, if you needed help (for whatever reason) and someone stepped up and offered that help spontaneously, you would feel that within you and it would be life-giving for you and for them. If we lose this, we have caved in to techno-barbarism and given up our aliveness and being real.

Many people follow the crowd and simplistic ideas, including putting blame on others (this does not happen only in Australia). Challenges with simplistic solutions are easier to understand (of course). They also reflect the ideas of people without enough political education who draw skewed conclusions from their personal experience and from their 'crowd' mind set. One Nation reflects these prejudices back to people and so they feel listened to, like ON is one of them and not like other politicians which present as removed from everyday reality and from ordinary people. They do not seem to understand (or perhaps want to) that Hanson is hob-knobbing with billionaires and will work in their interest because they will financially support her at election time. We must be aware of this and keep this front of mind with people considering voting for ON.

You can subscribe to Visual Capitalist and get this type of visual info regularly. I don't know how accurate they are but they give an all-over picture which is useful. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-food-inflation-will-hit-hardest-in-2026/