What could DAMAGE the ENVIRONMENT MORE than the WAR MACHINE?
Also see: The Globalist Solution to Nuclear Arms
Yeah, that will really help the environment!
"Martial law of the jungle; When defending the environment means calling in the military" by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow | December 21, 2008
SCRATCH AN ENVIRONMENTALIST and you are likely to find a skeptic of military force. At protest marches and on car bumpers, slogans like "Good Planets Are Hard to Find" mingle with peace signs. This overlap makes sense: Both positions operate under a larger ethos of avoiding harm - and war, after all, often wreaks ecological devastation.
But some green thinkers are now coming to a surprising conclusion: In exceptional circumstances, they say, the only effective way to protect the environment may be at the barrel of a gun. In some cases, notably in Africa, biodiversity is threatened by military conflict, or by well-armed gangs of poachers. These situations, some say, call for a response in kind - deploying the military to guard natural reserves, or providing rangers with military-style arms and training.
Translation: "ENVIRONMENTALISM" is simply ANOTHER GLOBALIST SCAM to INVADE NATIONS and SEIZE THEIR RESOURCES!!!
A few analysts go further, arguing that in certain cases of severe ecological harm, the international community may be justified in mustering troops to intervene, with or without the permission of the host country.
I will KEEP THAT IN MIND for the ARTICLE after this one!!!!
For example, a government might refuse to protect - or even willfully destroy - its own natural treasure, as when, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein's regime drained the wetlands that were home to the persecuted Marsh Arabs. Or, as resources grow scarcer, one nation's overexploitation of a forest or river could lead to dire consequences for other countries. In response to both kinds of scenarios, some have begun to raise the possibility of an "eco-intervention," analogous to humanitarian interventions....
Yeah, ANY EXCUSE to RIP PEOPLE OFF and KILL THEM for what is under their feet!
Experts agree that climate change will prove a major security issue of this century....
So you KNOW WHAT THAT is now, readers!!
Just ANOTHER LIE to advance the GLOBALIST AGENDA!
"If you consider how people fight over oil and other resources, I don't see any more noble cause than to fight over the preservation of the planet," says Alex Cornelissen, director of Sea Shepherd's Operation Galapagos, which works with the Ecuadorian government to catch poachers.
Does it bother you that the "fight" will DESTROY the planet? Had to DESTROY the world in oreder to SAVE it, huh? What MISANTHROPIC SICKIES!!!
Bringing in armed force would take the idea of environmental defense to a new level. But in the view of some analysts, the enterprise would be doomed by moral and practical problems. The notion of eco-intervention could provide an additional pretext for waging wars - did we really need another reason to invade Iraq?
That is assuming we HAD ONE -- which WE DID NOT!!! Those were COOKED UP LIES just like this!!!!
The idea also suffers from imperialist overtones, adding another layer to fraught questions of sovereignty. In the small-scale scenarios, more basic ethical dilemmas emerge. Some poachers are poverty-stricken locals, just trying to survive, and using force against them seems cruel. The effort and funding, some say, should go instead to giving these poachers economic alternatives....
*****************
The role of national militaries in protecting the environment appears to be growing. A far more controversial proposal, though, is action by outside forces. The concept of a "green-helmet brigade" from the UN has floated around environmental policy circles for some years, inspiring a handful of academic papers.
Most recently, the idea surfaced in the article by Robyn Eckersley, a professor at the University of Melbourne and author of "The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty." In this paper, Eckersley explores possible scenarios in which armed intervention might be called for on ecological grounds. The first is an imminent environmental disaster, such as Chernobyl, in which spillover effects to neighboring countries were foreseen. This, Eckersley said, would be consistent with existing international law, because the goals would include protecting citizens from the repercussions.
See next article down, please.
The second possibility is what she dubs "eco-humanitarianism" - cases where gross human rights abuses accompany environmental crimes. For example, Saddam Hussein persecuted Iraq's Marsh Arabs in various ways, including the deliberate destruction of the wetlands that sustained their way of life. In similar situations, Eckersley argues, the human rights violations might justify intervention anyway, while the ecological component could bolster the case.
Umm, then ISRAEL is on the hook for GAZA, right?
The U.S. RESPONSIBLE for all the Depleted Uranium it has dropped on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia?
And TORTURE isn't a human rights violation, right?
Yup, just LOOKING for EXCUSES to WAGE WARS, aren't they?
Lastly, and most provocatively, she suggests that environmental damage alone, even in the absence of transboundary spillover effects, could constitute grounds for intervention.
Someone better tell Chevron (see article following this one).
For example, she says, if the government of Rwanda were unable or unwilling to protect the last remaining mountain gorillas, an international force might send troops to do so.
Yeah, pull my heart strings by invoking the gorillas.
Sorry, but war ain't gonna help them, either!
"I think it's a little far off," says Eckersley, but "there's good reason to have principled discussions about this now."
That is OFFENSIVE!!!
"Principled discussions?"
When they are talking about INVASIONS based on GLOBALIST PLANS of WORLD DOMINATION?
Linda Malone, a law professor at William and Mary, has also written about this idea. She frames it in terms of the "responsibility to protect," a nascent concept in international relations, first developed in 2001 by a Canadian governmental commission. The doctrine emphasizes not the rights of states - i.e. sovereignty - but the responsibilities of states to their populations.
You mean, like TAKING CARE of them with HEALTH CARE, SCHOOLS, ROADS, SHELTER, etc, etc? Yeah, okay, hypocrites!
The corollary is that if a state fails to meet its obligations, the international community has both the right and the responsibility to intervene. As of now, the doctrine refers only to human rights, but eventually, Malone says, it could apply to the environment as well.
And SIG HEIL that WORLD GOVERNMENT, will you?
"The responsibility to protect at some point in the future has got to extend to species and biodiversity," Malone says. "It seems to me a natural progression, from protection of states to protection of human security to environmental security in a broader sense."
I'm sure that's the way a STINK GLOBALIST would view it!
Eckersley and Malone stress that armed intervention must always be approached with extreme caution, as a last resort. Still, the possibility elicits skepticism from many of their colleagues. Followed to its logical conclusion, the critics say, the reasoning threatens to mire us in violent, confusing conflicts around the world.
Finally, some SENSE!!!
Of course, it's the BACK-END of the piece, which means this is NOT the agenda they want pushed. They ALREADY GAVE YOU THAT, hoping you won't read this far and will just think invading people on flimsy, bullshit pretexts is okay, and in fact, for the GOOD!!!!
"How many pretexts do you really want to offer a government for armed intervention?" asks Mathew Humphrey, a professor at the University of Nottingham who participated in an online symposium discussing Eckersley's paper.
Answer: NONE!
There is also the stark political problem: Given the public's intervention fatigue, sending in the troops to save the gorillas seems more than a little far-fetched. "Are they really going to think they can sell that to the people back home?" Humphrey asks.
At its heart, eco-intervention poses an even more radical question: What is the relative value of human and nonhuman life? Eckersley explicitly challenges "human chauvinism," as many environmentalists embrace "biocentrism" and shun anthropocentrism. But who is prepared to tell a family that their son or daughter died to save a mountain gorilla, or a stand of old-growth forest?
I'd rather they die saving a gorilla than killing innocent men, women, and children for empire, occupation, and Israel!
And look at the agenda-pushers trying to turn the tables on you by implying if you aren't willing to go to WAR to SAVE the ENVIRONMENT you somehow disrespect life!!! What an INSULT from a LYING, WAR-PROMOTING, AGENDA-PUSHING, War Daily!!! The ELITE CHUTZPAH is AMAZING!!!!
Another kind of eco-intervention, however, is more plausible. As the planet's environmental stress mounts, conflicts over dwindling resources, or escalating damage, could easily threaten to spiral into a broader war, says Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the UN's Environment Program. The member states of the UN, Nuttall says, might then decide to intervene in order to halt the environmental degradation.
"In 20, 30, 40 years time, when we're living on a planet with 9 billion people, and if you lay climate change over the top," he says, "this becomes an issue of avoiding conflicts and the collapse of states."
Not only that, but if you lay bullshit over the top of something, it stinks!!
Keep in mind that the preceding article was from an agenda-pushing globalist scitte sheet that said a depression would be a good idea; being poor is your fault; the financial crisis is the fault of American consumer; Boston business benefits from financial failings; financial failures are a good thing; that endless work and insecurity are a good thing; that these are the best of times; that this bear market is just like any other; that hunger is good business; and has already told us what the Grand Depression of 2009 will look like.
See you at the shit pit in the labor camp, Amurka!
Now I expect that the first country up for invasion is Ecuador , with Chevron in the dock at the hague for war crimes, right?
"Amazon pollution case may cost billions; Chevron could be found liable for toxic dumping" by Frank Bajak, Associated Press | December 21, 2008
O.K., globalists, let's see you do your stuff!!!
LAGO AGRIO, Ecuador - When the sun beats particularly hot on this land in the middle of the jungle, the roads sweat petroleum.
A Rhode Island-sized expanse of what was once pristine
Now a single judge is expected to rule in the case in 2009 from a ramshackle courtroom in this northern frontier town. Statements from a court-appointed scientist suggest that Chevron Corp. - which bought Texaco in 2001 - will be held responsible for the many oil spills and dumping of toxic wastewater.
Go get 'em, enviro-nutties!! Hey, where are you guys? Hello?
If Chevron loses, it could be ordered to pay up to $27.3 billion in damages, though an appeal would be likely. The scientist, geological engineer Richard Cabrera, largely accepts plaintiffs' claims that Texaco left a mess when it left in the early 1990s. He is recommending damages based partly on his calculation of 1,401 pollution-caused cancer deaths.
Chevron does not deny "the presence of pollution and we don't deny that there were impacts," says spokesman Kent Robertson. But Chevron contends a 1998 agreement that Texaco signed with Ecuador, after spending $40 million on remediation, absolves it of any legal responsibility. It says, and few dispute, that its former partner, state oil company Petroecuador, kept polluting after Texaco departed.
But two wrongs don't make a right, argues law professor Judith Kimerling, a former New York state prosecutor whose 1991 book "Amazon Crude" first publicized what some environmentalists have called a rainforest Chernobyl. "I really think the remediation they did was a sham," she says.
When Donald Moncayo was a boy, he remembers, Texaco soaked the dirt thoroughfares it cut through the jungle with crude to keep dust down. "We would run on roads they coated with oil," he says. "We went to sleep with our feet black. You could only remove it with gasoline."
Pipelines across the area connected the wells to the 313-mile Trans-Ecuadorean Pipeline built by Texaco to carry crude to the Pacific. Moncayo, 35, can't remember when the pipelines weren't springing leaks. His mother died in 1987 from an internal infection he blames on oil contamination. Now he works for the plaintiffs, taking visitors on "toxic tours."
One of the first stops is a fresh spill. It's little more than 50 gallons, dark and gooey. Bigger spills have smothered crops, choked birds, killed cattle.
If THAT is not ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, I don't know what is!
In the early days of the oil bonanza, Ecuador's government encouraged people to settle in the oil patch by offering free homesteads. But it provided almost no services - hardly any of the area's drinking water is treated. Ecuadorean governments reaped the wealth of Texaco's jungle project, with gross domestic product more than tripling from 1972 to 1977.
By the time Texaco departed, the consortium it headed had extracted nearly 1.5 billion barrels of oil from more than 350 wells. In the meantime, Ecuadorean oilfield workers slathered the crude on their legs, believing it cured rheumatism. Some coated their scalps because American supervisors told them the crude warded off baldness, they said.
"They were pulling our legs," recalls Margarita Yepez, a former Texaco social worker who believes such careless exposure to crude killed some of her colleagues. "What did we know? They were the experts."
The plaintiffs say Texaco saved $8-$10 a barrel by dumping some 18 billion gallons of the wastewater from drilling and extraction into waste pits instead of re-injecting it back deep into the ground. The more than 1,000 waste pits were not lined, so the toxins seeped into the groundwater, they say.
"They themselves said it was the cheapest production in Latin America," Pablo Fajardo, the lead plaintiffs' attorney, says of Texaco.--more--"
hey, where did all the globalist protectors of the environment go?
