Submit your comments on this article | ||||
International | ||||
U-nited N-annies sez no mo’ dirty war... | ||||
2003-11-08 | ||||
EFL and sane parts (which aren’t many) I got this from http://www.junkscience.com United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan">Kofi Annan">Kofi Annan">Kofi Annan called today for tougher international laws to protect the environment in times of armed conflict. Tell us how, other than sending combatants a bill, the payee of which would be you? In a message to mark the observance of the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, the Secretary-General said, "I urge the international community to examine how legal and other mechanisms can be strengthened to encourage environmental protection in wartime. I wonder how hard did greenpeace commies have to grease your hand for you to declare such a day "Ensuring environmental sustainability is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for the future peace and prosperity of our planet." Markets are a prerequisite for peace and prosperity, but I suspect you know that and went ahead to declare this The instances in which the environment was deliberately targeted have been relatively few, he said, but too many grey areas remained where more care should be exercised to protect the environmental base on which sustainable development and recovery from conflict largely depended. You mean like your hero, Saddam, draining swamps? I guess the US authority will be expecting a visit and an invoice from you, Kofi?
You ask an dedicated green about dams and they will... well, damn them. The increasingly devastating potential of modern warfare showed, however, that existing international laws have not fully addressed environmental dangers, such as the indiscriminate use of landmines, the ecological destruction caused by mass movements of refugees and the potential devastation threatened by weapons of mass destruction, he said. Ahh, I see. This is all a cover for re-energizing a ban on land mines. And I see the green ’concern’ includes those pesky humans you all so hate.
That protocol was supposed to cover instances of deliberate destruction of such things a foliage, not, as this article advocates, a comprehensive application of current environmental law on battlefields. "But most legal experts have concluded that these and others fall far short of what is ideal and what is needed," Mr. Toepfer said. Well, the UN falls well short of what is needed to address resolution of human problems. And my guess is that getting us out of the UN would go a long way towards resolving the problem of niggling, meddling communists at the UN and their enablers, supporters and allies in the green movmement In a new report commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, Daniel Bodansky of the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, Georgia, United States, argued that the requirement to prove "widespread, long-term and severe damage" rendered the Geneva Protocol I ineffective for environmental protection, the UNEP chief noted. Right. It requires you lazy f*ckers to do some work before invoking one of these protocols. "The Protocol also appears silent on the issue of long-term risk, of the so-called ’precautionary approach’, which guides many of our modern environmental treaties, covering everything from the ozone layer to climate change," Mr. Toepfer said. Sorta like Kyoto for the battlefield but without all the silly ratifying. Adapt an existing protocol to undermine traditional law. Very sneaky. Twenty or so years down the road, some of the pollution arising from recent theatres of war might prove to be a long-term environmental and public health hazard, he said, but the Protocol applied to expected damage, rather than possible hazards. You mean like using ’sexed up’ data, such as the underpinnings of Kyoto? "Should striking an oil tanker sailing near a coral reef be deemed unacceptable, or a legitimate act of war? Does the crippling of an enemy’s oil supplies justify the killing of an ecosystem upon which hundreds, maybe thousands, of the poor rely for food in the form of fish?" he asked. The oil tankers of a combatant in time of war is a legal target for destruction, regardless of the consequences
| ||||
Posted by:badanov |
#9 Kofi needs to be invited to a necktie party. It should consist of a noose made in one end of a 200-foot bungie cord. Loup the noose over Kofi's neck. Tie the other end to the top of the UN building and toss Kofi over the side. Every time he comes back up, whack 'im. Let the world know this is the punishment the US will visit upon anyone so grossly stupid. |
Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-8 4:26:56 PM |
#8 There are times I regret Al Quaida didn't target the UN in 9/11. |
Posted by: JFM 2003-11-8 4:18:52 PM |
#7 I guess this means you can't attack an enemies supply lines, lines of communication, and war plants anymore. You have to straight at them. Frontal assault and all that. You can't even send troops around the enemies flank to rip up his rear. You might wreck bridges, train track, airfields, etc. As Mark quoted Sherman: "War is hell. You cannot refine it." Sherman also said that since the North couldn't destroy the South's will to fight, they had to destroy it's ability to fight. He intended to make war so horrible that the South never again would even consider it. Destroying the infrastructure then becomes necessary. I suppose next the UN will demand that we clean up all the destroyed Iraqi vehicles littering the landscape. Terrible environmental hazard. |
Posted by: Slumming 2003-11-8 11:17:27 AM |
#6 God! What a farking IDIOT! Doesn't this make Kofi a war criminal for not condemming the Palistinians (and others) for deliberately targetting civilians, ignoring the kuwaiti oil fires and the drainage of the marshes in Iraq which practically destroyed the marsh arabs.. Its offical. The U.N. is now a complete laughingstock. |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-11-8 10:48:31 AM |
#5 I think we ought propose that the UN provide referees for all conflicts. He'll give them striped shirts and whistles. Nobody will be allowed to deliberately target a UN referee or else that soldier will receive a five minute major penalty. |
Posted by: Super Hose 2003-11-8 10:47:05 AM |
#4 William T. Sherman: "War is Hell." Kofi Annan: "And in the future, your JDAMs must be equipped with lemon-scented doilies." |
Posted by: Matt 2003-11-8 10:29:28 AM |
#3 Once again KKKofi has nothing to say about arab eco-terrorists like the former saddam hussien, and instead focuses on how to criticize the very nation that hosts and thus protects his racist ass. What a gentle, soft spoken cock sucker this guy is. I hope that he is killed by a JDAM while he cowers in a protected patch of foliage. That would be beautiful. |
Posted by: Islam Sucks 2003-11-8 10:28:09 AM |
#2 LOL! No wait, Frank, Kofi's got Typical gutless multilateralist approach: Long after the real work is finished, they want to sue people for not doing it "right" - even if the action they were too cowardly to take for themselves saves them. I guess we've gummed up the works by not signing onto their World BlameBody Court, huh? Ain't life a bitch, sometimes? |
Posted by: .com (RoPMA) 2003-11-8 9:19:04 AM |
#1 hmmmm and dealing with Saddam after the oilfires and sabotage in GW1 would make Kofi ("Oil for Palaces") an environmental war criminal then too? |
Posted by: Frank G 2003-11-8 8:56:34 AM |