THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY
By Lester R. Brown
For the 193 national delegations gathering in Copenhagen for the U.N. Climate Change Conference in December, the reasons for concern about climate change vary widely. For delegations from low-lying island countries, the principal concern is rising sea level. For countries in southern Europe, climate change means less rainfall and more drought. For countries of East Asia and the Caribbean, more powerful storms and storm surges are a growing worry. This climate change conference is about all these things, and many more, but in a very fundamental sense, it is a conference about food security. We need not go beyond ice melting to see that the world is in trouble on the food front. The melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is raising sea level. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely, sea level would rise by 23 feet. Recent projections show that it could rise by up to 6 feet during this century. The world rice harvest is particularly vulnerable to rising sea level. A World Bank map of Bangladesh shows that even a 3-foot rise in sea level would cover half of the riceland in this country of 160 million people. It would also inundate one third or more of the Mekong delta, which produces half of the rice in Viet Nam, the world’s number two rice exporter. And it would submerge parts of the 20 or so other rice-growing river deltas in Asia. The worldwide melting of mountain glaciers is of even greater concern. The World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland has recently reported the eighteenth consecutive year of shrinking mountain glaciers. Glaciers are melting in the Andes, the Rocky Mountains, the Alps, and throughout the mountain ranges of Asia. It is the disappearing glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau that are of most concern, because their ice melt sustains the flow of the major rivers of India and China––the Indus, Ganges, Yangtze, and Yellow rivers—during the dry season. This ice melt thus also sustains the irrigation systems that depend on these rivers. Yao Tandong, one of China’s leading glaciologists, who predicts that two thirds of China’s glaciers could be gone by 2050, says “the full-scale glacier shrinkage in the plateau region will eventually lead to an ecological catastrophe.” It will also lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. China is the world’s leading producer of wheat. India is number two. (The United States is third.) In contrast to the United States, most wheat grown in China and India is irrigated. With rice, these two countries totally dominate the world harvest. The projected melting of these mountain glaciers in Asia represents the most massive threat to food security the world has ever seen. The prospects for the harvests of wheat and rice, in these two countries, each with over a billion people, are of concern everywhere. We live in an integrated world food economy, one where harvest shortfalls anywhere can drive up food prices everywhere. Rising temperature also directly affects crop yields. In a study published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, an international team of scientists confirmed the rule of thumb emerging among crop ecologists that for each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the norm during the growing season, we can expect a 10-percent decline in wheat and rice yields. In a world with limited grain stocks—a world that is only one poor harvest away from chaos in grain markets—a crop-shrinking heat wave in a major grain-producing region could lead to politically destabilizing food shortages. The delegates are gathering in Copenhagen against a backdrop of spreading hunger. For much of the late 20th century, the number of hungry people was declining, but it bottomed out in the late 1990s at 825 million. It then turned upward, reaching 870 million in 2005 and passing one billion in 2009. The combination of rising seas, melting glaciers, and crop-withering heat waves could push these numbers up even faster, forcing millions more families to try and survive on one meal a day. We are in a race between political tipping points and natural tipping points. Can we cut carbon emissions fast enough to keep the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from becoming irreversible? Can we close coal-fired power plants fast enough to save at least the larger glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau? Can we head off crop-withering heat waves of ever greater intensity? These are food security issues. This is what Copenhagen is about.
Very good article, Whoop. Since there is a direct and historical correlation between droughts, famine, and war, this is especially troubling.
“If we go on the way we have, the fault is our greed and if we are not willing to change, we will disappear from the face of the globe, to be replaced by the insect. Mankind has probably done more damage to the Earth in the 20th century than in all of previous human history.”
Jacques Yves Cousteau
There are early discernible effects here at home in the Yakima Valley. Mature timber, orchards and wine grapes do not adapt to significant thermal and drought stress or to earlier and longer growing seasons. The local impacts are not expected to be dire until after 2050. Is that why none, absolutely none, of our local and state political office holders will move a finger to limit carbon? You’d think all of them could support strong conservation and efficiency programs.
And since so much of our local economy rides on water availability, you’d think that they would be concerned about our local and regional glaciers disappearing as fast as they are. Instead, they point to the computer-controlled reservoir levels behind the dams on the Columbia and Snake that never seem to change, ignoring the fact that the snowfields, glaciers and streams that feed them are running dry at an alarming rate, and it’s happening right here.
The right wingers are all going to be “raptured”, they don’t care about resources.
I now believe that the UN cannot reach an accord, not with 196 nations, including the likes of Cuba, Sudan, Venezuela and Bolivia. The G20 group of major economies, which includes the top 17 emitters of greenhouse gases, is more likely to reach an agreement on a binding approach.
For the U.S. there is a national security threat from climate warming as high water will inundate military bases from Bethesda to San Diego to the island of Diego Garcia.
Is everyone aware of the A-train, a sequential in-tandem stream of five satellites that crisscrosses the globe measuring atmospheric phenomenon? Unfortunately the OCO (Orbital Carbon Observatory) satellite that was launched by NASA last February failed to reach orbit. A replacement might be launched next fall. Until then we have a less fine-tuned carbon observer in the Japanese GOSAT satellite. My point is that we may not need China to agree to international monitoring of their emissions because we may have independent measurements.
I think it was Dick Armey who said that global warming just had to be a hoax, because God wouldn’t build a planet that we could destroy.
How’s little Drew-El doing on his new planet, Drew?
Neal if you are teasing someone about his children, pseudo-children, or even if you are customizing a level of humor, it is probably not in good taste. One good way to get a person enraged is to make child remarks. You may not agree with Drew, but that is no path to take in solving a disagreement. If this is an area of communication which seems way out of line, I apologize, but if we do not maintain some level of respect, it may lead to disruption–and this is certainly a long way away from the issues. Whoop
“probably” ?
Hmmm, who else was teased, harassed, and attacked for her children… did you stick up for her (Palin) when everyone teased her about her pregnant teen daughter, or her Down Syndrome baby, or when David Letterman made a joke about her daughter getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez? “probably not in good taste” that’s what your party specializes in, and when you get a little taste of your own medicine, you can’t stand it… I am NOT condoning anything, I just wanted to point out some hypocrisy, that you guys on the left seem to have.
Yes you are condoning. not cool
Jason:
Truth to tell, I thought Letterman’s remark was way out of line, and I don’t blame Sarah Palin for getting bent out of shape about it. Everybody has had OUW pregnant relatives. Her being a celebrity does not grant approval for rude, haughty comments like that. On the other hand, being a celebrity does set one up for digs–and it is very hard for a celebrity to prove defamation. How much longer was it before Letterman had to come clean about affairs with his staff. Must have been great news for his wife and a bit rewarding for Palin, Palin’s daughter and possibly for ARod.
No, I don’t think that rapping Palin was cute at all, even if a late-night dude like Letterman has that kind of history, and there is a certain audience expectation for that kind of humor.
And Jason, if you are trying to say that two wrongs make a right…you are also way out to pasture, right along with Neal and Letterman. Whoop
I am not saying two wrongs make a right, and I am not condoning any attacks on ANY one’s children…I did’t like it when the left attacked Palin’s children, while many on this site had a great laugh about it all. You can attack Palin all you want, but children should be left alone.
I have three kids and I know how I would feel if someone made rude comments or jokes about my kids, you can attack me all you want, leave my kids alone. I think by now, you know that Drew and I do not see eye to eye, and are not “friends” we disagree on everything, but I think we understand that our disagreements are between US… and our kids are off limits.
Sarah Palin may be a celebrity but her kids are not celebrities and therefore should not be made the subject of any “digs”, just as Drew’s son is not a celebrity, or a commenter on this web site, and should not be made a subject of any “digs”.
I think I have made myself very clear. mainstreeter, spin this any way you want, but I think this should be put to rest, and we should get back to the original subject…Copenhagen, climate change, and whether or not man can change the weather to suit our needs.
No one has ever said that man is trying to “change the weather to suit our needs”…the whole argument about global warming revolves around the fact that we are acting in total disregard of the weather, while trying to satisfy our own immediate wants. At some point, rich and powerful white folk are going to come to the realization that they are not the only inhabitants of this planet.
Some day you will have to recognize that this planet has gone through many changes, it is ever changing, and will always change. Before there was man and industry, this planet warmed up and came out of an ice age, so how did that happen if we “evil” white powerful, rich men were not here?
The global warming argument is about you telling us that we are causing it with our industrialization, and we need to reduce our comfort level to save the planet, because if we pay more for energy/ oil, and pay for carbon credits the money will somehow save the planet. This is a hoax, made up by the same people that told us we were heading to another ice age in the 60′s and 70′s….they were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Actually, I never said they were “evil”, but thanks for throwin’ that in there. I get that you are saying it’s a hoax when you can’t prove it. Just like I get that you were really hoping the stolen emails would prove something, which they didn’t. High-paid oil and coal industry lobbyists are not the same thing as actual scientists, who spent their careers studying this topic beyond any reasonable doubt.
It’s OK, jason. Soon, you’ll open up a 2,000 mile wide shipping channel from the Northwest territories across to Northern Europe, with Greenland and that pesky arctic ice cap out of your way. Maybe even 15 years from now. Just imagine the economic possibilites…
Of course, your ships won’t be able to tie up to their docks, since the docks will be under 10 feet of water.
In other examples of the cruel irony of global warming, the tundra is thawing. Yes, it thaws and softens every season, creating a restrictive period that the oil companies are not allowed to move heavy equipment across this extremely complex and delicate ecosystem. As the temps have risen, the amount of days where the tundra is sufficiently frozen solid is reduced- it is now down to under 85 days in many areas, half what it was just 26 years ago. This regulation is enforced by both Canada and the U.S., by those liberal socialists who actually still believe that protecting the planet is more important than mega-profits. Fewer transport days out to the oily fields means fewer opportunities to trash the planet in the name of profit.
And don’t forget the bears. Polar bears, being one of the most viciously territorial mammals on the globe, are not giving up their land without a fight. Finding fewer habitable areas farther north, they are starting to migrate into these tundras where Big Oil has expanded into. Try to stay with us on this: humans working in very remote areas for ExxonMobil and CononcoPhillips, plus hungry polar bears in search of food, equals Mother Nature’s karma. The humans temporarily had an advantage with guns, until they got in big trouble for shooting a protected species. Many of the exploration sites needed to be abandoned, as the humans (from the oil companies) are battling the humans (from groups like Greenpeace and the NRDC) in court. Mother Nature is making a couple of last-ditch efforts to reverse what we have done. OK, OK, we get it- polar bears and delicate tundra are not as important as the rights (???) of the oil companies to make a mess of the planet, and simultaneously hold you hostage with $5 gasoline. At some point, you should be getting mighty tired of them pissing on your leg and telling you it’s raining.
drew
Well, for one thing, the e-mails did prove a couple things…the scientists had to collaborate and “fix” their findings, they left out data and made up data. The e-mails showed there was no “consensus” (as Al Gore claimed) because they had to be told (in these e-mails) what they would report. They studied the “global cooling” in the 60′s and 70′s too, and it was beyond a reasonable doubt at that time….
Keep spouting Gore’s talking points… he lied many times and even the scientists that he got his information from is coming out and denying some of his claims. keep up the lies….they make good comedy.
If you are so upset about $5 gasoline, lets look at what the oil companies do…they search and drill, produce crude, refine, and ship the gasoline to gas stations, their profit margin is 10%….what does the government do to earn the 20% that they collect…the government makes twice as much money on gasoline than the oil companies, and the oil companies do all of the work, while the government does nothing.So YOU tell me if you are getting tired of the government pissing on YOUR leg while telling you it’s raining.
For cryin’ out loud, are you about to try and convince us that that oil companies are practically non-profits? Retail prices that rose at many times the rate of inflation, without any plausible explanation. Record mega-profits, while demanding (and getting, from the republicans that held the majority and the White House at the time) huge tax breaks. Halliburton (an oil company BTW), managed to offshore nearly all of their business to the Caymans, etc., while continuing to operate in the same places they always did, saving them hundreds of millions in U.S. taxes- in fact, under Cheney’s watch, Halliburton paid ZERO taxes for 4 out of 5 years (actually, Halliburton’s offices weren’t really offices- not the kind with people, desks, or even, well, offices. They were post office boxes) ExxonMobil received over 12 billion in tax breaks in one 3 year period alone during the Bush Administration era. As they say in Texas, “ya dance with them that brung ya”…care to guess which corporation was the largest contributor to the GOP in 2000 and 2004?
Yes, let’s look at what the oil companies are doing for (or rather, to) America. Buying off governments in Central and South America, with the direct assistance of our government. Labeling as “dictatorships” and “terrorist havens” any country with oil that doesn’t immediately acquiesce to the demands of the big oil conglomerates- thank you Fox News for continuing the fibbery. Paying off politicians here and abroad to avoid paying even small fines for illegal chemical dumping. Paying off more people when caught polluting the air and major aquifers around the world. Using the profits that they made ripping off the American consumer to fight CAFE standards legislation which has worked successfully in other nations. Manipulation of the production and supply, even to the military, to drive prices up well beyond the rate of inflation. Using third-world military and mercenary groups to crush local labor organizations, even resorting to murder and arson. And let’s not forget: using our military to strong-arm sovereign nations into handing over their oil at fire-sale prices (and when that doesn’t work, just take it from them. Once you’ve crushed their third-rate military, what are they going to do about it?)
I am upset about $5 gasoline, and if you cons cared about your community, you would be concerned too. It hurts the poor and working class the most, a group the GOP and corporate America has no use for. Energy is not like a morning bagel you can try and do without when you are short on change. Small businesses need it to operate every day, which in turn employs working class people (remember those?), and those people need energy to get to and from work. The businesses need energy to ship and store their goods, and consumers need energy to buy them and utilize them. When the price of fuel spikes well above inflation, people can’t even afford to get to their minimum-wage jobs- are you going to tell them that the oil companies are making sacrifices, and they need to just accept that the price of fuel should remain unregulated? Under mounting criticism that he was doing nothing to stop the out-of-control upward spiral of the cost of gasoline, Bush (an oil president) finally said that we would just have to get used to these high costs for gas and diesel- not at all inspiring for Americans struggling to deal with being held hostage by those benevolent oil companies, but it did put a smile on the faces of Big Oil, whose stocks continued to skyrocket. I really want to see you get up in a public forum somewhere, in front of working-class Americans, and try and convince them that $5+ gasoline is acceptable. Go ahead, Jason. Try and sell the public on that line of crap. You’d soon learn the definition of “angry mob mentality”. Bring comfortable running shoes.
OK, show us the emails that proved what you just said. Show us some doctored reports. Show us that people were actually told “don’t say that; say this instead”. You can’t, because it didn’t happen, except maybe in the oily wet dream of some lobbyist who writes for the Drudge Report. Or Rupert Murdoch. Eewwww… Cons have been saying that the emails were very damning, but they have never elaborated on that. This is because they had no details to prove their point. But then, when do you want the details, particularly if they will get in the way of your agenda? The group at the forefront against Gore and the environment are the oil and coal industries, and they are not planning a bright, clean future for anybody but themselves.
“I am upset about $5 gasoline, and if you cons cared about your community, you would be concerned too. It hurts the poor and working class the most, a group the GOP and corporate America has no use for. Energy is not like a morning bagel you can try and do without when you are short on change.”*** You just made my point… we NEED oil and ALL forms of energy, that is why your party is dangerous for this country, Cap and Tax policies are bad for middle class, and poor Americans. Now that we know that the science behind the global warming movement is junk, you can see that this is all about money, and control.
Here are some e-mails that you asked for, but first I never said that I liked the $5 gasoline, I just pointed out that the government makes a much higher profit from oil than the “evil” oil companies do…anyway here is the link to the e-mails http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
No, you didn’t point out anything. You just stated it, and were hoping we would expect it to be true. The oil companies haven’t operated on a 10% profit since the 70′s, because they didn’t have to. What’s more, when you pay fuel taxes, you have numerous examples around you of where your money is going. The oil companies have never been forthcoming on where their profits go, ever. One of the famous con arguments is that we need to build more refineries in the U.S., but the environmentalists are standing in the way (as they should, since the oil companies aren’t exactly stewards of our environment). During one week in the summer of 2008, two American oil giants made enough in profit alone that they could have built 5 refineries each. It should be noted, jason, that during the most relaxed years of eco-regulation over the oil and gas industry (2000 to 2008), there were no permits filed to get the process started on constructing any refineries, anywhere. Not one. Of course, if they had built new refineries, that would have increased production. Increase production, and inventory goes up, and prices come down. There were some small pipeline projects here and there, but no one wanted a new refinery. But Palin and Cheney and Murdoch know that YOU don’t know that. They just know that when they speak, you dutifully listen and obey, because the profits of a few are at risk, and they know you’ll be glad to roll-over and help.
jason, why do you cull out the ones you like, and leave the rest? What was it about the other emails that you didn’t like? As I said, the emails proved nothing, and we all discussed this here before. The person in question felt his message may not be clear enough, and other scientists said not to worry about it, since the total mountain of evidence is irrefutable. Hackers were paid to steal these emails. If your science was so good, why would you have to twist the words of one of these guys- your oil company lobbyists-turned-science geeks say they have 31,000 “experts” on their side now, so resorting to theft of emails, and then translating them into vague innuendo shouldn’t even be necessary. Obviously, you didn’t have enough legitimate proof to support your theories, so stealing emails seems like the thing to do.
You guys didn’t learn a thing from Watergate, did you?
You said that “…we know that the science behind the global warming movement is junk…”. Who’s “we”, Tinkerbell? The majority of scientists (real scientists, who study, well, science) still know that global warming is a real and current threat to the health of this planet. Who’s “we”, you and Andrew Breitbart, who jokes about how anybody who doesn’t go along with you and your oil and coal lobbyists should be killed?
It doesn’t matter- Whoop’s topic here drew the undeniable connection between drought, famine, and wars. Since we’re identified around the globe as the country that does military occupations to get at other peoples oil, it all seems to fit, doesn’t it?
All I have to say is, if you hate our country so much maybe you should go to a European country that you envy so… pay their gas prices and pay their taxes, reap the benefits of their health rationing and believe the global warming hoax, participate in cap and tax, so you can pay even MORE for your energy consumption. Put on your blinders, and ignore the fact that the scientists are talking about hiding information, deleting emails, and do not want to submit to the Freedom of Information Act….what do they want to keep from us?
Let me know when you are getting tired of the government and these scientists pissing on your leg while telling you it’s raining.
Ahhh, yes- when all else fails, use the “love it or leave it” dogma. What are you, stuck in the 60′s or something? And why would I want to leave a country that has a lower citizen satisfaction rating, compared to the countries we are assuming you are referring to?
Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of Patriotism, so I’ll be staying, Tinkerbell. Seems that in the last several years, the highest form of conservatism is found in your desire to silence those with whom you disagree. Too bad that Constitution keeps getting in your way.
We have a lot to get done here in the United States: universal health care for everyone; the unrestricted ability for workers to join unions without threat of retaliation from their employers; returning good family-wage jobs to our country, regulating the energy companies to keep them from gouging your pocketbook; restoring the transportation, manufacturing and electricity infrastructures, which will in turn put more of our people to work, and changing this ridiculous republicon idea that the best way to solve a conflict is through violence first. Yes, we have a lot to do, and we’re not sure that Obama is completely on board with all of that, since he’s more of a corporatist than is good for America, but we still have time to bring him around.
drew
Who is “we” that you refer to…Tinkerbell? You and Tinkerbell have something going on? You claimed that they loved their health care…why is there a lower satisfaction rating in European countries…could it be because we live in the greatest nation in the world because of Capitalism, and the freedoms that we have….that your party wants to scrap?
“Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of Patriotism”***Great!!! That means my dissent from Obama’s policies mean that I AM patriotic, but I already knew that! I am not trying to shut up Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, or Fox News…I have never tried to shut up anyone, I have only tried to keep the Constitution from being trampled on by the democrat party.
What we have to do is reform health care, not scrap the health care system that we have. Unions have been destroying jobs, and bankrupting companies, employers that want to stay out of bankruptcy should be able to keep unions out of their shops, that is how we will get more family wage jobs…by allowing companies to stay in business. “regulating” is your way of saying cap and tax…this will RAISE energy costs, government does not know how to run a business efficiently so they should stay out of the way. The best way to prevent price gouging is competition, not regulation. “the best way to solve a conflict is through violence first”?…where do you get these ideas from? If you are talking about Iraq, there were years of U.N. resolutions that were violated (I think about 14 of them) it was becoming a joke! The U.N. is spineless, intelligence showed that Hussein had weapons that he wasn’t supposed to have, the threat was high enough that Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. your party claims that this is an illegal war, and you want to prosecute Bush, but Obama has not ended the war…so that means Obama would be an accomplice. You could prosecute Obama then you could get Biden in office, maybe he would be “completely on board” with your agenda.
Look, Tinkerbell…
I claimed that they love their health care, because they do. There is a higher satisfaction level in the UK for health care than in the U.S. I know, ’cause I did some of that research. Caregivers and patients alike do not want our “system”, because it lets people die (their words, not mine). Make that, SUFFER, and die. After going broke.
France has the highest satisfaction level of the developed nations for health care according to polls of their citizens, but Germany, Sweden, Italy, Canada and Japan rank very high also. We have also shown you the statistics here, explaining how people in those countries live longer, have healthier lifestyles, better diets, shorter recovery periods from surgeries and illness, happier, healthier kids, and they pay less to make all of that happen. No one wants the American way of taking care of the sick, except for a few cons out to protect the insurance and pharma industry.
You’re suggestion that I go to a foreign land where you think I might be happier may not be a call for me to shut up, but your party would like all the of us liberals to zip it- that ain’t gonna happen.
If you want to keep your health care plan, then why are you so against the public option? Unless you don’t want the poor and low-income middle class to ever be able to afford health care, we’d think that you’d be OK with that. You can continue to get overcharged and under-served by your health insurance provider, just like it is now.
If unions have put so many people out of work (according to you), how is it that the mean income for wage earners in America has not kept up with inflation in most areas (or dropped in other areas), since Reagan started working so hard with the Chamber of Commerce to bust unions and keep the minimum wage down? Where’s your family-wage jobs now? WalMart? Burger King? As the cons opened up the deregulation portals to allow big companies to offshore their jobs, many of your fellow Americans were forced into “McJobs”, losing benefits and retirement plans. Not good for America, and unions had nothing to do with any of that. It’s the lack of unions in your local WalMart that allow them to pay below the poverty level, force employees to work off the clock, and be fired without cause before they can vest any retirement plan (WalMart has the most agressive anti-union program in American industry, where employees can and are fired routinely for mentioning the word “union”- a direct violation of their civil rights). By any reasonable standard, that makes a nation poorer, not better, as you are claiming.
Regulating is everyone’s way of saying to corporate America, “you have no right to pollute the air that we all breathe, the water that we all drink, the bodies of your workers and their families, and the food that we eat.” The truth is, corporations should NOT have any Constitutional rights over individual citizens in a functional democracy, but cons want to change that. We are not going to let them. I never said anything about “cap and tax” which is something that morning kids show, “Fox and Friends” must’ve taught you. In reality, I have said here on this blog several times that I don’t like Cap and Trade (if that’s what you meant to say). It will likely let some polluters off the hook, and will unfairly penalize others. Cap and Trade in my opinion is a compromise with the developing nations that are trying to catch up with the U.S., Russia, and Europe on heavy manufacturing- a compromise the global environment will be paying for.
Not sure what to say about your “competition” theory. If you believed that, then you’d be wanting to see the health care market open up to it. Dick Hastings and the other 534 members of Congress get great health care, provided by over 30 companies and plans to chose from- subsidized by you and me (socialized medicine). Perhaps you and Hastings should just get out of our way and let us have their plan. People are dying while you wait.
Nice segue into the military occupation of Iraq, which is an illegal war, when you know that Bush had no evidence of WMDs as he claimed. The entire war was based on lies, and a lot of people made a lot of money on it, which must’ve been the whole point of going there. Even Bush wrote in his memoir that, during an interview when he was still the governor of TX, if he made it to the White house, he’d find a reason to go to war with Iraq. If that sounds a little odd to you, it should, since 9/11 was over a year into the future.
But I wasn’t talking about Iraq- I was talking about every military conflict we seem to wade neck-deep into these days without legitimate reason (Saddam Hussein wasn’t a legitimate reason- he was contained, and if we still felt a humanitarian need to remove him, we have ways of doing that very effectively without occupying the whole damn country for several years). Obama is not pulling us out of Iraq fast enough, and he is setting us up for a protracted military occupation in Afghanistan, which means he is taking over ownership of Bush’s failed wars.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Resource wars. Extreme drought. Abandoning your veterans. More famine. Your own countrymen dying without affordable health care. You republicons have a very bizarre sense of humor.
I am laughing at your diatribe…all of it left wing lies and half truths. I found it amusing to read all seven comments in a row, I must have really pissed you off…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA