Julien and Rob found it a doubtful proposition that the military has a predominant spot in our rush towards The Crash. They counterposed other non-military components of economy, as being yet more destructive to ecological balance, than war. In the US, at least, I have found many liberals to be in denial about how militarized US society actually is. I generally find it tiresome, but necessary, to explain the full presence of the military across the landscape of our activities. But to those that want blinkers over their eyes, it's hard to wrest them off. Are there other list members at CrashList that also don't feel that the military aspect of capitlalist economy is playing that destructive a role, as compared to say.... the consumer side of the economy, or agriculture? If so, please expain why you feel that militarism is not a central component to environmental degradation. Here in the US, the military has driven the expansion of the economy in the 20th Century. Every aspect, from oil to computers, antibiotics to roads, aviation to agriculture has been tied to development of military applications. As a result of this, much of the environmental pollution has sprung from the military. And we have yet to mention the environmental destruction flowing from combat. To illustrate how this effects the environment, below is a brief comment that I sent to another list when I was questioned about why I labeled Clinton a warlord. I believe that it is relevant to the discussion of the role that warfare has in destroying the ecology of the planet. ________________________________ ....I believe that these African wars in their present form started with the arrival of the Europeans with their firearms and slave trade. � � The Europeans entered into a continent of many societies, and promptly began to play them off against each other. >From their position of power in having the superior armament, Europeans were able to enslave the continent of Africa as a whole, the same as they were doing in the Americas. Clinton is a warlord precisely because of the scope of his use of the US military. � � He has inched us into a low-intensity, global war with humanity. � � We weren't paying much attention over the last 8 years, and most Americans would actually say that we are in a time of peace. Instead our government is a major participant in almost every global conflict raging at present. � � It's a rare conflict that the US government can't find at least one side to patronize to the detriment of the other. The visit to Nigeria was to firm up the use of Nigerian troops in Sierra Leone's conflict. � � Nigeria has become a major supplier of US proxy troops in Africa. As to how many wars rage on the African continent, the count changes day by day. � Clinton is certainly no help in alleviating this situation. I'm one that believes that allowing AIDS and other disease to explode across Africa, is in fact a form of warfare. Similar uses of biological warfare are used against Iraq, Cuba, Yugoslavia, and Russia today. � � We should not delude ourselves in thinking that the US ruling class doesn't fully utilize destroying infrastructure as a form of warfare. � � It does this in both a proactive and passive manner. � � � The result is a killoff. Tony _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
