UN chief warns of civil unrest amid world food shortage
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: UN chief warns of civil unrest amid world food shortage

  1. #1

    Thumbs down UN chief warns of civil unrest amid world food shortage

    I believe in helping when and where we can. The Bible says To whom much has been given much will be required. I don't believe however any good thing can come out of the U.N. We should get out of the U.N and get the U.N out of the United States.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...?section=world
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    I don't know what more to say than I agree
    David

    The only person available to protect you 24 hours a day is you.

  4. #3
    If the UN is so serious about buying food for poor people they can begin by donating part of the exorbitant wages the UN pays (mostly with OUR money) for that purpose.

    If the UN really wants to help, they should disappear and let private charities deal with it. It would be much more efficient and cheaper--less corruption too!
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    The best way to reduce the odds of having food shortages in the future is to reduce the overall population. Overpopulated nations need to educate their citizens that it's better to focus resources on one or two kids, rather than a dozen. If the global population were around 1.5 billion, we could all live relatively comfortably, and there would probably be a lot less conflict and strife.

    Conflict of course is a subjective thing and can scale accordingly, but not being packed together objectively reduces disease. It also objectively increases the relative level of food production, because the same amount of land would still exist, and farming processes would be just as efficient.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  6. #5

    Unhappy Over Population?

    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    The best way to reduce the odds of having food shortages in the future is to reduce the overall population. Overpopulated nations need to educate their citizens that it's better to focus resources on one or two kids, rather than a dozen. If the global population were around 1.5 billion, we could all live relatively comfortably, and there would probably be a lot less conflict and strife.

    Conflict of course is a subjective thing and can scale accordingly, but not being packed together objectively reduces disease. It also objectively increases the relative level of food production, because the same amount of land would still exist, and farming processes would be just as efficient.
    I do not believe the population of the world is as major a problem as some would have us think. I do think however that the New World Order pushers and shakers wants us to believe it and wants to use fear to convince us that it is the problem They want to control the population and killing of millions of people has never been a problem for them

    http://www.larouchepub.com/other/199...nger_food.html


    This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. See Feature Introduction and Table of Contents.
    Kissinger's 1974 Plan for
    Food Control Genocide
    by Joseph Brewda

    On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

    The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 "to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population." The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since "a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production." The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, "might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West," especially effecting "military strength and security."

    NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 "key countries" in which the United States had a "special political and strategic interest": India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.

    For example, Nigeria: "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa." Or Brazil: "Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically." The study warned of a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years."

    Food as a weapon
    There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that "population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline," even if such measures were adopted.

    A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targeted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: "There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."

    "Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now," the document continued, adding, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?"

    Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. "Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond," he reported.

    The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: "Capital investments for irrigation and infrastructure and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food."

    "It is questionable," Kissinger gloated, "whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis." Consequently, "large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished," was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    I do not believe the population of the world is as major a problem as some would have us think. I do think however that the New World Order pushers and shakers wants us to believe it and wants to use fear to convince us that it is the problem They want to control the population and killing of millions of people has never been a problem for them
    Well, I don't know anything about the Kissinger/King George thing, but the simple fact remains that if you have X amount of resources and Y amount of people, and X < Y, then you have a lot of conflict.

    As an example that I know of all too well, Florida has seen a lot of growth recently, and most projections show that we're going to tap out the Floridan aquifer by 2020 at the latest. We've done our share of growing and wasting water in N. Florida, it's true - but, massive growth has occurred in C. Florida between Orlando and Tampa. Now, Orlando wants to start pulling water out of the St. Johns River. That flows north through Jacksonville, and has raised quite a ruckus here - it would result in drawing the total water level down by a foot! We're also at the end where all the pollution finally ends up, and when the algae blooms and the fish die, it all happens here the worst. So, less water = more algae/red tide, which means less fish and the river becomes pretty disgusting overall.

    We're now discussing desal plants, water conservation strategies, etc, etc. I don't have anything against Orlandoites - but the fact of the matter is, we have 18.5 million people in this state, and IMO that's too many. It's not like we would have all died of cholera if we hadn't grown our population to an unreasonable size. If we had a lot fewer people (say, about half of our current population) we would really be just fine.

    Not having the people around in the first place is a surefire method of not having a demand that strains resources, especially when hard times inevitably come. Consider Atlanta - they've become overgrown and now, uh-oh...here comes a drought. Last I heard, they were pumping water out of the bottom of a large mud puddle they used to call a lake. With a smaller population, even if there's a drought, it's a lot less likely to have a huge impact if you don't have as much demand to begin with.

    Or, look at Burma. See what happens when you're dirt poor and have 55 million people in a tiny country...one hard disaster and total inaction by the government, and it's suddenly a big dramatic affair to keep everyone fed.
    Last edited by toreskha; 05-12-2008 at 01:39 AM.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  8. #7

    Thumbs down population

    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    Well, I don't know anything about the Kissinger/King George thing, but the simple fact remains that if you have X amount of resources and Y amount of people, and X < Y, then you have a lot of conflict.

    As an example that I know of all too well, Florida has seen a lot of growth recently, and most projections show that we're going to tap out the Floridan aquifer by 2020 at the latest. We've done our share of growing and wasting water in N. Florida, it's true - but, massive growth has occurred in C. Florida between Orlando and Tampa. Now, Orlando wants to start pulling water out of the St. Johns River. That flows north through Jacksonville, and has raised quite a ruckus here - it would result in drawing the total water level down by a foot! We're also at the end where all the pollution finally ends up, and when the algae blooms and the fish die, it all happens here the worst. So, less water = more algae/red tide, which means less fish and the river becomes pretty disgusting overall.

    We're now discussing desal plants, water conservation strategies, etc, etc. I don't have anything against Orlandoeats - but the fact of the matter is, we have 18.5 million people in this state, and IMO that's too many. It's not like we would have all died of cholera if we hadn't grown our population to an unreasonable size. If we had a lot fewer people (say, about half of our current population) we would really be just fine.

    Not having the people around in the first place is a surefire method of not having a demand that strains resources, especially when hard times inevitably come. Consider Atlanta - they've become overgrown and now, uh-oh...here comes a drought. Last I heard, they were pumping water out of the bottom of a large mud puddle they used to call a lake. With a smaller population, even if there's a drought, it's a lot less likely to have a huge impact if you don't have as much demand to begin with.

    Or, look at Burma. See what happens when you're dirt poor and have 55 million people in a tiny country...one hard disaster and total inaction by the government, and it's suddenly a big dramatic affair to keep everyone fed.
    I also know when people, governments start tyring to play god deciding when and who should live and die bad things happen. I serve a risen savior. I think he is quite capable of deciding who lives or dies and does not need help from anyone. By the way it seems like I remember some famous people that did that. Can you say Hitler, Stalin, just to name two?
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. #8
    [QUOTE=HK4U;24269]I believe in helping when and where we can. The Bible says To whom much has been given much will be required. I don't believe however any good thing can come out of the U.N. We should get out of the U.N and get the U.N out of the United States.

    I'm with you,HK4U.
    Give everybody guns.
    Natural selection will cull out the idiots.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast