We’d all just be fired and lose the ability to work in the government sector.

Of course they don’t know, they didn’t get a chance to view the server while it was in use.

Except all her team at State used the server too.

Science has proven over and over that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. If it were to have catostrophic failure, it wouldn’t just affect them, it would affect everyone because that river runs further south. They already have a multitude of pipelines in the area. It hasn’t caused problems. If you don’t…

I mean, if you thought you could get more money (regardless of whether or not you deserve it) would you not complain?

“but the desire to torture and kill these animals in the worst way possible.”

This was a fantastic synopsis because upon reading the article, I had no idea what or how the government was ousted!

If you’ve been hunted for many years and don’t find a way to defend yourself, then yes, it would be intelligent to get a weapon.

I’ve worked with DIA before. The cost is often shouldered by the US government and the subsistence hunting is something that people say so they can continue to do it. It is done for tradition and because hunting is fun.

Except they can kill even endangered species where as Japan and Norway are killing a non-endangered species. So why would they get a pass on killing endangered species? But Japan and Norway not be allowed to hunt a non-endangered species?

Hahahahahahaha. That is factually inaccurate. They have access to various food sources. It gets shipped to them via ice plane or in float plane. They also receive shipments of food, oil, vehicles, and many other things. They get to hunt because the governments agreed it was their culture.

Really? A century ago the entire western world relied on whale oil for lighting things. Today, a few countries operate small whaling operations. How is the difference not clear?

No, but if for 300+ years, my group was hunted and hadn’t figured out a way to avoid it, I would consider us not that smart.

They can’t be that intelligent if they allowed themselves to be hunted so successfully.

What kind of ramifications would you propose against strong allies who hunt a non-endangered species? Because military intervention is the main way to enforce international law. It’d be convenient as we already rent bases in both countries. Governments don’t actually care. They just have to be seen to pretend to care.

This is a horrible take. Wild game/fish, when properly monitored are absolutely sustainable and allows the animal to live how it wants up until its death.

Especially given Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Canada, and the US all have whaling anyway. In the US and Canada they make exceptions for Native peoples specifically because their culture.

That doesn’t seem likely as populations of whales are growing.

Why would losing our strongest strategic ally in the pacific help us win?

Whales are more plentiful than they’ve ever been. Their populations keep going up since we stopped using whale oil for lighting.