All you need to know about Iberian America

Should the US Invade Brazil to Save the Amazon Rainforest?

Published October 3, 2021 in Brazil - 0 Comments

It’s the year 2035.

I am the new President of the US.

With our Canadian and European allies (including Paraguay also), we initiate an invasion of Brazil to save the planet!

Of course, for the Paraguayans, it’s also a chance to get back at Brazil for the mass mayhem they caused in the War of Triple Alliance.

What is the purpose of this invasion?

To save the Amazon Rainforest!

With the Amazon Rainforest collapsing as you can read here, there is real concern about how that will impact the rest of the planet.

Though I couldn’t find how much our planet would warm up from burning down all of the Amazon, this article here claims that “5 to 6 times more greenhouse gasses would get released.”

And this article here claiming that, by 2064, the Amazon Rainforest will turn into a Savannah.

So we must save the Amazon!

With our invasion force ready, the Brazilians will welcome us in colonizing their country so that we can put in enforcement mechanisms to save the rainforest.

With efforts to replant the trees.

And, if we’re lucky, all of Brazil’s women will greet us as liberators with hot steamy sex being had every day.

Caipirinhas included?

Of course!

And don’t forget the bossa nova and samba as you can see here.

Saving the Amazon Rainforest on what would be practically a South American vacation for us gringos.

Similar to the Iraq invasion, we’ll ultimately be seen as heros.

So whose ready?

Is This a Serious Proposal?

Of course!

Though, being honest, it was never my idea to begin with.

As you can read here, there’s been a discussion online regarding the idea to “invade Brazil to save the Amazon.”

I included my own tastes for Caipirinhas and sexy naked Brazilian women because that piques my fancy more than saving the Amazon ever would.

I don’t give a fuck about the Amazon.

 But it’s a serious proposal nonetheless!

At least by various folks on the internet as the idea has seemed to pick up steam among far left liberals who hate Bolsonaro, strong environmentalists and those who are curious about Latin American politics.

As I said, I don’t personally have any emotional investment in this idea.

Not in favor or against the idea of invading Brazil to save the Amazon.

At least not right now as I type this out in real time.

It’s an idea I’ve heard about but only have come to write about as a thought experiment with my final verdict at the end of this article.

Here, I’ll simply consider the arguments made in favor and against the idea that I can find online.

With also my own thoughts that come to mind as I consider the merit of this idea.

As I said, you can find my Final Verdict on the subject at the end of this article.

Skip ahead to read it now if you wish or read the article in its entirety.

And use this Table of Contents to help you navigate the article if you wish.

But let’s get to it now!

Political Motivations?

First, I want to address the elephant in the room when it comes to this topic.

If we’re being honest, I feel part of the motivation for why people wish to “invade Brazil” is because they don’t like Bolsonaro.

For some of the proponents of the idea, that’s all this is!

In the US, for some reason, Bolsonaro has made the news and pissed off leftists in a way that other right wing foreign presidents don’t.

Perhaps because of his affiliation with Trump and the rabid hatred of Trump that exists among some leftists?

Therefore, death by association.

Because, if we’re being honest, I don’t think there were as many proposals (if any) to invade Brazil for the Amazon before Bolonsaro.

Maybe a few people said it but the idea really took off more since Bolsonaro was around.

Even though there was plenty of destruction in the Amazon like in 2004 to 2005.

Should the US have invaded Brazil at the time it was already in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well, we’ll discuss other factors to understand any merit to this idea as I don’t believe the deeper motivations behind it disqualify the idea entirely.

While some simply want to take out Bolsonaro, one could still make valid arguments in favor of invading.

But are there valid arguments?

Let’s dig deeper.

Alternatives to Invasion?

Before we invade anybody and steal the hot sexy women of Brazil, let’s consider alternatives to a military occupation and/or colonization of an entire country.

In the past, there were other ideas implemented to save the Amazon.

One of them being what Norway did from 2008 to 2018 by offering 1.2 billion dollars to reduce deforestation as you can read here.

Where that money went into “the Amazon Fund” that had Brazil “prevent, monitor and combat deforestation.”

To be honest, 1.2 billion sounds a lot cheaper than the trillions we spent invading other countries like Iraq!

Even if we tripled that amount, it wouldn’t come close to what another military occupation could cost.

Of course, as we all know well enough in Latin politics, I’m sure a certain percentage of that money goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians.

I can’t say that for certain but it wouldn’t surprise me if a percentage of continued funding for this cause were to end up that way.

But isn’t that just the price to pay going forward?

If saving the Amazon had to involve enriching the pockets of corrupt elites by a few million out of a billion fund per year, then why the fuck not?

If saving the Amazon requires buying Bolsonaro a multimillion dollar mansion in Dubai with a Lamborghini where he has hot Russian prostitutes giving him his own “golden shower,” then sure!

Give him his golden shower, damn it!

As long as it saves the Amazon – that’s the goal, right?

Especially if the alternative of an invasion is much more deadly both financially and in terms of lives lost in a war.

But did this Amazon Fund work?

Well, according to this article here, apparently the rate of deforestation from 2004 to 2018 “was reduced by 73 per cent. In 2018, however, deforestation increased by 8 per cent compared to the prior year.”

Now, to be fair, I don’t know if the rate at which deforestation decreased from 2014 to 2018 was sufficient enough to save the Amazon.

But a decrease is better than an increase!

That’s how mathematics works.

And apparently it was very successful as you can see a quote from that same article here.

“The Amazon Fund, founded by the Brazilian government in 2008, is considered to be the world's most successful, results-based national funding mechanism for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries).”

However, Bolsonaro did become President on January 1st, 2019.

And though we can’t blame him for that 8% increase in 2018, we can look at him for answers regarding the rapid increase in deforestation during his tenure.

In which we have this article here explaining the fast increase in the rate of deforestation over 2 years ago:

“According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, the government agency that monitors deforestation, the rate increased by 278% in the year to July, resulting in the destruction of about 870 square miles.”

But do we have any more recent data in 2021? Here’s some information for you from this article here.

“Year-to-date deforestation in Brazil remains nearly double what it was during January to August 2018, before Bolsonaro took office and immediately took steps to weaken environmental enforcement, prompting a boom in logging.”

Nevertheless, in recent weeks there have been signs the Bolsonaro government is taking some tentative steps towards combating the soaring destruction.

The government has doubled the budget for environmental enforcement and plans to hire some 700 new environmental field agents, Environment Minister Joaquim Pereira Leite said last month.

Forest clearances in August totalled 918 square kilometres (354 square miles), down 32 percent from the same month in 2020, data from the country’s national space research agency (INPE) showed.

The decrease marked the second month in a row deforestation numbers were lower than previous years.  However, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, often dubbed “the lungs of the Earth” only fell by 1.2 percent from January to August 2021 compared with the same period in 2020. That decrease equalled 6,026 square kilometres, or an area more than seven times the size of New York City.”

So it sure seems like some minor efforts are being made to combat deforestation but they are still only coming after an aggressive expansion in deforestation over the last few years.

And the minor efforts haven’t made too much of a dent to getting the rate of deforestation to levels before Bolsonaro was in office.

Also, on top of that, I’m not sure if the rates of deforestation were even stable before he came into office.

Should we be pushing for rates of deforestation to be reduced to even greater levels than that?

Regardless, there’s a problem for sure.

So much so that, as you can read here, countries like Norway and Germany have cut off funding to Brazil regarding the Amazon Fund because it hasn’t been working during Bolsonaro’s tenure.

Of course, while this alternative to invasion was working, it isn’t right now and we need to ask what has caused the reverse in these trends.

Is it just Bolsonaro?

Understanding the Cause of Deforestation

Obviously, it’s a complicated topic and I don’t understand every single cause to the deforestation of the Amazon.

If you have anything to add, please drop a comment in the comment section below this article.

But, in order to know the best solution to combating it, we should ask what is causing the deforestation to begin with.

And, from my understanding, I don’t believe all of the destruction of the Amazon from the past can be traced to just Bolonsaro and we'll likely see much of it after his tenure also.

As you can read here, apparently climate change at large would cause more forest fires in the Amazon to begin with.

“Global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon rainforest, according to a devastating new study which predicts that one-third of its trees will be killed by even modest temperature rises.

The research, by some of Britain's leading experts on climate change, shows that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions will fail to save the emblematic South American jungle, the destruction of which has become a powerful symbol of human impact on the planet. Up to 85% of the forest could be lost if spiralling greenhouse gas emissions are not brought under control, the experts said. But even under the most optimistic climate change scenarios, the destruction of large parts of the forest is "irreversible".

So, even if Brazil stopped fucking with the Amazon, the actions of other countries that contribute to climate change in their own backyard would fuck it up anyway.

And, of course, we have Brazil’s only fuckery that contributes to the problem also.

As you can see in this article here:

“While there are many causes, one of the main causes is cattle ranching, particularly in Brazil. Trees are cut and the land is converted into a pasture for cattle grazing. According to one report, an estimated 70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon basin can be attributed to cattle ranching.”

Though, to be fair, I think it’s unfair to attribute the cattle ranching factor to just Brazil.

As the population is estimated to reach 10.9 billion as you can read here with obviously much of the world continuing to develop economically…

Well, suffice to say, you’re going to have a lot more demand for food and meat in general.

In which that demand naturally drives deforestation.

Outside of cattle ranching, you also have other contributions to the destruction of the Amazon like illegal gold mining as you can read here:

“An estimated 20,000 illegal gold miners are in the Yanomami area, Brazil's largest protected indigenous reserve. Violence in the Amazon has increased under President Jair Bolsonaro. The far-right president, a critic of the size of the indigenous reserves, has promised to open some of them to agriculture and mining.”

And I’m sure there are other contributions to the deterioration of the Amazon outside of illegal gold mining, global increasing food demands, domestic Brazilian politics and the effect of broader climate change on the rainforest.

Like I said, if you have anything to add here, chip in!

But let’s move onto considering other alternatives to an invasion before consider the pros and negatives of the invasion itself.

Wait Until Bolsonaro is Out of Office?

It might be the case that any future Brazilian president will do a better job at protecting the Amazon.

After all, the next general election in Brazil is apparently in 2022 and, as you can read here, Bolsonaro is apparently facing domestic political issues.

Could he win the next election?

And, when that time comes, what could the world do?

Let’s think about more alternative timelines before contemplating more seriously an invasion.

Post 2022 Election in Brazil

So we have various timelines up to this point.

The first timeline is that Bolsonaro stays in office after 2022 but he continues his efforts to reverse course where more measures are put in place to protect the Amazon.

Given the dramatic increase in deforestation and the very slow reversal in decreasing the deforestation rate, I’m not at all convinced that this scenario helps much.

The second timeline is that he loses and accepts defeat.

In which the new guy in office will assumingly cooperate better with other countries like Norway in combating deforestation.

That’s entirely possible!

A third timeline is that he loses and does what people online fear – a coup.

As you can read here, there’s talk he might try to pull that off.

Would that happen?

I have no idea.

But it doesn’t matter to me all that much if it does because that timeline would look similar to him winning office legitimately when it comes to the Amazon Rainforest.

In which, if I had to guess, either scenario of him winning legitimately or staying in by coup would result in deforestation of the Amazon continuing to be a major problem.

Though one might argue that deforestation would be even worse in a coup than a legitimate electoral win since he'd be able to eliminate obstacles that fight against deforestation even more efficiently as a dictator.

Still, in either scenario, deforestation continues to be a massive problem. 

On the flip side, in the case where Bolsonaro did succeed in a coup, the international community would have more political capital to be more aggressive against his administration to pressure a change in course on the Amazon.

In either scenario though (coup or legitimate win), alternative solutions to an invasion still need to be considered.

At the very least, I would consider the possibility of economic sanctions to hurt the elites of his country.

Because, even if he did form a dictatorship, it is understood that most dictatorships are not run by just one man but have powerful communities to take into consideration.

Those being the military, political and economic elites of the country.

So if Bolsonaro does stay in office, I’d consider efforts made against all of the elites in the country.

Those being economic sanctions to looking for ways to imprison them.

After all, plenty of elites are corrupt in the world and some have done illegal things that they got away with.

For example, as you can see here, the US put pressure on Mexico by taking into custody an important military figure called Cienfuegos.

Of course, from my understanding, Mexico responded aggressively and an agreement was made to let him go eventually.

But it did shock the elite circles of Mexican society.

So economic sanctions and looking for charges to impression the Brazilian elites in case nothing substantial is done on the Amazon should be considered before any invasion.

Said efforts could be effective.

And, when it comes to turning the heat on the Brazilian elites, the CIA would be useful also as our military and intelligence communities have always had some capability in changing the politics of Latin countries.

Not encouraging said behavior but I am just saying that it has always been an option!

And would potentially be less costly in terms of human and financial resources than what an invasion would require.

So those are the alternatives to consider!

Got any others? Drop them below in the comment section.

But let’s move forward by considering the pros and cons with an invasion of Brazil.

Economic and Military Costs

First, there would be considerable economic and military costs obviously.

I would argue actually that the economic costs could possibly be more severe than those associated with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Both of which costed trillions of dollars.

Mostly because I don’t see NATO actually assisting the US in anyway since we wouldn’t be able to invoke Article 5 unless we somehow tricked Brazil to fire the first shot at us or convinced the world that Brazil acted aggressively first somehow.

Similar to the US war with Spain as you can read here.

Second, an invasion would obviously require an occupation also for many decades as the preventing of continued deforestation and restoration of the Amazon would take many decades from what I could imagine.

In fact, it could even last decades longer than what we did in Afghanistan.

On top of that, you’d obviously have locals in Brazil resisting the US (and maybe allied) forces occupying their country.

They do have plenty of guns in the country for example and there would be nationalist sentiment in the country against occupation forces.

The question here though is how strong would that sentiment be when compared to what we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I have no idea.

From my limited understanding, you had a more religious bent to the resistance in those countries.

And, as we know, a religious motivation where you think you are doing God’s (Allah’s?) work might be stronger than a nationalist one.

And, for the resistance in either Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m sure some nationalist sentiment (along with religious) was invoked for some also.

In that sense, the desire to keep on resisting US occupation comes into question when factoring in the economic and military costs of an occupation.

Part of me believes it wouldn’t be as bad as Iraq or Afghanistan because the religious factor likely wouldn’t be as strong and the US has had a history of successfully intervening in other Latin countries historically.

It’s in our backyard at any rate.

Still, despite the severity of the costs, the costs itself both in terms of human and financial resources should be considered obviously as a negative.

Especially when other alternatives proposed wouldn’t have anywhere near the same amount of costs involved.

The Latin American Response

Next, we have questions of how Latin America would respond to such an act.

To keep it short, I believe we would lose some diplomatic reach within the region.

As I said before, the US has a long history of intervening in Latin America militarily.

As a result, it’s almost my impression as a foreigner in this region that people in Latin America have something ingrained into their subconscious.

Some subconscious knee jerk reaction to another American (or any foreign) invasion.

Such an act would likely provoke nationalist sentiment against the US in the region and give more fuel to the fire for anti-American left wing leaders.

Though that is a curious thing to say because Bolsonaro isn’t left wing at all.

So would the left wing leaders of Latin America stand up in anger to support him rhetorically?

If I had to guess, I’d say so.

Though maybe less so if Bolsonaro was an actual dictator who succeeded in a coup.

Regardless, you'd still likely have left leaning politicians from Ortega to Maduro using it as another example of “yankee imperialism” to their crowds.

Of course, I wonder how important is all of this anyhow?

Should we give a shit?

Well, on one hand, you might argue that it’ll encourage more locals in Latin America to vote for politicians that see China as a reliable ally against American imperialism.

Similar to Cuba aligning with the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Though I do question how many locals in countries like Mexico or Panama would actually give that much of a shit about Brazil?

Especially if the timeline where Bolsonaro becomes a dictator were to happen.

But, when it comes to calculating the regional response of Latin America to such an invasion, that is by far the biggest thing to consider.

On the other hand, some might argue that they’ll move on anyhow as the politics of Latin America always changes across the region from left to right and right to left.

And those on the left always bitch about us anyhow.

If a kid were to slip on a banana in Puerto Williams of Chile, they’d blame us for it!

We’re basically the Nicky of Latin America.

Casino scene

Always blamed for everything so some of the left leaning locals don’t have to feel bad about how their own administrations fuck up the region also with incompetent economic policies and/or human rights violations. 

“No, no, we never do anything wrong! Everything bad here that happens is because of the yankees!”

Of course, not every person in Latin America is like that. The more left leaning ones though tend to say such things.

And, to be fair, the US does deserve some blame but not all of it as I wrote here anyhow.

Regardless, that’s another topic!

To sum it up, I do believe an invasion would hurt us diplomatically in the region but I’m not convinced that it would be that important in the long term outside of the degree to which it would push more locals to align with China as an ally and how long would that sentiment last anyhow?

It’s something to consider anyhow.

And speaking of China…

Isn’t China More Important?

Look, the US can always take action against Brazil in other ways outside of invading them such as:

Bribing their elites with more money to protect the Amazon

Wait for a new president to win office

Interfere in their elections to encourage a new president to win

Economic sanctions and imprisonment against their elites

And whatever else!

All of which would cost A LOT LESS than a military invasion or occupation.

All around a better ROI when it comes to the objective of saving the Amazon.

And, in the meantime, the US is concerned with other objectives right now.

As you can read here as an example, the US and its allies are taking MUCH MORE SERIOUSLY the question of how to deal with China.

That is by far a much more geopolitically important thing to consider for the US.

So, while invading Brazil, wouldn’t we be dedicating a lot of resources (financial and human) while giving up a lot of political capital to do so?

Much of which could be directed to addressing how to deal with China in whatever way we best see fit with our allies in the Indo-Pacific.

And beyond all of that…

Would we even achieve our goals of saving the Amazon if we did put in the resources and political capital to invade the country?

Invade Other Countries? 

First off, in case you didn’t know, Brazil isn’t the only country that has the Amazon Rainforest within its territory.

As you can see here, Brazil owns 60% of the Amazon Rainforest in its territory.

With 8 other countries – Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana – also owning some territory of the Amazon.

And, to be fair, I don’t know how bad the other countries treat the Amazon Rainforest.

If they do, we can always do what we tried with Brazil successfully before Bolsonaro by offering money to protect the Amazon better.

But what if other countries come to a point of exploiting the Amazon even more and letting it die off?

Does that mean we should invade countries like Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, etc?

Seems like a lot to invade!

If we HAD to invade any country to protect the Amazon and bribe money wasn’t going to work initially….

I’d caution against, at the very least, a decades long occupation and favor supporting US friendly dictatorships wherever we needed to defend the Amazon.

At least then the US doesn’t have to stay in any of the invaded countries for too long and our puppet governments can do the heavy lifting while we fund them with the necessary resources.

Not that I encourage that!

Everything said in this article are just theoretical ideas, don't you know?

But, if bribing the current elites doesn’t work, that would be one thing I’d consider theoretically.

Just make our own elites that achieve the desired objective.

And, above all, the point of this section is to simply illustrate how there are many other countries with control of the Amazon than Brazil.

With Brazil not having control of a significant percentage of the rainforest (40%)!

But all of this also makes me consider another point that needs addressing…

Is it Pointless?

It’s something I hinted at earlier in this article.

If the rest of the world keeps doing what it does to contribute to climate change, does it even fucking matter?

Because, from what I can understand, apparently the broader changes in the climate globally would fuck over most of the Amazon anyhow.

Or, at the very least, fuck over most of the planet anyhow despite what happens in the Amazon as more CO2 is released.

So, to me, it’d seemed pointless to invade Brazil to save the Amazon if the rest of the world doesn’t get in line.

And, as you can read here, most of the world isn’t following the steps needed for the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

And, on that note, there’s the topic of “point of no return.”

When it comes to the Amazon, this article here claims that “the Amazon rainforest now emitting more CO2 than it absorbs.”

With this article here pointing out how there can and likely will come a day where the Amazon reaches a point of no return.

As we discussed before, we may likely see a point where too much of the Amazon has deteriorated similar to what happened to the Atlantic Forest of South America as you can see here.

For climate change at large, there’s also a point of “no return” often discussed when it comes to feedback loops.

Where, from my understanding, there’s more risk of certain risks being more probable as the planet warms up.

Where those same risks feedback into the climate and accelerate the warming even more beyond human control.

Something you can read more about here.

Which, in relation to the Amazon Rainforest, it begs the question of if it is already fucked as you can see here….

Should we really invade Brazil to save the Amazon if we can assume it’s fucked already?

If the worldwide trends in climate change are likely to cause the Amazon to degrade to such a point that most of it is done anyhow….

And those trends exist now and haven’t been reversed…

Where, in most democratic countries, you also have a harder time reversing them when, after every few elections, a new political party comes into power reversing the changes made against climate change as you can read here

And those same political candidates keep being elected into office because so many people don’t believe in climate change or that humans have any impact on it…

And where the changes reversed by the candidates that implemented those changes were not very sufficient anyway in the long term to addressing climate change…

Where the human population is going to keep growing and materially getting better where their diets would demand more meat to be produced in the Amazon….

And you have other political and economic interests that are strong enough to keep things the way they are both in Brazil and globally…

With all that said and everything else taken into consideration that might impact the future of the Amazon Rainforest and the broader climate…

How would the fuck then invading Brazil to “save the Amazon” save anything?

If I had to take a wild guess, I’m going to say the Amazon is fucked anyway and we might as well prepare for a future without it.

Which leads us to better alternatives (from my American perspective).

Better Alternatives from an American Perspective

As you can already guess, much of what is written here is from an American perspective as to how it relates to the interests of the US and its citizens.

Of course, climate change is a global issue and much of what is said here is relevant to citizens of other countries also.

But my own background obviously influences the words on paper here.

So, with my own belief that much of the Amazon is fucked anyway, it’s a question of what should the US do going forward?

Well, from what I can only guess, the world is going to need humanity to invoke various climate changing mechanisms to combat climate change.

Maybe some technology to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere or other climate change ideas.

Of course, the idea of coming up with ideas to cool the atmosphere won’t solve all of the Earth’s problems within the coming decades.

But it is all within the interests of every person on the planet.

The American Plan Going Forward in This Century 

On the flip side, we also have American interests involved that obviously matter to me given my nationality. 

We talked a little bit about geopolitics in this article since invading Brazil would obviously invoke some discussion on that.

From an American perspective, I feel that it's quite probable that the Amazon is fucked in the long run and that it makes little sense to dedicate the human, financial and political capital needed to invade Brazil.

Instead, I feel we need to think seriously about invading Canada and merging their country in ours in the long run.

Simply because, if the planet is going to keep getting warmer, there’s an understanding that the regions of the world that’ll do the best are those far north near the Arctic or far south near Antarctica.

As you can see here or here, some countries will be better positioned to be super powers in the future due to the impact of climate change on new shipping routes worth tremendous value in the long run.       

Also, by being far north or far south, said countries will experience less days out of the year with intense heat waves that kill lots of people.

Among other benefits that'll come from being far north or far south.           

Similarly, countries like Canada are positioned to do well given the vast amount of territory they have northward.

Thankfully, the US already has Alaska.

But are we really going to relocate so many Americans into Alaska over a century from now?

It's a huge state but there's a lot more that could be taken over that would benefit the US much more than invading Brazil.

From an American perspective, it’d make more sense to just invade and convert Canadian territories into the US in the long run.

That way we don’t have a country well positioned to benefit so much from the global climate changes north of us.

After all, who wants a potential super power on their border?

Though, to be fair, we already have Russia bordering Alaska.

Still, we don't need another potential superpower of the future on our border.

It doesn't make geopolitical sense.

And we can benefit from that territory ourselves with all the new territory northward.

On top of that, they don’t have nuclear weapons and we could crush their military fairly easily compared to trying to invade Brazil or start a war with China over Taiwan.

The problem with the US (and many other countries) is a lack of foresight into the next 100 or 200 years even.

Given we can assume that the Amazon is likely fucked anyway…

And given how China will likely have many of its own climate problems with two nuclear powered countries bordering it that it’ll likely have issues with (India and Russia)…

Issues that will likely be exacerbated by climate change…

It really makes more sense, in the interest of our country, to take over Canada at whatever means necessary while accepting climate change will accelerate.

Let said climate change fuck over countries like China even harder as they contend with countries like India over water or countries like Russia over issues like Chinese people flooding into the border area they both share.

Meanwhile, we continue to brain drain the rest of the world by accepting their immigrants in mass, which, in turn, helps us fend off some of the consequences of modernized societies like decreased birthrate and staggering economies with the extra immigrants that keep GDP rising.

And our society progresses while most of the world burns.

This is, as you can guess now, a much bigger issue than just “should we invade Brazil or not?”

Fuck Brazil.

It’s such a stupid idea that invading Brazil for the Amazon would fix anything in the context we exist in.

The Amazon is as fucked as any petite white gal in a cheerleader costume getting gangbanged in a sketchy warehouse.

Or maybe a thick Asian lawyer who gets gangbanged in the back of a dark ally?

Both are good videos that I recommend!

Wait, what am I saying?


We might as well, as a country and a species, accept that things are going to be a little more fucked like a whore begging for more cum (CO2).

And adjust accordingly.

As a country (the US), that means we need to forget the Amazon, take over territory northward and deal with China accordingly in an appropriate way that doesn’t involve nuclear war.

Having said all that, there’s a few last questions that needs to be answered before we get to the obvious answer of what I’m going to say in the Final Verdict.

Is the Amazon a Common Domain of the World?

Well, it belongs to 9 countries at the very least!

All in South America anyhow.

Still, one could argue that it belongs to the “common domain” of the broader planet given its significant importance to climate change as a whole and its immense water resources.

In the same way that the Arctic and Antarctica have significant importance to all of humanity.

Therefore, in that sense, I get the argument for saying that the Amazon Rainforest is something that belongs more to all of humanity and not just most of the South American countries.

Still, as I implied before, it’s not just the leadership in these South American countries that are fucking up the Amazon but broader market trends that demand more food production and also broader trends in climate change as well that will fuck up the future of this rainforest.

So, while I agree that one could argue that every person on the planet should have a stake in the future of this rainforest, I don’t see how invading the Amazon as a result is a practical solution.

If all of the above wasn’t true in which a path for the Amazon Rainforest to remain stable was possible…

Then I’d agree that there should be more of a discussion going forward in regards to how to more “fairly” provide a global administration of the future of the Amazon in which the rest of the world has a say on this region given its importance to the future of humanity.

But, given that isn’t likely to be the case from my understanding, then I don’t really give enough fucks to providing “fair” administrative oversight on a global level over the Amazon.

I see it as more realistic and pragmatic to think in the long term of a future where the Amazon doesn’t exist or at least is nothing like what we understand it to be today.

And when it comes to the water resources that the world will need?

Well, as you can see here, Brazil has plenty of water. Much of which will be important in this century and after!

"Brazil has by far the world's largest renewable water resources—a commonly used measure totaling precipitation, recharged ground water, and surface inflows from surrounding countries—with nearly twice as much as Russia, which is in second place, and 12 to 16% of the world's total supply."

And even VP Kamala Harris warns of future wars over water as you can see here.

Still, given the immense capital that would have to be invested to invade Brazil, I still favor more strongly alternatives to exploiting this resource from Brazil when necessary.

As you can see here, the US is more than capable at reachinig deals with other countries to get necessary water (even if it pisses off their locals).

So, for the time being, I'd caution against invading Brazil for water also given our priorities should very much be elsewhere.

But let's wrap this up with another argument that you hear from Brazilians against any invasion of their country over the Amazon.

Is the Rest of the World Hypocritical?

This is another point to be considered.

Where the basic idea is “well, you guys fucked over the nature of your respective countries, so why can’t we?”

Where you have the industrial revolution of the US and Europe that contributed to climate change…

Or the emissions made by China to this day as you can read here.

How many of the trees in Europe are already gone and more trees are still being cut in Europe as you can read here.

Thus, a typical Brazilian response being “why the FUCK should we not kill our forests if you guys killed yours?”

First, I think the argument is partly shit.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Just because other countries fucked up their nature doesn’t mean that you should do the same.

Especially as, with the context of the previous section, you guys fucking up your rainforest will have a much bigger impact on the present world going forward than what was already done.

On the flip side, I get it from a pragmatic Brazilian perspective though.

If we were to accept a world where the Amazon was fucked anyway, then it makes more sense for the Brazilians to exploit the resources that exist NOW before many of them go away anyhow.

Might as well cash in on that money if the rest of the world isn’t going to take climate change seriously.

Which, at least in my opinion and from what I’ve shown, many of them aren’t anyhow.

So if we assume a future where the Amazon is fucked anyhow, it’d make more sense from a Brazilian perspective to just exploit the resources from it now before it’s degraded to that point of no return.

Finally, one other thing to consider when it comes to the idea of invading Brazil or not...

Total Amount of Lives Saved

This will be a quick argument in favor of an invasion.

Where we assume a different timeline with the following conditions below:

If the world could somehow save climate change in a way that also keeps the planet from warming up too much (assuming also other countries did their part domestically to reduce emissions)…

Then I could see the argument for an invasion of Brazil if it was legit the only way to save the Amazon.

The idea being that, with all of the above considered as fact, then saving the Amazon would save more lives from being killed in worsening climate conditions than the lives lost in a military invasion and occupation of Brazil.

By that logic, assuming the conditions above are part of the equation, then some argument could be made for such an invasion.

Though, as discussed, the conditions above are likely unrealistic.

The Final Verdict: Should the US Invade Brazil to Save the Amazon Rainforest?


That’s my answer.


To expand on my “no,” it’s much of what I said before.

I see the Amazon as likely to be fucked anyway.

There are greater geopolitical calculations that the US should take into consideration.

With those said conditions above in mind, we should prepare for a world where the Amazon doesn’t exist anyhow (on both a global and American perspective).

And that’s it really!

Got any comments?

Drop them in the comment section below this article.

Follow my Twitter here.

And enjoy this nice Brazilian song to celebrate how I decided to leave Brazil in peace and somehow focused my attention on Canada for invasion instead.

Sorry Canada – please don’t hate me.

I have like one Canadian friend in the US and so obviously I don't hate Canada!

You guys are cool too.

Thanks for reading.

Best regards,


No comments yet

Leave a Reply: