If you're a fan of breathing...

[Ruler26]

Check out the back issues at:

Bush Greenwatch (http://www.bushgreenwatch.org)

It really makes you wonder if the Bush administration cares about this planet and its inhabitants at all.

[Rijuhn]

We have a war to deal with now, we don't have time to worry about the enviroment at the moment. And as critical as the enviroment is innocent people's lives are more important. I'm not saying that Bush should neglect the enviroment, but I am saying that it's not possible in the last few months of his current term there's no way he can do anything about the enviroment, and even if he did tree-hugging hippies the world over would still hate his guts.

[Glitch]

Even before the war Bush was ignoring the environment. He said the Hole in the ozone didn't exist. Silly Dubaya.

[Rainman]

We have a war to deal with now, we don't have time to worry about the enviroment at the moment. And as critical as the enviroment is innocent people's lives are more important. I'm not saying that Bush should neglect the enviroment, but I am saying that it's not possible in the last few months of his current term there's no way he can do anything about the enviroment, and even if he did tree-hugging hippies the world over would still hate his guts.

Wow...

We have a wide reaching government. We don't need to stop caring about the environment just because we're at war. That's one of the reasons that we're a superpower. We can have our citizens doing normal things while we are fighting a nation.

[AsMadAsAHatter]

I agree Rainman..if we don't protect the environment it won't matter if we are at war or not. If we destory our planet and our resources what's left? And also why are we still at war anyway? To stop terrorism? It's not like going to war with Iraq is going to make Iraq happy, so they will stop planning terror attacks in our country. I think we're pissing them off more, by being at war with them. But, hey i could be completely off track..

[AtmaWeapon]

You know, this is really sad, but I simply stopped caring about the environment once I realized that a lot of the problems are self-healing.

I joined this stupid environmentalist group F.A.C.E. in 89. According to my newsletters, we ran out of fresh drinking water 2 years ago, the air became unbreathable in '97, and the hole in the ozone layer will span the entire earth in just 3 or 4 more years, but it does already reach the equator in some points. Also, the Earth's average temperature will start being high enough to melt icebergs in just one more year!

Reading up on pollution, I became less concerned. Buried deep among slashdot posts about global warming is a very hard to find (I couldn't dig it up this time, the last time I found it it took 30 minutes and several different combinations of search terms) report about scientist who have determined that the middle ages, just 1400 years ago, had an average temperature 2-10 degrees warmer than Earth's current temperature. Other reports indicate that a thinning ozone layer causes a chain of chemical reactons on the planet that *gasp* creates more ozone. Remember when all forest fires were bad and we had to stop every last one of them? Oh yeah, turns out that fire is important to the environment and some plants have a seed coat that cannot be broken unless weakened by fire. I also found it had been speculated that absent some kind of cataclysm, it would take almost 10,000 years to increase the ocean's temperature by 1 degree. Darn that water and it's high specific heat!

Now I'm not saying that concern about the environment is important. No doubt the only reason we aren't all choking on the air worldwide is because people are concerned and laws regulate pollution. Unfortunately for the planet, though, many people take the same stance I do: stop grotesque violation of the environment, but let the next generation worry about most of the issues.

Don't get me wrong, I do what I can. I don't run water needlessly. I don't drive a gas-inefficient car and I don't burn tank after tank from driving for the heck of it. But I do realize that all of our modern conveniences come at the cost of the environment. I do what I can to make my impact as little as possible, but my support of modern technology is what makes the largest impact.


And also why are we still at war anyway? To stop terrorism? It's not like going to war with Iraq is going to make Iraq happy, so they will stop planning terror attacks in our country. I think we're pissing them off more, by being at war with them. But, hey i could be completely off track..

Off-topic, but I wanted to address this ill-formed point. We are at "war" (it's more like a UN peacekeeping operation like we've been in for years but without the UN ordering us to do it this time, but sensationalist media loves calling it war) not with Iraq but with extremist terrorists. In general, Iraqi citizens realize they are living in much better conditions thanks to our intervention. However, the Middle East is ruled by the sword and has been for centuries.

Allow me to make an analogy. Regardless of whether you think he is the Messiah, let's look at just what Jesus did in his life. The Jewish religion owned Israel. The Roman Empire technically owned them, but the Romans did not try to remove the religion because they knew it had too much power and that if it wasn't provoked it provided no threat to the Romans. Jesus walked into this situation and preached a new religion that opposed many of the foundations of the Jewish religion. Jesus' followers were a danger to the power of Jewish officials. Jewish officials plotted and finally succeeded in killing Jesus.

Now let's look at America in the Middle East. Every country is ruled by a man who has enough guns and an army that follows him to squash any opposition. "Might makes right" rules the day in this region. America has always been a threat to this system, because our rule does not come by force, and it has brought us much success. Now, we are attempting to set up such a government in Iraq. If we succeed, we will have undermined the system of power that rules in the Middle East, and every country's leader will feel like their spot is in danger. So of course, we meet some pretty strong resistance.

Now I ask a question. It is obvious that by working to build a free Iraq, we open ourselves to much hatred from the Middle East. However, success in Iraq will mean that millions of people will live full, happy lives free of the fear of a cruel dictator. Children will go to school instead of fighting in militias. Hospitals will cure the sick. Women will have rights. Is it worth the endangerment of Americans to bring this freedom to others?

It is my opinion that the founders of this nation would answer with a resounding yes. The Battle Hymn of the Republic includes the line "As He died to make men holy let us live to make them free", and I agree with this course of action. Even if our country is obliterated by some other country, I'd be proud to know we died freeing the oppressed instead of letting them be.

[Ruler26]

Right now, Iraqi citizens are living more dangerous lives than ever before. They are now under constant danger of suicide bombings and other various terrorist attacks from multiple groups who vie for control of an unstable Iraq. Not only that, most of these citizens also do not even have the basic of basic necessities, such as running water and working electricity.

Trumpet your message about freeing the oppressed all you want, I don't really disagree with you. But the facts remain:

1. While Saddam always has been and always will be evil, he primarily focused on killing his political enemies. There are general publics of other countries that are in far worse situations than those in Iraq. It just doesn't make sense not to free those who are living in the worst conditions.

2. You don't try to free a country without some sort of coalition. Our allies did not think that there was quite as much point in "freeing" the Iraqi people as compared to, say, Sudan, or heck, attacking a certain terrorist group who has ACTUALLY attacked us?
It's easy for you to say that our allies were wrong and ignorant in an attempt to justify our solo attack. Well, now we're at a stalemate in Iraq, battling countless terrorists (who were never a threat to the US), with no end in sight.
Had we actually gone in as a group, with something like a PLAN, then perhaps we could actually setup a semblance of a stable government in Iraq.
Instead, we've simply smacked a stick against a hornet's nest, and it's the Iraqi people who are suffering, along with our soldiers, in order to setup a democracy that they don't really want, and a democracy to which we have yet to hand over the reigns.

Iraq is home to multiple groups of people HATE eachother. They don't want a democracy. A democracy can't run such a country of people, anyway. We can't just bust in and try to change a society and a culture's situation whenever we want. It was never realistic to think that we could help Iraq by ourselves. Everyone might have been better off leaving Iraq alone.

Besides the fact that we have always had a higher priority. Al Qaeda. The terrorists that we gave a huge head start following 9/11, and now it seems that they are interested in attacking America itself again. Who knows, maybe if we made more effort in rooting them out, we'd actually be safer right about now?

[mikeron]

Right now, Iraqi citizens are living more dangerous lives than ever before. They are now under constant danger of suicide bombings and other various terrorist attacks from multiple groups who vie for control of an unstable Iraq. Not only that, most of these citizens also do not even have the basic of basic necessities, such as running water and working electricity.Yeah, before it was just specific groups being purged in a highly efficient, organized way. :rolleyes:

[Ruler26]

Yeah, before it was just specific groups being purged in a highly efficient, organized way. :rolleyes:

Thank God. I mean, I was worried that someone was going to reply with something worthwhile.

You ignored 80% of my post. Why can't you be more constructive?