Quote:
Originally posted by Bobslob
I said 'gloom and doom' scenarios are irresponsible.
Global warming is, by definition, global- and not local.
To be blunt, it stops when we've killed the last one of them. The fact is, our own defense is something that 'matters to us'.
|
1. You clearly mentioned global warming: "Global warming is, at best, a junk science."
2. It is global. A hole in the ozone layer does not only affect us, it affects the amazon, to name a few. As does forest clearing, which also happens to a lesser extent here. It may not affect you city dwellers, but neither does an Iraqi war. The threat of terrorism has been heightened not to an extent where we should live in fear, it has been heightened to an extent where it is simply a security CONCERN. It has the same chance of happening as being hit by a bus and not many people leave the house in fear of being hit by a giant freaking bus.
3. To elaborate, the chance of us all dying from a doom and gloom situation is not much less than the chance of dying from a terrorist attack. I think that working on something that prevents us from a major enviromental catastrophe is a much greater concern than waging war on a middle eastern country.
Regarding the war on terrorism: Bush was irresponsible to go into Iraq thinking it would be like D-Day. It is obvious he had the plan to keep troops in there for a shorter time. Now he is talking about sending more troops in. Thousands of protestors all over the world knew this. I'll admit, there are many people who simply protested because their friends were going and it was cool to rebel against the government, but those of us who are educated and smart enough to make a proper judgement had the opinion that the war was unjust, unneccesary and we did not have enough information to know that there were weapons of mass destruction. We were proved right: we found no weapons of mass destruction, we're in the country for longer than we thought and now Bush knows he has made a mistake, whether he cares to admit it or not. I don't think an Iraq war is going to make my life more secure, I think it is making it less secure. It's obvious because this is happening now and will continue to happen. A whole generation is now growing up in Iraq wanting to avenge the deaths of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters killed by Coalition Forces. It will hardly be secure in short-term or the foresee-able long-term. It will take perhaps centuries for this to fix itself now.
Regarding global enviroment situations: it makes me saddened to hear that you call these situations 'doom and gloom', because simply, Global Warming for one will get out of control, whether it happens to our children or to their children. That is something worth fighting for. To be realistic, I would rather make sure my child's life is secure before someone elses child. Those are just my fatherly instincts. I don't think waging a war on a middle eastern country is making anything safer.
By waging war through choice rather than neccesity, we are sending a message to the world that our countries are war-mongerers. By only fighting war in neccesity, and fighting a war with a message of peace, that makes things better. That is my ultimate opposition to the war. And I think that if our countries went to war in a solar-powered tank, then perhaps it would actully give the war a different image, no matter how stupid it sounds.
Hippies unite!
And then take over the world to get rid of contemporary liberals.