With days like the last few, with temperatures soaring in the high single digits, I don't know how this world is going to survive a toasty 10 degrees when we finally get there. My tumors feel like ice cubes clanking inside a tea glass.Al Gore and the rest of the enviro-wackos can kiss my ass. While I understand the fundamental tenets of global warming theory, I remain in the undecided corner with the majority of scientists who realize that such a theory is preposterous without a lot more information.
Try to convince the people who are dying out there that their main concern should be global warming. See if the homeless care about losing three feet of shoreline in West Palm Beach in the next 100 years due to water levels rising on the warming earth.
Hey nutjobs, remember when you cared more about people than baby seals, whales and earth's random climate change? Maybe, if it stays this cold, we can all move to Iraq, where it's warm and we can bask in the chocolate rivers and enjoy the children's gumdrop smiles.
Oops, I guess we can't do that. We're being forced to surrender Iraq to Al-Qaeda by the House and Senate. What a bunch of spineless bastards.
I guess we shouldn't worry about terrorists because global warming will kill us all in about ten thousand years! That's the real priority item.
2 comments:
Bluey: Your post tonight shows that even smart people like you can sometimes say things that are just downright idiotic. I too am in the undecided column about global warming, but I take umbrage about the Iraq comments. Without getting into the Bush administration's real or imagined justifications for the war in the first place, why should Congress continue to give carte blanche to an admistration that has shown nothing but horridly inept leadership in every phase of operation "Iraqi Freedom" since "mission accomplished" was declared in 2003? Due to this ineptness, we are stuck in a Vietnam style quagmire in a country overrun by multiple religous sects who have differences that go back thousands of years. Worse yet, we are are squandering the lives of dedicated and brave young Americans and the resources of the finest military on the planet while fighting a war with seemingly no attainable strategic goals and no clear path to victory. Why is the the fact that for the first time the Bush administration should have to deal with some oversight for a change a bad thing? Checks and Balances, remember? And don't tell me that if Congress shuts of the money that that's abandoning the troops. Supporting your troops means:
-making sure they have the right equipment when they go into battle in the first place (body armor and armored humvees
-making sure the generals on the ground get the force levels they require to secure the country from the outset
-not completly dismatling the entire Iraqi army as a fighting force in 2003 and starting over from scrath with pitifully trained forces who couldn't defend my house from a Jehovah's witness, let alone back up our troops in combat
-force the best military in the world to fight in the middle of a civil war no really definable enemy and no clear cut means of winning
These are all things the Bush Administration has failed to do.
I don't have any easy answers here, but insinuating that Congress shouldn't be asking VERY HARD and DIRECT questions of this president is just dumb.
Of course I disagree completely with your view of Iraq. The biggest reason why Iraq is coming under such scrutiny is because an election year is coming up. Americans are disatisfied with the war because, let's face it war is not a pretty thing. Politicians are afraid for their jobs, so they are doing whatever they must to appease the voters. War decisions should never be made by the masses as what is happening here. Being against war is the EASY position. Nobody wants to see Americans die. I find it insulting that you feel those who support the war are callous to that fact.
The issue at hand is that democrats and republicans alike voted for the war in the first place. The news media predicted tens of thousands of American casualties in such a war. They were wrong. We swept through both countries with minimal casualties.
What people forget is that when you make a decision to go to war, you make a great commitment to not only your own citizens but to those you hope to support in the targeted country. Unless you believe a war should result in mass genocide of that countries' citizens, you have a responsibility in setting up livable conditions in that country. Especially when terrorist eradication is one of the main goals of the war.
To turn tail now would not only leave the decent people of Iraq helpless but you would be handing Al Qaeda the country on a silver platter.
Do I believe that other countries of the world should be sharing the responsibility....yes. But when they refuse to do so, it should not mean that we should do the same.
We protect Israel because we have to because we were the ones who placed them in the region in the first place (post WWII). That is the proper thing to do. We should afford Iraqis the same.
Being against the war because you don't like the president is dumb.
This is about doing what is right and just.
I'm not saying that we can ever change the middle east, I'm just saying that we have to give it at least a fighting chance of letting the decent folks stand up to the extremists. And walking away now would give the terrorists what they want. A puppet government that is afraid of them and will give them carte blanche to set up operations there undisturbed to plan the next atrocity.
I think the war on terror should be an offensive fought on their playground, not ours.
This is the world we live in. These folks want us dead. We no longer have the option of sticking our heads in the sand.
Just my opinion. Wrong or right. I believe it to be true and not dumb at all.
Post a Comment