(Don't even TRY to back off from that one. Gore and Kerry's post-election actions - both political and otherwise - PROVE my point.)
*throws down gauntlet*
I challenge you to demonstrate that either Gore or Kerry would have taken actions that would have been worse than the Iraq war.
You need to demonstrate things like:
--A waste of resources on the order of $2 trillion dollars --A waste of American lives on the order of 5000, with over 20,000 severe injuries --Directly resulting in the deaths of on the order of 100,000 non-Americans --Squandering the most international goodwill the USA has had in decades and in its stead making the USA one of the most unpopular nations in the world
This is not to mention, of course, of all of the useful he didn't do that he should have done, and all of the damage he has done to the fundamental integrity of the American political and judicial system.
You really think Gore or Kerry would have topped that? You really think either of them could have done this much damage, and done basically nothing
( ... )
What's your reference for the $43 trillion figure? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (done a month ago, so I don't have the figures still; sorry) says that we could mothball every coal plant in the USA, India, and China (which is most of them in the world) and replace them with clean nuclear for ~2 trillion with the current price of fission plants from GE. The long-term cost will be lower than that, because the problem with nuclear is the up-front cost; fission plants cost less than coal to operate over time. This also ignores economies of scale from building that much nuclear (ask the French about that), the fact that it would be far more cost-efficient to gradually switch over as existing equipment fails, and the fact that in many areas wind/solar thermal/tidal power is a cheaper alternative
( ... )
Hey, please don't bite my head off about the $43 trillion figure. I just heard it on the news the other day. It was some sort of report sent to Congress either by Al Gore or someone who works for him. However, one thing I forgot to mention was the fact that this was, I believe, a world-wide bottom-line dollar amount for their plan to "save the environment." Unfortunately, as the media usually goes, they didn't really go into the specifics of it.
That's a world wide bottom line... Not how much we would be shelling out.
But at least its for someone's benefit. Making power and cars and what not more eco-friendly is a winning situation for all, unlike the war in Iraq which is only friendly to Bush's cock.
Bringing environmentalism into the American mainstream would not only make for a healthier and more self-sustaining society, but it would also provide new jobs. Even if it costs more than the war in Iraq, how is this a bad thing in the end? Iraq hasn't given us -anything- of use like the Bush administration said it would.
-no cheap gas. -no stable democratic ally in the Middle East -no end or stemming the tide of terrorism
At least taking care of the environment gets us somewhere both on the local and global scale. If we had spent all our time and energy on hybrid cars and nuclear power, as a country we'd be in a much better place in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Actually, flip the sectarian part around. Sunnis were killing Shi'ites without reprisal due to the fact that there was a Sunni dictator in power. When he and his power structure were removed, a democratic government set up in its place, the Sunnis basically threw a fit and left themselves out of the process. Now, with the Sunnis no longer in power, the militant Shi'ites are going around getting revenge for what happened under Saddam's rule. Then, WE step in to try to stop the Shi'ites, and the Sunnis start attacking them again.
And don't be down on yourself for the technical solutions. I like technical solutions, because they're ones that people can't argue with without showing their hand, showing their greed for money and power. That's my major problem with Al Gore's environmentalist group. Not only are they using half-baked science to support their "realizations" about the state of the environment, they are also using intimidation (as in mafia) to make sure that no one with enough know-how will argue with them.
We made the mistake of GOING there in the first place without solid intelligence (of any form), and then we WENT there without a plan of what to do afterward.We went there based on fabricated intelligence, deliberately "sexed up" (to use the British term) to make a case for war that did not exist. This is the opinion of the Senate Intelligence Committee (including 2 of the 6 Republicans), anyway, along with many analysts who have sufficient credentials to know what they're talking about
( ... )
All you've demonstrated here is that Bush is an asswipe. We elected this person TWICE!!! And have let him rampage unchecked all over our country's reputation. He lied to not only his own people, but to the rest of the world, so he could go play G.I. Joe in Iraq. No wonder the rest of the world hates us
( ... )
*throws down gauntlet*
I challenge you to demonstrate that either Gore or Kerry would have taken actions that would have been worse than the Iraq war.
You need to demonstrate things like:
--A waste of resources on the order of $2 trillion dollars
--A waste of American lives on the order of 5000, with over 20,000 severe injuries
--Directly resulting in the deaths of on the order of 100,000 non-Americans
--Squandering the most international goodwill the USA has had in decades and in its stead making the USA one of the most unpopular nations in the world
This is not to mention, of course, of all of the useful he didn't do that he should have done, and all of the damage he has done to the fundamental integrity of the American political and judicial system.
You really think Gore or Kerry would have topped that? You really think either of them could have done this much damage, and done basically nothing ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
But at least its for someone's benefit. Making power and cars and what not more eco-friendly is a winning situation for all, unlike the war in Iraq which is only friendly to Bush's cock.
Bringing environmentalism into the American mainstream would not only make for a healthier and more self-sustaining society, but it would also provide new jobs. Even if it costs more than the war in Iraq, how is this a bad thing in the end? Iraq hasn't given us -anything- of use like the Bush administration said it would.
-no cheap gas.
-no stable democratic ally in the Middle East
-no end or stemming the tide of terrorism
At least taking care of the environment gets us somewhere both on the local and global scale. If we had spent all our time and energy on hybrid cars and nuclear power, as a country we'd be in a much better place in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And don't be down on yourself for the technical solutions. I like technical solutions, because they're ones that people can't argue with without showing their hand, showing their greed for money and power. That's my major problem with Al Gore's environmentalist group. Not only are they using half-baked science to support their "realizations" about the state of the environment, they are also using intimidation (as in mafia) to make sure that no one with enough know-how will argue with them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment