quote:
Originally posted by granolabars:
i can imagine that IF hillary gets on office, they will ignore the war on terrorisim to a large degree, then try and force everyone into a panic or try. Then they will hope we all will ask them for the answers. When the whole global warming thing is NOT man caused. Just look for this agenda to be pushed on us IF hillary becomes queen, i mean, the man.
You have a very distored view of how Democrats view the war on terror. In fact, one of the TRUE obsticles to her nomination is her position on the "War on Terror in Iraq." She supports President Bush's objectives, but questions his strategies. Many Democrats oppose the objective and the Strategy. Clinton is presenting a strategy that she believes will attain the objective, and it requires "victory" in Iraq. That "victory" is defined as a government in Iraq that supports American Interests.
Global warming is not an American problem. It is not American Warming, It is GLOBAL warming. At present American Policy is DO NOTHING. Policy in other nations is DO SOMETHING. It may be a waste of time and effort to DO ANYTHING. The Republican Party says why waste energy trying to reduce CO2 emmissions, since we canot show that it would slow global warming if we slowed CO2 emmissions. They're correct, it is not fact certain that global climate change will slow if CO2 emmissions are reduced. What is also true is, global climate change may be slowed by reducing CO2 emissions.
A metaphor, Traffic Fatalities may be reduced when speeds are kept below 55 miles per hour. Is it worth the cost and effort to maintain speeds below 55 miles per hour to gain the benefit of fewer traffic fatalities?
Global Climate Change may do serious damage to the populations of the earth. Reducing CO2 emmissions may slow the rate of Global Climate Change. Is it worth the effort and cost necessary to reduce CO2 emissions on the chance that Global Climate Change will Slow as a result.