As I understand it, the conservative argument for invading Iraq said basically that because there was some chance Sadaam had, or would get, weapons that might seriously hurt us, doing nothing was not an option. We had to take action.
In response to global warming, their argument seems to be be that while there is some chance it might seriously hurt us, doing nothing is our only option. We must not take action until something horrible actually happens.
Does this make sense to anyone?
2006-09-05 10:09:23 · 14 answers · asked by Steve 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ask the Kurds and the Iranian s treated in Germany in 1980 if Saddam had and used WMD"S.
Now offer definitive proof that global warming is nothing more that a natural cycle of earths climate.
Wasn't it the same people now screaming about warming the exact same ones that twenty years ago were warning of the up-coming Ice-Age!
You know they were!
Yours was not even a good attempt at a bad analogy.
2006-09-05 10:26:30 · answer #1 · answered by trumain 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where is the proof of global warming caused by the reasons libs cite?
The last Ice Age ended relatively recently. What caused it and the countless number of ice ages and warming periods before it? Mother Nature has been doing her thing for millions of years before us, and will continue long after we are gone.
Cave men must have been protesting global warming way back when as the ice caps receded (like prehistoric strikers). Just think of how many Mammoths must have been saved because cave men needed fewer furry outfits in the relatively balmy weather that warming created. Maybe it was all a ploy to try and Save the Mammoths !!! Cave man conspiracy?
2006-09-05 10:59:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Global warming sounds like a simile if not greater threat to world security, financial and cultural prosperity and environmental health then global terrorism.
The changes to the world that's causing it need to be discovered empirically and at least need to be minimized as much as possible as they are proven scientifically until the threat is accurately and truly known using empirical evidence.
Then the way to eliminate the potential threat posed by eliminating the root causes of it as they are found is empirically proven.
The solution must not threaten the expansion of rights and liberties, future security, financial and cultural prosperity and environmental health of which all six are tied together and losing any of the six would cause the loss of the other five for everyone rich or power meek or powerful..
2006-09-05 15:41:19 · answer #3 · answered by Stan S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I live in Canada about an hour south of Toronto. When I was a kid we got snow around late october earthy november. Down the road it started getting later and later and for the past few years we are lucky if we get in on christmas week. The weather has changed across Canada. Canada has never been like this. We are changeing how the country works. The province is going to stop using fossil fuel by 2007. We are going to do other things too. But it is only going to work in the hole world comes on board. Goble warming is going to kill us all if we don't change our bad ways.
2006-09-05 10:21:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's no logic because if global warming were to actually affect us then it would be too late to take action but if Iraq had no wmds then it couldn't do anything to us. That's why the neocons messed up bigtime maybe even as far as the next election.
2006-09-05 10:12:03 · answer #5 · answered by Egroeg_Rorepme 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I have never heard that global warming argument before, I think you just fabricated it.
We have yet to see any real evidence that we have the power to reduce global warming in any appreciable way. This planet is going to continue to warm even if we go back to living at stone age technology levels and even ban campfires.
Hey great idea liberals, lets destroy human society so that we can retard global warming by one degree by the year 2100.
2006-09-05 10:15:18 · answer #6 · answered by OzobTheMerciless 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it makes complete sense to deny global warming -- to the oil gas and coal industries and other businesses that would have to change their products and manufacturing methods. Their interests are more important than the future of the earth; they are friends, and they know how to spread their money around.
Your point is a very good one: that Republicans deny a mountain of evidence to justify one set of policies while at the same time, they manufacture and cherry pick evidence to justify another set of policies.
2006-09-05 10:11:53 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Since Saddam having WMD's was a fact and Global Warming is a farce then no.
BTW, according to algore, its already too late.
2006-09-05 10:11:34 · answer #8 · answered by Archer Christifori 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
.... follow the money... where they can make money... that's what they support...
contractors are making billions off Iraq...
to fix global warming though... it would require them to spend money.. not make money...
just follow the money... then everything they do makes sense
2006-09-05 10:26:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conflating Iraq and global warming is what doesn't make sense.
What makes you think it does - other than to make a very weak rhetorical point?
2006-09-05 10:13:35 · answer #10 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋