droogiedroogie2 said:
Agreed to an extent. I definitely feel that the left wing has become alarmingly anti-science in the last few years, because of the very correct fear of industrial complexes. However, instead of supporting greater oversight on technological and scientific progress, they're just opposing the entire concept. That's just stupid. That said, Bush's vision is too ambitious. Mars is not what we should be focusing on. First, let's fund the space shuttle program better so we can carry out the very vital orbital research that used to happen with greater frequency, and so space shuttles don't ****in' blow up. When we've exhausted the possibilities of orbital research, which won't happen for a long time, then let's talk about Mars.
I see space as the New World. Was exploring the New World a waste of time and money. I think not. Space is the next frontier to explore. And the human race is a curious and explorative race.
Do you recognize that the need for a military stems from a nation that gives people a reason to attack it?
A military stems from the need to defend and attack other nations. I support heavy funding for the military to boost our standing both at home and the world. No sane nation is going to attack the United States in fear of retaliation from it.
Can you grant that support for the troops and support for the war do not have to be the same thing?
No they don't have to be the same thing. Like I said, I support the idea that Saddam is gone and that we have to pick up the mess that we've made.
I'm curious. What are your reasons?
For the ABM Treaty, like I said, I support a strong military. A working ABM shield would basically protect us from missiles around the world (say we went to war with China, North Korea, etc.)
As for the Kyoto Protocol. It's a piece of crap. First of all, it exempts China and India from doing much. China and India are becoming two of the largest polluters in the world. And at the rate China is going, eventually they'll surpass the United States as the world's largest polluter. I went to China and in cities like Beijing, there were some days where the skies weren't blue and almost everyday, it smelled horribly. Why? Due to the pollution. Any treaty that is serious in global warming, can't just focus on the United States, it needs to include EVERYONE.
Second, it can potentially be used to punish the United States just because the United States disagrees with the majority of issues.
Third, it allows nations like Russia to sell their "excess" cleanliness. Say the United States was in the Kyoto Protocol, they could go to Russia and purchase such cleanliness from them and the United States could say that they've reduced their pollution levels. No nation should profit off of this.
Like I said, I support Bush's oppostion to the Kyoto Protocol, but for very different reasons. I am pro-enviroment.
t:
