anti-environment budget by Dubya

[Ithaca 37]

An alliance of several of the nation's leading environmental and conservation organizations charged Wednesday that, when viewed as a whole, President Bush (news - web sites)'s 2006 budget makes cuts far deeper than those he proposed specifically for the Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency ...........................

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...210/ts_chicagotrib/epainteriorcutbacksblasted

 

[1_pointer]

Plenty of money to send to Iraq though...

 

[Nemont]

Spending money in Iraq is different. Go look at any war budget consideration always for $$$ away from domestic spending. With 2,400,000,000,000 budget I don't think that there can be much griping about having to dial back on government spending.

I think you guys need to go review the results of this past election and see that the majority of people felt that GWB deserved another term and therefore the majority thinks what he was doing and going to do was right.

Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

Nemont-
That's just where we differ. I support taking care of problems/issues at home before spending money overseas. What happens in Iraq is of little importance to me. I support the troops over there and wish they could all come home safely, but I don't support our being there, just my opinion.

What you say is true about the elections, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. And when he does something we don't feel is 'right' it is our right to voice our displeasure.

 

[Nemont]

And when he does something we don't feel is 'right' it is our right to voice our displeasure.

Agreed you have a right to disagree.

I guess I could have said it a little better, what I was getting at is the same thing you are stating not everyone agrees with spending more money on the environment. I just read a poll that should the environment wasn't even in the top ten of items of concern to something like 61% of the poll takers. That is why the politician put money elsewhere. I will dig up the poll. Note I am not saying it is right to not fund environmental issues.

Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

I just read a poll that should the environment wasn't even in the top ten of items of concern to something like 61% of the poll takers.

Just like with the election, just shows that the majority has their heads somewhere dark and moist! Mob/majority rule does have it's drawbacks. Hunters/conservationists usually never get to try this position anymore.

Also, I said issues at home, you implied it was just environmental issues. Yes, the environment is important to me, but there are other homeland issues I find important as well. Education, population growth, etc...

 

[Nemont]

What role should the U.S. play on the international scene then? If we care of domestic programs only what does it matter if somewhere out there terrorists are plotting another attack? Should we engage terrorist on their homelands or on our soil. Whether you agree with Iraq or not that it kind of a vital question. Where do you wish the battle to be fought?

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- You make a good point, but the rebuilding of a country should be put upon the people of that country not us supporting them forever (ie. South Korea).

Since we are asking questions: These are the questions that I have problems with. Why is it our responsibility to police the world? Where are our allies? Where are the neighbors of those countries that are causing trouble? How is China a super power and able to stay away from terrorism and rogue countries? How are they able to be isolationists? How are we not able to be isolationist?

 

[JoseCuervo]

China is not isolationist. They are signing a $70 billion (I think) deal for oil from Iran. They will now block any UN resolutions against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Just like they did after they signed up with Sudan, and blocked any resolutions condemming Dafur.

China just lent the Russian gov't a bunch of money to buy the Oil fields from Yukos.

China is shwredly becoming a major player in the global Oil market, and as such, they are able to wield political influence that the US used to control.

Here is a commentary, I don't make any warranties about the source.

THE INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER editor Bob Chapman writes: We find it of special interest that George and the neocons do not get bent out of shape as Paul Martin, Canada’s PM, returns from China with an agreement to cooperate in a wide variety of energy projects, including plans for a pipeline and ports that would allow oil from Alberta’s tar sands to move to Canada’s west coast for export to China, rather than the US.

If you notice this information failed to appear in the US media.

China will invest $100 billion in a series of energy deals to extend its influence. Four hundred million will be spent in Venezuela in the oil and gas industry. President Chavez has suspended the operations of Conoco Phillips, Harvest Oil and Chevron Texaco. That is a little payback for the antics of the CIA and George and the elitists.

Russia is supplying two-thirds of Europe’s gas, which makes up 62% of their energy consumptions. Germany gets 35% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia and that is increasing every day. Russia agreed to Japan’s financing for an $18 billion oil pipeline from eastern Siberia. After having put up $6 billion China has bought a piece of what was Yukos. The US was frozen out of the deal due to their arrogant attitude toward Russia, the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan at Russia’s backdoor, and interference in the recent election in Ukraine. Due to dreadful US foreign policy by US elitists, they will now have to share the oil production of Canada and Venezuela with China.

This is one of the biggest screw-ups of all time and American citizens are going to pay for it dearly with a lower standard of living. We see plenty of trouble ahead as Russia, China, Iran, India, Brazil and Venezuela band together.

 

[MattK]

EG- Interesting read but I think it's more a bash against GWB than an accurate account of Chinese influence (although it does make some sense.)

It may be it never hits our papers but you don't hear a lot about terrorist threats to China. Rogue nations don't threaten China a lot either. My questions deal more with us being in the middle of a lot and coming out the enemy to both sides. You don't hear about China being a "police" figure in world politics (even though as you point out they hold a lot of power and influence.)

 

[1_pointer]

Nemont- Where does it stop? We will never get rid of terrorists that are plotting against our country. Also, I never said to remove ourselves from the international scene completely. We have to be involved because of the global economy, but the amount of money/lives/attention we are spending on Iraq is too much.

 

[Nemont]

Perhaps you don't hear about China and Terrorism because they have control over their press. After seeing what they did to some the peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square how do you suppose they deal with Terrorist?

If terrorist target China are they striking at the symbol of freedom throughout the world? Why do you think bin Laden targeted the U.S.? Do you really believe this is all over our troops being in the Kingdom and Iraqi children not getting medicine? It is over what we value vs. what the other side values.

These are the questions that I have problems with. Why is it our responsibility to police the world? Where are our allies? Where are the neighbors of those countries that are causing trouble? How is China a super power and able to stay away from terrorism and rogue countries? How are they able to be isolationists? How are we not able to be isolationist?

I don't believe it is our responsibility to police the world. Look at what happens though when the U.S. sits back and says, "lets see what the world response to this is"? GWB did that after the Tsunami and got bashed for not doing enough. We are doing nothing or very little, in the Sudan currently there are calls throughout the world for us to do more but when we went on an little adventure in Somalia to "help" those "victims" the world denounced us. We didn't enter Rawanda because the our allies, the Dutch, didn't want to lose face by being chickenshit and genocide took place. We got involved in the former Yogoslavia because of a humanitarian crisis and we are still there. Have spent billions of dollars on reconstruction in that country. So how do you decide which are the right ones to get involved with?

Our Allies are all liberal democracy which have no backbone to stand up to terror. Germany, France, Spain, Russia etc were all on the payroll for Saddam's Oil for Palaces program administered by the U.N. Many of the neighboring countries have absolutely no military capability to deal with the threat.

I thought all the democrats and progressives were for bringing liberty to the oppressed and downtrodden regardless of where they live? Yet they offer no alternative to what GWB has done other then GWB sucks. What do you think should be done? Bring the troops home? Then what? When should our military be used then? What battlefield do you prefer the war on terror be fought on? Like it or not our current deployment in Iraq has drawn many, many Islamic terrorist from around the world to Iraq.

I don't have all the answers but I would like to know this Why is isolationism good? It led directly to our involvement in both world wars. I don't think we should be the world's policeman but who else do you want to be involved in it? China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, N. Korea:who?

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

but the amount of money/lives/attention we are spending on Iraq is too much

.

By whose measure?

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- Your answer is "I don't think we should be the world's policeman but who else do you want to be involved in it?" So, we shouldn't be the world's policeman but we are and should be. Is that the answer you gave or am I reading it incorrectly?

I don't have the answers either, but I ask myself, why do other nations hate the values we stand for? It doesn't make other nations right but it does make me want to look at our policies with foreign governments. Are we helping freedom or being the bully? Are we standing up for our ideals or are we greedy for power? Is it the idea of freedom they are against or the idea we are telling them we are better?

Basically, what makes it right for us to force our ideals on everyone else (mostly to our benefit)?

I don't have the answers either. But, before I follow and say we need a larger military budget (not counting the Iraq War), I will question why we need the larger military budget in the first place. At this point we can not isolate ourselves but we can influence differently, imo.

 

[1_pointer]

By my measure as I thought you were asking for my opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree on our views of international policy.

 

[Nemont]

Your answer is "I don't think we should be the world's policeman but who else do you want to be involved in it?" So, we shouldn't be the world's policeman but we are and should be. Is that the answer you gave or am I reading it incorrectly?

I guess my answer is that we end up being involved in things around the world because there is nobody else willing to step up and lead.


1-Pointer,

Just was wondering what you were using to measure things by. I will agree to disagree with you.

Nemont