Before I respond, honey, I just want to say this: I'm definately not attacking you, although I disagree with some of the things you wrote.
My point is that a lot of people make that a huge issue right now, but it's not what will be remembered some decades in the future.
Hmm, see, we're still not in agreement, because environmental laws have a very definate impact on the future, and most likely a very very large one as well. My fear is that, because we're all so busy watching the big glittery "history being made" moments of this (in my opinion) reprehensible war, we'll let the environmental laws get chisled away at more and more, and by the time we realize it will be too late, some irrevocable damage will have been done.
I really couldn't care less about what they say about Bush in the textbooks. I care very much about what actually happens to this planet of ours.
Bush wasn't all-talk. It takes a lot of guts to actually do and not say you'll do.
This also bothers me a bit. Yes, as you've been saying, Bush took action. He did so with (in my opinion) incorrect reasoning, blatantly illegal procedures, and a chilling disregard for what anyone else thought. I really think that it's better to try and find alternate ways of fixing a situation, rather than rushing headlong into violence. Every other route must be tried first. Bush claimed that he had no other alternative, but really. I don't think he believed that himself.
(A little side-note: you were responding to laynamarya by describing Bush's actions with the saying, "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'm," originally used to describe quick casual sex in the sense where a man uses a woman, thanks her and is gone. This has traditionally been considered derogatory towards women and I find it frighteningly appropriate.)
At any rate, I see your last point about the "sooner or later" bit, but at the same time I feel as though war wasn't inevitable, as though this country should have made a very great effort to find an alternative, and so, I disagree.
That said, I'm sorry if you're unhappy that your writing is being critiqued like this . . . when I read it I thought it was an article hermionesviolin had found somewhere on the internet, as she often does. I negligently failed to click on the link to your journal until after my initial comment, and therefore didn't realize it was a private musing. I absolutely respect your right to post your thoughts on your journal, and if you'd like me to stop commenting, I will.
However, I thought that your entry brought up some important issues that I wanted to discuss, (primarily with hermionesviolin, since she posted it here, but also with anyone else, and certainly the author herself since the opportunity arose), and my intention was merely healthy discussion, never personal attack.
I hope we're not scaring you off from Smith with all this. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: I can't agree with this article . . .
Date: 2003-04-14 08:55 am (UTC)My point is that a lot of people make that a huge issue right now, but it's not what will be remembered some decades in the future.
Hmm, see, we're still not in agreement, because environmental laws have a very definate impact on the future, and most likely a very very large one as well. My fear is that, because we're all so busy watching the big glittery "history being made" moments of this (in my opinion) reprehensible war, we'll let the environmental laws get chisled away at more and more, and by the time we realize it will be too late, some irrevocable damage will have been done.
I really couldn't care less about what they say about Bush in the textbooks. I care very much about what actually happens to this planet of ours.
Bush wasn't all-talk. It takes a lot of guts to actually do and not say you'll do.
This also bothers me a bit. Yes, as you've been saying, Bush took action. He did so with (in my opinion) incorrect reasoning, blatantly illegal procedures, and a chilling disregard for what anyone else thought. I really think that it's better to try and find alternate ways of fixing a situation, rather than rushing headlong into violence. Every other route must be tried first. Bush claimed that he had no other alternative, but really. I don't think he believed that himself.
(A little side-note: you were responding to
At any rate, I see your last point about the "sooner or later" bit, but at the same time I feel as though war wasn't inevitable, as though this country should have made a very great effort to find an alternative, and so, I disagree.
That said, I'm sorry if you're unhappy that your writing is being critiqued like this . . . when I read it I thought it was an article
However, I thought that your entry brought up some important issues that I wanted to discuss, (primarily with
I hope we're not scaring you off from Smith with all this. ;)