When animals are attacked (by the U.S. government)

[khazadman]

How about the Chinese Dragon Lord? We'll need it against them. And who's to say that the Russians won't return to a more authoritarian government. It looks like that might very well be possible. And besides, it's not like this sonar is run 24/7. A sub normally runs on it's passive sonar. If this new one is as powerful as they say then it will probably only be used in a combat situation. Because using it will be like telling your prey that you have them in your sights. They also will know where you are.

And I never said I was against preserving wild life. I just put a higher value on human life. Whales are in far more danger from the Norwegians and Icelanders than the subs and ships of the US Navy. And let's not forget the Japanese and their "whale research".

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by khazadman: How about the Chinese Dragon Lord? We'll need it against them. And who's to say that the Russians won't return to a more authoritarian government. It looks like that might very well be possible.

You're stretching worse than Rummy to justify that an enemy actually exists.

And besides, it's not like this sonar is run 24/7. A sub normally runs on it's passive sonar. If this new one is as powerful as they say then it will probably only be used in a combat situation. Because using it will be like telling your prey that you have them in your sights. They also will know where you are.

Let us hope you are right.

And I never said I was against preserving wild life. I just put a higher value on human life.

Which is where I differ from you, and most of my fellow hairless monkees. I recognize my extreme weirdness on this point.

Whales are in far more danger from the Norwegians and Icelanders than the subs and ships of the US Navy. And let's not forget the Japanese and their "whale research".

Too true, at least on the Japs AFAIK. Please don't confuse dolphins and whales, though.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Which is where I differ from you, and most of my fellow hairless monkees. I recognize my extreme weirdness on this point.

Completely off topic:

Don't suppose you've ever read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Timber? Its quite interesting, and comes to pretty much the same conclusion you appear to have done about animals and humans. Basically that as we are constantly motivated in our relationships by self interest we cannot appraise our internal goodness or badness by studying them. Instead we can only appraise our conduct by looking at our relationships with those who have absolutely no power at all, as only then do we have no self-interested motivation. And the only sentient beings with absolutely no power? Animals. So the only way we can know if a person is good or bad is by studying their treatment of animals.

Not sure I entirely agree, but its an interesting point nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-10-2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by khazadman: And who's to say that the Russians won't return to a more authoritarian government. It looks like that might very well be possible.

I think the entire world should prepare for invasion. Who's to say that the US will not have a more authoritarian government in the future. Wait a minute, the one they have now is pretty authoritarian and is a disaster in the making.

On a side note I was watching "Legally Blond 2", despite me only find certain bits funny it did have a very powerful message especially with the kind of BS mentality going on in the white house right now.

[ 11-10-2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Which is where I differ from you, and most of my fellow hairless monkees. I recognize my extreme weirdness on this point.

Completely off topic:

Don't suppose you've ever read "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Timber? Its quite interesting, and comes to pretty much the same conclusion you appear to have done about animals and humans. Basically that as we are constantly motivated in our relationships by self interest we cannot appraise our internal goodness or badness by studying them. Instead we can only appraise our conduct by looking at our relationships with those who have absolutely no power at all, as only then do we have no self-interested motivation. And the only sentient beings with absolutely no power? Animals. So the only way we can know if a person is good or bad is by studying their treatment of animals.

Not sure I entirely agree, but its an interesting point nonetheless. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]On a related note, I vaguely remember that even the Bible tells us that a society is judged not by how it treats its most privileged members, but by how it treats the least privileged members. I just put animals in with humans as fellow "lesser privileged" creatures. Except predatory birds and dolphins -- they're cooler than we ever could be.

[Chewbacca]

It really pisses me off that science (or whatever category a congressional study falls under) appears to have been ignored with regards to military training being effected by current enviromental laws. If it it wasn't broke, why fix it at the expense of the habitat's of endangered species?

This is nothing more than a manifestation of the "I know better"(regardless of fact) mentality that permeates the culture in currently in power.

The otherthing that really pisses me off is the lack of objective oversight with regards to the use of sonar. A more limited provision that would have allowed for it's use during wartime or a national security threat was rejected in favor of giving total, unfettered, deregulated control to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, whom I trust as far as I could toss an Abrams tank.
Here it is from the first link:

The legislation, part of a $401 billion defense bill, gives the secretary of defense the right to exempt from the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act "any action or category of actions" undertaken by the armed forces. Currently, that requires the approval of the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The new law requires only that the defense secretary notify environmental regulators of his intentions.

It has not been proven that either of these measures are absolutley neccessary for national security. Saying otherwise is just empty rhetoric unless it is backed up with something more substantial than imaginary potential enemies.

As long as Bush and his administration stays on board, ie, gets re-elected, this country and World will lose alot more than just endangered species. There are other issues at risk with them at the helm.

[Timber Loftis]

You wanna get really angry, then know that in environmental law the words "national security" operate to make ANYTHING secret. A good thing, right? Well, who do you think put the PCBs in the Hudson, and worse, who put the plutonium in it? Can we say nuclear naval bases? Can we say now abandoned? Can we say somebody else's problem? Can we say irresponsibility? I thought we could. Good class.

timber for president! [img]graemlins/balloons.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laughsaywhat.gif[/img]

but seriously, the left lacks just this passion and voice. onya timber [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks, Sultan, but I'd make a horrible politician.... For the same reason I often find myself in trouble at work. I simply shoot straight and say what I mean and mean what I say -- which appears to be a fatal flaw these days.