I am sure you understand that balance is maintained by opposing points of view in any scenario where there exists the opportunity for abuse.
I haven't the slightest problem with opposing points of view; without them, we wouldn't have these fine arguments. However, the substance of my disagreement has to do with the fact that we are totally dependent upon foreign oil and in effect, as a result, our sovereignty could someday be compromised. So, it comes down to "what is important?". In my mind, saving the ANWR just isn't a particularly valuable thing, while insuring a stable future for the country is.
If drilling on 2000 of the millions (did I say millions?) of acres of ANWR will contribute, even fractionally (say, 1/1000 of one percent) to our country's ability to defend itself, then I say we trash the 2000 acres (or the entire ANWR), if necessary. We need to be putting first things first.
This is what gets me about environmental extremists. They seem to totally overlook the fact that these things they want to take away from us are things we either need or want. I am not against reasonable measures to protect this fish or that; but when we starting compromising the lives of firemen so the fish can live it just becomes stupid.
Similarly, when we compromise national security, even just a little, to save the caribou in ANWR, it is stupid behavior that reasonable people will conclude should not be done. |
