How so? I agree that old wars may have but I doubt this one will. Only certain targets are being hit at this stage and even in the future it will be a relatively surgical procedure. At least on americas part anyway, I don't know what saddam will do. I argue it will be good for the ecosystem because members of the eco-systems only natural enemy(man) will die.
not nearly enough people will die to do any good. hopefully, anyway. wiping out the US would certainly help tons but i don't want that to happen. the manufacturing of weapons, vehicles and equipment is damaging enough. and explosions don't exactly release flowers into the air.
Yeah but last time I checked bunkers and buildings weren't beautiful natural phenomena, so its really no big deal if they blow up. I'm pro-war BECAUSE of the eco-system so needless to say I disagree with you.
burning petrol, funds taken away from environmental/social projects at home, refugees exhausting resources, the irreversible damage done to alaska when the idiots in washington make a mess out of the middle east and/or iraqis destroy own oil sources, discarding and/or blowing to bitsies of tons of materials in planes, equipment, weapons plus destructive means of obtaining new materials (i don't think they're going to be doing any recycling over there). this one may not be environmental but it bothers me: iraq is the cradle of civilization. the natural environment fostered the human race. i have a personal problem with blowing that up.
Not necessarily. New evidence suggests Africa or even India. I agree though that the war will cause more ecological problems than solve. Also, CO2 may not cause global warming, so don't put all your eggs in one basket, as they say. The reconstruction of Iraqi buildings and government will take more resources, too. The only thing that I can offer about the war is that it is better than a nuclear attack on any country...... Which leads me to a discussion about India and Pakistan, but thats another topic.
