Hey Freak!

Finally. The Bush administration is doing something to protect the troops. Usually, it's all just talk, but yes, this time, there is real protection involved.

The only problem? He's protecting them from environmental law.

President Bush exempted the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using sonar in its anti-submarine warfare training off the California coast -- a practice critics say is harmful to whales and other marine mammals.

The White House announced Wednesday that Bush had signed the exemption Tuesday while traveling in the Middle East.

The Navy training exercises, including the use of sonar, "are in the paramount interest of the United States" and its national security, Bush said in a memorandum.

"This exemption will enable the Navy to train effectively and to certify carrier and expeditionary strike groups for deployment in support of worldwide operational and combat activities, which are essential to national security," the memo said. [full story]

Ah, yes. Because experimenting with sonar is much more important than, say, the well-being of area marine life, and, in the big picture, our entire ecosystem. Fuck whales, man. We gotta have our sonar! Besides, what have whales ever done to help protect the country? Fucking slackers.

What has the Navy ever done to protect the country? C'mon.

A year of training with live ammo and ordinance can't be "environmentally friendly" no matter which branch of the military we're talking about. But we're talking about sonar, not bombs. The article you quote says the jury's still out (so to speak) on sonar's bad effects for marine life. The case is settled on whether we need a strong military, and the Navy said the geographic area in question is the best they have. So, believe who you want, environmentalists that aren't sure, or the Navy, that is.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that sonar definitely hurts the environment... I'm just saying that the Navy should have to follow environmental laws if it turns out that they're fucking up the ecosystem. That's not too much to ask for, is it?

I imagine there are many environmental laws the military are not required to follow.

We still are allowed to use bombs when needed and the large bombers used to deliver them. I would guess the bombers and fighter planes fall far short orf environmental noise, emmissions and fuel requirements set for private aircraft.

I doubt of the Abrams tank comes close to any ones MPG requirements and those treads must to terrible damage to anything under them.

Environmental laws forbid the use of bullets made of lead in certain areas...I doubt if our soldiers will be required to carry less effective ammunition for use when fighting in these areas.

Also, it is doubtfull that any aggressor force entering our territory will agree to follow our environmental laws to save the ecosystem while they try to conquor us.

What can be done is to just write the environmental laws so that the military is exempt if following the law will decrease the effectiveness of our forces and jeprodise the defense of the country.

That way the military can follow the laws.

I'm sorry, but it's time to start thinking of the Earth first. We've seen what short-sightedness can do to the environment (hello, global warming). It's time that humans, ALL humans stopped treating the planet like a hotel room and started treating it like it's our home - we have to clean up after ourselves, and we have to protect all the things that live in the home. And I'm not buying all your fearmongering, either.

I mean, yeah, there's no proof that sonar harms marine life. But somehow, local marine life always seems to get harmed when they use that high-powered sonar. Hm. Maybe there's no proof because the powers that be don't feel like investigating it? This administration seems to have a pattern of claiming "no proof of [whatever]," and then trying to suppress any research that might bring about proof. (again, see Global Warming)

So you two can go on making excuses for a govt that doesn't even care about national security. "National Security" is just their crutch; their buzzword that they throw out there when they want something approved, no questions asked. I'm sorry, I'm not buying that national security bullshit anymore. Don't get me wrong - I care about the security of the country, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna let the govt run amok because they SAY these matters concern national security. You're all buying into a PERCEPTION of national security insteal of real national security, brought to you by the geniuses who said that Saddam had WMD, Iraq caused 9/11, and lately, that Iran was developing nuclear weapons up until recently (until it was discovered that they had abandoned the program in 2004 or so). I mean, how can you even listen to these yahoos (the current administration), much less believe them? How many times do they have to lie to you before you start doubting them?

"So, believe who you want, environmentalists that aren't sure, or the Navy, that is."

Who says that environmentalists aren't sure? The conservative news that reported the story?

Who says the Navy is sure that they're in the best place? Maybe there's a better place to train that's NOT in whale migratory routes? Maybe they never bothered to check for another place to train?

Environmentalists say they aren't sure. That's in the article that you referenced.

The Navy says that they're in the best place for training. Again, the article. In the years it may take the Navy to find a better place to train their submarine piloting crews, the environmentalist will have succeeded in protecting some unknown group of marine animals from some unquantifiable harm. The Navy, in the meantime, will have failed to properly train their recruits in submarine warfare. We'll just have to hope that that group of unknown marine animals will step in (swim in?) to defend our shores.

You keep referring to global warming. It's also not a foregone conclusion. I care about the environment. I've been recycling and trying not to be wasteful for 35 years. And I've lived in America for longer.

Mikey, I read your blog because you usually have a funny or interesting take on events and situations. Your position here is just aggravating because you're reciting liberal talking points. And, you want me to assume that you know more about the West Coast marine environment than the U.S. Navy because you read Huffington's liberal blog?

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: