Issue83 七月高频 请狠狠地拍

GTCougarUID: 2121159

83"Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."

正文：
I quite agree with this statement that government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people simply basis on the essence of a state that the government have the obligation to preserve every inch area in their natural state and the potential profit brought from the superficially considered waste land.

Let us take a look at the original results of the foundation of a state for which the government in power are evitable to serve in order to preserve the land of state and also to protect the people in the state. The action of preservation state's land is a illustration of the state's statement that they have sufficient power, in military or in diplomacy, to make sure their state not to be aggressed and they will do this once the aggression take place regardless any aftermath. Such a behavior enables a state to set a superior reputation in the world. An apt illustration of this point involves the war in Falklands Island which triggered the regional military conflict between UK and another country, Argentina. Though the island is extremely far form UK, Prime Minister Thatcher made the decision to torn to military undoubted from which the importance of the land preservation is revealed.

If any wildness areas are regarded as insignificant place for its pretty far distance and obviously rare residents therefore could be given up, the serious result must be ignored by the incapable government. Maybe the short sight politicians in the government can not see any profit in the far hard-accessible land, let out waste tremendous resourced of the society, even call for the military, only in order to preserve such a "land of nothing". However, the inept policy of the state just meets some other state's will who represents aggressive essence. Have a review of Chinese history. Since the first unfair treaty has been signed with the western nation compellingly, the fact that Chinese land is easy occupied by another country took place one by one. There is a rule which is law of the jungle. It is the same between states.

In addition, the land which seems no use for that it is too far and usually no body assesses there is possible that it has great potential profit which have not been found by people. To this extent, government should preserve each piece of areas in the state for the potential use. Such as the western China, it is full of desert for what people think it is not important; the newest research indicates that a large quantity of oil and other natural resources are concealed there. Besides, a lot desert-like regions have significant functions in military which is another reason for the government to preserve them.

In conclusion, the government ought to preserve each part of the land in the state no matter it is useful or not in current view in order to protect the profit of the government itself. Furthermore, government should not neglect the potential importance of the land that seems no important in the states.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-30 at 00:10 ]

GTCougarUID: 2121159

为什么绝大多数帖子的题目前面都有一个小图标？什么意思？请各位老手指点，谢谢！

DavistarUID: 2104173

小改一个；）—— 我是 小西索

I quite agree with this statement that government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people simply basis on the essence of a state that the government have the obligation to preserve every inch area (every inch 或者 every single area 更好一点) in their natural state and the potential profit brought from the superficially considered waste land.

Let us take a look at the original results of the foundation of a state for which the government in power are evitable to serve in order to preserve the land of state and also to protect the people in the state. The action of preservation state's land is a （an）illustration of the state's statement that they have sufficient power, in military or in diplomacy, to make sure their state not to be aggressed and they will do this once the aggression take （虚拟语气么？） place regardless （of）any aftermath. Such a behavior enables a state to set a superior reputation in the world. An apt illustration of this point involves the war in Falklands Island which triggered the regional military conflict between UK and another country, Argentina. Though the island is extremely far form UK, Prime Minister Thatcher made the decision to torn(?) to military undoubted(ly) from which the importance of the land preservation is revealed.

If any wildness areas are（area is） regarded as insignificant place for its pretty far distance and obviously rare residents (little population好一点)therefore could be given up, the serious result must be ignored by the incapable government. Maybe the short sight(short-sighted) politicians in the government can not see(find) any profit in the far hard-accessible land, let out waste tremendous resourced of the society, even call for the military, only (in order) to preserve such a "land of nothing". However, the inept policy of the state just meets some other state's will who represents aggressive essence. Have(Take) a review of Chinese history. Since the first unfair treaty has been signed with the western nation compellingly, the fact that Chinese land is easy occupied by another country took place one by one. There is a rule which is law of the jungle. It is the same between states.

In addition, the land which seems (of) no use for that it is too far and usually no body assesses there is possible that it has great potential profit which have(has) not been found by people. To this extent, government should preserve each piece of areas in the state for the potential use. Such as the western China, it(which) is full of desert for what people think it is not important; the newest research indicates that a large quantity of oil and other natural resources are concealed there. Besides, a lot (of)desert-like regions have significant functions in military which is another reason for the government to preserve (them).

In conclusion, the government ought to preserve each part of the land in the state no matter it is useful or not in current view in order to protect the profit of the government itself. Furthermore, government should not neglect the potential importance of the land that seems no(t) important in the states.