When the mere thought of the United States not adhering to the Geneva Conventions was on the front page there was great outrage in certain local circles. The blogosphere said we had lost our "moral grounding" in the world. The Seattle Times expressed dismay enemy combatants suspected of terrorism were not being afforded the same protections as uniformed soldiers of nation states captured on the battlefield. Never mind the distinction clearly allows for different treatment (see past shorter discussion here, longer form here). Will the same outlets of the media and blogosphere rush to condemn Iran for violating the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of seized British sailors & Marines?
I'm by no means holding my breath. The P-I thinks we should be nice to Iran. By all means, we should avoid the "tough talk" according to their thinking.
Does "tough talk" include the slow-moving United Nations passing its second round of sanctions against Iran for its consistent failure to work in good faith with the international community on the subject of its nuclear program? Do we have to avoid "tough talk" when in response to the united Security Council, "Iran reacted to the last imposition of sanctions by saying it would partly suspend its cooperation with the United Nation's nuclear agency." Iran is violating the charter of the supposedly all-important United Nations. What now?
The P-I and like minded liberals believe Iran is just another nation state with which we can have reasonable discourse. It's too bad the entire history if the Iranian regime - starting with its seizure of the American Embassy during the Iranian Revolution - tells us otherwise. Now, uniformed military personnel from our strongest international friend and ally have been seized - possibly illegally - and held in way expressly opposed to the Geneva Conventions, including interrogations and possible trials for espionage.
Military action is for a number of reasons truly a last resort option in dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Yet, continued bellicose behavior cannot be simply greeted with a polite smile and an invitation to sit down at pretty tables for dialogue. In the meantime, a little outrage from the same quarters that were so quick to decry our own actions would be nice. When our enemies trample international law and throw down the gauntlet to our closest ally, outrage seems the least we could do.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 27, 2007 07:56 AM | Email Thishttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54874
Posted by: smsgtkb on March 27, 2007 09:11 AMBlockade gas, and sabatoge or take out the refinery.
Posted by: JCM on March 27, 2007 09:28 AMThere was a time when the Brits would have done the same, under Chruchill or Thatcher. But with Blair, the Brits will roll over.
It's less than five minutes to midnight, and US liberals are still pretending that the Middle East is made up of a bunch of nice people who are just talking tough.
And this is one more example of the Leftstream Media running cover for Marxists, Collectivist Thugs, Theocracies and whatever other true evil rises up in the world.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2007 09:33 AMGive me a break. Who has said that? The question is what policy will be most effective. Has our refusal to negotiate with an bad country ever been effective? (How's it going with Cuba?)
Posted by: Bruce on March 27, 2007 09:43 AMhave a prisoner exchange. our blog freedom (without DM) for the soldiers. we get the troops released. DM gets to live in a place he loves more than America. win win.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 27, 2007 10:20 AMHow they ever came to think this way is beyond comprehension. It has to be learned. They are taught this in schools, from universities and from their union halls. Their heros that they have been taught to worship have names like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of Hollywood leftists. They don't have the ability to tell when they are being bullshitted. They often don't even know what the democrat party stands for, they just think they do. Ask them why they are voting democrat and they answer, because they are the party of the working man, or they are better on the environment. Ask them to explain what they mean and they start stammering.
Don't expect much from these dweebs. They have no ability to think analytically. They have a confused outlook on good and evil.
If it were not for more moderate leaders this country would have fallen apart long ago. Anarchy is the only possible outcome if they have their way.
Posted by: REBEL on March 27, 2007 10:56 AMYou won't hear any outrage from the libs about children. They mean nothing to them. (Roe vs Wade)
But if we smack a bad guy, look out!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 27, 2007 11:48 AMwell, if the iranians "gitmo" the brits, they can say we are doing to their captives what american does to its captives.
so far, we've heard that the captured brits are being treated humanely. but, credibility counts, as bush's "we don't torture" so aptly demonstrates.
Posted by: dinesh on March 27, 2007 12:44 PMThis patriot believes in the right of the accused to confront their accusers in open court, the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, and the plain language of the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable or warrantless search and seizure. The text of the bill of rights does not confer these rights on citizens alone - it says no PERSON shall be subject to these things.
I'll even go so far as to say that the threat of terrorism doesn't justify compromising our core principles in this regard. Why? First, in the words of our founding fathers, all men are created equal and are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Second, because America, at its best, is a shining beacon among the nations of the world. Holding ourselves to a higher standard is no shame.
Nobody's worried about terrorism in North Korea or Cuba but I don't want to emulate their example of an autocratic state to accomplish the same here.
Posted by: we hold these truths to be self evident on March 27, 2007 12:44 PMIf you have time, watch this talk by Evan Sayet.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 27, 2007 12:49 PMEric, you really want to destroy the United States, don't you?
It is not enough that the United States is losing one war in the Middle, you would have the United States lose two. Wisdom suggests that the Iran problem needs a diplomatic solution.
Iran has seized some British sailors. There's no need to overreact. If this situation does degenerate into a war we have a Gulf of Tonkin incident. I don't trust George W. Bush to lead the army into a Third war, but perhaps this is Tony Blair's departing gift to our bloody president.
The conservative movement appears intoxicated with all of the blood that it has shed over the last five yrars. Like an alcoholic, the conservatives wake up from their hangover with the immediately necessity to spill more blood.
I say: No!
America has already murdered enough Muslims. America has already killed too many children. Too many American soldiers have already died.
A war against Iran would constitute national suicide. Undoubtedly, America can commit genocide against the Iranians using our nuclear and conventional weapons. But the Iranians are well positioned to shut down the entire Persian Gulf. Iran could very well destroy Saudi Arabia's oil industry. Iran could also very easily cut off the supply lines which are essential to our troops in Iraq.
In other words: A war with Iran could easily destroy America's economy and military.
Are you willing to win at war at that price?
Would you destroy the United States of America for the sake of committing nuclear genocide against the Iranians?
President Bush ranks as one of America's worst presidents, if he provokes a war with Iran he will rank as America's Worst President, ever!
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 12:59 PM> eric, perhaps your "enitire history of the iranian regime" should start with the mossadeqh coup in 1953 instead of 1979.
This is an extremely important point. One of the most important reasons why Iran hates Britian & America is this crime, the coup against Mossadegh in 1953:
and ...
History of Iran: A Short Account of 1953 coup
and ...
The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, 1953
I have also read an account of this evil act contained in the book:
Americans are naive if they imagine that we are the innocent, good, peace-loving people of the world. Our country has committed some major crimes against the Muslims. If they hate us they have cause.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 01:10 PMOne more point: If you people are intent upon genocide you should at least spend a little while looking into the eyes of the people that you are going to kill.
Here is an hour-and-a-half long video about the people of Iran. They look very much like people, just like Americans (except not obese ...), and the Iranian public doesn't hate the American people.
Watch this video:
I don't want to kill any of these people. I don't want any sort of war against Iran.
In fact, I want America to cease its aggressive militarism now. The Iraq war must end ... now.
Enough Muslims have suffered & died on behalf of oil. Oil is an evil substance which has driven humankind insane over the last century and a half. Oil is also polluting the entire globe and rendering the Earth inhospitable to human life.
If God loved humankind He would have created the Earth without fossil fuels. The fossil fuels are exterminating Homo sapiens from the Earth. Yet the insane walking ape kills on behalf of this ugly, poisonous substance.
I am in favor of both the end of war and also the end of oil. May God have mercy upon us all.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 01:20 PM> How would you have negotiated with the cowardly homicide bombers who left the children in the car to blow up and ran away, saving themselves? Do you think you can actually "negotiate" with people such as they are? What common ground would you have? Or maybe we can all guess already.
Negotiating with terrorists is about as pointless as negotiating with genocidal neocons motivated by their bigotry, irrational fear & bloodlust.
The terrorist problem would solve itself if America ceased murdering Muslims for the sake of oil. The United States of America ought to try peace because it is evident that warfare has failed to solve this problem.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 01:24 PMWow. I thought even the hardest core leftists had finally given up on that whole "it's all about the oil" canard.
If it was all about oil, we could have made Saddam our best friend and really reached out and put our best face on for those Iranians. It would have been a lot simpler than sanctions, fruitless negotiations, war, etc.
Also, if you actually read the papers instead of just the headlines, you'd pretty much have to agree that muslims are killing muslims in the middle east. All those car bombs in crowded markets, and other stuff isn't pointed at the U.S. - it's Iranian and Syrian backed moslems slaughtering other moslems. The U.S. doesn't plant those bombs or teach the killers how to use them.
It's so much easier to hate the U.S. than look at the facts though isn't it?
Posted by: johnny on March 27, 2007 02:13 PM> I thought even the hardest core leftists had finally given up on that whole "it's all about the oil" canard.
The West's colonial occupation of the Middle East was all about oil and America's special interest in the Persian Gulf is also all about oil, an explicit official doctrine of the American government since Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Yes, johnny, it is all about oil.
> you'd pretty much have to agree that muslims are killing muslims in the middle east.
Of course, Muslims do kill Muslims. But the anarchy which festers in Iraq would not exist except for America's aggressive militarism & occupation of Iraq.
America's bloody fingerprints are on display throughout the Middle East. America has killed enough people, promoted warfare and financed terrorism.
The vast majority of the Middle East's problems are byproducts of European and American meddling. We are compounding the problem with Iraq.
If a war with Iran occurs the American Superpower will die in the Persian Gulf.
We tried that, see photographic proof. Eventually we decided it was a better (more profitable?) idea to sell weapons to both Iran and Iraq in hopes they would blow each other up.
The U.S. doesn't plant those bombs or teach the killers how to use them.
You sure about that? History seems to say otherwise.
Looks like the US spent 'Somewhere between $3-$20
billion in US funds are funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.' I'm sure a lot of that training has been handed down over the years.
A couple billion in 'insurgent training' can be a dangerous thing when it comes back to haunts your troops 20 years later.
> if our only interest is oil, can you please explain our involvement in Kosovo, which was for the benefit of Muslims, and to my knowledge, they have no oil. After that, you can explain Somalia.
To say that America's primary interest in the Middle East is oil is not to say that America doesn't have any other interests both in the Middle East & elsewhere.
But, from the beginning of the 20th century until now, The West's primary reason for meddling in the Middle East is to secure access to its natural resources, i.e. oil.
The United States of America has a long history of meddling in countries for the sake of securing their natural resources and markets. America's non-negotiable way of life was financed in large measure by the blood, suffering and exploitation of impoverished nations.
Iraq is only the most recent example of this meddling. I fear that it is not the last.
Yet Americans continue to insist, ignorantly, that we are the righteous, good, peace-loving people of the Earth and therefore everyone should love us. I wish that were the case, but it is not.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 03:33 PMKosovo was an ethnic, genocidal war occurring in Europe. This is the reason why America got involved and successfully ended the conflict.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 03:58 PMTo say that we had no self interest in Kosovo is irrelevant to the very substantial and explicit self interest which America does have in the Persian Gulf.
Oil is everything in the Persian Gulf.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 07:07 PM> If we drilled for oil in our own country we'd wouldn't need to meddle in the middle east.
You are seriously misinformed, smeethow. The United States of America consumes 21,000,000 barrels of oil a day, whereas America only produces 6,000,000 barrels a day.
See:
vs.
There's a pretty big difference between these two numbers. No amount of drilling could ever make up for that difference.
For that reason, it is wise for you to begin contemplating future after the automobile era has ended.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 07:17 PM> David - are you a virgin? Just curious.
I am pleased to gain the attention of Eric Earling. Shall I gain your affection, Eric?
You know, conservatives are known to play on both sides of that fence. Would you like to engage in a little exporation?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 08:17 PMHave you thought about my offer? Care to take me up on it?
You know: Make love, not war.
Warmongers are in need of something. If you can't get it at home you might consider the alternative.
But I am a bit presumptuous in this, aren't I? You probably have already explored this territory.
If that is the case, why are you constantly promoting warfare, bloodshed, prejudice & genocide against the Muslims?
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 08:41 PMI'll deal with Eric's bigotry first and handle Muslim bigotry later.
You need not fear for me, either. I am not the sort of person who is afraid of either life or death. God will look out for me in either case, no one can harm me.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 27, 2007 10:08 PMNot at all. Your assertion that our involvement in the ME is only about oil is your opinion, not fact. I provided one example, Kosovo (Somalia is another) where we were involved in a war FOR THE BENEFIT OF MUSLIMS in which oil was not a consideration. This implies that our involvement in wars is not solely determined by whether there is oil there. So, it's entirely plausible that our involvement in wars such as Gulf War I had more to do with Saddam's invasion of one of our allies (Kuwait) than it did with Kuwait's (or Saudi Arabia's) oil.
Posted by: Palouse on March 28, 2007 09:39 AMI simply asked a question about the frequency, or lack thereof, of your sexual activity. You seem like a guy who has a lot of frustration built up.
I didn't ask anything about your sexuality. I could care less which side of the plate you swing from. Thus, I'm perplexed by your charge of bigotry.
As to your offer, that's a hearty no thanks. Mrs. Earling has my affections...as does the female form in general. But, thanks for thinking of me.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 28, 2007 10:29 PMI am pleased to see that you have such an interest in my life. Consevatives, you know, have a history of maintaining loving relationships at home while engaging in alternative relationships elsewhere.
My change of bigotry is related to your advocating war against Iran.
Conservatives apparently have a great amount of frustrations built up in this case, perhaps the frustration is sexual or bloodlust or a combination of the two.
Posted by: David Mathews on March 29, 2007 06:49 PM