A Friday editorial in the Seattle Times fell woefully short of expressing adequate condemnation of recent Iranian actions in the affair of the seized British sailors and Marines. To be fair, the editorial was written before the full news of the shameful treatment of the Brits by the Iranians was fully known.
Nevertheless, the Times editorial says several odd things. For one, it seems to give Iran the benefit of the doubt on where the seizure occurred: "The Brits were taken into custody March 23 for being in Iranian waters. The prisoners and their government in London insisted they were off the coast of Iraq."
The British have been pretty clear in their emphatic and repeated statements the seizure occurred in Iraqi water. As the Times itself reported, even the original satellite coordinates given by the Iranians as proof of the supposed violation of their territory were inside Iraqi waters. Moreover, who is the more believable government in such a dispute at this point in modern history, the United Kingdom or the thugocracy of Iran?
Which reminds one of another peculiar focus of the Times editorial. They refer repeatedly to the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while appearing to ignore the mullahs who hold ultimate sway in Iranian politics and over the Revolutionary Guard. Why the omission? Can we not acknowledge the regime is just a bit more problematic than the odd behavior of one man?
Bluntly, the Iranian regime committed an act of war, which in different times would likely have been treated as such. Iran seized uniformed service personal of another nation outside of its own territory. It then promptly ignored the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of such uniformed prisoners with repeated and gross violations, as the totality of media coverage as revealed. Iran even has the temerity to now claim the British government "dictated" the public statements of the returned service members.
Countries that behave in such a manner lose any right they may have previously enjoyed to be taken at face value...such as when a country is willfully and continually noncompliant in responding to the United Nations and the IAEA.
Armed force remains an utterly undesirable last resort in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. But after its latest stunt, the West should be decidedly intolerant of future bluster from the Iranian regime. For example, one would hope the next misstep by the Iranians with the UN will be greeted at minimum with strict economic sanctions to give the regime serious pause.
In the meantime, it would be nice if the same voices that were so quick to howl about Abu Ghraib or the highly debatable application of the Geneva Accords to "unlawful enemy combatants" would muster even a portion of the same outrage for the flagrant mistreatment of the uniformed military personnel of our strongest ally. It would seem, however, such howling is selective, revealing though it may be.
****
UPDATE: For the most unserious piece of work I've yet seen on the whole spat between Iran and Britain read this bit from the P-I. Then liberals wonder why the average American has trouble taking them seriously on issues like national security.
UPDATE II: Check out these thoughts from Fred Thompson. Talk about a contrast with the Times. Count me totally uninspired by his recent buzz in the Presidential race - it's tough to get excited about someone whose major relevant experience for the job is one uninspiring term in the Senate. But, the commentary is great stuff.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 07, 2007 08:51 PM | Email ThisWhy are you wasting your time on this non-issue?
The British sailors are alive & well & at home!
The situation was resolved diplomatically without the bloody mess of a civilization ending war in the middle of the Earth's oil patch.
Thank God that the British and Iranians acted with restraint. If a bullet was fired in anger over this issue gasoline in Seattle would probably be $5 a gallon today and your own local economy would suffer dramatically.
By all measures I'd say that this was the best possible outcome of the unfortunate event.
Too bad for the bloodthirsty neocons desperately looking for some provocation to engage in another aggressive war. By 2009, these neocons won't have the political power to engage in warfare, maybe that is why they are complaining so loudly about the-war-which-did-not-happen.
There are some conservatives who have gone so far as to spit upon the British sailors as they call them "cowards" and insist that they should have fought & died.
The sailors are alive! Thank God for that!
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 09:10 PMSeveral more points in response to your post:
> Moreover, who is the more believable government in such a dispute at this point in modern history, the United Kingdom or the thugocracy of Iran?
The British government and George W. Bush's administration have both demonstrated their willingness to lie for a cause. Remember Iraq?
> It then promptly ignored the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of such uniformed prisoners with repeated and gross violations ...
Just as the United States of America ignores the Geneva Conventions?
Oh ... I know ... The United States of America is exempt from these quaint provisions meant to prevent torture and other outrages.
> massive gas price in this state is the largest gas tax in the nation
That's great, GS.
I am in favor of massive gasoline taxes.
Americans should pay $6 a gallon for gasoline. Maybe those SUVs would go extinct in Americans paid as much for gasoline as the Europeans.
Gasoline is too cheap in America. Americans are also too obese. I think that these two observations are interrelated.
Addiction to cars & oil are bad for a nation's health. Look at how fat these Americans have become!
Posted by: David Mathews on April 7, 2007 09:18 PMThe British government and George W. Bush's administration have both demonstrated their willingness to lie for a cause. Remember Iraq?
And that lie would be? This is another baseless LIE that you are telling. Go away you liar.
Just as the United States of America ignores the Geneva Conventions?
Name ONE Geneva Convention we've ignored that has not been prosecuted internally? Just one.
Americans should pay $6 a gallon for gasoline.
I take it since you like those kinds of taxes, you pay them yourself? You know you can donate MORE taxes to the Government. So I expect that for every gallon of gas you purchase, you put $3 into a fund that you give to the governmental agency of your choice?
Or are you just a hypocritical echochamber, listening to your own bloviating to massage your twisted self-hatred?
Face it David, you're liar, and no one here can trust you. You're completely making this stuff up... Just showing how unhinged the Left really is...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 7, 2007 09:43 PMWhy are you a BIG OIL supporter? You are using a PLASTIC keyboard to spew forth on a network designed by the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and I am pretty sure HALIBURTON also may have had something to do with it too.
You continued presence merely reinforces that you are a hypocrite.
Posted by: PBJ on April 7, 2007 09:52 PM$6 a gallon you say!
Might want to speak to your spokesman Al Gore about his 4 massive homes and private jet sucking energy before you try to talk me into selling my SUV.
Hypocrits
Posted by: GS on April 7, 2007 09:52 PMAnd DaveG, what we pay for gas is small compared to what we will be paying after DM and friends surrender.
This war is not about gas and its not about diplomacy - its about the future of civilization and its about freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom from the gnawing fear of religious bigots dictating our lives from cardle to grave.
Posted by: deadwood on April 7, 2007 10:37 PM> This war is not about gas and its not about diplomacy - its about the future of civilization and its about freedom.
Yes, you are right. This is about the future of civilization.
I have some bad news for you: Gasoline is going to cost at least $6 a gallon soon whether you like it or not.
Now I have a question for you:
Why shouldn't gasoline cost $6 a gallon?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 04:37 AM"The market wouldn't support" gasoline at $6 a gallon?
The market seems to support gasoline at $2.70 a gallon pretty well right now. Plenty of new SUVs filling the roads. Plenty of drivers clogging the roads.
I have a feeling that between now and 2010, we are going to find out whether the market can support $6 a gallon gasoline.
Our government would do everyone a favor if it would tax gasoline to this price -- $6 a gallon -- and thereby forcing consumers to adjust to the new reality voluntarily rather than catastrophically.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 06:05 AMFred Thompson? Fred Thompson? Fred Thompson?
Who is Fred Thompson? Some nobody neocon warmongering Republican also-ran who won't become President.
He has the audacity to say, "America's word may never be trusted again." Do you want to blame Iran for that? George W. Bush's lies leading to Vietnam-Iraq are responsible.
Now these same liars with bloody hands are beating the drugs for a war against Iran.
I say, "Hell, No!"
If the Republicans want to run as the warmonger party in the next election, they are going to lose in a big way.
George W. Bush has exhausted our nation's appetite for bloodshed. The Republicans better wake up or they are going to pay a huge political price.
The neocons have only two years left for bloodshed. Iraq didn't turn out so well, right? So do you think that the American public want these same fools to provoke a war with Iran, too?
3,275 soldiers have already died. How many more?
These Republican warmongers are worse than the terrorists. George W. Bush has harmed America a lot worse than Osama Bin Laden.
And what do you people want to do? Fight another war!
May God have mercy upon us all.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 06:37 AMHowever many it takes.
You're being more moronic then usual today, Dhimmy. What's up with that?
Posted by: Hinton on April 8, 2007 08:33 AMAsk yourselves what manner of person would use "government force" to cause a "voluntarily" reaction?
The thoughts expressed by David M and others of his ilk reminds me of the Hitlers, Stalins and other demigods of yesteryear and today. Forcing voluntarism is at best absurd. History reminds us of the worst cases.
Readers you are witnessing Leftist thinking. Be afraid for David M and others are gathering force.
Market forces and other realties will be discarded for the new "realties" introduced by new demigods that are prepared to use force to enlighten the masses.
Iran is a happy place. In the 50's the CIA and the Brits overthrew their DEMOCRACY, and installed the Shah. The Shah killed so many people, with the help of our CIA, that the "Islamo Fascist Terrorist Fundie whatevers" were created, and led to the Shah's overthrow, and the remainder of the movement we see today in many deadly forms.
We then help Saddam acquire chemical weapons to use on the Iranians, and even gave Saddam's military targeting information for the use of these weapons.
Then we call "them" part of the axis of evil.
It is going to take real leadership, and sacrifice to deal with the problems in Iran, and elsewhere. We have created a real mess protecting the world's insane and destructive petrol based economies, and this is not all Bush's fault. He inherited the problem, but has only made things worse every step of the way through incompetence, lying, profiteering, and what I would call retardation, and lack of any semblance of an effective foreign policy. Possibly treason if you count all the lies that his buddies spewed in the runup to the war. Mushroom cloud, Al Queda ties, imaginary WMD's and the like.
So we don't like what Iran does. Tough. How many Iranian graves were filled because of us, and our allies? There are far too many people that think the only answer to the world's problems is killing more innocent people. It appears that some folks on 9-11 figured it was time for some innocent Americans to start doing some of the dying too. Blowback. Of course all we have to do is call "them" "evil" and it makes everything we do all right correct? God if it was only that simple.
Posted by: Facts on April 8, 2007 11:02 AMOur occupation of Iraq has only made the fundie jerks there all that much stronger.
Cheney only cares about two things. Making money for the war profiteers he represents, and filling coffins with innocent people that get in the way.
Posted by: Facts on April 8, 2007 11:09 AM> However many it takes.
I am pleased to see conservatives reveal exactly how expendable our soldiers are in their view.
3,275 is just a number.
Except to the people who die.
> Ask yourselves what manner of person would use "government force" to cause a "voluntarily" reaction?
The manner of person who would prefer for America is go on a diet in order to cure its morbid obesity & addiction to oil.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: محمدرضا پهلوی Moḥammad Rez̤ā Pahlavī) (October 26, 1919, Tehran - July 27, 1980, Cairo), styled His Imperial Majesty, and holding the imperial titles of Shahanshah (King of Kings), and Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans), was the monarch of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy.
The Shah came to power during World War II, after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah's rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, a partial failure of the land reform, the lack of democratization as criticized by some of his opponents, as well as the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms, increased opposition to his authority.
While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support with the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of Westernization and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right, increased communist activity, Western interference in the economy, and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh (in which each side accused the other of staging a coup, eventually leading to Mossadegh's downfall) would cause an increasingly autocratic rule. Various controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the Tudeh Party and the oppression of dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK; Amnesty International reported that Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978. By 1979, the political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on January 16, forced the Shah to leave Iran after 37 years of rule. Soon thereafter, the revolutionary forces transformed the government into an Islamic republic.
Former Presidents of the United States
Herbert Hoover, March 1929 - March 1933 - Republican
Franklin D Roosevelt, March 1933 - April 1945 - Democratic
Harry S Truman, April 1945 - January 1953 - Democratic
Dwight D Eisenhower, January 1953 - January 1961 - Republican
John F Kennedy, January 1961 - November 1963 - Democratic
Lyndon B Johnson, November 1963 - January 1969 - Democratic
Richard Nixon, January 1969 - August 1974 - Republican
Gerald Ford, August 1974 - January 1977 - Republican
Jimmy Carter, January 1977 - January 1981 - Democratic
Where've you been? I've been looking all over for you. Now it seems my ego is over in Seattle.
Well, Ego, how's the weather over there?
I've got to tell you, the weather is absolutely spectacular here.
Today was a remarkable day, too: I saw five alligators, three dolphins and two manatees.
Nature's love for diversity is matched only by my own love for diversity.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 12:29 PMThe entire situation was just asking for the incident to occur & it seems that the British Navy needs to look at replacing some of those at the top of the pile as well as further down the chain to the captain of the frigate for being too careless with his people & their lives.
It's good that diplomacy won the day without any bloodshed, but it sure looks like the British Navy could use some better planning & training, particularly since this isn't the first time it has occurred.
The Iranians certainly made fools out of the Brits & played it in the media for all it was worth.
Posted by: Clean House on April 8, 2007 12:57 PMNo F***ING WAY I WOULD PUT ON A SCARF EITHER!!! STUPID BITCH!!!
THAT GOES FOR PELOSI TOO!!! the dumb asses!!!
Posted by: dcat on April 8, 2007 01:44 PM> Chicken shit!
Are you spitting on the British sailors?
Too bad for you. No war happened. Look at all the people who did not die.
Jesus wants Christians to kill Muslims. Isn't that the message of Easter?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 03:06 PMWell, "Facts" find some historical evidence to back up this claim. Or is making up garbage what you and other lefties let pass for "facts".
Here are some facts concerning the CIA's bloody hands in Iran:
"Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
"The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.
"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."
Here is the dismal history of the Shah:
"With Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian Gulf. In 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion, which he claimed was a response, among other things, to the Soviet Union's support of Iranian Communist militias and parties, particularly the Tudeh Party. In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz. [13] The Shah also authorized the creation of the secret police force, SAVAK (National Organization for Information and Security, which was organized with the help of the CIA and Mossad.).This infamous agency operated its own secret prison, used torture extensively, assassinated dissidents, and kept the CIA informed."
Muhammad Riza Pahlavi Shah
The CIA's has bloody hands in Iran and dozens of other countries throughout the world.
This might explain why the United States of America is hated by so many throughout the world.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 03:56 PMHere are some facts from a person that lived in Iran during the Shah's reign where he worked with the Shah closely until his overthrow. This person now lives in Seattle. By the way... this person is a very liberal democrat on most issues, except Iraq... because this family lived through it first hand.
The Shah embraced westernization of Iran because it brought wealth and prosperity to HIS NATION. The deal he had with the US for oil was that 51% of the proceeds would go to building a military for defense such as his air force. The planes and equipment he bought was form the US, so the US benefitted from the sales as well as the oil. However, he was not allowed to purchase bombs or offensive equipment to attack his neighbors. This deal was set up by Kennedy.
The Shah used the rest of the proceeds to build universities, hospitals, roads and infrastructure that made Iran safe and secure. Many medical students came to the US to study and returned to practice medicine in Iran.
The Shia didn't like his stance on Israel or that he would want peace in the middle east. Subsequently, many were arrested for treasonous behavior for trying to overthrow the government and became the "political prisoners" that are so often spoken of freely.
In 1978, Iran had the 3rd largest air force in the world. He came to the US and asked Jimmy Carter to amend the agreement that he purchase more military equipment so he could use more money toward infrastructure. Carter, facing a huge recession refused. He was afraid a lessening in plane orders would hurt our economy.
Returning to Iran, the Shah found that disidents were coming into Iran from Syria and Jordan that meant to overthrow his government. He again visited Carter, but this time to ask for the purchase of weapons so he could hold off the coup attmept. Carter refused and boldly told the world he would not back the Shah.
That was all his enemies needed to know as they poured into the country aided by college student who felt there should be a return to the origins of islam. The Shah and his family fled Iran narrowly escaping with their lives.
When Reagan came to power, he made a deal with Saddam Hussein, who had recently come to power, that he would give weapons for his war against Iran in exchange for returning the Shah to power to give stability to the middle east once again. All this went out the door when the Shah died in Paris 2 years later.
Facts:
1) The US gave Saddam weapons over 20 years ago to return the Shah to his rightful throne.
2) Under the Shah, Iran had the 8th best economy in the world.
3) The "political prisoners" were trying to overthrow the government.
4) Carter's proclamation that he would not help the Shah emboldened his enemies where they could overthrow the government.
5) The Shah's hands were tied by Democratic leaders on how he could use his military and how he could use the money he made from oil profits.
6) Thousands were drug from their houses in the middle of the night by the disidents and executed. Many entire families were wiped out because they were educated, had wealth or didn't fervently agree with the new government.
So when throwing out facts, be sure to include facts from people who were there and had to escape in the middle of the night.
Posted by: KEn on April 8, 2007 04:55 PMIt will be much easier for them to overthrow their own government than fight Israel.
Israel & the US have been saber-rattling...not to intimidate the lunatic Iranian Leader (less than 20% popularity), but to encourage students to rise up before they get caught in the crossfire.
David, David, David....seems your hate for Bush & all the good things America stands for & fights for has clouded you ability to see what is really going on over there.
As your ego, I must demand that you come back into the real world....today.
I will remain defiant and supportive of my comment! David M.
No I won't ever play nice with the bullies!
You can if you want to and you too can be a member of the gang! So darn those Mickey Mouse club ears and sing along if you want to! I sure as hell won't!
I noticed one of the Brits not smiling.
So say what you want YA TROLL PUSSY! People die everyday just so you can! Remember that during your pathetic spew asswipe!
Posted by: dcat on April 8, 2007 05:45 PMThe Wikipedia has a liberal bias?
Have you considered the possibility that reality has a liberal bias?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 05:47 PMIt is so sad to watch conservative warmongers cry.
I feel your pain!
Too bad those British sailors did not die. Bloodthirsty Americans were wishing upon a star for a provocation for war!
You conservatives are spitting upon the living soldiers and completely ignoring the dead soldiers. Conservatives really do love our troops, don't they?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 05:50 PMHe is just another thug for hire!
Posted by: dcat on April 8, 2007 05:52 PM> ) The US gave Saddam weapons over 20 years ago to return the Shah to his rightful throne.
2) Under the Shah, Iran had the 8th best economy in the world.
3) The "political prisoners" were trying to overthrow the government.
4) Carter's proclamation that he would not help the Shah emboldened his enemies where they could overthrow the government.
5) The Shah's hands were tied by Democratic leaders on how he could use his military and how he could use the money he made from oil profits.
6) Thousands were drug from their houses in the middle of the night by the disidents and executed. Many entire families were wiped out because they were educated, had wealth or didn't fervently agree with the new government.
Ken, you have thoroughly demonstrated that conservatives are as ignorant of history as they are ignorant of science.
I am not going to write a book for you, Ken. You need to devote your attention to gaining an education. Read a book. Become an informed citizen.
You would be the first to wet your pants! You little weasel!
Run along now and eat your chocolate bunny now!
How can the journalist condemn the Iranian leaders when George W. Bush is engaging in torture, extraordinary rendition, and plenty of other violations of human rights?
You say, "In a world gone mad, the good guys are now the bad guys."
I say: Who are the good guys?
Not those warmongering torturers in the White House. The United States of America has become the Great Satan. Our greed and gluttony has compelled us to kill over 150,000 Iraqi civilians.
America needs to repent or God is going to punish this nation in an apocalyptic fashion.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 06:09 PMI'm good friends with Omar and Mohammed from: Iraq the Model The same one GWB quoted from!
I am listed at their site as friends of Iraq. I have been with them since before the fall of Saddam and they will tell you more then this block head David Matthews! He knows shit!
They are dentists and the oldest Ali is a doctor in Baghdad.
Posted by: dcat on April 8, 2007 06:33 PM> Or are you pro-life, David?
I am pro-life. I am pro-all-life. I prefer a living world to this desolate wasteland that technological civilization has created. I also believe that human overpopulation isn't merely a problem it is an apocalypse.
I don't care for abortion, not at all.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 07:12 PMThere isn't any reasoning with idiots like yourself dm!
Posted by: dcat on April 8, 2007 09:57 PMThis post has been hijacked. Sorry Eric!
Bye Bye
Posted by: GS on April 8, 2007 10:01 PMFor example, if the ENTIRE population of the earth - all 6.5 billion of us - lived in Texas, we'd have LESS density than New York City (not just Manhattan, but the entire city).
And there is enough farmland in the rest of the US and Canada (below the 50th parallel) to FEED the entire world. No need for the mountains or forests, just existing farmland.
We could leave ALL of Asia, Europe, Central America, South America, Australia, Antarctica, and the oceans COMPLETELY EMPTY. No one there...
If these facts mean we're over-populated or over-consuming, then David is truly delusional without facts or even a grasp of reality. Just a "I feel bad so everyone else must feel bad" Liberal wanting to assuage their own guilt...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 8, 2007 11:36 PM> For example, if the ENTIRE population of the earth - all 6.5 billion of us - lived in Texas, we'd have LESS density than New York City ...
We should do that, then, and let the rest of the world recovery from the human plague. Nature is suffering, Nature is dying, and humans are treating the Earth like it is our own special sewer.
> We could leave ALL of Asia, Europe, Central America, South America, Australia, Antarctica, and the oceans COMPLETELY EMPTY. No one there...
We should. I like this idea, Edmonds, and am pleased to see that we agree on this issue. All of these continents would be better off if they were not suffering from the human plague.
> If these facts mean we're over-populated or over-consuming, then David is truly delusional without facts or even a grasp of reality.
Yes, Edmonds, we are over-populated & over-consuming. Our species is behaving very much like a malignant cancer upon Nature, consuming & destroying everything. In the process of behaving so foolishly, humans are a miserable, unhappy, violent creature.
The manatees that I saw yesterday don't possess anything and don't destroy anything, and they are not afflicted by any of these negative emotions which constitute humankind's hatred of life itself.
The dolphins that I saw yesterday don't possess anything and don't destroy anything, they seem to perpetually live in a state of love for life. While humans have spent the last ten thousand years destroying everything within reach (and then we walked on the moon!), the dolphins have devoted all of their energy to playing in the water. Accomplishing nothing is better than accomplishing great things.
This lifestyle of addiction & destruction promises so much but it delivers very little. Humankind has made bad choices for thousands of years and now our species is poised to make worse decisions, fatal decisions, and suicidal decisions.
It appears very much like Homo sapiens wants to go extinct. Humans are working so very hard at self-destruction and no one is willing to stop.
Since our species hates life so much I suppose that God will accommodate that wish. So much for humankind. Nature will recover from the human plague and soon enough the Earth won't maintain any memories of humankind's existence.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 9, 2007 04:36 AMExplain this, why is gas over 6 bucks in the EU?
Does they have traffic jams there?
Do they own LARGE cars?
Have you ever been to the EU?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 9, 2007 07:51 AMGasoline is expensive in the EU because of taxes
I propose the same for the United States: The government should tax gasoline so that it maintains a price of at least $6 a gallon year-round.
People who do not like paying so much for gasoline can solve their own problem by abandoning their SUVs and changing their driving habits.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 9, 2007 10:07 AM> However many it takes.
I am pleased to see conservatives reveal exactly how expendable our soldiers are in their view.
3,275 is just a number.
Except to the people who die.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 8, 2007 12:23 PM
DM,
Before you go around painting those evil conservatives, consider this:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "
This wasn't an evil "neocon", this was the posterboy for the Democrats, John F. Kennedy. wow, sounds like he must think the soldiers are expednable too huh?
It is STUNNING to think of how much the Democrats have changed from the days of JFK. If he were alive today, he'd be attacked as an evil Neocon apparently.
Perhaps his little brother Teddy can revise his words to apply to Democrat Leadership today:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that will not pay any price, bear no burden, shrink from any hardship, abandon any friend, appease any foe to assure the survival of our majority in the government. "
-Ted Kennedy