Turks vs Kurds

The PPK, or Kurdistan Workers Party, last weekend led a raid on Turkish forces and ended up either capturing 12 Turkish soldiers or killing them. As a result, Turkey built up its forces and moved to the remote mountain enclaves in Iraqi Kurdistan to maybe launch an attack as a response to the previous PPK”s actions. However, the PPK noticed this and now have proclaimed that they will stop their cross-border raids if the Turkish forces withdrawal from their new positions, obviously showing that the PPK fears an attack that may lead out to a huge continued battle. If things are not solved diplomatically, then the region could be changed forever, when before it was relatively peaceful. The eight or twelve soldier that were supposedly taken were from a unit that was set up with many others that were planning to be used to weed out the PPK, which the US and Turkey both call terrorists. Bush got involved, and tried to start a diplomatic session between the leaders of Turkey and Iraq, in order to band together to take out these harmful terrorists. Bush does not want to have an invasion force come into Iraq and disband a sort of peaceful state. Bush has repeated however that the United States will not get militarily involved, and that there would be not troops stationed on that side to prevent any incursions.

The thing that worries me is that Iraq is in no way a stable country at this moment, if it flows into the country which it very well might it could cause turmoil for many years. However, I think it is smart for the US not to use forces in dealing with this issue, we are spread to thin at the moment. I think that diplomatically getting Iraq and Turkey to suppress the terrorists would be the best plan of action. If this does not work, then Bush will have to re organize and condense his soldiers and then send them to repel any terrorist.

Killer Cow Emissions

This editorial addresses what he believed as a main source of the environmental issues such as greenhouse gasses and pollution, and it was not the common power plant or large car emissions that one would expect, he focused on the methane emissions from the every day cow, and other roaming animals such as the goat or sheep. The author mentioned the truly destructive power of “methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day”. It is actually no joke, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found that livestock is the top two or three contributors to the world’s most serious environmental problems, and responsible for 18 percent of green house gas emissions. All of this harmful gas can be seen mainly due to a cow’s four stomachs which releases nitrious oxide and methane, which has 296 the heating power of carbon dioxide. It will become even more of a problem in future years as developing countries will start to have more of a demand for meat and dairy, meaning that more forests will be cleared for grazing and more cows meaning more emissions. Even worse, the manure left by the cow even gives off methane emissions. The author suggests using the gas given off by the manure to power for electricity or other systems, or simple burn it to form co2, which is less harmful. Finally, he suggests coming up with better storage sytems in order to stop its release or have people on a whole decrease their consumtion of meat. The author also shows an anger that the government has put restrictions and started to clean up power plants and other coal burning factories, when they are leaving out a major contributor to greenhouse gases.
I personally like the idea of using the methane emissions to power; it could solve two big issues with one thing. It would reduce emissions as well as generate needed electricity. However, I do not like the idea of turning into co2, because the pollution is still there, it would be better to either store it to get away from it or convert it into something useful. The decrease in meat consumption as the author hopes will probably most likely not happen, no matter how bad the matter gets, without government interference, it wont happen. It may actually not even be a good idea, because of the loss of jobs and other economic problems that could result from the cut back.

Hillary likes to wind surf

Presidential candidates Edwards and Obama have recently started to criticise Clinton for a recent vote that apparently contradictions her previously states posistions concerning Iraq. Five years ago, Clinton gave her vote to approve entry into Iraq. Now, in her campaign, she has stated that she will attempt to withdrawl troops immediately if elected, and will go about with economic sanctions and other diplomatic measures to deal with Iraq. However, along with a majority of senators, she recently voted on a measure that would label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, even though it is government sponsored. Obama and Edwards have tried to show that this action would allow further military actions into Iraq, when she previoulsy said that she would try to remove troops and handle things peacefully. Hilary stated that this vote would only encourage sanctions and non military actions, however, it could warrant Bush to lead another attack. Now for my opinion, I first think the main reason that Obama and Edwards have joined together in the attack is because Hilary has been dominating them, and it seems they cant stop her. If this takes a large effect, it could bring Obama up closer, but it may not have the desired affect. She may still win the democratic vote, but coming up to where shes facing off for the presidency, I think independent and minority parties may be turned off from voting from her. This was a main problem in Kerry's campaign, he was labeled as a wind surfer on his political positions. Personally, I think that Hilary may say that the vote was for peaceful solutions, but it can only encourage more force, which was a mistake. Her previous voting record also does not support her. Whether she actually wants force to be used or she just believes that it will be peaceful, she made a mistake and could cost her a lot in the polls.

Prisoner Rights

Starting on October 1, 2007, the Supreme Court will open with a variety of cases that will affect the rights of inmates stationed at Guantanamo. The main categories of these cases will be, election, sentencing in drug cases, and executions by lethal injection, age bias in the workplace, and finally, the rights of employees who put their money into 401K accounts. A past case that has already been dealt with that will also be brought up again will be their right to plead in front of a judge, which three years ago was decided that even terrorists had the right to habeas corpus. However, two years ago Bush and the Republican congress, which is causing it to be questioned again, challenged this ruling. The main question for the death penalty here is whether it causes pain in the inmates. However, even if the courts agree with this, the use of lethal injections will not stop, just the exact move can change. The life of the inmates of this area will change dramatically depending on the rulings of the Supreme Court. Even though the majority of the cases do not affect the inmates, a few do, mainly the right to habeas corpus and lethal injection. I do not have a problem with the Supreme Court opening the issue to the inmates, however, I hope they have the courage to do what is right in their mind no matter the fact that Bush and the previous republican congress were trying to change the laws. Personally, I do not think that the lethal injection creates pain; it may inspire fear of death but no pain because it is designed to stop pain. Next, I think the right to habeas corpus should be given to terrorists, because it will solidify their guilt if convicted, and will make a lethal injection justified or other serious punishment