"Why Does the USA Persist in Its Missionary Position?"

Yesterday's New York Times editorial, "Mr. Karzai Might Even Agree", received relatively few - a total of 46 - online reader comments; however, I think it is interesting to note the most highly reader-recommended comment, which poignantly observes in relevant part:

"Why does the USA persist in its missionary position - bringing its imperfect democracy and capitalist systems to the rest of the world by force of arms? That is a sure recipe for decline and fall and bankruptcy."

As you all know, I oppose U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but I never realized that the missionary position could lead to "decline and fall and bankruptcy", and I am rushing this information to Timothy Geithner for his response.

Elsewhere among recent New York Times online comments, I read in response to the April 19 NYT editorial, "Iran, Sanctions and the Memo", the following, which stated in sum total:

"Iran deserve [sic] the nuke to protect itself. Period."

Now what could possibly be memorable about this illiterate gem? I would have thought the answer to be "nothing", but not according to the Times. The Times, in its infinite wisdom (on the same level as the editorial itself, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/04/iran-sanctions-and-memo-whose.html), "highlighted" 10 comments, and this was one of the comments chosen for this accolade. So as to avoid any confusion, the Times explains that "highlights" are:

"A selection of the most interesting and thoughtful comments that represent a range of views."

Good to know that the Times deemed this to be one of the "most interesting and thoughtful" responses. Let that be a comfort to any of you who have ever had their online comments rejected by the Times "moderators".