• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

NYT hates W

OK David, I find myself agreeing with you somewhat, but not in everything.

Bush and his cabal took the US into a war in Iraq based on cooked data and lies, and they knew it all along.
The cooked data I agree. But, you dismissed the fact that Iraq violated the cease fire of the first war, and we had every right to go in based on that alone. Now, why Bush did not use that instead of the BS dog and pony show with Powell, you got me there.

Bush ordered the outing of a CIA operative.
You got me here, David. Good point.

The occupation of Iraq has torn our armed forces to shit, bankrupted our country and created a new wave of Islamic Fundamentalist hatred towards the US. Al Qaida can now expand, thanks to our making Iraq a productive place for them to recruit.
Our armed forces are not torn to shit, they are fine. We did get to unload a lot of our old arsenal and are replacing it with new. The cost of the war is always exaggerated because they include the salaries, food, and upkeep of the ships, planes and soldiers, when most of those expenses would have been there to begin with, even if they were just training. If anything, the domestic production to support the war may have postponed the economic collapse that they obviously saw coming (and that may have been a factor in starting the war I am not putting that out of the realm of possibility). Islam hates us anyway, always has -- Tehran, Beirut, U.S.S. Cole, First WTC attack, Khobar Towers, and on and on. So, we finally had enough and started to punch back -- with a much bigger fist -- good. These fundamentalists want nothing less than us dead or converted to Islam, no other options in their mind, period -- how else are you supposed to deal with that?

Saddam Hussein was our bad guy, we only turned on him when he started threatening to go to the Euro for oil transactions instead of the almighty dollar.

Another good point David. He was our guy (as was Osama, I am sorry to say) -- but he got out of hand and we dealt with it.

Bush killed Habeas Corpus, made torture an acceptable thing, and stopped stem cell research in it's tracks, putting us at a severe disadvantage with respect to the rest of the world.

This one is just wrong. Bush did not kill Habeas Corpus. The people that were detained were non-military enemy combatants that were firing at us on a field of battle. By the Geneva convention itself we could have legally shot them all in the head on the field of battle and been totally within the guidelines of the Geneva convention. Taking them into custody was the more humane option - and smarter, because they could be interrogated. Torture? Oh Christ come on. Yes, discomfort and fear. Nobody had their fingers and limbs torn off or broken here or were beaten. Look at Islamic and Iraq prisons if you want to see torture, maiming, beheadings, horrific pain -- not us pal.

Oh, and I am with you on the stem cell research. That is a good point too.

IMO, anyone who wants to believe that Bush has made us any safer, is as ignorant as the idiots who voted him into power.
I am not one of those idiots who voted him into power. But we have not been attacked again, and it is because we have decimated Al Quaida's ability to operate, at least for the past several years. That is a fact. They are living underground in caves and scurrying like the vermin they are when the light shines on them.

Ask yourself this, who started all this? Did we go attack Iraq, Iran, back in the 70's or 80's? No, it is Islamic fundamentalists that hate us for supporting Israel, which was a country formed by the U.N. with the world's approval after WW2.

Then, in 1967, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, with the help of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco decided that they wanted to take back Israel and convinced several thousand Arabs living in Israel to come join them. They came in tanks ablazing trying to take back the land and destroy Israel. Well, not only did they lose to little old Israel, but Israel gained ground in the fight, pushing them back. Israel gained the Sinai Peninsula (which they have since given back), the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

All of those territories -- which the Arabs still bitch and moan about, were all in Arab possession before the war and still would be if they had not been assholes and tried to destroy Israel. You start a war, you lose, you live with the consequences. Now, because they started a war and lost, they are pissed at the whole world and anyone who doesn't want them to have their land back. Boo frickety hoo.
 
That's about $600,000 per death. That seems a little steep to me

I totally agree, that is steep. My research shows that our Trident II nukes (sub-launched so we would not even need diesel or air-polluting fuel to get them in firing position) are only 31 million each and are each about 3.8 megatons.

So, if money is your concern, say we used 20 of those to obliterate most of the military capacity in Iraq. That would be 20 x 31 million = $620,000,000.

Wow, that is like 1/1000th of the cost you stated. GOOD IDEA.

And, to put it in your terms, which totally eliminates the great care we took to minimalize civilian casualties (which is why it was so expensive), let's say we could kill about the same 1,000,000 people with those nukes -- that would be about $620 per kill. HEY, that sounds great. Then we would have had all that money to feed all those starving kids here.

Would you have felt better if we did that instead?
 
Ask yourself this, who started all this? Did we go attack Iraq, Iran, back in the 70's or 80's? No, it is Islamic fundamentalists that hate us for supporting Israel, which was a country formed by the U.N. with the world's approval after WW2.

What about operation Ajax? American involvement in the coup against Mohammed Mossadeq a democratically elected leader who was very popular with his people. He was not a religious extremist and was sympathetic to the west while being against foreign (imperial) involvement in Iran. The whole plan was instigated over the control of Iranian oil revenues and put together by the CIA and MI6. The reaction to the reign of the Shah in Iran and the anti-western backlash to interference in their affairs helped to push it into the Islamic Revolution.

U.S. Military Involvement in Iran: Information from Answers.com

Mohammed Mosaddeq: Information from Answers.com

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Also of note is the 1988 shooting down of an Iranian commercial passenger jet. This was a murky affair with the US blaming the jet for being shot down. Eventually the US accepted responsibility but rather than censuring the officers involved they decorated them over the event.

Military Blunders - Iran Air Shot Down

All of those territories -- which the Arabs still bitch and moan about, were all in Arab possession before the war and still would be if they had not been assholes and tried to destroy Israel. You start a war, you lose, you live with the consequences. Now, because they started a war and lost, they are pissed at the whole world and anyone who doesn't want them to have their land back. Boo frickety hoo.

Your tone shows your bigotry. The reason people are upset about Israel is because of its treatment of the Palestinian people and the bigotry that is shown towards Arab Israeli's within their own country. Imagine being under occupation in the US. Imagine having your access to resources controlled by a hostile power whose army happens to be very trigger happy and is allowed carte blanche because of support from the world's only superpower. Imagine not being able to move around the land of your ancestors without being constantly questioned and searched and being in constant fear of either being killed or thrown in prison.

There are many things that the US (and UK) has done to make other nations hate it. What surprises me most is that whilst much of the world is very aware of these things the American people seem to be so blissfully ignorant of it. Before you start spouting off about this sort of stuff Bob, I would urge you to educate yourself. These sorts of actions don't make your country safer. They just create more terrorists, rogue states, dictators etc. which is exactly what people fear.

Amazon.com: Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA: Tim Weiner: Books
 
Imagine being under occupation in the US. Imagine having your access to resources controlled by a hostile power

Occupation? How can you claimed to be under occupation when you are the ones occupying another world-recognized country's boundaries or land that you lost in a war that you started? To be 'occupied' it has to be your land.

I am not a bigot and I resent that. I am pissed at the aim of most Islamic fundamentalists - which is to continuously and intentionally kill unarmed civilians in an attempt to terrorize a population.

Secretive ops for power grabs have been going on since the dawn of civilization and will continue. It is the world we live in.

Let's get down to brass tacks -- oil. If the Middle East spigot is turned off, the way our dependency is, we are doomed. All of the CIA and MI6 stuff that you mentioned derive from the fact that we are trying to secure our access to that oil. Make no mistake - that is behind it all. You think this recession is bad? Turn off the oil and watch the U.S. dive into chaos and martial law. It IS a national security interest.

So, something that I have not mentioned yet, I am totally for Obama's new energy push (something I hope we can all agree on) and end our silly, stupid dependency on that ME oil. Then, we will no longer give a damn about what leaders do to their own in that part of the world and leave them to their own. And then everyone will be happy, right?
 
The vast majority are happy we came. Period. Shouldn't that count for something?


It might if it where true[/quote]

Do you know anybody talking to citizens in Baghdad? I actually do, and I'm telling you it's true. It is also true that they are ready for us to get the hell out. But, they are glad we came in 2003 and removed the regime.
 
My research shows that our Trident II nukes (sub-launched so we would not even need diesel or air-polluting fuel to get them in firing position) are only 31 million each and are each about 3.8 megatons.

So, if money is your concern, say we used 20 of those to obliterate most of the military capacity in Iraq. That would be 20 x 31 million = $620,000,000.

Wow, that is like 1/1000th of the cost you stated. GOOD IDEA.

And, to put it in your terms, which totally eliminates the great care we took to minimalize civilian casualties (which is why it was so expensive), let's say we could kill about the same 1,000,000 people with those nukes -- that would be about $620 per kill. HEY, that sounds great. Then we would have had all that money to feed all those starving kids here.

Would you have felt better if we did that instead?

Bullets cost about a buck apiece for the one's that make a big hole...and they don't muck up the planet with radioactive fallout. They should have taken everyone in prison, given them a rifle and a sidearm, and parachuted their asses all over the middle east with photos of targets. One head of a verified target buys your freedom.
 
Bullets cost about a buck apiece for the one's that make a big hole...and they don't muck up the planet with radioactive fallout. They should have taken everyone in prison, given them a rifle and a sidearm, and parachuted their asses all over the middle east with photos of targets. One head of a verified target buys your freedom.

HEY, I LIKE IT -- and, we save the $60,000 plus per year it takes to house each prisoner on top of that.

Where do I sign? :D
 
Occupation? How can you claimed to be under occupation when you are the ones occupying another world-recognized country's boundaries or land that you lost in a war that you started?

Check the international (UN) boundaries for Israel - the majority of Palestenian areas do not fall within its boundaries. What war did the Palestinian's start?


To be 'occupied' it has to be your land.

How do you determine ownership of the land? Does living there for generations and owning property there not constitute some kind of right to ownership?
BTW who owns America? Perhaps you should ponder that.


Secretive ops for power grabs have been going on since the dawn of civilization and will continue. It is the world we live in.

Let's get down to brass tacks -- oil. If the Middle East spigot is turned off, the way our dependency is, we are doomed. All of the CIA and MI6 stuff that you mentioned derive from the fact that we are trying to secure our access to that oil. Make no mistake - that is behind it all. You think this recession is bad? Turn off the oil and watch the U.S. dive into chaos and martial law. It IS a national security interest.

Makes it perfectly acceptable then. The Iranians could say it is in their national interests to nuke America or Israel - doesn't make it right though. The hypocrisy of this type of opinion is incredible.

I am not a bigot and I resent that. I am pissed at the aim of most Islamic fundamentalists - which is to continuously and intentionally kill unarmed civilians in an attempt to terrorize a population.

Every statement you make stinks of bigotry and I'm not surprised you think that your not a bigot. Most bigots are blind to it. Blind support for whatever your country does is not patriotic and should not be an excuse for criminal actions.

I don't condone terrorism but it is what people who feel powerless turn to. Perhaps taking a look at solving the problems which make people turn to terrorism would be a more fruitful way of dealing with it. Everytime a civilian is killed whilst fighting terrorism, more people are radicalised and you strengthen their numbers and their support. Indeed Israel itself was created in the wake of Zionist terrorism against the British who were in control of Palestine at the time. These same "terrorists" then went on to become famous leaders and politicians. I doubt you even know about this. If the Palestinians were given a true state with full control of their borders then it would take away a huge incentive for terrorist activity. Of course, it is not in the interests of the American Military Industrial Complex to do this because they would lose a large customer.
 
How do you determine ownership of the land? Does living there for generations and owning property there not constitute some kind of right to ownership?
BTW who owns America? Perhaps you should ponder that.

/quote]

I'm 1/4 Native American. I'm takin' it back Whitey. Texas is mine. I'll scalp your face with a 12 gauge. Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo!
 
the indigenous aussies smile at the idea of owning land,
they say it owns you, not the other way around
it was here before us, will be here after us, we are born on it, walk on it, and buried in it....

it owns you.


it does seem almost like the ultimate conspiracy, "spend" your whole working life and the output of your labour, paying a bank to own something you never can.
 
How do you determine ownership of the land? Does living there for generations and owning property there not constitute some kind of right to ownership?
BTW who owns America? Perhaps you should ponder that.

/quote]

I'm 1/4 Native American. I'm takin' it back Whitey. Texas is mine. I'll scalp your face with a 12 gauge. Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo!

I am 1/8 Creek -- my mother is a member of the Northern Florida Creek Indian Tribe. You really need to know who you are calling whitey.
 
I'm afraid my puny little brain can only offer three observations on this thread:

That joke front page isn't too far from the actual partisan venom the press has been spewing out on Bush for eight years. Subjective mud slinging instead of objective reporting. Keep your opinions on the editorial page.

The New York Times is in its death throes. Years of bad management, poor reporting and outright fraud have destroyed whatever credibility it may have once had. In order to keep the presses rolling, the paper had to negotiate a quarter billion dollar loan at 14% interest, more than three times the current prime, from a shadowy Mexican financier. Any bets on how this will end?


While I believe George II will be judged by history as the worst king and one of the lousiest presidents this country has ever had to suffer, I find the sheer hate filled savagery of the criticism leveled against him to be part of the problem, not the solution. Unless we learn to treat one another with some measure of civilized courtesy, our political disagreements are going to resolve themselves in widespread, national violence. Our situation will degenerate into the mayhem of the twentieth century European experience, with every hand lifted against the other. God knows we don't want that.

Well, maybe a little rioting followed by some looting wouldn't hurt. I could use some new Michelins.
 
Respect is not given, it is earned. I have no intention of respecting those who would like to see me dead, my ideals destroyed. Bush deserves every drop of hatred me or anyone else wants to give him, he's certainly earned it. If the man presented himself to me in person, I'd spit on him. Seriously. I think he's evil scum. You want to disagree with me, have at it. Those of you who respect him, I hope the future generations of Islamic terrorists who want blood for his crimes come to your house and take it out on you. Hopefully, I'll be long gone by then.

Anyone who thinks that we should have all the oil in the world because we want it, that somehow it belongs to us because we think it should, is deluding themselves. By those standards, fundamentalist Islamic radicals want us dead, so they should have the right to kill us. Obviously ridiculous, but the logic does indeed work both ways.

And those will be my last comments in this thread. Have fun.

dB
 
For a complete breakdown you'd have to reference one of those persons better versed in law than myself, however to my understanding the war in Iraq is constituationally illegal. Nothing to do with NATO or the UN or anything, US law only (prior of course to any signing statements Bush may have written to curb them). And while that's just one thing, I'm pretty sure we can agree it's a BIG thing.

Tommy... man, I got nothing to say. You must live in a scary, scary world.

I live in a world where everyone seems to be brainwashed, and can only parrot what they've seen on television, or talk radio.

My world is intellectually honest.
 
Back
Top