In 6 short years Kissenger managed to kill over a million people with illegal carpet bombings in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand.I see your point but that was a different situation. To my knowledge we haven't carpet bombed Iraq - we've used precision missiles in civilian areas (which we all know are anything but, but we aren't napalming entire suburbs). That said, whenever you drop daisy cutters you end up hurting people. While nobody knows what the toll is, and never will, my point was that the results of this survey are statistically unreliable. And therefore unreliable as evidence.
That got cut off before I finished DL'ing it. So we'll have to try again at some point.Wierd. OK, I'll do it again tomorrow.
No one said you have to like what the other guy is doing, but you do need to respect it.Words to live by.
That is likely to be a complete exaggeration,
No, that's right, but the conservative islamists (OBL et al) are hellbent on destroying anyone that doesn't treat the Koran as the highest power. This includes any government - including muslim governments such as Egypt and Algeria - that don't take their power straight from God.
Watch that thing I sent you and you'll see what I mean.
But some elements (and I dont mean Bush here, I mean the neo-cons - there's a difference) want to wipe out any non-democratic governments.
That's equally sad, because it completely violates any notion that there can be more than one way to live in the world.
Opie & Anthony had one lesbian insert the business end of a wiffle-ball bat into another today on their show......
Economists are almost NEVER for tax cuts, since this does not spur the economy.That's not true at all. They DO spur the economy, but not for long term - the economy reverts to it's natural level of output. All they are is a shot in the arm, which the US needed post 9/11. However, the equality of the tax cuts was the retarded bit.
100,000 civilians dead in just 18 monthsThat is likely to be a complete exaggeration, because (if you're reffering to the Lancet's recent research) the method used to obtain the results was not particularly reliable. Extrapolation based on a small, randomly selected sample size is not a good way of making concrete analysis. That being said, the "official" measures, from Iraq's interim govt (something around 3000) and Iraq Body Count (something around 10,000) sound suspiciously low.
Contrary to what paranoid people believe about Muslims... they are not hellbent on destroying the westNo, that's right, but the conservative islamists (OBL et al) are hellbent on destroying anyone that doesn't treat the Koran as the highest power. This includes any government - including muslim governments such as Egypt and Algeria - that don't take their power straight from God. Any non-islamic theocracy. Watch that thing I sent you and you'll see what I mean.
Did anyone ever notice that Eminem is an anagram forDude, are you sure they didn't get to you too?:)
Min E Me?
Wow! I never thought I'd see the day when a magazine as conservative as that would back a Democrat for prez.The Economist is only fiscally conservative because in economic terms it does "make sense." However, it is socially moderate, calling for gay marriage, stem cell research etc to be legalised. It also has strong opinions on "the right way" to sort out things like Israel/Palestine, etc. But they are usually backed up by political realities: economics state do A, politics will require the following concessions etc.
And like you said, given what the guy has done, who'd really trust him?
Definitely trying to influence the electionNo, just a reminder that it doesn't matter who is in office, Al-Qaeda will always be around and always planning the next big attack. Same shit, different tape. It's getting old. Though, like nin, I did catch a hint of sense in the transcript, almost like OBL has realized Al-Qaeda is just a shell of what it was, and his thought process has kicked into survival mode.
but I wonder if he's feeling the heat and doing this to try to remove some of the pressure directed his way
You think so, huh? When someone famous comes out with a new movie or whatever and is doing the rounds on all the tv & radio shows, do the following:
1) Tape the interview they have with Letterman, Leno, and Conan.
2) Tape the interview they have with Howard Stern.
After you've taped them all, listen to them back-to-back.
For case 1, you'll find that they're cookie cutter interviews. They ask the same questions, and the people give dumb and boring answers. "Yes, it was great working with him because he's just a genius and ..." ... ugh ... Usually they tell the same anecdotes on each show, too. These shows are for promotion first, "funny" anecdotes second, and interviewing third.
For case 2, you'll find that the interviews are almost always entertaining and interesting because Howard focuses on the interview first and foremost. Howard doesn't ask the cookie-cutter questions, and when the guest tries to tell their 'funny' anecdote that they've told a million times before, Howard will always cut them off and ask an interesting question. When he's not getting a good interview, he goes to great lengths to create a good interview and that's usually where the sex-oriented questions come in, and that's usually the topic that makes people uncomfortable about the show. But when you listen to enough interviews, you'll discover that it's part of his overall interviewing style: a carefully crafted sequence of questions and comments that often brilliantly manipulate the interviewee into providing an interesting segment on the show.
There are other good interviewers out there who do have interesting interviews without resorting to 'smut', as people call it, but nobody can force a good interview from someone like Howard can.
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad