Charlie I love this bit:
"Finally, of course, there is the matter of deterrence. Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union’s 30,000 nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them."
You Americans do not get it even now. Deterrence worked for the Soviets not for you. The U.S. is the only country to have used these weapons and is the only country talking about their use today.
I agree with Charley Reese about how the neocons are trying to lie us into another war. Keep in mind that cooperation with our so-called demands on the Iranians is unlikely to happen given our history. Saddam let the arms inspectors back in back in early 2003 and that didn’t stop the invasion of Iraq. So why should the Iranians think they have anything to gain by giving in to Washington’s bullying?
This is an amazingly crude example of what they call the amalgam, a polemical device perfected by the Stalinists. Hitler opposes Stalin; the liberals oppose Stalin; therefore the liberals have joined forces with Hitler.
At least the Stalinists had the decency to argue that the liberals were only "objectively" joining forces with Hitler.
Basically, you’re saying that anyone who criticizes the Saudi royals or in any way embarrasses them has joined forces with Richard Perle.
What a load of hooey!
It is reassuring that Paul Roberts understands the designs of the neocons in this country. All U.S. citizens are made to pay in resources and blood for the neocons’ grand design for, first, Israel, and, second, the United States. Yet, the news media seem not to understand. Most commentators only present propaganda that is provided by Israel and the neocons. How can the New York Times, Washington Post, and the TV networks all ignore this story?
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
This is not a question, but a great big thanks for having Charles Goyette’s interviews being a part of your downloads available. I recently moved away from Arizona, and surely missed Charles’ very keen take and insight on what was really happening. It is wonderful to be able to download what both you and he have made available.
Thank you so much and keep up all the great work. And also, serious kudos to Scott for all the very thought provoking and “cut to the chase” interviews with all the great minds that are booked to speak with him.
You have taught me so very much.
Greg Bacon responded to my letter in regards to the USS Liberty attack. My comments are not “misleading at best." …
Israel thought they were attacking an Egyptian ship. This was the mistaken identity. Also, the attack did not last for 3 hours as Mr. Bacon said. This is an outright lie. The attack lasted less than 45 minutes, as documented by A. Jay Cristol’s research. Also the attack did not occur with a visible flag. There has been a great debate if there was enough wind to make the flag clearly fly and be seen by racing Israeli Mirage fighter jets. I note that Mr. Bacon quoted Admiral John McCain, Sr. I noticed that in that quote, Admiral McCain never said that the attack was premeditated or that Israeli knowingly attacked an American ship. It seems that the U.S. Navy is helping these conspiracy theories to continue by hiding their own culpability for putting the Liberty in that region during a war, when it should have never been there to begin with. The USS Liberty crowd has been getting away with their lies and exaggerations for too long.
You believe that Israel’s existence as a "Jewish state" is incompatible with democracy?
If so, why is it OK that Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, etc., etc., all say in their constitutions that they are "Islamic states"? 22 Muslim states are OK, but even ONE Jewish state is not?
Sounds pretty racist to me!
Jonathan Cook replies:
When does Ranaan think Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and so on become democracies? There are two main problems with this argument. First, the phrase “Jewish state” refers to a state that offers privileges to one ethnic group, Jews, and not, as Ranaan implies, to a religious or theocratic state that follows the precepts of Judaism (though Israel does that too). Unpleasant as overtly religious states usually are, including the Islamic ones he mentions, ethnic states are even more problematic. One can at least convert to the state’s dominant religion to avoid discrimination, but one cannot convert to another ethnicity. Nominally religious states, such as Christian Britain, are also capable of allowing a pluralism that encourages religious difference. By definition, an ethnic state is incapable of such tolerance.
Second, like most supporters of Israel as a Jewish state, Ranaan wants special treatment for an ethnic state but only in Israel’s case. When the world lists Israel along with other ethnic, non-democratic states, like apartheid South Africa, then the racism that underpins the assumption that Israel must be given “special treatment” (by being accorded the status of a democracy) will have finally come to an end.