What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
97 Comments
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+87GIGGITY GIGGITY
Sorry. It had to be said. - bishsd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48True. Iraq isn't a quagmire now. It's a *****. Big difference.
- concept, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48flip flopper?
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38Irony.
If the Bush administration would just shut up with their constant ***** and propaganda, their words couldn't come back to haunt them later.
P.S.
I ***** love YouTube and internet video. It makes revelations like this possible. - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32If you GOP apopogists thought the 1990s were irrelevant, then you wouldn't constantly be crying CLINTON every time a Repub gets caught doing something naughty...
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Cause he's a Dick.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26He was against the war before he was for it?
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Try asking Sean Hannity if events in 1983 (specifically, Studds being censured for an event that happened in 1973) are relevant to today's topics. He has emphatically stated it IS relevant.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26What has changed this time? He couldn't talk Bush Sr into invading Iraq, While Bush Jr is a puppet that Cheney and Rove can manipulate at will.
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGIe1gPaTXY&mode=related&search=
Why Dick, why? - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19"to me this is irrelevant, it was 91, before we went the first time"
Wikipedia
"The invasion was met with immediate economic sanctions by the United Nations against Iraq. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths." - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"..."quagmire" means is that it'd be difficult"
dictionary.com says:
"a situation from which extrication is very difficult"
but thanks for sugar-coating it. - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18What's changed in Iraq over the last 15 years that keeps Cheney from being a hypocrite?
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -11/+251991? Does this strike anyone else as irrelevent?
No more so than what President Clinton did or didn't do. - silverbax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14The only differences between then and now is that G Bush senior ('Bush 41')
1. needed Iraq to try to keep people's attention off of the fact that the Republicans had tanked the economy (which didn't work and he was booted from office).
2. knew better than trying to occupy Iraq. - omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"Lots of things are difficult, but we do them anyway."
Banging one's head against the wall comes to mind. - zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@gwolf:
Speaking of profit, I would highly recommend the movie "Why We Fight." The movie's premise is based on Truman's farewell speech where he warned of a "military-industrial complex" where we fight, primarily, because it is profitable. Iraq War 2 and the Bush administration take up a good portion of the movie--but they do state that near every President (all of them?) have been involved in this. - tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It didn't strike 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials as irrelevent 1999.
"The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110400577.html - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@systemghost
and yet here you are...
was the clip not educational? there was no editorial in the title or description. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8He was talking about the same Iraq, right?
- jamester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11You could always turn selected sections of Digg off in your profile...
- cthellis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This Cheney person would appear to have a level head about the situation. If only he could be placed in some kind of position of power to help guide us through this Iraq issue!
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"I'm convinced users want to see the administration fail,"
Bush is doing a good job of that already, thanks. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This makes complete sense. Cheney wouldn't become chairman and CEO of Halliburton until 1995. War profiteering doesn't make sense from his perspective for another 4 years.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9heliox: I suggest that you get them to stop creating so much ammunition. If you think it's tiring reading about all their crap every ten minutes, just keep in mind that someone is usually dying because of it.
- SkeletaLlama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Left wing? I thought Digg was decidedly right wing. Not that it matters. Digg is about user feedback and input. If you don't like what's here, submit something different, digg the stuff you like. That's how this works, or didn't you get the memo?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@alwaysmc2:
yeah but he claimed they would greet us with flowers and chocolates and that the war would take months not years.. i doubt even 6 months.. and then acted surprised it was a quagmire, when Cheney KNEW ALLLL ALONG. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"based on Truman's farewell "
It was actually Eisenhower's speech. - tharju, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7different time but same mind set:
Sunni hates Shiite, ***** hates Sunni, Kurd hates *****, ***** hates Kurd, Sunni hates Kurd, Kurd hates Sunni and all of them don't favor US. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So, prosecuting Saddam for what happened 15 years ago is also irrelevant?
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Yes they did, He figured out how to turn a tidy profit from an unnecessary war.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What exactly is different?
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp
We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
- George Bush Sr. - ryanfelix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Video? More like an audio clip...
Marked as inaccurate. ;P - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, that's some real nice posturing and effective reiteration of unsubstantiated *****, but it does little on people whose IQs exceed a potato- apparently people you're not used to interacting with.
The facts are, Iraq IS a quagmire, it IS un-winnable, it HAS been drastically mismanaged by the egregiously incompetent leaders we've somehow been damned with and it WON'T get any better with this 'stay the course' zealotry.
If you can't acknowledge this, then you are a fundamentally stupid human being. But then, we already know that you're a conservative. - zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It was after the first Gulf War, when the first President Bush refused "seal the deal" by sending Norman Schwarzkopf and the rest of the Desert Storm forces north to Baghdad.
Instead, Bush 41 decided to allow Saddam to break the southern no-fly zone in order to slaughter tens of thousands of Shiites rebelling against him. Of course, this was AFTER Bush encouraged the Shiites to rise up and implied that he would help them. Instead he just let them die. He would have done the same to the Kurds, but public outrage stopped him.
But thanks for playing! - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6true.
but it's still funny. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Cry me a ***** river.
If you don't want to be confronted with, you know, *reality* and it's previously established liberal bias, go off and hide in your comfortable little echo chamber. - Draracle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4For those who are upset about "leftie" posters everywhere. I don't think this as anything to do with the "rightness" or "leftness" of the situation. This has everything to do with very poor decisions -- like so poor that you would have to be a idiot to think it was a good decision. If a leftist government did this (and I don't care it if is Lenin himself) I would still call him a moron. That being said: Bush, you're a moron. (wouldn't want anyone calling me a liar)
- zeeeej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I love you guys. When you need to sell the fact that we're going to be in Iraq forever if we keep you in office, you're "students of history" who "see the big picture."
When history is inconvenient for you because it's the exact same country run by the exact same guy full of the exact same warring groups, then history is irrelevant. Because it was way back in the other century. You know, 15 years ago. - Unled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ HarryBauzonia
"Different war.
Different century.
Different threat.
Don't let facts stop you though."
Same results as predicted in '91 though. Hrm - OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only intelligent thing I can think to add is: What a dumbass.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3heliox, how is playing a Cheney's speach anti-GOP.
Seems like playing a fragment of his speach without commentary (and in context) is giving him a free voice.
Its just pointing out one man's change in attitude.
Maybe your problem with this is that many people still agree with his first statement. - mweflen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This just in: Administration Full of Nincompoops and Hypocrites.
Dugg for showing the completely obvious yet again :) - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not much changed in Iraq in those 10 years.
Over the 10 years, we kept dropping bombs on Iraq and kept shooting down planes that wandered into the wrong place.
Their economy and military were prevented from growing through sanctions and constant military action. The leadership of that country didn't change.
Maybe what we have is Bush Sr. played the psywar too well. He got the American public all riled up against Saddam and then left him there. The attitude here over Saddam didn't change over the years so, Bush jr was able to exploit the attitudes and pretty much do what he wanted. - sirius889, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Video: A single picture with sound!
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And somehow now it is?
- BigKitty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A vice president CAN, and SHOULD, resign if the president refuses to listen to reason before doing something DANGEROUS, POINTLESS, and STUPID.
- brusty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The only significant difference between 1991 and 2006 is that the people now in power stand to make a lot more money and force their spiritual beliefs on the world at the same time.
In that sense, it has nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with GREED and CORRUPTION OF POWER. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HarryBauzonia, what is the different threat?
Iraq wasn't a threat to the US in the 90's or the 00's.
In the 90's we went in to make the Saudi's happy. Nobody cared about Kuwait other than by taking it, Iraq was a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is