washingtonpost.com — The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.
Aug 15, 2007 View in Crawl 4
duffehAug 15, 2007
Better yet, tell me how this is not a direct declaration of war.
maxkAug 15, 2007
Who is he? Let the others know who is responsible.
matthew720Aug 15, 2007
This video is very telling:<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA</a>
babywookieAug 16, 2007
You are trying to decide between Paul and Kucinich? Wow. You must be pretty confused, considering the fact that they are almost on geometric opposites of the Left-Right scale. They do both stand against the current administration, but for completely different reasons. I couldn't remotely consider voting for some one as right-wing and unprogressive as Ron Paul.
ren1999Aug 16, 2007
Digg is under a propaganda attack. See all these stupid posts about The Matrix and funny pictures? The truth is that Cheney wants a war with Iran so that his company can profit over the death of people.
fsjonseyAug 16, 2007
Its true. The stated goal of the revolutionary guard is a global islamic conquest. Dont believe me, look it up.
kwoffAug 16, 2007
Okay, I see your point. Thanks.(The airplane thing above seems irrelevant, though.What kind of strategy would involve shooting down a civilian airliner?)
scuvballSep 5, 2007
I'm replying to your comment pretty late, but it disturbed me at how ignorant your analogy was. The sole purpose of Iran's presence in Iran is to cause chaos, kill people, and gain power in the region (which seems to be working for them). Most of the bombs that go off in that country kill Iraqi civilians. Iran is in Iraq for its own reasons, as the US is, but Iran's presence and intention is purely malevolent, contrary to the statements of Ahmedinejad.Iraq and Iran were/are enemies. In order for your analogy to be correct, they would need to have been allies. What you need to do is stop spinning the topic. No one should want to go to war in Iran, but sometimes the status quo is just unacceptable. The things Iran is getting away with would have been considered an act of war even during the Clinton years, so please don't tell me that I'm looking at it from just Bush's perspective. Quitting Iraq is an option, but whether or not it is the best will be seen.