Users who Dugg This
P. Alexander Telionis
104 Followers
Navneet Sau
179 Followers
autokadJan 18, 2012
thats actually pretty funny
whiteravenJan 19, 2012
I wouldn't mind a funny "up yours, whach'ya going to do about it?" response but this just seems lame. As a joke it's falling flat and I don't see how it works on any other level.
dusanmalJan 19, 2012
It is not a joke. It is demeaning and belittling. It is intended for Iranian and Islamic consumption. Showing who is the "Boss" and who is impotent. Pink? Just think of J.Arpaio prison underwear regulation... West can pretend all it wants but for Islamic consumption this is a triumph, not a joke. This act in connection with Obama Administration weak behavior after the drone was down decreases respect for America in Middle East for one more magnitude.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadpyleJan 19, 2012
Sounds like the Iranians have a better sense of humor than you do. They probably love overreactions like yours.
chadpyleJan 19, 2012
Not my kind of humor but, kudos to the Iranians for adding a little levity to the conflict.
danrabbitJan 19, 2012
Ha, gotta say that if it were me, I'd be proud to be an Iranian right now. The US needs to learn to respect other nations and not go war mongering.
whiteravenJan 19, 2012
I don't think you know what the word "warmongering" means.
chadpyleJan 19, 2012
"A policy of advocating war"? Seems like danrabbit nailed it.
nerysJan 20, 2012
f**k nailed it. Grand slam out of the f**king park. that ball went orbital. s**t it went WARP 10
It went Ludicrous speed and might have hit PLAID
but our economy is BUILT around war. literally. it would fail without our "warmongering" unless we do something about it.
whiteravenJan 20, 2012
You are either ignorant or deluded or both. Our economy does not benefit at all from war.
nerysJan 20, 2012
We are a wartime economy. your simply ignorant of reality if you do not realize this.
we have been a nearly continuous wartime economy since WWII which is why we have all these conflicts. all our spending goes into our military industries.
its just "NOW" its starting to catch up with us and "WE" the lowly citizens are no longer reaping the benefits from it any longer.
instead of realizing this flawed system CAN NOT continue without failing they are trying to drum up MORE AND MORE conflict.
cajungalJan 21, 2012
If I may interject a thought into this conversation, some people say it is the United States that wants this war or that war; but, I believe that it is the private banking cartel that runs our country that is benefiting from the wars that we have been involved in. They are the ones who benefit from prolonged wars. Both sides in any war have to borrow money to fund their wars. The United States has borrowed trillions in this past decade. Then the countries have to be rebuilt which requires more borrowing and the cartel is happy to oblige. Guess who wins in such a scenario? It is the banks. Especially the way they create money. It is out of thin air, or rather out of debt. In the end the whole world will be run by this cabal because they are steadily buying influence the world over and the time is now growing very short for us to turn things around.
nerysJan 24, 2012
Semantic. they run they country from a an effective standpoint THEY ARE the country.
unless we "take it back" which does not seem likely to happen anytime soon sadly.
whiteravenJan 20, 2012
Wartime economies are negative states. That is not a benefit.
Our economy is not built on war. War is an incidental part of out current economy. Your insane exaggerations render your reasoning invalid. You are basing your thinking of false premises. The existence of war does not indicate an existence BASED on war.
You are right that we are suffering from the prolonged expense of war. How is that evidence that the economy was "built" on war? It does quite the opposite, does it not? For the entire duration of the war, it has been draining us. The drain is having an effect. At do time did we *benifit* from that drain and at no time has it been a economic positive.
What it is is a necessary expense needed to keep the world stable enough to continue to do business in. The "war" is to PROTECT people.
Like most conspiracy theorists, you see dishonesty and conspiracy in the world because you are at you heart a conniving villain and expect the world to conform to your own abnormal psyche.
Stop swallowing the lies of paranoid delusion. The canard of "blood for oil" is false on it's face. At no time has our military involuntary in the middle east resulted in more "control" of oil, only in the stability necessary to allow others to sell it to us. And coincidentally, not live under brutal dictatorships.
Your personal survival depends on the supply of cheap oil and the welfare of all the people of the world depends on strong protector willing to act in the defense of them... maybe you need to rethink how you prioritize the world.
nerysJan 20, 2012
Oh I don't know. WWII and take a look at the federal budget before and after WWII
Then another war. then another war then another war then a cold war then another war then invasions of other countries occupations of other countries.
you can say I am in valid all you want but this is what history is showing me.
the massive expansion of our federal government and its budget is a direct result of its war mongering to the best of my ability to see.
and our federal government "IS" the vast majority of our debt and monetary expense.
nerysJan 20, 2012
Oil is predominantly sold in US DOLLARS and we have "done bad things" to keep it that way. (iran 1954) etc.. etc..
I call that a decent amount of control.
whiteravenJan 20, 2012
First of all, I think you're confusing the federal budget with the national economy. Growing federal budgets and deficits are NOT a good thing and do NOT mean the national overall economy is based on anything.
The fact that government is growing is a terrible thing... but little of that growth has anything to do with the military. What is growing are social programs and regulation.
Oil is sold primarily in U.S. dollars and oil is very important to the entire world. Many of our military actions have been motivated by protecting our access to this necessary resource... how does any of that mean that our economy is based on war? That doesn't follow.
nerysJan 21, 2012
the federal budget is currently the largest "sink" in our debt and our financial PROBLEMS.
These directly effect the economy by making it difficult for people to plan for "down times" ie people can not save effectively.
so yes it DOES in fact have a VERY significant effect on the economy.
the increase in taxation to fund federal (and state) projects of ever growing magnitude FURTHER injures the population directly (tax burden) and also pushes jobs over seas since #1 we tax more so they have to "lower costs" #2 we tax more so they push where taxes are cheaper (over seas) #3 they tax more so people have less money so they reinforced #1 and #2 and made them even worse as retailers try to bring costs down even more to consolidate market share and bring in poorer shoppers making all the problems even WORSE!
so yeah there is a pretty damned direct connection between government spending and the condition of our economy.
whiteravenJan 24, 2012
Regarding you post listing the wars we've fought.
Fighting a war does not make one a warmonger. Seeking war for no good reason would make one a warmonger. We don't do that.
No one is advocating war with Iran.
nerysJan 24, 2012
when you fight those wars without lawful cause and do so simply to push your agenda and or profit. THAT IS what a warmonger is.
whiteravenJan 24, 2012
"the federal budget is currently the largest "sink" in our debt and our financial PROBLEMS."
Uh..... you've suddenly changed the topic. You've switched from blaming military spending and warmongering to the federal budget as a whole. The military only accounts for about 20% of the budget. The trouble is all the money that gets confiscated and redistributed.
YES, government budgets are strangling us. NO, the military is not the source of that problem.
nerysJan 24, 2012
I never blamed military spending. I have always 100% of the time blamed GOVERNMENT SPENDING regardless of what its spent on.
so NO I have not "suddenly changed" anything.
The military is a VERY VERY large part of that problem.
We spend more money air conditioning tents in the middle east than we do funding NASA.
our military actions are directly responsible for a lot of non military expenditures (homeland security tsa etc.)
whiteravenJan 26, 2012
"when you fight those wars without lawful cause and do so simply to push your agenda and or profit. THAT IS what a warmonger is."
I agree with your definition. I see no sign that the U.S. is guilty of any of that. You dream up nefarious motives while ignoring the obvious legitimate ones.
nerysJan 26, 2012
Ok explain to me the constitutionally lawful reason for ANY war since the end of WWII
I await your reasoning.
whiteravenJan 27, 2012
"Ok explain to me the constitutionally lawful reason for ANY war since the end of WWII"
Your question doesn't make any sense. The constitution does not say anything about for what reasons we may use our military. The correct answer to your question would be "because the Commander in Chief felt like it".
nerysJan 28, 2012
YES it does. its right their in the OATH they must swear to even HOLD an office in this country.
If its not protecting and or defending the constitution from an enemy within or without or one of our friends AT THEIR REQUEST then ITS UNLAWFUL
And thank you.
Your lack of even an attempt to answer the question CONFIRMS you know I am right.
whiteravenJan 28, 2012
"YES it does. its right their in the OATH they must swear to even HOLD an office in this country.
If its not protecting and or defending the constitution from an enemy within or without or one of our friends AT THEIR REQUEST then ITS UNLAWFUL"
The reason I did not answer the question you asked is because the question assumes something that is false. The Constitution does not require any reason at all for using the military.
You are simply factually wrong. I challenge you to provide the clause in the Constitution that sets out the criteria for using our military.
And International law is a unenforceable joke that has no relevance in reality.
As for the oath... swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution is infinitely subjective. That list of conflicts you posted were all about defending the rights of Americans and the Constitution. "Making the world safe for the American way". But I'm not going to argue about it with you because your opinion simply doesn't matter. If the Commander in Chief decides a military action is a good idea, THAT IS JUSTIFICATION ENOUGH. The Constitution requires no more.
I say again, if you believe there is a clause in the Constitution that says otherwise, produce it.
And no, granting congress the power to declare war does not limit the President's discretion in deploying the military without such a declaration.
nerysJan 28, 2012
its not even slightly subjective. its fact. The constitution is EXPLICIT not IMPLICIT (see SCOTUS decision confirming this)
that means the federal government is BARRED from doing anything that is not EXPLICITLY spelled out in the constitution.
PERIOD
The specific clause is Article II end of Section I
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""
EOL
whiteravenJan 20, 2012
Okay... so where is avocation of war?
chadpyleJan 20, 2012
Do you have trouble locating the sky when you're outside, too?
I believe this is a case of: can't see the forest through the trees.
whiteravenJan 20, 2012
How about saying something meaningful for a change. Give me an example of the U.S. advocating war as anything but the last resort.
nerysJan 21, 2012
Korean War?
Vietnamese War?
Middle East meddling for the last 50 years?
First gulf war?
Second Gulf War?
War in afganistan?
Pissing all over Iran?
need I go on? just how many examples do you need? 100% of these were unconstitutional illegal wars not only illegal but many of them DIRECTLY CAUSED by our own meddling.
You do realize "WE" funded and armed bin laden to "make war" with the russians to keep them out of pakistan right?
You do realized we "removed" the democratically elected leader of iran and "installed" our own stooge in the 50's right?
We told Hussein hey go ahead we won't interfere if you try and take kuwait back (he claimed it was his)
what did we do? invade iraq (which hyper pissed off our buddy bin laden and his ilk)
When they crashed planes into the trade centers what did we do?
we flew his family out of the country (yes bin laden's family no joke) and then in invaded a country for LONGER THAN WW II that had absolutely 100% utterly NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Do you really have a problem seeing all the examples of the war mongering from WWII to today? really?
cantstopwontstopJan 19, 2012
the drone itself was not inside of iranian air space, it was circling along the border in afghanistan when they used a GPS hack to make it fly where they wanted it to. i.e. inside of their borders to be captured. granted it is a travesty that the stealth technology was captured, but other than that it's all iranians stroking themselves over nothing. iran are the bad guys in all of this.
they're going to squeeze every bit of juice they can out of their propaganda. that's what they want - to make iranians feel proud so they ignore the fact that those in charge in iran are the ones bringing the hellfire down upon them. iran is the provoker, not the victim.
since the US designed the technology, it also knows every intricate detail of it, which means it can come up with ways to counteract it should it be copied. and even if there was a war utilizing the stolen drone tech, it wouldn't do them much good since the US is way ahead in the production area, not to mention that's not the only tool in the US arsenal.
and it's one thing to steal technology, it's another to recreate it. many of these materials require highly specific manufacturing processes. it would even take china years to be able to make fleets with it, and do you think china is going to share it with iran? hell no. stealth planes lose their advantage when everyone has them.
they'll take from iran as long as it suits them. that much is clear when they demanded lower oil prices from iran after deciding to not join in on the sanctions. they're like 'sure iran we'll back you up - but you gotta pay'. even irans allies are only allies because iran lets itself be their bitch. but iranians wouldn't be proud if they knew their country was just a puppet for russia and china.
chadpyleJan 19, 2012
"they're going to squeeze every bit of juice they can out of their propaganda. that's what they want - to make iranians feel proud so they ignore the fact that those in charge in iran are the ones bringing the hellfire down upon them. iran is the provoker, not the victim."
I thought you were talking about the U.S. for a second. The similarities are striking.
nerysJan 20, 2012
They might be bad guys. you won't get that argument from me.
but they are a sovereign nation and it should be MANDATORY without question that we respect and honor that.
Short of a Nuclear option (and even that might fail) if CHINA decided it did not "like" what we were doing and decide to impose sanctions on us and INVADE
what do you think would happen? (hint we would not win)
would you have a problem with them doing that? I know I would.
they have no right to impose THEIR ideals on US.
but that is a two way street. we have no right to impose OUR ideals on other sovereign nations either BUT WE DO. a LOT and it gets them really pissed at us.
cantstopwontstopJan 20, 2012
the point is we haven't invaded their land and have respected and honored their borders. they hijacked the drone while it was in afghanistan. their theft was essentially an act of war, yet we didn't bring the hammer down on them. believe it or not the US are being the reasonable ones.
iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons just because they are a sovereign nation (more like rogue). especially since our allies border them and we know they have hostilities toward them (even though I don't care much for israel). the truth is countries like kuwait and saudi arabia want americans to keep iran in check, because iran is a threat to them too. iran would conquer these countries if they could just take it.
and we already know iran funds terrorist groups, along with an iranian recently caught trying to smuggle uranium out of russia. why would an iranian try to smuggle nuclear material out of russia when iran makes plenty of its own? because it can be traced back to the source, which would look like russia did it if a bomb were to go off. classic evil plot.
the US honestly doesn't and has no reason to care if iran was using nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. whether they use nuclear fuel to power their cities or old fashioned oil, it's no skin off the US's back, because iran would just be using its own oil to fuel itself. in fact, a nuclear iran would make oil prices cheaper since they'd have less of a need for their own oil.
whether or not iran is developing nuclear weapons is not a question. their actions and the evidence over the last few years has pointed to that. even if (a big if) they somehow miraculously weren't developing nuclear weapons, they have no one to blame but themselves for the reactions of others, for appearing to be developing nuclear weapons. we're talking about a country that executes gay men and rape victims, with nuclear weapons. no good can come from them being allowed to have nuclear weapons.
you need to learn more about iranian history to see just how bad they really are. iran has been imposing its ideals on others for centuries.
in the 1950's the british are the ones who setup their entire oil infrastructure (what is now known as BP). from finding the wells, to drilling them, building facilities, etc. iran wouldn't have an oil market if it wasn't for them. and what did they do? after all the work was done for them they kicked anyone who wasn't iranian out of the business, essentially the government stole control of the entire industry without any compensation. even the US hasn't done that.
how would you like it if you were a foreigner in iran and owned a business that was booming and they came to you and said, 'you know what, you're business is making soo much money....we think we'll just take it from you'. a business you created from the ground up in the first place. and it's not like iran wasn't benefiting from it, they just got greedy and took it all.
you're defending the wrong people. just recently they threatened to shutdown the strait of hormuz (a clear act of war as written into international law). that means they would keep other countries from using it as well, like saudi arabia. in fact, when saudi arabia said they would pick up the slack if sanctions were imposed on iran, iran threatened them! why? because that would completely negate the effects of irans hissy fit. so there we go again with iran imposing its ideal on others.
so iran imposes its ideals on others, and to stop them, we must impose our ideals on them.
think of it like this. say a guy is raping a woman in an alley as you walk by. he's imposing his 'ideals' on her. so you decide to intervene and stop the rape. that would be you 'imposing your ideals' on the rapist (the ideal that rape is wrong). but by your logic with iran, we should just walk by and ignore the rape. anytime a good guy stops a bad guy, he's imposing his ideals on the other. stop a man stealing a womans purse? to take action would be imposing your ideals on the thief. and that's exactly what the US is doing, taking action, even though you may label it as imposing ideals onto others. mind you, the US has been very patient with iran.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadpyleJan 20, 2012
Your logic is crass and ill-conceived. A couple weeks ago the U.S. Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, said that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is allowed to "peacefully use nuclear technology". There's no evidence that they've been developing nuclear weapons. If they were, there would be uproar throughout the global community.
This is WMDs in Iraq all over again.
nerysJan 24, 2012
Oh come now. even I know iran is working on nukes. I would be if I were them.
they want to be with "the big boys" this means you either need a space program or you need nukes.
its really that simple. my issue is I feel its THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHT to make nukes.
As long as "we" claim such right who are we to tell another sovereign nation they can not?
chadpyleJan 24, 2012
I won't argue with that, nerys. But, conjecture is not justifiable means for military intervention and no conclusive evidence has been presented (no doubt the government is eagerly trying to substantiate the claims).
Besides, with their technology capabilities, it would be decades before they have enough enriched uranium for a weapon.
But, your larger point is more poignant: Iran is surrounded by unstable nuclear powers and history has proven that countries without nuclear capability suffer greater harassment from adversaries, including the U.S. As the country with the largest possession and production of nuclear arms, the United States promotes a double-standard. If we want to return our status as leaders of the free world, we must be willing to lead by example.
nerysJan 26, 2012
I would rather we stick with being leaders of OUR NATION and encourage the rest of the world to join us by leading by example. not with our military might.
monvalleyJan 19, 2012
This is what happens when we have an idiot president; third world countries mock us.
Closed AccountJan 18, 2012
okay..and we'll send a nuke! fair trade?
mlw4428Jan 19, 2012
How is it fair? We violated their airspace. Are you saying that countries shouldn't respect another's sovereignty? What if China was trucking in troops? I'm pretty sure you'd have a problem with that.
Don't be a hypocritical and ignorant dumbass, you'll just continue to embarrass America. The fact is America f**ked up.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
i forgot the /s tag.
ofailure did not order the drone destroyed when it was apparent that it was in trouble. it falls all on obamas shoulders.
mlw4428Jan 19, 2012
They couldn't fly the drone...apparently there was a signal jam. Why would you think they could get a signal that would self destruct it? More importantly, what do you know of the self-destruction mechanisms of the drones? How do you know it didn't fail?
How do you know anything about anything related to what went down? You're no expert on military technology, so I suggest that you quit trying to fill those shoes. They don't fit.
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
actually the timer show be like on amtrack acela train. if the engineer doesn't turna switch evry 60 seconds or so the emergency brakes will come on. basically if the signal is interrupted it self destructs. like a deadman's switch.
obama didn't wanna anger the iranians. it was in a 60 minutes interview w/ leon panetta.
mlw4428Jan 19, 2012
And you know this how? Where are you getting your engineering information? Are you Iranian?
Closed AccountJan 19, 2012
most everything you can find out about on the net. an no im an american..f**kin stupid question.
psychetronJan 19, 2012
Ahmadinejad on a call after the 'drone' is delivered to Obama, "oh hai...trolololol"
FPSmotoJan 19, 2012
LOL
erik1421Jan 19, 2012
As I was reading, I actually thought this was the onion.