What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
125 Comments
- BassMastr, on 10/10/2007, -9/+36Funny how that works...send weapons and troops one way...refugees come back the other way...
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -10/+32Way to bring stability to the region...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+30"Increasingly, Iraqis are drawing the ire of many Syrians, who complain that indigent Iraqi laborers are taking jobs for lower-than-average pay and increasing unemployment, which hovers around 20 percent."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The right wing loves to bitch about mexicans taking their jobs, and they're busy creating the same situation in another part of the world. This is an awful story, but that is hilarious. - reddevil3, on 10/10/2007, -29/+42Anyone who voted for Bush, ***** you.
- skytoil, on 10/10/2007, -12/+25I still support the president. Now Excuse me while I go bash my head with a hammer.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18War is profit. Nothing is being done for the refugee problem because it promises to propagate what will be a perpetual conflict. The corporate military industrial complex needs such a conflict to maintain its marriage with administration and congress and support for Iraq is wavering.
They're praying for another 9-11 event to be handed to either them or an allied nation. And if its not forthcoming then they are not beyond prodding someone with a stick to antagonise them into delivering. In this case the stick is a cold shoulder and a million refugees. - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Actually Syria did it to themselves by sending over suicide bombers to destabilize Iraq
- JimmyTheClam, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15We accidentally screwed over Syria?
LMFAO!
Seriously, you Diggbot retards need to pull your heads out of your collective asses. Anything that harms or destabilizes Syria is a good thing. - geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Syria is helping destabilize Iraq. They are digging their own grave. The submitter is too stupid and biased to see the irony.
- digbird, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Syria is a Baathist dictatorship ruled by the country's Alawite minority (an off-shoot of "Twelver Shi'ites"). In 1982, there was a popular uprising in the town of Hama. The regime crushed it with exemplar brutality killing up to 20,000 people. Syria also has sponsored terrorist actions around the world. Syria is also known for having employed former Nazis to train its secret police.
So I'm supposed to be upset that a regime like this is being destabilized? Give me a break. - CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I hear Nancy Pelosi is sobbing into her submissive Islamic female headscarf over this one.
She better rush right down there and fix everything.........just like she did the last time she was there. - Wosat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If the Iraqi refugees start blowing themselves up in Syrian markets, then they can complain. Look at who Syria sends into Iraq. The Syrians are getting a better deal.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"Syria is a Baathist dictatorship ruled by the country's Alawite minority (an off-shoot of "Twelver Shi'ites"). In 1982, there was a popular uprising in the town of Hama. The regime crushed it with exemplar brutality killing up to 20,000 people."
Just the type of place I'd want to move to.
"So they loaded up the truck and moved to Syria!"
"Hell, that is......."
Eh, why blame al Sadr and his death squads when Bush is so darn easy to bash? That's what the article wants us all to do anyway. Why question it or its political motives? - Latentk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Bush did not cause the mass movement immigration of Iraqi immigrants. You so-intelligently thank Bush when not once throughout the entire article does it mention the fact that this was linked to Bush. Would you want to live in a country full of Islamic Radicals deciding to blow themselves up for a cause you dont support? No, they are not leaving because of what Bush has done. They are leaving due to the mass terrorism thats effecting the poor country.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Last time I checked Syria weren't our "friends" anyway.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Supplying arms, explosives, and terrorists free passage is a strange form of "help".
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Syria sends al qaeda agents and weapons over the border into Iraq, and refugees come back the other way. They dug their own grave.
- poisonberry, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9OMG, Syria is in trouble! Hurry, do more of the same thing! Bush is brilliant :-)
- kore64, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is just an article about socialism failing to adapt. Public services, public schools, subsidies for food and energy; giving away stuff to people who don't pay taxes! Every country has this. What's the damn problem!
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Lame moral equivalency for the win!
"I know you are, but what am I?" is not a valid comeback, Peewee. - bensonjacob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Bush was re-elected for a second term by a whole country of IDIOTS....
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4War is profit for few, but a debt for most. We're paying for the war, but we aren't the ones profiting.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If balance were their priority then the economy would not have been purposely inflated and spending revved by an extra trillion to blow the engine. Instead they would have maintained the status quo.
Events which often seem disasterous for all are usually very profittable for the few. In a crash wealth is not destroyed, as it is easy to think of it, but is in fact relocated. For example take the 1929 Wall Street Crash. The people that paid the price and suffered were business men, tradesmen, public banks, taxpayers. Yet public banks receive credit from merchant banks, merchant banks from bigger fish still who work specifically behind the scenes for central banks, corporate banks. There were those that came out of the crash with a lot more than what they went in. The world's leading central banks are all privately owned. The Federal Reserve, the Bank Of England, European Central Banks; all privately owned. The Federal Reserve doesn't lose money in a crash, it loses your money. The Federal reserve issues money and decides its worth. The banking institutes higher up the food chain protect their losses with those beneath it. If in a crash stocks collapse but powerful financial institutions remain in tact they can then move in and buy up such stocks at a fraction of the price before a recovery is made. Everytime the process is repeated the wealth divide becomes greater and a smaller percentage owns more of the lion's share of the wealth. J
ust as war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been profittable for the few at the expense of the many, an economic collapse is equally valid in their eyes. But for it to be truely worthwhile they need to be able to acquire the resources that follow such crash, they need to be in the market place to be bought. Before the invasion of Iraq Iraq decided where its oil contracts went (hence the oil for food scandal), since the invasion these contracts have moved - the West have seized them. It is all about taking public wealth, or other people's wealth, and privatising it making it their own.
But how do you privatise something you don't own (Iranian oil for example), or reap the rewards after its recover if you do not have the chance to buy it, own it and control it? Global resources need to be under their remit, to crash them, to buy them - to hold others to ransom over their control of them, to profit from them.
Corporation married to State makes wealth their own by spending taxpayers money as subsidy on their own contracts; defense and pharmaceuticals being the biggest, by taking wealth directly from the individual (income tax) to pay for federal debts run up by themselves and by running up individual debts before forclosing (when the bank causes you to default on your mortgage by manipulating interest and lending- it gets the money you've paid so far and the entire house, plus anything else you have on credit). They control inflation tax - so the money is worth more when it is in the hands of corporation and they fix prices. Crash before they buy, then inflate and lend to attract outside investment.
If you believe the war was always about money, then it is only logical to expect a war and an economic melt down in the future. If the war is not forth coming, expect a pretense to be made.
Marginalising Syria may well provide that pretense. - truck87bp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Islam extremist are pushing people out of Iraq ....DUH
- wisam, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8What the f**k are you talking about?
- vastrightwing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Perhaps this is planned: cause instability in Iraq. Force Iraqis to flee to Syria. Of course, Syria helps this along nicely with their helpping the instability of Iraq. Seems to be working fine.
- raybury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Syria has been in a "state of emergency" for my entire lifetime; is a religious-minority-ruled military dictatorship run by my least favorite type of dictator, the hereditary ruler / ophthalmologist; and elicited the world's trust to end the Lebanese civil war only to support the most viscious partisans and keep destabilized what was long a successful multi-ethnic, multi-creed democracy.
If it's near the edge, I say "push." - notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are completely lying. I will not bother to respond to the direct allegations because it's obvious you have never even read him.
- TimTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2TL;DR
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why would you even bring up the side with you argument. Talk about the facts, not the person.
- JimmyTheClam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I have likely written more about history than you have read, sazerac.
Yes, I will repeat (for the slower ones here) that a destabilized Syria is a very good thing.
It forces them to look inward in order to maintain their existing power structure (through terrorizing and oppressing their own people) and saps their ability to export mischief to Lebanon and Iraq.
It couldn't happen to a nicer country too, except for maybe Iran. - Shigatsu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I find it extremely Ironic that the US imposes economic sanctions but is cool with selling them weapons. If that is in effect depriving the nation of money as the article suggests, then it needs to be brought to higher attention, this simple comparison of how this operates if a big enough message was brought out about this shady deal.. well it might only add ***** to the ever growing pile but with the balance so precarious now it could be the blow that topples the regime.
The people who value freedom and those who see the need of getting the wheels of the neocon movement grinding to a halt, then the people must remain ever vigilant and never let the pressure up, this is the real surge, and its only going to have one shot.
Forget Republican, Forget Democrat. The title doesn't matter. The original intent of both parties the principals they stood for, are lost, its money, power, and influence that are the core values of either party. This election is a fight of the Individual not the party or its values. A president needs to take the office who has a main mission to restore the civil liberties and the checks and balances system. In my opinion, The two choices would be Ron Paul or Mike Gravel.
I know a few of you out there think there could not be worse choices. I accept not everyone shares the same values to these things. We are almost all united against what Bush has brought against this country for whatever motives. The instruments used to cause such hardship (torture, wiretapping, ill planned war, various scandals) will only get worse if left untended, and there's a number of people on both sides of the ticket who want to use and expand that power. The power and Influence of the United States is quite large, good or bad. The current bid on the White House is about 60 million dollars, Whom ever wins, on any party, is going to see alot more money than that go through their hands. No one is perfect, but with the current debt, I'd want someone who shows prudence with that much flow. I also want someone who has my interests at heart. Those who are sponsored by large corporations I would be wary of.. 60 million buys alot of loyalty, alot more than half a million the Americans pay for the presidents office. For the people who cry "What about Universal Health Care" well.. you want that because your not happy with the way this current system runs.. Do you really want some politician who's probably never visited a modern public hospital designing your new system? Especially with evidence that those very same companies running your system now are the ones sponsoring them?
I think (Call me crazy here.) a former doctor would be a better person to design the new system, and a former doctor who spent the lowest percentage of spending his on hand money of all the candidates, and has made it his stated mission to put more money back in your pocket by taking out the middle man handling all the money made would be even better! A guy whos served his time in the military adds spice to the record. Those who think he's going to ruin the system, well.. the system in place is designed to get as much out of you, for as little as possible. Parties don't matter anymore, the democrats proved that with FISA and the War.
Ron Paul, since the 1980s, has run his platform centered around shrinking the role the government plays in your life, and allowing the people and the cause to take up the mantle of protection. He is anti war, and his voting record shows for the most part few blemishes. Moist of the bills that have caused such turmoil from FISA, to the Patriot and Military acts.. even down to the "War on Drugs" Paul would end the "wars".
Then you have Gravel, another guy who isn't afraid to call out the other folks, someone who's seen some action, and has seen even the damage from the Nixon debacle, he has the same idea everyone else does.. you're not gonna get ***** all done with these characters in office. The few times he actually gets the chance to talk, he tells you the real issues and gives the other candidates a run for their money. You see their indulging smiles.. How nice it would be to see him win the primaries and wipe the smirks off their faces.
I'm sorry to rant on about Paul or Gravel, but this sort of article only goes to point out how bad the situation has gotten. It all ties into the fact that serious change needs to happen, and the one thing that can do that is the unexpected towards the mainstream media/candidates. The mainstream media and the rest thought they had this ***** in the bag, with the media adjusting polls (see ABC's most recent republican poll.) and their claims of people tricking the vote, if this was true, how come if everyone thinks these other candidates are so much better their votes never even touch Paul in even their own polls, its individuals who would do this, and I assure you these types people are from all walks and would do it for any given candidate. The polls would reflect chaos of all candidates, but instead of thinking of the possibility of a large number of supporters (even if you would claim its only the "tin foil" hatters, rising up in mass), instead they completely disqualify it. They provide no proof of it, but they have no trouble insinuating it. With videos from him gaining 50,000 pluls views in a day. its completely shady to take the one person who's message (such as getting rid of the IRS) should be the front page of every news paper, and media outlet, even if half of them thought it was crazy talk, but instead its just a complete silence... they use the same tactics they did in the Washington Sex Scandals of the 80's and 90's a coimplete black out (google Conspiracy of Silence for the discovery channel documentary about it.) The sorts of methods they use, the ever so selective reporting is something singular to only Paul. They don't call McCain out for how one of his top campaign workers was caught trying to get a blow job from an undercover cop ! The message here is that they don't want him in. They will do anything they can to stop it... that in itself is altering the election, when they start doing that... there's a motive and I personally would want a man in office who see's that threat and will help change it.
So yeah, sorry for the long speech, but time and time again I see people call out those who support him, who truly don't understand his positions, and will not really look closely at what is being done to him and the obvious intent behind it. Even the "Tin foil hat crowd" gets it right sometimes. We only got one shot at this, 50,000 people watched his latest video in one day on youtube.. they can't all be tinfoil hatters. - hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No Kerry lost because was an incompetent law maker. Nay saying ass-clowns with no executive experience do not get elected president--despite Dan Rather's best efforts.
- sspooner, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6"20 million Mexicans brings America to brink, thanks President Clinton !"
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Blown up? Probably not.
Gassed by the village full.
Ground up.
Knifed and thrown into raw sewage.
Machine gunned into mass graves in the desert.
Denied UN humanitarian aid and medicine to die a slow death by the hundreds of thousands.
Disappeared into prisons never to be seen again.
It was the safest place ever! And WOW! Look at all those palaces built on the half million lives of its starved children! Iraq really had it made! - Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Syria has been causing problems by proxy for a long long time. they are never "directly" involved, but i guess all those missiles they are firing into residential parts of Israel from Gaza just fell out of the sky with all those Iranian and Syrian markings. when i read the headling i was like "AMERICA ***** YA"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Have you ever been to Syria? Syria is now the ONLY country left of the former Ottoman Empire which has had no ethnic cleansing one of the few countries in the Middle East with a sizeable Christian population. Ethnic and especially religious minorities (Turkmen, Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, Mandaeans) in Iraq are now being cleared out thanks to the chaos that the US created there (but then 'who could have predicted it?'). Stability is underestimated...
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not lying at all, noam is a pandering piece of ***** who craps out anything that will get his books to leave the shelves a little faster.
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We digg you down for being a one trick pony, Heathcliffe.
Not because you're making any impact on the arguments presented in this thread. - Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1indiana jones would beat the ***** out of norris
- sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Uh, they weren't fleeing the country by the millions threatening to destabilize the entire region. And since when did we start invading countries because they were screwing their own people? By the way, where do you think Saddam got the weapons to commit those heinous acts? I don't seem to recall any Iraqi arms manufacturers. Wake up
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1welcome to world politics you ***** crybaby. the world isnt a nice place.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Someone needs to visit http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm
- sumgi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's dangerous to try and simplify such a situation as exists in Iraq. It's also uncalled for to bring insults on our troops, most of them are doing a fine job over there. However they are in the middle of a 1500 year old dispute and of most those doing the killing are coming from places like Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia on one side and then Iran on the other. I think in the end if the people in Iraq can't co-exist and their neighbors continue to feel obligated to induce hatred between ethnic groups then we need to pull out. Even if it means Iran gets southern Iraq or possibly the whole thing. We can't ask our troops to stand between these two groups any longer.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6SFGATE = LIBERAL ***** PARADE.
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Prove it!
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's the President. That makes him accountable. What you're saying is akin to "don't blame me, I'm just the boss!"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2dont worry we will have another clinton in 2008 to continue the downward trend.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How do you know its not a bluff to make you vote for the other guy, huh?
- cspring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pity you if you believe that!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is