What is Digg?255 Comments
- nexah3, on 10/12/2007, -26/+113I think Bush is more of a dictator than Iran's president.
- phnx0221, on 10/10/2007, -6/+84"Fog Fact No. 4: Nobody is speaking of what happens after a war with Iran.
The ultimate goal of the strategy of war is the shape of the peace that follows.
This is especially true of a war of choice. If someone attacks you, you fight back, and the goal is to stop them and be safe. But if it's a preemptive or preventive war, then a great deal of thought must be given to what happens after the attack. Will it make us safer? Stronger? More prosperous? How? And for how long?
It is clear that this administration did not give enough thought to that before the invasion of Iraq. There were plenty of dreams about the best-case scenario, but no plans for the worst, and the worst is what happened.
Now we are creating a new fog of mythologies -- about a "dictator" who isn't one, about "appeasement" that is completely inapplicable, about nuclear weapons that don't exist, about a country that is "evil" -- that make it seem like we must do something.
But what will the consequences of military action be? If we've learned but one single thing from the current war in Iraq it's that after we panic ourselves with descriptions of the worst that will happen if we don't act, we had better consider the worst that will happen if we do. And be ready for it.
That's a fact."
I just wanted to highlight that for truth. This call for military action, or the preparations for military action against Iran are absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. There is no logical reason we should be entering a "pre-emptive" war against anyone right now, or ever. There is nothing this administration could say, that I would believe, to be a rationale for going to war against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or any other middle eastern country. Just as there is nothing they could say to make me believe that if Israel were to do it, that we should legitimately back them. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -6/+74In addition to the 4 myths are the things they don't wish to publicise....
Prior to the invasion of Iraq Iran had a reforming and modernising figure as President in Mohammad Khatami. The reform movement had a lot of support amongst Iranian women and the Iranian youth. Ahmadinejad only came to power because Iran identified a need to return to more conservative ways to ride out the effects of not one but two of her neighbours being invaded by the US and her allies. Khatami was elected in 1997 and re-elected 4 years later. Khatami studied Western Philosophy at university and for some time lived and worked in Europe. When introducing his reforms he often spoke about wanting to emulate and follow the European template. Having served two terms Khatami could not serve again but the US invading Iraq pushed Iran back to a more hardline President in Ahmadinejad HOWEVER.....
Only in the last month Iran elected its Assembly of Experts - the body that rivals the Presidency for power and is responsible for appointing Iran's Supreme Leader and its new leader is one Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, "a fierce opponent of Ahmadinejad’s policies" and is said to, "head the moderate-reformist faction in next March’s presidential elections alongside Khatami, against the ultraconservative wing close to President Ahmadinejad. So not only is Ahmadinejad not a dictator, there is a strong reformist and moderating force already at work in Iran. Attacking Iran will only serve to do that what invading Iraq did to reformist President Khatami - marginalise the need for reform in favour of defense. If denying Iran nuclear WMDs is going to be the reason they try to use to justify an attack remember that Khatami was elected in by the reformist movement vote especially popular amongst the young. Even the most ambitious predictions say Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon for another 10 years. Do the maths. Ahmadinejad won't be in power even if he gets another term, the elections are only in March and all the indicators are that Iran is moving towards a European economy and social reform. Not a country you need to radicalise by attacking it in pre-emptive strikes.
No wonder those who want to attack Iran for their own nefarious reasons want to do it sooner than later - the signs are Ahmadinejad will lose the election in March to a reformist moderate! If that happens they'll never sell a reason to attack, people will already know he's on his way out and would refuse to support military action. - atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+55I actually like the last point: "Nobody is speaking of what happens after a war with Iran" it would be interesting to me to see what somebody who advocates war against Iran proposes to do with Iran after such a war.
- siszam, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35I'd like to point out that during a Democratic debate Hillary Clinton called Chavez a dictator. He isn't. He was elected multiple times and is greatly loved by his people. It is frightening that a former first lady and current presidential candidate could be so dangerously ignorant. We already have a madman, fool for president. We don't need another. I'm voting Kucinich.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26That was the most amazingly asinine comment I've seen from Spaza for awhile.
1)Alienate a billion muslims and neighboring Pakistan...good ol nuclear armed Pakistan.
2)Oil...didn't we try to do that to Iraq...how's that going?
3)Too expensive. We also got rid of slavery a few centuries ago. Get with the times.
4)As oppose to listening to delusional rants from you? I'll the take the lefties.
You ticked off a moderate and most of the human race...enjoy your hate filled existance. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27Sorry, I intended to provide links to support that and to provide background info:
http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=77522
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-200 ... - notmark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24"What goes around comes around"--I do not think that means what you think it means.
- zachshmack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Congratulations, Atomic1fire, you have just successfully been manipulated by a sound-bite. How does that make you feel?
I don't care if Mahmoud is under the impression that he ***** Lucky Charms and that the moon is made of crack. It's not a justification for bombing the hell out of a country filled with compassionate people.
Have you ever stopped to consider that *some* countries (wink wink) are more than just the sum of the actions of their crackpot leaders? - rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22As opposed to your nonsubstantive nonrebuttals, which you don't reference at all, just like everything else you spout.
- nimski, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Lots of people say stupid things... it makes them irrelevant, not the target of a war. Some people don't understand that.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20well obviously ahmadinejad is not a dictator since he is only the #2 in Iran
- IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Bush isn't a dictator, he is The Decider. He gave himself that title:
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/ - breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18No, it just means your government is totalitarian and/or authoritarian. Just because a country doesn't have a liberal democracy doesn't automatically make it a dictatorship. I'm not saying Iran is a happy place to live, just that the word "dictatorship" is way overused, which I think may have been one of the points of the article, no?
"The position of president used to be a figurehead, but recently it was combined with that of prime minister and now has much real power. However, he does not control the army and the intelligence and security services. He does not have the power to go to war."
Not doing a lot of dictating without control of the army, intelligence or security services is he? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23Find it so funny people defend Ahmadinejad for not being a dictator yet do a 180 and call Bush a dictator which is not true either.
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19it's true in that Bush has more power than Iran's president who is only the #2 behind the Supreme Leader Khamenei, who would be more of a dictator than Bush just based on the fact that they arrest people based on how they dress etc and the execution of homosexuals. Does any of this justify an American invasion? No. But not supporting war with Iran is not ther same as being pro-Iran which worryingly many people in this thread seem to be despite the fact that Iran is borderline theocracy and is controlled by the religious right much more so that the U.S.
How many people here would honestly feel more free if ahmadinejad or Khamenei were declared ruler of the U.S? - SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -11/+27Fox News has called Chavez a dicator, despite him winning several elections in Venezuela. His popular support is about twice as much as Bush's and yet they declared Chavez the dicator:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gpmlUPg6wLo - chase001, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19I don't think they know. They just want poor brown people dead as long as they don't have to do they fighting and they prefer the fighting is done by other poor brown people.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Calling someone a hippie was an insult 30 years ago...get with the times.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18What makes Iranian and European sources less credible than American ones? I would think the European one, at least, is more credible due to the fact that they are generally more educated than most Americans.
- Sketchcast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Just to add context to jmpeagle's comment; if a US based media corp accepted money and cooperated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran in direct supported an attempted coup, every member involved would be executed under US law for treason. Let me state that one more time, under US law they would be executed, period. Having the federal government deny RCTV's license renewal was a pretty light punishment for involvement in a CIA sponsored coup.
- rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Great article. Nit pick:
"...the elected members of the U.S. federal government are 93 percent Christian (including Catholics and Mormons), 7 percent Jewish, with a single Muslim, no pantheists and no atheists..."
Actually, the courageous and respected veteran Congressman Pete Stark, (D-CA) formally came out as an atheist in March of this year - the first member of the US Congress ever in our history to do so. He announced his intention to run for re-election (he's served his district since 1975) and be the first ever to be *elected* to Congress as an open atheist. - SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Wow, the fact that you got dugg up just goes to show how much misinformation has been spread. I suggest you look into the 2002 coup d'etat against Chavez. Read up on the corruption of the private media and their support for the ancien regime. Venezuela has about 4 private media networks that are about 10 times worse than Fox News.
RCTV had their license revoked, which was perfectly legal. Had they operated in the US and did what they did, they would have been charged with treason.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107
I suggest you read a little bit more on Chavez before drawing such conclusions. This is a man who's expanded the rights of the poor, indigenous, and women. He's put them into the new constitution. If Fox News is bias, then RCTV was straight propaganda, because Fox has nothing on RCTV when it comes to bias.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ... - rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Hey, chickenhawk, this isn't about defending Iran's 2nd in command who has no authority over its military nor the power to go to war; this is about educating Americans about the actual structure of the Iranian political system, so that we can make informed decisions about whether we want to send our sons and daughters overseas on another interventionist, expensive, adventure that will create a whole new generation of terrorist recruiting fodder and ultimately make our homeland less secure.
But, I'm betting you never actually read the ***** article before you buried it.
Funny how all you macho guys are so afraid of a little information... - ZiggityZhang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Reread the transcript skippy. he's more concerned with why Palestinians had to pay for something that Europeans wrought on the Jews. If Israel weren't created amongst occupation and European intervention I doubt you'd hear the same words from him today.
- FluffyWolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Yeah imagine how weird it would be if candidates would be excluded prior to the real presidential election. As if only two candidates from two parties were selected to be able to run for the presidency, weird crazy Iranians. (Well actually I don't think they are particularly democratic in Iran, but I seriously doubt they will become more democratic under gun point)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10If you're so compassionate why aren't you demanding the military to go into Darfur or Burma?
- UntoTheBreach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The last unprovoked attack on US soil committed by foreigners prior to 9/11 was Pearl Harbour. Saying that 6 years of "no attacks" on US interests (which is debatable) is somehow better than 50 is kind of missing the point. Bush has made the US far less safe since he started the preemptive war for the wrong reasons and lied about it. Tin foil hat or not, the jury is still out on who actually orchestrated (or allowed) 9/11 in the first place and if you follow the money, it doesn't look good on Bush. Aside from that, we haven't even begun to see the fallout from enraging an entire generation of impressionable Muslim youth by invading a country and vilifying an entire religion. Add Iran to that and we're going to learn quickly what it means to be outnumbered. Technology or not, Islam is rapidly gaining the numbers to cause some real trouble if they're pissed off enough. Attack Iran is certainly going to push them further.
The real truth is that the military industrial complex LOVES the idea of permanent war in the middle east. They make a fortune from it and it gives them all sorts of excuses to control that most precious commodity: oil.
They are the real threat to us all.
ps: Have a read of the truly scary whitepaper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" at PNAC.org and then take a look at who the main signatories are and do some research on each of their business interests. Then you'll understand a) why we went to war in Iraq and b) why they're gunning so heavily for Iran. - bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12The funny thing is that you sound half serious. You might want to think longer about what you're saying.
- drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Are you backing up nexah or OffPiste?
- mthomas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Very Insightful!
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15This should be renamed "4 Myths that Government and Media Tell you about Iran"
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17so because ahmadinejad doesn't believe everything he reads about the holocaust we have to go to war with iran and even more american soldiers and iranians have to die?
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I just wanted to pop my head in for a moment and say:
"you're not funny, clever or unique. Noone likes or agrees with you. STFU" - SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17She did? What a moron. Chavez has more support from his people than Clinton and Bush put together
- rickbauls, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Wiretapping, Patriot act, Department of Homeland Security, do these seem to ring a bell? Bush had the power to veto, and didn't.
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12This ignorance about Venezuela's political situation gets to me. Why do you think Chavez is overwhelmingly popular not only in his country, but also in the region. Why do you think he has won 3 elections, the latest one with 60+% of the vote and all elections being internationally monitored and declared as fair. Why do you think that when the opposition launched a coup d'etat supported by the US and Spain, he was brought back to power within 3 days due to the demands of the poor.
"but I'm not blind to what Chavez has done to make him almost unremovable from his position."
Tell me, oh wise one, what has he done that makes him almost unremovable? I'd love to hear it because all of the evidence shows the contrary. It was the constitution he put forward that allowed the opposition to have a recall referendum (despite having a majority approval rating...he obviously won the recall elections). How many recall referendums has Bush had? For someone who's makes himself almost unremovable, I find it surprising that he would allow the opposition to have recall referendums, especially since this wasn't part of the old constitution.
Please, give me your arguments as to how Chavez is "headed in that direction" ... or do you watch CNN and pretend to be fully informed about Venezuelan politics - raymore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Sorry nope. You are wrong. All of our current congress, with the exception of a very few, are terrible people that have no backbone.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10"What goes around comes around."
If true, then there will be a pre-emptive strike against the U.S. at some point... - BalanceFxStorm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Learn it by heart. http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Know_this_by_heart_WT ...
(Actually Learn it by Brain)
Seriously did you vote for a war in Iraq? Did you vote for bush? Did you vote for anything? Too many people today are ultimately angry at themselves. Trust me I think a two and half parth system is ***** too but its the only game in town because noone will step up. WTF did nader get for votes anyways? 1%?
The system is messed up and this war is about profit. Oil yes... but GWB just asked for another 190 BILLION! Of which like 150 or so will end up in corporatations hands esp the corps that put him in office and lobby the hardest.
There has to be a better way and as big as the crowd at Digg is its not enough, not if they press DIGG and do nothing else. You need to spread the word and stand up for your beliefs like it was your religion. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18Chavez has crushed all the opposition parties, forcibly taken assets from foreign companies and has silenced all free press and free speech. He has also removed all term limits and used his congress to vote him complete power.
He may not be a dictator yet but he is headed in that direction. I don't believe everything from Bush Co. but I'm not blind to what Chavez has done to make him almost unremovable from his position. - FluffyWolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9There should be added a fifth point on the list, or a modified first point. The dictator is always supposed to be mad and without rational reasoning. In Saddam's case that meant that he was very cruel and harsh to dissidents (well, actually not that far from the current situation in Iraq, where armed dissidents and suspected supporters of armed dissidents also are treated harshly), but forgetting that it might be very logical for a military dictator to use excessive force to suppress the population. And in Ahmadinejad's case his verbal aggression and vague threats towards Israel and the US is taken as proof of madness.
This irrationality is then supposed to show that the country might set of WMD against Israel or the US at any month or day. (Which would be suicide, and thus completely implausible for a sane dictator to launch) - Ouchimoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Fox news, Guantanamo bay
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"I have been over the years to many totalitarian countries as Soviet Union, China, Romania and North Vietnam. There is a sort of a feeling when you are in a totalitarian country. …that you can sense the moment you get off the plane. It’s almost like a hand around the throat ….People are very afraid to talk. ….That’s not Iran. By enlarge Iranians feel very free to talk, very free to criticize their president and our president … it is just a livelier place than what I was expected it to be. I guess that was the biggest surprise for me"
American journalist Ted Koppel who visited Iran in 2006. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9bush is the wannabe dictator i fear the most.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And Adolph Hitler personally didn't kill any Jews in gas chambers. People who worked under him did, therefore, does that not still make him just as culpable if not more so?
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Almost every president in Venezuela of the past three decades has ruled by decree for a limited time. This is nothing new, the media didn't bother to pay much attention to it in the past, but for some reason it's a big issue now...or right, it's Chavez who hates Bush and apparently that's a bad thing even though most Americans hate Bush as well. And no, it doesn't make him "literally a dictator"... no decree can supersede the constitution. So, despite the rule by decree "news" (this actually happened about 8 months ago), he can't violate the constitution, unlike what Bush has done the past 6 years.
Nonetheless, if we were to look at the statistics, Venezuela's economy has seen significant growth and he has decreased the poverty rate by 10% since his opposition were in power. - rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Just as you should read the article actually being discussed here. it's about the Iranian government and how it is structured. You might learn something.
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Surveys? Are you a moron. I'm talking about election results. Chavez won with more than 60% of the vote. Venezuelan elections are internationally monitored and declared fair. Take your head of your ass and stop buying into the media scare tactics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidenti ... ... ... go look at the statistics yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidenti ...
Do you need more evidence? - roberto_deneero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The only dictator around here is the one who's Governor of Florida brother cheated in 2000 to get GWB in the white house. That's a sham that I cannot believe we, the people, allowed to happen. I have lost all hope now. Even more so since so many idiots in America revoted this bumbling idiot back for another 4 years. What a joke this country has become.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is