digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

4 Myths Government and Media Use to Scare Us About 'Dictators'

alternet.org — The Bush White House calls Iran's President Ahmadinejad a "dictator" when he isn't -- part of scaring the public into thinking preemptive war is a good thing.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
    • Locke2053, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7If the government controls the media, you necessarily have a dictatorship. Democracy is worthless without free speech, just a capitalism is worthless without informed markets.

      If screaming "THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS COUNTRY IS EVIL" can land you in jail, you live in a dictatorship, by definition. This is the case in Iran, as well as MANY other countries outside the West.
      • 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?
      • 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.
    • Smegzor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5.. and the US.
      • yngtimmy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Yea, the US is soo horrible when it comes to free speech. Thats why Digg was taken down long ago and noone in hollywood EVER says anything bad or makes stupid movies about how bad the US is...They have all been taken out back and shot, right?
        • Corvidae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The question becomes, if you shout louder than your opposition, is it the same as silencing them?

          Faux news is a pretty big megaphone to be wielding.
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3Shovel the debris that used to be Iran underneath a nice persian rug.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6How about we destroy them like we seem to have destroyed the Japanese? Open up McDonalds and Starbucks on every other corner and beam MTV in to every home. It'll take about 10 years but it will destroy their country when they get fat, lazy and complacent.
      • SixFeetUnder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7 . . . the Japanese have become fat, lazy, and complacent . . . that's news to me.
        • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Have you actually seen the reports on Japanese youth? They're in a "live for today" mindset, unlike prior generations. A lot of them don't believe they're going to live to be "old" and live their lives accordingly.
  • nexah3, on 10/12/2007, -26/+113I think Bush is more of a dictator than Iran's president.
    • OffPiste, on 10/10/2007, -33/+23Totally laughable.
      • forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6you know if you can't back up what you say, just STFU
        • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Are you backing up nexah or OffPiste?
      • 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?
        • Ebulating, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Borderline! There is nothing borderline about Iran's theocracy. There is simply no comparison between the US government and the Iranian government, and if you think there is you really need to read more about the Iranian government.
          • 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.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The truth is we've got one of the best governments in the world. If you don't like it, that's your opinion, and critiquing it is great so that it continually improves, but the amount of freedoms we have compared to other nations is excellent. I'm completely AGAINST a war with Iran, but Iran is a totalitarian government compared with the freedoms we have over here. Sure, we have "free speech zones", but you're not shot for entering one. Flickr photographers are asked to leave, but they're not shot in the chest point blank by soldiers. People are ostracized and sensitive about lesbianism, but you're not publicly executed for being one.
    • uweckyle, on 10/10/2007, -29/+14That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why don't you dig up some facts to support your claim instead of making an uneducated statement with no support? Damn hippies
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Calling someone a hippie was an insult 30 years ago...get with the times.
        • Andyschism, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4@uweckyle : Nexah3 stated " I think Bush is . . . " meaning its their opinion.
        • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So how do you insult this generation? Damn emos?
        • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You point out that Warcraft is very very gay.
      • 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.
      • donkeySays, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hi, idiot!
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -16/+12And I think your comment is as intelligent as Iran's president saying there are not homosexuals in Iran.
    • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -19/+12Can't believe you're being dugg. At least Bush didn't deny the Holocaust, or call for a country to be wiped off the map. Or force university professors to resign. Or whatever else Ahmadinejad has done
      • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Firstly, Mahmoud didn't deny the holocaust happened, he questions the numbers killed and why the middle east had to take all the jews that were persecuted by the Germans.
        Secondly, Iran does not recognise the existance of Israel and wishes it be removed from the map, not that the people of Israel be wiped out.

        What you read the context those soundbites are from, things become clearer.

        I bet you watch Fox News...
        • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7@1st: Never read anything that said that. If you can give me a quote, then great. But here's something that Mahmoud DID say
          "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets"
          http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.isr ...
          Sounds like Holocaust denial to me.

          @2nd: "Iran does not recognise the existance of Israel and wishes it be removed from the map"
          Isn't that what I just said?

          And no, I hate Fox News just as much as you do.
        • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh so it's "Mahmoud" now? Like you're good pals. He has repeatedly denied the scope, extent and existence of the Holocaust. But let me address two of your points...first, are you comfortable with his whole Holocaust revisionism act? The whole attitude that the entire historical record of the Holocaust is just made up? That it wasn't 6 million? That Hitler had a POINT? You think its a great idea that he hosts conferences chock full of the usual dog's breakfast of deniers, crazies and the usual Islamist rabble who DO in fact call for the destruction of the Jews and of Israel?

          Next, let's just ride with your assertion that he "doesn't recognize the existence of Israel and wishes it to be removed from the map" for a moment. So if your close personal buddy Mahmoud gets his way, pray tell...just what happens to those Jews? How much of their land do they get to keep in Mahmoud's vision? How many of them get to stay? What happens exactly? Which ones live or die?

          I can imagine they'd get to stay -- at least for a little while -- in very confined spaces, surrounded by barbed wire...it's going be crowded at first, but once those ovens get cooking, there'd be more room every day.
          • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I use Mahmoud cos the guy has a crazy surname and I can't be ***** spelling it out.

            I don't deny the holocaust happened, what I do not like is the way it has been used for the past 60 years as a guilt trip for the western world. And also, if you do stand up and say anything bad about anything or anyone Jewish, you are labelled as an anti-semite. The revisionist thing is just a response to that. If the importance of the holocaust can be reduced, the revisionists probably feel that they can be on a more level playing field with the Jews.

            If Israel is dissolved, it would create a massive problem in the region. There would be a mass exodus of Jews into Europe because they would be persecuted en masse.

            I was correcting the previous comment and you turned it into a personal attack on myself. The dig about Fox News was probably not justified, but I have found it is mostly right for those that keep repeating the holocaust denier and destroy Israel lines.
      • insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1- "... or call for a country to be wiped off the map"
        true. . he doesn't call for it. . he simply does it.
    • swankboy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11I was going to comment on how many times I've seen Bush referred to as a dictator in Digg comments, but hey you did it for me! Regardless of whether you like Bush as a president (I don't), he's democratically elected and will be out of office in just over a year because of term limits. Do you know what a dictator is? I don't see him calling for no term limits like Chavez for example - clearly hoping to become dictator for life. Dictators also usually don't have two other representative bodies weighing on their decisions.
    • ovation4what, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2***** BUSH
    • Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He is not a Dictator...he is a Decider.

      duh.
    • onyxstone, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Elegantly put, ovation. (Sarcasm)

      And nexah3, you're a friggin moron.

      I agree with swankboy; Bush is our president right now. As American citizens, our president deserves our respect regardless of our personal opinions and political biases. This is not to say we should not question or rebuke our elected officials, we should. But my point is that there should be a sense of respect for leadership (elected leadership even more so) and I think is eroding quickly in our generation...
      • Sartori, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nobody deserves respect - respect is earned through a person's actions, in my opinion. Bush's actions both as president and as a human being deserve many responses, but respect isn't one I would choose.
    • mytruckhasdents, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5he's not "more of a dictator" ...just more of a dick.
    • dman123456, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Good thing you're not gay then right? Because if they hang gays in Iran God only knows what Bush would do to you!

      My God, I hope the average digg reader is too young to vote, otherwise our country and our world is headed for decaded of problems. STOP BEING SO DUMB. Bush is NOT a dictator. The mere fact that you said something like that makes you sound like an idiot. But of course, your comment will be rated very highly, why? Well One brainwashed idiot says "Bush sucks" and another 100 idiots come out to rally around him.
      • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you INVENTED a dictator of the mythical nation of Absurdistan who ate babies, murdered old people, raped teenage boys, polluted the environment with toxic waste and did it all on live TV, the Digg children would still find a way to rally behind him if it meant a slap at President Bush.
    • shawnolds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The truth is that Bush is not yet a Dictator, but that is what he is trying to be, which is why this administration is pushing hard for a "Unitary Executive". Unitary Executive is just another name for Dictatorship. If we have another 9/11 which would almost certainly be a false flag operation, this Administration would attempt to turn the U.S. into a police state, declaring a national emergency. i.e. Bush would become a dictator and have full control of all three branches of the government. This is exactly the same way that Hitler gained Dictatorial powers.
  • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -34/+14actually conservatives side with the jewish
    this madman says that the holocaust never happened
    tell that to ann frank killed in a concentration camp and also well known because of her diairy
    • 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.
      • FreakyD, on 11/13/2007, -9/+7Until Bush says something stupid......then you people are all over that like a fat kid on a smartie
        • forgiste, on 11/13/2007, -4/+11who said Bush was a target of war?? He IS irrelevant, however
      • bitcloud, on 11/13/2007, -5/+8thats probably because he is a stupid guy sitting on 10,000 nuclear arms, rather than a PhD who questions whether the Holocaust was about being specifically "anti-Jew" so much as "anti-every race that wasn't arian" who is sitting on ZERO nuclear arms...
        • CWal37, on 11/13/2007, -4/+2wtf? Why even try and defend ahmadinejad?

          And posturing it as if our nuclear arsenal is a threat is clearly ridiculous. We have just as much, if not more, than any other country to lose if we were to get nuking at this point in time.
        • RGWX, on 11/13/2007, -2/+1How very Digg of you...you'd much rather side with a Holocaust denier who oversees a brutal religious dictatorship. Perhaps I can acquaint you with the Wannsee Conference, where the topic of managing the Holocaust was quite CLEARLY about the extermination of the Jews...not to mention rest of a thorough historical paper trail regarding the extermination of Jews and other "undesirables." His argument is shallow and frankly evil...but don't let that get in your way.
    • 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?
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13"doesn't believe everything he reads about the holocaust"

        Noooo... he believes it NEVER HAPPENED.
        • notmark, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Not true.
        • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You didn't answer the question.
        • cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Big ***** deal, a lot of researchers now believe the holocost was *****
        • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9No he doesn't.

          He just points out that while jews died, it wasn't just jews. The Nazi regime was pro-arian and pro-nazi policy to the detriment of ANY other race or political ideology. It just happens that jewish people were the prominent minority in germany.
          • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What part of the historical record eludes your tiny brain? Do you think your position is even vaguely defensible? The problem you've got rests in the German penchant for keeping a loooong paper trail of their SPECIFIC desire to exterminate the Jews. Did other millions of Gypsies, gays and other people die? Of course.

            But if I could phone up Goring or Heydrich or Himmler or Hofman (google away, you might learn something) in Hell and ask them what the purpose of the industrial death machine they built in the late 1930s and early 1940s was for, they would most certainly reply, "To eliminate the Jews, of course."
        • SpungoMcBungo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Which is, of course, not true; anti-semitism was the back-bone of the Nazi ideology and it's roots in Germany stretch back to Luther and beyond. However, the best way to counter bad scholarship is with good scholarship, not bombs. Bombs make martyrs; martyrs make revolutions.
    • 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?
    • 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.
  • SqueakyWheel, on 10/10/2007, -22/+10Nuclear Proliferation in Muslim Countries where they will have you killed for converting from Islam is scary.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10israel, pakistan, china, and india all have nukes. when you have that many countries near you with nukes and some cowboy country, that has been messing with your country for decades, has taken out the countries to the left and right of you, you seriously consider having some of those nukes.
    • HaloZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7In addition, Pakistan has the some of the same laws as Iran when it comes to ........ heresy? I dont know what is called in the Islamic World. But we permit those atrocities because we love to sell Pakistan weapons and they are currently under a dictator.
      • strayangel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Please explain to me why it's okay for non-Muslim countries to have nukes but for Muslim countries not too? I could list atrocities committed in India and Israel. So could anyone else I'm sure. Frankly nukes scare me and I'd rather noone had them. But if some do...well, how can you predict which country will use them when? One crazy ass president or "dictator" or whoever and you have WW3. As a defense, and more to the point, as a deterrent I think a country is justified in wanting them. Unless USA wants to take the lead on starting a nuclear ban it should shut its trap. As the only country who's ever used nuclear weapons I'm not sure it has the right to control anyone regarding proper nuclear use. But that's just my very humble opinion.
    • deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against using nuclear weapons. If they are religious fanatics they cannot produce nukes.
  • 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.
  • Goodbyeworld, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15This should be renamed "4 Myths that Government and Media Tell you about Iran"
  • 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)
  • 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.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17She did? What a moron. Chavez has more support from his people than Clinton and Bush put together
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -14/+21dictators can be elected, look at Hitler. Chavez is clearly no Hitler, but he is also no fan of civil liberties such as a free press, freedom of speech, etc....
      • 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& ...
        • johndi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You seem to be forgetting about how former Lieutenant-Colonel Hugo Chávez led a failed coup in 1992. It gives people reason to suspect he is power hungry.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There's a big difference. His coup in 1992 is what made him widely popular among the venezuelan people. They were fed up with the ancien regime (who had been in power for 2 decades). It was the coup in 1992 that the Venezuelan people got to see who Chavez was. It was a coup against a corrupted regime. Look up Caracazo. The next president shortly after the coup, won partly because he promised to pardon Chavez.

          So in the 1992 coup, perhaps of poor judgement by Chavez, was not with ill-intentions. He gained support from it, which eventually led to his election victory in 1998. As for the coup in 2002, it was with ill-intentions considering the large majority of people supported Chavez, which is why after the failed coup, the opposition lost support.
        • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Is this what Digg is becoming? The Third World Dictator of the Month Fan Club? What part of "President for Life" and eliminating the free press makes you think he's more than the usual jumped-up little swaggering ***** South American strongman?
          • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you're ignorant about this subject, why do you comment? When has Chavez said he's going to be president for life? Just so you know "no term limits" does not equal "President for Life". Canada, France, UK, Australia, and more don't have term limits, this has nothing to do with "President for Life". It's called giving the people the power to elect a leader out of office, not the electoral system. The US didn't use to have term limits either. How do you think Franklin Roosevelt got to serve 4 times? The amendment was only ratified in 1951. Both Eisenhower and Regan opposed term limits and were in favour of repealing the amendment. I suggest you go out and inform yourself first before you start accusing people of supporting dictators, because you sound like a moron.

            In regards to the free press issue, Venezuela has a majority of private media, which carries a very strong anti-Chavez bias. Hell, even Fox News airs in Venezuela and they're not as bias as the others.

            Regarding RCTV, this is what the US media didn't want to show you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/new ...
      • 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.
      • cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Impeagle, I can't believe anyone who can operate a computer is dumb enough to think they have freedom of speech or freedom of the press in America.
    • uweckyle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Because he would make everything better
    • imperium2000, 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.
      • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So basically what you are saying with exception of the other parties stuff is Chavez = Bush with a twist of civil liberties?
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Don't be absurd. We are not even close to what Chavez has done to Venuezuela. As much evil as Bush Co. has done, there is still an opportunity to reverse it and fix it. Try doing that in Venuezealla---imagine having Bush as President for 20+years.

        Just because you hate Bush does not automatically mean you must support his enemies. That is just asinine.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9"Don't be absurd. We are not even close to what Chavez has done to Venuezuela. As much evil as Bush Co. has done, there is still an opportunity to reverse it and fix it. Try doing that in Venuezealla---imagine having Bush as President for 20+years."
          You're extremely ignorant, aren't you. Many industrialized democracies have no term limits. Canada, France, UK, need I go further? Secondly, Chavez doesn't have the power to remove term limits. In the constitution, which he brought to the Venezuelan people in 1999 and allowed them to vote on it, any amendments to the constitution MUST pass a referendum vote by the electorate. Again, stop pretending that you know anything about Venezuela, when it's evident that you don't have the slightest clue.
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You mean how he is pushing for an end to term limits?
          http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN152639 ...

          Try to argue with something called facts next time instead of hate filled garbage.
          • Sketchcast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Does your presidential seat have a recall clause?

            I think not seeing as everyone in your nation wants him gone but can't remove him from power.
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The only way to recall a US President is via impeachment. It was designed to be difficult to remove Presidents to prevent congress from meddling too much in Presidential affairs and having the President removed everytime he/she did something unpopular.

            I do hope congress would have the balls to remove Bush but heck...just a few more months and we'll be rid of him.
          • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Did you not read my post? Most industrialized democracies have no term limits and despite his "push" to end term limits, they can only happen if the people vote in favor of it. It's called democracy, look it up.

            I can assure you Canada, UK, France, and Australia aren't dictatorships, and having no term limits prevents us from losing a good leader after only two terms. In a truly democratic society a leader should only be elected out of office... not forced out of office due to an electoral system that the people never voted for in the first place. If Venezuela removes term limits, it'll do so through the will of the people. In Venezuela, the people voted for the constitution, they have the ability to recall presidents and constitutional amendments can only pass after it's been voted on by the people. Which of those democratic rights do US citizens have?

            Perhaps the US should focus more on fixing their democratic problems before they start pointing fingers at others.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"I do hope congress would have the balls to remove Bush but heck...just a few more months and we'll be rid of him."

          And despite Bush only having a 30% approval rating, he won't be impeached. Yet, Chavez who had a majority in approval rating (based on numerous independent polls.. and the election results), the opposition was able to get a recall referendum. The right to have a recall referendum against a president was put in the 1999 Constitution created by Chavez party (and approved by the people through a referendum)...yet, you say Chavez is heading towards dictatorship [shrug]
          • johndi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Popularity is way over-rated. It is how some truly terrible people rose to power. It can even be bought.
          • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're right, and who do you think has the world's most wealthiest country on their site (hint: It's not Chavez).

            If you're in favour of democracy, then you should accept Chavez as the officially elected president of Venezuela. Now, if we were to judge him on his treatment of people and his handling of the country, I would say he's done pretty well given that he's expanded the rights of women and indigenous, lowered poverty rates and improved economy (mainly in the non-petroleum sector). Regardless, the people will get to decide in 2012 if he has kept his promises, they were obviously happy with him in 2006, because they re-elected him with a large majority. It's one thing to "rise to power" as a populist, but it's a completely different thing to maintain that popularity -- it suggests he's doing something right.
      • 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
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6You are fool.

          The is popular because his country is overflowing with oil. He is letting the money do the talking and he is standing up to evil Bush and evil US of A. He is spending alot of money to buy his people's support. While he is chasing away all foreign investments and any economic growth in his country. That is the reason he is popular. I've never claimed he stole the elections...bought it maybe.

          How do you remove him from power when all opposition is gone, there is no independent media or any sort and the so governemt is completely controlled by him? Seriously, how many votes does the opposition need to call for reforms?

          Someone who consolidates complete power in himself, pushed to remove term limits, removes opposition and dissent is doing what exactly? Please enlighten me.
          • cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I think you are the fool. Your president Bush has never won an election. Your media is largely in the hands of pro Israel types is who want war, as are both your political parties. You have the best gov't money can buy. Wake the ***** up!
          • edd17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So he cheated at the election by making his people happy? He may well be chasing away foreign investment and damaging the economy but this does not invalidate his presidency, i don't think economic growth and foreign investment is guaranteed in the Venezuelan constitution.
          • SuperMoses, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3edd17, and the evidence actually shows that Venezuela's economy has been seeing significant growth under Chavez, and is not completely reliant on the oil boom (as it was before). The non-oil sector is seeing economic growth and you can bet his social programs had something to do with it.
          • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You're on track here, Imperium. I know a lot of people on the Left who may hate Bush but they know Chavez isn't a model that leads to more freedom in Venezuela.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Well, it's evident you're completely ignorant about Venezuela. "there is no independent media or any sort". The independent media are the ones that support Chavez, it's the corporate media (which there is plenty of in Venezuela) is against him. Did you do any research whatsoever before you responded?

          As for the money comments you made, yes he's using the oil money and investing it into the Venezuelans, unlike what the previous regime did. Why do you think proverty rates are going down? And despite your claims, the Venezuelan economy is growing.

          The opposition is not gone, they are just in shambles. They tried three coups against chavez and failed all three times. The first was a military coup, then it was the Venezuelan state oil strike (which the company was still run by the opposition supporters), finally the recall referendum. Let me remind you that the opposition, when they briefly took power for three days through the military coup, got rid of the Supreme Court and National Assembly... yes, I wonder why the opposition are in shambles now [sarcasm]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_ ... ... READ.

          "Someone who consolidates complete power in himself, pushed to remove term limits, removes opposition and dissent is doing what exactly? Please enlighten me."

          First of all, the power Chavez has is given to him by the people through free and fair elections. His push to remove term limits can only be made possible through the will of the Venezuelan people, because it has to go through a referendum vote. (Btw, how many laws in the US go through a referendum vote)... Nonetheless, there are several democratic countries that don't have term limits. Canada, France, UK, Australia, etc... No term limits isn't necessarily a bad thing.. the leader still needs to get elected to continue serving. The idea that a good leader must resign after two terms is absurd and undemocratic. If the people want him to serve more terms, then they should get that.

          So again, I fail to see how Chavez is heading towards dictatorship. Any moron with basic reading skills can read the 1999 constitution and see the positive democratic reforms that were introduced. You need to do less yapping and more reading. I suggest you read the Venezuelan constitution and all of the democratic reforms made since Chavez was elected, then compare them with the opposition (who had been in power for two decades before Chavez came along)
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10I believe the Venezuelan parliament recently passed a law allowing Chavez to rule by decree, making him literally a dictator.
      • 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.
    • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Saddam was ELECTED.hell he won 98% of the votes with no margin of error.
      • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Were the elections monitored by international observers and did the results match the poll data from several pollster companies? I didn't think so.
        • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I call *****. Show me a reliable source that states Jimmy Carter Center declared the elections free and fair. It's easy to pull ***** out of your ass without backing it up
    • CWal37, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Kucinich. . .the man who wants to immediately abandon all international trade agreements. Brilliant.
  • 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
  • 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/
    • chase001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He is the "Leader of the Free World" and I am the King Of All Things.
  • twotimesthru, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9George W. Bush is so close to being out of office.. only then will things really change since Pelosi hasn't been the leader she made us think... and the news networks don't even show Bush for what he is. One can only hope that Bush doesn't go for double or nothing with Iran.. because I doubt it will go with much trepidation because either the GOP (save a few candidates) are too entranced by Bush's spell or the Dems don't want to look soft for the 08 election. Everyone is trying to save themselves, meanwhile, Bush is running the country into the ground.. I think once he is gone, we'll see what good our politicians are capable of.
    • 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.
  • enrique41, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5Wow, i've got to say that after reading all of these comments I understand now how laissez fair attitudes made it easy for someone like hitler or stalin to rise to power. People can knock Bush all they want, but I've got to say one thing. There have been no more attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
    • vanlawrence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That's probably because anyone who ever even THOUGHT ABOUT IT (or knew someone who had) was tortured into confession and locked up
      • 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.
        • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't that be the bombing of the World Trade Center in 93?
          • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Obviously Unto thinks that that bombing was provoked because we had troops in the ME which completely justifies bombing us to Muslims. Or he "forgot" because it doesn't fit into his argument.

            Never mind the bombing of US embassies in Beruit, Tanzania and Kenya. All on US soil as well.
          • UntoTheBreach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, you're dead right - I forgot. My bad. (No sarcasm)

            Still, 1 attack in 50 years vs. 1 attack in 6. My argument still stands.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I'd just like to point out that there have been a damn site more attacks on American troops and interests since 9-11 though. 9-11 happened on this Administration's watch when every security measure that had worked numerous times before spectacularly and uniquely failed on that day - including the laws of physics. People still haven't been held accountable, the 9-11 commission even argued that who funded the attacks was not a point of concern.

      Safety of the Nation - down, civil liberty - down, accountability - gone.
      Reasons to consider the US an enemy - up, up, up.
      • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1God lord you're tiresome. Go on, cite Prison Planet now.
        • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I don't recall ever having cited Prison Planet. Personally I'm not a fan so you can waft that smoke elsewhere.

          I just recognise that anyone who still tries to justify American foreign policy, whilst believing the corporate administrations agenda has American interest at heart, is being somewhat wayward to reason.
          • RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Oh, don't try that...I can smell a Truther a mile off.
          • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So ergo I must be a fan of prisonplanet because the official explanation doesn't work. I can smell something but it aint 'Truth'.
    • rockmanac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yes.. None on our soil... HOWEVER, keep in mind, there are still attacks on our interests abroad. I still say, I'm more worries about another Oklahoma City or Unibomber (ie: homegrown terrorists) than I am about another 9/11.
    • shawnolds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There haven't been anymore attacks because some of the people in this administration are the ones who allowed (possibly orchestrated) the 9/11 attack. I'm sorry, but Bin Laden did not have the power to make NORAD stand down. That had to come from the white house. They knew the attacks were going to happen and allowed them to happen, so they could accomplish what they wanted to accomplish. i.e. Attack and invade the middle east.
  • solid12345, 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.
    • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Normally I would disagree with a comment like that, but every Politician that we elected in, mostly Democrats, has proven they are all the same and are all in it for the money. If Congress wanted the War over, it would be. But they won't stand up to Bush.
    • hamobu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2While Bush is not a dictator, it is OK to use exaggeration to prove a point
      • CWal37, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1But what point are roughly 76% of these comments trying to make? That Bush is the supreme devil who has fooled everyone and done whatever he wanted? That our president delights in torture and breaking the law? The one thing they're not trying to make is sense.
      • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Like what Bush does?
    • jdsk9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bush is more similar to a dictator than Ahmadinejad. Neither are true dictators.
  • limeaid, on 10/10/2007, -20/+7Myth 5: Iran Executes 15 year olds they think are gay
    oh wait a second ... they do that.

    oh my bad - glad to see it in your bleeding hearts to defend this guy
    what a great society we have - concentrate on your online gaming skills and the latest Wii news
    thanks

    buried
    • 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...
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10If you're so compassionate why aren't you demanding the military to go into Darfur or Burma?
    • Ductapemaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That isn't a good enough reason for us to go to war with them though...oh wait, maybe for Bush it is. We'll find out later we were there because they mistreated the homosexual population and not because of their nuclear program/WMDs.
  • gabrielg01, on 10/10/2007, -12/+16I am against Bush&Co, but actually this article is full of *****. Please don't replace one ***** with another *****.

    Ahmadinejad is a dictator, or at least part of a dictatorial junta that rules Iran with an iron fist. The "elections" are done in such a way that anyone wishing to run for office must be "pre-approved" by the current administration. Of course, they ban anyone who opposes their policies. Imagine George Bush deciding who can run in the next elections...Well, that's how they "elect" people "democratically" in Iran.
    • 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)
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Who's preventing candidates from running as independents?
        • ORBAT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Erm, the fact that there's no way they'd get elected if they do?
        • johndi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Individual states make it very difficult for third party candidates and independents to get on the ballot. The Democratic party sued to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in many states. I'm not saying that to single out the Dems, the GOP would gladly do the same if Perot jumped back in the ring.
      • MewTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, they're not "particularly" democratic in Iran.
        Don't use every thread you have no real idea about to start talking about Ron Paul.
    • cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Don't skull and bones and the Rockefellers pick the American presidents?
  • Cowchip7, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7wow... yeah, they were "elected..." If you didn't vote for these guys the military came after you!
    • UntoTheBreach, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Wow yeah, and the last 2 elections in the US were flawless and not interfered with in any way. Are we going to invade every country who's government is less than democratic? Because there's a long list of far worse offenders (especially on the human rights front) than Iran. Tell you what, if you feel that way, run on down to the local US Army recruiter and join the fight!

      Seriously, the point was that Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. Not that their governmental selection process isn't flawless.
      • MewTwo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I'd say your "governmental selection process" is flawed when you put people in jail who start criticizing your government.
  • raymore, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3-Just because the President doesn't have the power to goto war or many of the other duties as we think, doesn't mean he can't do terrible things. Look at George W. Bush. And the fact about taking out Dictators before they destroy *****, well that dates back to Caesar, when his own countrymen stopped a "dictator". (And really far before Rome also.)
    -Also these are "Fog Facts" that are opinion based, not irrational, but still not based on statistics or other factual data, therefore validity goes no further than me saying: "if we launched and Russia launched, theoretically, our nukes would collide in midair due to the most logical paths chosen by the computer guidance systems."
    -Not that I agree with any war with Iran, because I don't, but just sayin'.
  • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6alternet says so. so it MUST be true
    • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Your substantive rebuttal is devastating. The abundant links to authoritative refuting sources, which you thoughtfully provided as part of your detailed case, are particularly impressive.
  • 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.
  • Niteryder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Well we sure didn't do anything about Burma except talk crap and allow for the real dictators to do what they want.
    Oh no oil to rip off, wow who would have guessed.....
  • TheKoH, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Um... nothing about myths regarding dictatorship in general... just a bunch of bs on Iran that's already been said. Buried for inacurracy.
    • ORBAT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, because Iran really IS evil and Ahmadinejad actually eats Christian American babies for breakfast, right?
  • 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.
    • ORBAT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And there's no way in hell he's getting re-elected. Why do you think there are no atheists in Congress? They need the backing of the religious idjits to get there.
      • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ordinarily I would agree with you - but Stark represents one of the most progressive districts in the entire country, is regularly re-elected with 75%+ of the vote, says his mail after the announcement has been, to his astonishment, 95% positive, and is known to confront right-wingers in public sometimes just to piss them off - like telling 2nd Amendment fundamentalists at public meetings that psychological studies show that the size of your gun is inversely proportional to the size of your penis.

        At the same time, he is enormously respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle for his integrity, honesty and values.

        Which is precisely why he was the most wonderful choice to be the 1st atheist in Congress to come out. Incidentally, the questionnaire that eventually led to his announcement was submitted to dozens of members of Congress; reportedly, at least 21 of his colleagues also responded that they were nontheists - but he was the only one who agreed to go public, and the folks who conducted the study respected the wishes of every one else who were afraid of exactly what you said.

        Hopefully, after the next election, Stark will no longer be known as the "atheist Congressman", but just "the Congressman from California", just as Barney Frank is no longer primarily identified as the "gay Congressman", but just a great representative of the people. When he and Gerry Studds came out as gay, no one thought they could be reelected, either - Studds in particular represented a conservative working class district. Their courage helped change public perception about homosexuality; I'm hoping Stark's courage will help change public perception about atheism.

        I attended the ceremony at Harvard a few weeks ago where Stark was awarded Humanist of the Year, and he gave a great speech. It was very moving to hear an elected official of the US Congress talk openly and unapologetically about his secular humanism and how rational values developed through critical thinking guide his strong sense of morality and ethics and give him the desire and motivation to make a positive difference in the world.

        Completely aside from his atheism, I wish more of our representatives remained as motivated by, and committed to, public service after 30 years in office as Rep. Stark.

        If anyone can get elected as an open atheist, it's Pete Stark. May he be the first of many, so that my children will not have to tell their children that political office is not an option for them in America.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The fact that our government is demonizing Iran and it's leader right now, as an excuse to go to war... makes me sick... but if you're someone who doesn't already know about this fact... then you make me even more sick...
    Stop being fooled by our own government... bunch of liars they are...
  • crystalmath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7jesus! i don't want to HEAR anyone speaking positively about a possible war with Iran. i don't care WHAT the ***** they are doing to their own people, or what their country is like, or what they believe, or who they threaten. the INKLINK that we MIGHT even consider going to war with them completely dumbfounds and scares the ***** out of me. HAS ANYONE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS? this article is great, and every single person in this country who thinks we should walk into another political ***** for absolutely no rational reason needs to be sedated and stripped of their voting rights.
    • heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm almost sad when I agree with someone who expresses themselves as poorly as you do.
    • bongobottom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's an INKLINK?
  • snoweey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yea except we can elect atheists if they would run. in Iran they can't even run as is clearly laid out by this article.
    • crystalmath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Who cares. Not relevant. Worth going to war over? Absolutely not.
    • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Worth more than investing the money (that we can't back) for domestic issues? No socialized medicines? okay fine. Socialized public education system than?(oh wait, we already have that? Wtf? I though socialism is pure concentrated evil?)
    • ORBAT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's why it's an "islamic republic" dumbass. Not all countries are run like the "democracy" you have in America.
  • known, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Lack of compassion is the root of all evil in the world.
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Saddam was ELECTED.hell he won 98% of the votes with no margin of error.
    • crystalmath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6...and killed/defamed/exiled his opponents while keeping a firm grip on a government-controlled media. Iraq isn't the issue, but you're right. Clearly, i think most people agree we shouldn't have gone there either.
    • MewTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2phew, I thought you were serious. then I looked at your profile, and I'm pretty sure you were just being witty.
    • slantyeyed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I didn't think there were any opponents . . . wasn't the vote Saddam YES or Saddam NO (or was that a SNL skit?)
    • paoniapbud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No margin of error? Um, there is always error in any polling.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3SADDAM WAS IRAQ. No-one is saying there are no dictators in the world - just that certain people are happy to broad brush with the term where it does not apply. Others apparently are happy to act like chimneys. Full of hot air and blowing smoke away from the issue.
  • Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually Iran's current "President" is the most dictator like they have had for a decade or so. They have been losing a lot more civil liberties there since he took office; ones much more scary then what we have lost here.
    • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3More scary than the one we helped put in 1/2 century ago so BP can take 90% oil profits instead of 50%, with the rest that will be given to the people of Iran?

      Now you wonder why they rather have a "dictator" president than let the West involved?
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Ahmedinejad can't even legally take those liberties away.... He's a Prime Minister, not the Supreme Leader.
      • MewTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3dude I've read some of your comments today on this thread and I have to say... You are a complete retard. ... Ahmedinejad doesn't care about the legalities in his supposed "democracy." So Bush is a huge liar but everything Ahmedinejad says is the truth? If you talk ***** about him in his country you are put in jail.
  • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think the problems actually lies within our federal government "checks and balance" that allows Cheney and his puppet to get away from all this. Congress by itself does not do the investigative work regarding corruptions and presidential misconducts. Instead they rely heavily on subcommittees (such as GAO) to do digging. Since 2000, every attempt to request information from the Executive Branch has been stonewalled. Any lawsuits that has been filed has been treated as a joke. Those that actually made it in district courts are than appeal all the way to supreme court. Where the conservative majority judge panels toss them away. (gee I wonder why...Oh that's right, the guy getting sued is the one who gave them their jobs, Tough one to figure out) Yes, Congress has the power to subpoena for such information. That's if they have the numbers, and Bush doesn't claim executive privilege for him and everyone that can be associated to him and basically tell them to ***** off. (which has been done numerously) Okay, so than the Congress can also impeach Bush for violating the constitution and federal laws right? Good luck getting the 66 votes with the 49D / 49R / 2I "Democratic" majority Congress (Although the House is overwhelmingly democratic, but the game requires both senate and house to pass. So it's quite fair to say they're useless.)

  • icon1985, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4talk about dictator, bush is second to none
  • ORBAT, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Bah. And most of you American puppets actually buy that crap. How stupid can you be?
  • heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yay, the political opinions of sixteen year old being formed by people who can't even write decently, and use the age old technique of raising a question, then not actually answering it while bashing some opposition. Glorious.
  • iamthejoker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Isn't this very article, to paraphrase "hey dictators aren't as bad as you think", only a propaganda tool to prepare us for when Bush becomes our dictator. Whoa that's scary.
  • MewTwo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Yeah, that whole media frenzy with Ahmedinejad is totally bogus, they need to focus on the real Hitler dictator of our century which is George W. Bush. He hates Jews, executes gay people, arrests people who oppose his government... wait. uh. I mean. uhh. I'm a ***** retard 12 year old on digg.
  • truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9bush is the wannabe dictator i fear the most.
  • spartan777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6going to war with Iran is wrong, but this isn't the same thing as stopping appeasing Iran. Germany was seeking more land and resources. It carried out this policy by directly annexing regions without regard to the situation that would leave the losing country in (for example, the Sudetenland situation). Iran is not doing any of this. Bush is using Iran's pursuit of enriched Uranium as pretext for war (even if this were true, this still is not a valid reason for war). Pursuit of uranium and outright taking the land of other countries are two different things. Non-appeasement is not the policy Bush is using. Its the 'you wear turbans on your head, now i'm going to kick your ass' policy.
  • iggy22, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2let me ask you couple questions, you can answer it for your self.
    How many people move to US every year - migrate from countries that prosecute them ?
    How many people move or escape from countries like Iran, burma, venecuela etc...
    What political opposition leaders have been locked up in US for just speaking they mind, or opposing current government.
    How many political parties have been forbidden , or exiled from US.
    Let me shed some light on some voting in some of those countries.
    Countries that have dictatorships dont have political opposition. And those who oppose that dictatorships are dealt with severe punishment(and i dont mean get locked up for a day or two). Countries with dictatorships dont let media to criticize goverment, and then again those media who does criticize are dealt with severe punishment. And after some time people start to believe , that everybody else is the devil. Only small percent that have guts manage to escape , and they are marked foreign spies , they families marked for life.
    After second world war in yugoslavia people voted for their president, and this is how it was done. People drooped metal balls in vote boxes so they could know who voted for who. Guess what they did to the people that voted against. Then later would put agitators at the voting places that would intimidate people. Not many people would voted against.
    Or for example Romania , they got almost everybody to spy on each other. Friend of mine tried to swim across river of dunav for 2 times , and he got 10 years for it. That was before revolution in Romania.
    Let me break your illusion , dictators do exist. And their only fear is that somebody else would interfere , they don't fear their own people otherwise they wouldnt be dictators wouldnt they? But what would you know about dictatorship , you never had one....
    • UntoTheBreach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just as countless revolutionaries have risen up to establish a new government in the face of dictatorships over the past 3000 years (including - oh wow! The USA - Independence Day anyone?) the peoples of countries led by dictators will eventually do something about it.

      IF you're suggesting that the US go to war with every country led by a dictator or by people who do terrible things to civilians then there are many other countries higher up on the offense list right now than Iran. Burma, for starters. Or does the name Mugabi ring a bell?

      Do some homework before you suggest that it's a good idea to go to war with a nation of Muslims (who are already fed up with the west and Isreal trampling all over their friends) just because we don't like how they govern themselves.
  • BuboTitan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Quote it, or it didn't happen.

    It's true that Amadinejad is not a dictator, but I don't think it's true that Bush called him one. I just did a pretty extensive web search, and I can't find a single speech where Bush calls him a dictator.

    The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger did, but not Bush. Let's be a little more careful in our accusations here. Dugg down for inaccuracy. They should either correct this or provide the quote.
  • 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.
    • thanakar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Fine, move then, several other countries to choose from if you don't like this one.
      • knap59, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you're unhappy with a situation, don't run from it. Stay and try to change it. THIS attitude has gotten us where we are today.
      • zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wow, you really don't get it. Telling someone to move to another country rather than try to change what they see is wrong is about as un-American as it gets.
  • SeaOverflowing, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Media is doing the right thing. What else that can do? Dictators are harmful and dangerous.
  • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Governments two tools are fear and violence. They will try to motivate you with fear. If that does not work, the only option government has left is violence. Everything that is passed into law is done so with the implicit threat that if you do not comply, someone will come with a gun and enforce compliance.
  • ramiro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Dictator-loving leeches, why don't you go live in Burma or Iran. Scumbags!
    Alternet.org has just been *****-listed.
  • thanakar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Buried as inaccurate. This article isn't about dictators, its about Iran.
  • slantyeyed, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Since when did Digg think Iran was a great place to live? I'll take a US dictator any day than live in Iran.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4^--------And that attitude right there people is why civil liberties have been able to be eroded.
    • UntoTheBreach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Since when is the pretext for another catastrophic war about whether or not Iran is a great place to live? I wouldn't move there either but I sure as hell don't think we should attack them.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Iran is a vitrual paradise and everyone is happy there. Also, they seem to have found the solution to the 'homosexual' problem.
  • vvelox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Given that there are a lot of people on this thread saying Bush is a dictator, I would just like to take the time and say... ***** you all. He is a fascist, you ignorant and useless whiners.

    And to you all that continue to bitch about him winning the last election, he won it fairly even though he should have lost astoundingly. The reason he lost is simple, the democrates put forward lots of lame duck canidates that all blew goats.

    /me voted libertarian in that election.
    • UntoTheBreach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is still debate about whether or not he won it fairly but I 100% agree with you that a) he's a fascist and b) the Dems put horrible candidates forward and failed to properly unite behind any of them.

      The only one I trust is Kucinich. He actually stands for what he believes.
  • saturnx8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I like how that is so targeted at America in point 3. Um we weren't the only ones fighting in WWII. Britain and spain and canada, australia .... alls toped and let russia take over those countries.
    Why don't al these naysayers of the US throughout the world just start a war with us. Sure sounds like we are the bad guys in every thing military centric throughout the world. friggin anarchistic prick faces. Sure its all educated speak, however stop skirting the issue and say what he means. oops I forgot like many diggers this guys does say that. GB is a tyrant dictator, he is Hitler and we are as bad as the Nazis.
    Eat me
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree people who compare America to the Nazi's need to pick up a history book. This is comming from a liberal. It is definatly a false comparison regardless of how you look at it.
  • megadan76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Excellent article.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.