What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.119 Comments
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -21/+53Why do those "animals" want to kill us? Because we bombed their cities, killing their families and destroying their homes. Most of them didn't want to kill us until we invaded their country, overthrew their government, and imposed a military occupation on their homeland. How would you feel if someone did that to our country?
It must make it easier for you to applaud the mass slaughter of innocent civilians if you can think of them as animals rather than human beings. - Spikito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14thank you ultra, we get most of our oil from canada, second is venzuela, third is saudi arabia, which were arent fighting in, 4th is mexico, iraq is way down the list, like, less than 10%, if we wanted their oil, wed take it, all the fighting is in the north, the oil wells are in the south, out in the desert. prices are up because stupid oil companies are taking adavantage of the situation
- macman81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12We have met the enemy, and he is us.
-Pogo - Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -27/+38And, believe it or not, as terrible as what you've been reading IS... well, it's actually even worse. Wait til you see this:
George Bush's "war on terror" is taking place where 3/4 of the world's remaining oil and natural gas is located. The 2nd largest oil reserves in the world are located in Iraq.
Want to know what's really going on? See the entire 1 hour, 30-minute documentary, THE OIL FACTOR for free, here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243&q=the+oil+factor - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -15/+25Joybran,
All of that makes perfect sense...until you realize that a majority of the 'insurgents' we are fighting ARE NOT IRAQIS!
Why are we killing so many Syrians, Iranians, and Saudis in IRAQ?!
I've seen it said that upwards of 60% of the insurgents are citizens of other countries. What do you suppose that means? - grakker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16From wikipedia (but really, from about any polsci 101 class):
Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
Saying islamofascist (fixed the spelling for you) is just ignorant repeating of the right-wing talking points without really understanding what you are spouting. Not really surprising, seeing that you support Bush. History will be the judge, but yeah, when I see "Bush" I do think "bad!" Well, I think much worse than that, but bad will suffice. - sanman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17The article seems to criticize the invasion of Afghanistan -- does anybody have a better suggestion on what else could have been done? Perhaps turn a blind eye to Taliban and Osama? Invading Iraq was stupid, but invading Afghanistan was necessary, and not one of the allies protested against that.
- ultradan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17If Oil is supposedly all Bush cares about, why hasn't he marched troops north to Alberta? The middle east isn't the only place with massive reserves of oil. The Athabasca Oil sands here are estimated to have more oil than anywhere else.
And come on, wouldn't be easier to transport oil across a border instead of across an ocean? Oh, wait. It must be because they're just a bunch of non-white Muslims over there, right? - thomasprebble, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20I am so ***** sick of these Bush lovers who jump on his propaganda train. They come here en mass to spread deception and lies and they do this by a) Digging articles that never make it to the front page (dig is a Democracy afterall) and b) marking things contrary to what Bush says as inaccurate. Well guess what? This is NOT inaccurate. It's 100% true and verifiable. In other words it is THE TRUTH. Something you are all unacustomed to.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Considering that even much of our own government has concluded that Saddam had no ties to Al-Qaeda, you're right, it doesn't matter.
- gregorypierce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11So we've been killing large scores of Islamofacists? Is that what you're saying?
- farfromsubtl, on 10/12/2007, -28/+34You might set bombs too if someone drove into your backyard and shot your family.
- ultradan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I hate to be the type to correct others, but:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength - bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Fortunately for anyone in the Middle East appleann1, your neolithic way of thinking is slowly becoming the minority. People are finally awaking to see what has become of the world. What America has degraded to. The terrorists have already won. The war on terror is over and they are the victors. The sign that the terrorists have won? Your constant fear of those "animals" who would "love to kill you and your family". Instead of heading off overseas to spread democracy with 9mm bullets and laser guided missiles we should have focused our people and our money on rebuilding our torn nation. Perhaps if we did this we would have had the resources to handle Katrina and border control and all the other more prominent and pressing issues we face today. Most importantly it would have shown that the terrorists can have no effect on our way of life. When, if ever, did Sadaam present a threat to the American people and our way of life? Even the Bush administration has admitted that there was no connection between the attacks on 9/11 and Sadaam. Wake up man, for the sake of sanity.
- SeanFL, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13look folks, if you were President and terrorists had just taken out 3000+ of your people, and your intelligence is telling you (as well as respected intelligence from many other nations around the globe) that this Iraqi leader is working on weapons and has been know to associate and help various terrorist groups, you would be ignorant not to act. If in fact there were no WMD's, then shame on intelligence from all over the globe.
Imagine if Saddam DID have weapons, provided them to terrorists who used them on Los Angeles and president Bush hadn't done a thing about it. AND he even got hints in his Presidential Daily Briefings warning him that those things were possible. What would you be saying now? Bush was stupid, he should have acted. Al Gore would have acted. Only a child wouldn't have acted with the information he was given. Bush is dumb, etc. Bush saw a building danger (he never said imminent) and he did something about it.
And thankfully, he doesn't give a crap what you or I think. If there's another threat, he'll do the same thing. You folks that think evil will stay in place if we only leave it alone are very misguided. Peace only comes after victory. This is a long battle and we're not half way through. - right75, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@Rhiannon1214:
I hate to bust your bubble, but the war on terror was started long before President Bush got elected. I remember, as a little crumbcruncher, seeing Iranian terrorists hijacking aircraft back in the 70's. Jimmy Carter did nothing about it and he made America weaker. A lot has happened since then, but terror is still going on. But President Bush is no Jimmy Carter; the man is actually doing something about it. He didn't start it, nor can he finish it, but he's definitely standing up to these people.
Maybe you should stop blaming him for it and start doing something to help us win decisively. - daeken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to take bin laden into custody. It's well documented, and although I thought Clinton was an excelent president, that was a huge mistake.
- paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@bantec:
So we're winning because we've killed more Iraqis?
I thought we were there to save these people from Saddam. At what point did killing more of them get construed as victory?
Ah... I understand. This is the true face of the sniveling Bush-lovers revealed! You're really operating on hatred and a sick glee in the suffering of others. You should be ashamed.... if you had a soul, that is. - appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I feel the same way. I had plenty to say , but the more they comment the less sense they make. One remark that this only started when we went to Iraq, this has been going on for years, damn, doesn't anybody ever pick up a book? I don't even know if they believe this crap, or just repeating what they read on DU and Kos.
I hope it's the latter , cause no one could be that ignorant. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6lets face it, if we're gonna make this fair, more people are gonna have to switch to CT's because we are making it SO easy for the T's its rather pathetic.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Didn't much of our government believe there were WMDs?
Technically...Bush didn't say we gave up on him. He was asked simple question: "Are you worried about the threat Bin Laden poses to America?" But of course taking Bush out of context is what the media does best... - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@joybran:
See that's where your reply doesn't make sense. It's fine for defending roadside bombs and targeting U.S. troops.
But how do you explain car bombs that are driven into open crowds? What about weddings? And schools?
There are hardly any reports of U.S. troops being at any of these locations when a suicide bomber detonates. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Iran seems to be supporting the Iraqi govt. now. Maybe there's some hope after all the mistakes (including going in there in the 1st place). At least other Middle East nations are starting to recognise the Iraqi govt. as legitimate instead of a US puppet govt. (refused to denounce Hezbollah, for starters)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/12/iraq.iran/index.html - bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15TheG2, that still doesnt refute the amount of people who died nor does it make Bush innocent. He pioneered this war so it will always be his.
- kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6zestyhedgehog
No I base it on the fact that I follow the news. I make it a point to watch the same reports and Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, And the CNN Channels. On a side not that Pala Zahn would have made a good commy propagandist. And Americans are notorious for being short sighted. I believe if it does not affect the average America in the a last 6mo he has already forgotten about it. Like ABC news, what F'ing retards can't figure out that those documents weren't forged. For crying out loud these reporters have never used old versions of Word Perfect or MS Word? They should have know that distributed based fonts weren't in use till long after that document was supposedly written. They are reporters. They use word processors all the time. Seriously it took me all of 5seconds to figure that it was a snow job. And I'm not paid six to seven figure salary for producing a top rated nation wide news broadcast.
The truth is these people are so blinded by their hatred for Bush they only see what they want to see. And some pretty important people lost their jobs over it.(Can't argue with that) But there are still many who continue the BS America. Come on Clinton had all most all of his presidency to deal with WTC 1993 bombing. And he did NOTHING. I'll garen-damn-tee you that if it was me at my job they would have fired my ass for alot less. How about you? How many gross mistakes can you make before you get canned? - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's interesting. Where is this documented? (seriously asking)
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ jaymoon
"But how do you explain car bombs that are driven into open crowds? What about weddings? And schools?"
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, but he couldn't have stayed in power without the majority of Iraqis accepting him as their legitimate ruler. The reason they accepted him was that he kept the peace between the various factions that were forced into being a nation by Britain way back when. When we dismantled Hussein's government, including the entire bureaucracy, we created a power vacuum that destabilized the country and, in fact, the whole region. Now they are fighting each other for power in the new government. They all want us out of their country, but each group wants to make sure their group is the one controlling the country to whatever extent we let them. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3and the volitility of the future oil markets...
not everything is a conspiracy - lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3By blowing up their own countrymen? That makes a ton of sense there.
- Bantec, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5So you read one article with a nice picture of two leaders shaking hands and smiling. Now you have come to the conclusion that 'Iran is backing Iraq'?
You need to research a little more on the subject. - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7You know what i'm sick of? Every other post in politics threads being whiny neocon sissies peeing their panties about being dugg down for posting the same old 5-times disproven Bush admin propaganda bits.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Raising awareness IS constructive. Or at least it would be if people would form their opinions based on objective fact instead of what they want to believe.
- bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6eddyc we gave up on that a while ago. Osama bin who?
- labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Buelldozer
What is even more concerning about what you described is that a high percentage of those non-Iraqi insurrgents is that they have been reported to come from the Syrian military. This would be an idea way for a national government to use their forces to weaken the world superpower.
In fact, given that 60% of the world thinks that the US is the biggest threat to world peace (O'Reilly 2006) it makes sense that an Arab country would want to bog down the US in Iraq, for the same reason described earlier. It is better to fight in another land than your own.
ps - I love being able to quote O'Reilly to push a liberal argument. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You pay taxes, therefore you are responsible for the horrible attacks that happened in Iraq against civilians.
Thats YOUR connection with the US terrorists. - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@DigiRaven
180,000 civillians? Do you have links, I would be intrested in learning more about this.
Thanks. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good thing the democrats dont' have any thing constructive to say. All it is is "we hate Bush", "he's doing a bad job", and "he teh suxorz". Which is why Kerry lost...
- Bantec, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4PowerCow
You may have a good point, but I can't understand you. For god sakes use the spell checker. - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, there ARE bears in Canada. Anyone who supports those godless killing machines is definitely an ennemy.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They don't expect us to be there forever. We may be the common enemy, but they have been fighting each other for power ever since they were forced into being a nation made up of groups with very conflicting interests. Those hostilities are so deep that only ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein have ever been able to keep the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis may have hated him, but they accepted him as their legitimate ruler. They will never accept the US as their ruler.
- TheAthlon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dear Fifty,
Nowhere in the three sources you site does anyone say Saddam was responsible for the attacks on Sept 11th. They say fighting Iraq is fighting the war on terror as Iraq had ties to al-Qaida.
Oh, and to SuckItUp-The correct spelling is Reagan, and last time I checked "holy saints" weren't getting blowjobs and having their salad tossed by 21 year old interns in the oval office.
As to Carter, you must be very young or you would know he was without a doubt the WORST president of the 20th century, if not the history of the United States. - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yes, because if there's one thing Westpoint teaches you is how to be critical of your government and think for yourself.
Yes Sir, YES!. - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Falluja was a rebel city. The U.S. bombed them back to stone age. I guess now they have found a more subtle way to rebel against the occupier.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"No real attempt at diplomacy is ever made until enough people, both military and innocent civilians, die. "
Yeah...its not like the UN did any REAL diplimacy... - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@attdigg
"For a war (or conflict) there's a need for at least 2 parties"
That's not exactly true. Wars can be used as a marketing piece.
The war on drugs, for example, does really have two parties. Its more of a war against an idea than against an opponent. - Bantec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Do people actually tell you to go to Iran?
How much money do you need to find a war on terrorism?
What kind of shoes would you wear with a war?
If President Clinton were having sex with his wife, do you think he may have been irritable enough to have dealt with Osama during his two terms?
If he did, do you think we would be suffering a second term of King George? - greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5We are all doomed people...
I just found out that Bush is really an alien reptile... no *****... http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/merovingians/merovingios_02.htm
Seems we have been played... They run the show... http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/1213/43/
This isn't some crack pot theory... its fact... it explains everything! - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It isn't just the oil. It's also the military bases, the huge embassy, and the fat contracts for friends like Halliburton.
Also, it would be pretty hard to demonize our friendly northern neighbors. - VanillaBaron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Ha! That's funny, real funny.
He linked it, the VP linked it, what - do you think our memories are so poor we've forgotten? Okay, so Bush never said the words, "there is a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11", BUT he repeatedly and strongly associated Saddam and *Al-Qaeda*, and since Al-Qaeda were held responsible for 9/11, that is the same thing.
Also, note the subtle way that Bush mentions Saddam (or Iraq) in the same parts of his speeches that mention 9/11, without demarcating the two. Check the excerpts here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm - it was this kind of language that resulted in a large majority of Americans believing that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. Why would they think that? Well, they thought that because that is what the White House had been saying. Saying in a roundabout fashion, but still saying it.
Especially damning is Cheney, here talking about Iraq: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
See? A link between Iraq (ie Saddam) and 9/11, right there - missbossy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Dear Mr.Right,
I'm fraid you are wrong. The "war on terror" is in fact a recent invention. The War on Terror is a trademark of the current administration.
Now you *could* say that terrorism has been around... but airplane hijackers was old school terrorism. Terrorists as currently defined is much more broad sweeping and includes guys who bomb occupying military forces in their own country. Bush DID invent terrorism as it is currently defined. Well no that's not fair - that gives him too much credit. Wolfowitz defined it then Bush practice saying it over and over until he could do so without stuttering.
Bush isn't standing up to terrorists. He's bombing Iraqis which is the point that people have tried to make over and over: it's not the same thing.
If you want to say that securing Iraqi oil is a legitimate military target then fair enough: we can argue the point but at least we are talking the truth. All this BS about terrorism and democracy is just so poor people continue to send their sons to fight. Oil security is just not emotive enough to do the trick.
If you want to support the president then bravo. But if you support him for fighting terrorism then you're as gullible as the next person. Call a spade and spade and say that energy security is worth dying for. -
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is