What is Digg?218 Comments
- vatosplace, on 10/12/2007, -66/+154Glenn Beck = DOUCHEBAG
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -16/+91Actually the Japanese internment camps was the most shameful act in American history since slavery.
- krizhek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59@purpledrink
Glenn Beck is not a reporter he is a commentator. - GoatBn, on 10/12/2007, -32/+82I think our presence there in the first place is shameful...
- Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+48Have you seen the news lately? It's riddled with bias.
- illahtech, on 10/12/2007, -14/+54I'm an SF liberal who opposes the war, but I also oppose a mindless or hasty pullout. The idea that we swoop in, destroy a country, destabalize a region, and then leave is just insane. Think about that for a minute.
It's not like we can just say, "Bush did it, we're not Bush, so don't blame us for that *****."
As a liberal I feel we need to do something other than throw money and bullets at the problem. We need to negotiate, we need to mediate, and we need to restore order as opposed to 'defeating the enemy'. But to do all that we still need a troop presence.
To simply up and leave would leave the region in chaos. Much of the middle and upper class has fled the country because they could afford to leave (an estimated 2+ million have fled Baghdad alone). The people that are left are not doctors, teachers, managers, lawyers, academics, etc. The educational and commercial systems of the country have collapsed. Iraq can't become a modern, prosperous country without such a foundation.
With peace perhaps the displaced would return, but in chaos the country will only get worse and worse. Sure, our actions set these events in motion, but that doesn't mean leaving will simply rewind Iraq back to stability.
Not everyone who understands that we can't simply leave is a Rebublican tool. We're in a ***** place but we can't just decide we're done and walk away. - OneHine, on 10/12/2007, -38/+74Boy CNN, sure is one liberal news source. They're so liberal, next thing you know, CNN will report on how global warming is a myth, and evolution is a lie designed to remove God from schools. Thank God we have fair and balanced news sources like Fox to balance our CNN's super-liberal agenda!
/retard - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -13/+47How do you argue with people on digg? The polarized mindset of some groups is just out of control.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Look at the consequences if the United States leaves. Regardless of how the war got started, we live in the present - not the past. Stop bickering about what led to the war, resolve to prevent it from happening again, and solve the problem at hand. As for the solution to the problem at hand, a pullout is not a solution - it will just promote an even greater regional instability.
- barius, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24It would be immoral to pull out tomorrow without any warning, yes. However, the US has to pull out *sometime*. There are crackpots on both sides, on the right they want everyone to think the occupation* should be allowed to go on forever, on the left they want the occupation to end tomorrow. Most of us just want the president to actually commit to some kind of plan that is accountable to a real, firm, time-line rather than the constant wishy-washyness that has been the norm for the last 4 years.
* War isn't really the right term, neither is occupation. Maybe 'military support action'? - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -16/+31Sigh... how do you even argue with people like this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29And segregation.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24@teddtech
Are you really that stupid?
Our leaders are not the same leaders we had during Hiroshima.
Our people are not willing to make the same sacrifices made for WWI and WWII
Accepting our defeat would prove absolutely that we are done. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Defeat? Who the hell are we even fighting in Iraq that we can admit defeat to?
The U.S. being in Iraq is like Al-Qaeda's wet dream. They can blow Americans up without having to buy a plane ticket.
Yet we're to busy trying to stop a civil war that theres nothing we can do about it. - obliviousfool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Interesting analogy. Unfortunately, the Iraqis are killing each other in addition to killing us. Things over there are much more complicated than our Revolutionary War.
- TheJuggernaut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@aterkel:
Glenn Beck is not a "Headline News anchor." He's an admittedly biased commentator (he's said that several times). People think that news is slanted enough one way or another without muddying the waters between anchor and commentator. - illahtech, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19@robotsu & thejenway11
I think the Iraqi loss total is way higher than 40K...I remember reading something about it being well into the six figures.
As for fighting Iraq's civil war, I disagree. Part of the problem here lies in the choice of language surround this 'war'. It's not a war. It stopped being a war within 30 days of its beginning - we crushed the Iraqi military straight away.
Since that point it's been an occupation. We're not actively fighting insurgents as the choice of language would have us think - for the most part we're acting as the Iraqi police.
Let's try this - replace the word 'insurgent' with 'gangbanger', and replace 'Baghdad' with 'Los Angeles'.
Imagine a takeover of California - total collapse of government. The wealthy and educated flee Los Angeles. All that's left are the poor and idealistic citizens. Now the gangs of LA had free reign so the invaders declare martial law, with well-armed troops vs. rag-tag gangbangers with AK-47s and IEDs. It's Crips vs. Bloods vs. MS13 vs. the occupiers vs. anyone not from their block.
If we leave now, we're leaving the innocents in the middle of a gangwar.
It's not a perfect analouge, but it's a far better way of thinking about Iraq as opposed to Vietnam or other wars where there's an organized enemy. - starguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Just annex Iraq as the 51st State, and add a new star to the flag. They conquered it, therefore, US territory now. Give Iraq the State two Senators and as many House of Representatives as proportionate to their population, a state flower, a state flag, a state song, and start moving in the McDonalds, Taco Bells, Goodwills, and Advance Auto Parts Stores. Nothing says you can't add a state thats not on the continent... they did it with Hawaii and Alaska. Except now, it will be Hawaii, Alaska, and Iraq. They get their military bases in the middle east, Iraq gets stability and federal funding, and good by to all the warlords.
Problem solved. Elect Starguy for President. God I'm good. Thank you. - Ninja337, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Shhh... That's a top secret battle plan.
- BT1000101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Glenn Beck is like the Rosie O'Donnell of men."
Rosie O'Donnell is the Rosie O'Donnell of Men. - Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -23/+31@mirunit
I know why you're getting dugg down, it's because you're speaking the truth and digg users don't like it. - dbarbour, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17@teddtech:
Congrats on bringing up the good deeds of an entirely different generation, dumbass. A word to the wise: there is a new generation of people running things now, ya' schmuck. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -27/+34I can't believe anyone would disagree with him. Tell me how this chain of events is moral.
1. USA Invades your country under pretense of setting you free.
2. USA sets you free, you're happy.
3. Some people don't like change, decide best course of action is to kill you.
4. USA didn' plan for that.
5. USA tries to fix mistake.
6. USA gives up, hands you a gun and tells you to fix 'your' problem.
Don't give me some ***** about how the US was immoral in invading in the first place, THEY DID, it is done, it happened, it is no longer relavent.
Yes invading was stupid, and invading on lies was more immoral but passing the buck to innocent Iraqis becuase you just don't feel like fixing your mistakes is ***** low. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11 There is no plan for Iraq, no target that says: "we're going go pull out when...' They're feeding us abstract ideas such as: "When Iraqis can govern themselves". What exactly in terms of numerical values? It's an excuse that can be used to justify our presence indefinitely. What is the plan? There is no plan! After all these years nobody has any idea what is going on. We're not fighting, as that would imply an achievable goal, we're simply killing and dying.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19"Its such a DISRESPECT to the suffering of African Americans. "
Oh for gods sake get over it. Slavery was bad but is not the end-all of immorality. Far worse things have happened since (Holocaust ring a ***** bell?) and far worse things will continue to happen. - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@mirunit - I think one thing people have forgotten about is that back in the run-up to the 2006 elections, and before then, we kept hearing these estimates of how long it would take until the Iraqi army was ready to take over for us. No matter how much time passed, the estimate was always at least a year in the future. Today, we don't even hear any estimates about how long it will be before the Iraqi's can take over - I guess people have resolved that it will never happen, or have forgotten about it. I haven't. When will the Iraqi army be ready? Shouldn't it be ready now if any of those estimates were true?
There should be none of these disasterous consequences associated with our potential withdrawl that you speak of if these things had come to pass as we were promised. But really, all of these estimates we heard were just fancy ways of convincing people to go along with prolonging the war. Meanwhile, more of our men have died, little progress has been made, and more of our money has been wasted. The corporations and individuals profiting off this have been lining their pockets further the whole time.
Setting a withdrawl date should not be so much a message to our enemies that they just have to wait us out - it should be more of a message to our friends that they had better buck up and get themselves ready to take over by then, instead of doing nothing to prepare for that eventuality that they know will never come. Even Secretary of Defense Gates tells the Iraqi's we won't be there indefiently - the only difference between him and what the Democrats are trying to do is that the democrats are trying to define what it means to not be there indefinetly. - Caffeinate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6We should get out, but we should do it sensibly. I agree that we can't just throw them to the wolves, but we can't just keep throwing our own people to the wolves, either. We need a plan to leave Iraq, not a plan to stay and get in a war with Iran, too.
We *do* need to do some negotiating. Our current cowboy politics aren't working. What we have in the White House is too inept to negotiate, therefore that problem needs to be eliminated, as well. We need to somehow get a diplomat instead of our current crop of crooks. - Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21therealrico said: "What I don't understand is how can people live in such denial? There comes a point you have to realize what we are doing is not working, and might as well fold them now and lose a little, rather than keep it going."
We haven't "lost a little". We have lost over 40,000 HUMAN Iraqis in this war. The death toll would be unimaginable if we were to withdraw our forces. Without a strong unifying central government, we would turn the 200,000+ trained Iraqi soldiers into 200,000+ trained militias. I am not going to pretend these are battle-hardened American-esque soldiers, but that probably only makes them more dangerous unleashed in the country without allegiance to a unified Iraq. Compound that with Sunni dissidents, and the problem grows exponentially. Right now Iraqis are making practical decisions, "Do I join the coalition and fight for Iraq, or do I join the insurgency and fight for a militia?" That question wouldn't even come about if we withdrew.
I want you to go to the New York Times main page and look for the latest video in the World section and look for the "Displacement and Destruction in Iraq" entry. There is a very real and very human toll. Are you suggesting that because we unleash this horror on the remaining 14 provinces that have been relatively stable?
therealrico said: "Granted our losing a little is pretty bad with 3300 plus American soldiers dead, and billions of dollars in debt, but it certainly get worse, obviously the debt will go up, and I am sure we will lose more soldiers."
therealrico said: "I mean what is this stupid allegiance too parties, it just makes no sense to me, what about having an allegiance to what is best for our country, and getting us out of this stupid and pointless war!"
Yes, we will lose more soldiers. Yes, we will lose more money. Yes, we will probably lose more short-term prestige in the world. But search your conscience, think through the lens of history: What will future generations say about Americans? That when the going got tough, we got going? That we created, and then turned our back on a human catastrophe?
Listen, I was adamantly against the war to begin with. I understand a hate how the Office of Special Plans stove-piped information to the President for the initial war. I am upset that the CIA didn't even verify sometimes half-decade-old information on WMD sites. I blame every single individual who had the chance to tell the President, "This policy is failing, we need a change" and didn't. I blame everyone who thought this would be over in a matter of months.
Even if you agreed with the over-arching concept of universal freedom and all the neocon mumbo jumbo, we all understand the complete incompetence of this administration. From broad and deep de-Baath-ification orders, to the insularity of those who oversaw the post-war efforts, to the silly and perverse inter-agency fighting in Bush's cabinet, to the intellectual lazyness of the President himself; there is not a single facet of the operation on a meaningful level that was not ridden with almost criminal inadequacy.
But you can't sit here and tell me that we can turn out backs on an entire nation of peoples. We started this *****, we have to at least TRY to finish it. We have to stick in this for the forseeable future. Like it or not, despite what we were told, this is and always has been a long-term project. - XCHIP13, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Glenn Beck is right.
- MatthJD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51. Public is outraged U.S. is in Iraq
2. Public is outaged U.S. is not in Darfur
3. US exits Iraq, public is outraged we didn't prevent another Darfur in that country.
4. Public forgets they caused it by exiting Iraq, blames Bush.
5. Nobody ever helps Darfur.
6. Claim "never again", which is exactly what happened after Rwanda.
7. Wait for next crisis, call for action and "never again" statement. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14"No longer relevant? You sir live in a fantasy world. Here in reality, actions have consequences."
No, really? I had no idea. Yes actions have consequences additionally, the past cannot be changed therefore, brining up the immorality of starting this ***** war is not relavent when talking about the SOLUTION to the war.
@Barius, you are absolutely right. But the timelines Congress is giving are, in terms of a logistical move and training schedules, practically "pulling out tomorrow". - 86yourpooper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Liberals rule this site, and don't allow for much intellectualism round these parts unfortunately. I'll get bashed with some throw away bumper sticker logic no doubt. As far as 4 or 5 years and it's still a mess in Iraq:
We're still in Bosnia-
We're still in Korea-
We're still in Germany and Japan for christ's sake-
As a country we have an attention span of 3 seconds, the patience of someone with a bee up his butt and a collective IQ of 14.
For everyone of those radical Islamic ***** that are killed make for one less buttwipe that'll come over here and cause grief. Has anyone seen the estimate on how many terrorists have met their virgins? Oh no that's taboo, racist, horrible, uncivilized.....Oh yea, this website, I almost forgot, "How do you know they were terrorists? Maybe they were just defending their country,
they're freedom fighters blah blah blah..." beat ya to it - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8So CarpeFishem, you're saying it will take a long time? So, we can afford another 3 trillion tacked on the debt maybe? 4? Our military can handle extended tours like that?
Have you enlisted?
In the Revolution, we had the home field advantage. Now we're trying to quell a civil war where everyone in it has a legitimate right to be fighting for the future of their country, and we are the occupying power. Wouldn't it have been quicker and if England had just left it to us? Most Iraqi's want us to leave, and we can't afford to stay much longer. - DGaw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11What's *really* astonishing is the number of people stumbling through their lives under the mistaken impression that Beck is wrong. US withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi forces are able to take on those who wish them and their people harm would not only make the current violence look tame by comparison, it would likely cast the Iraqi people back into brutal oppression at least as foul in its way as was slavery in America.
- usercc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Wow! Glenn is smarter than I thought he was and Harry Reid is much less a man than I thought he was.
Harry. If America has lost the war, who won? The Democrat Party and who else? - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6teddtech
Dude that was 61 years ago step up a little
Korea - tie
Vietnam - we ran away
Iran hostage crisis - all talk, no action
Beirut - we ran away
Mogadishu -we ran away
Iraq - ???
Afghanistan- If we lose Iraq Al-Qaeda will move there operations there. Be cause after 6 successes they will know how to defeat us. - diddye, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Those against Iraq:Is it honorable to abandon the job the US screwed up in the first place? Its like sayin "hey I screwed up....thats too bad, you should fix my mistake". The easy out is to leave. The honorable thing is to fix what is broken.
- jkenda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7If we pull out, it's a clear signal that internal domestic squabbling can reverse our commitments to allies. People won't take our word seriously anymore, we'll lose whatever tenuous grip we have on the Pakistanis, and the Israelis will feel ike they are on their own.
How much motivation do you think the Israelis need to launch a first strike on Iranian nuclear capabilities or start assasinating scientists? My guess is not too much, and if we're no longer effective guarantors of their security they will go to it with a vengeance. - mrmonkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Finally!!! someone gets the whole picture..can't you see you idiots (sorry for calling you idiots but *****) come on if we withdrawl we are only going to see another terrorist organization rise again and create another terrorist attack... im sure all of you that are against the war pretty much don't have any friends, relatives, or know anybody that has been in iraq...getting down to the point.. WE STILL HAVE TERRORISTS TO KILL and unlike many who would rather bomb the whole place...to do it legitimately we have to take the land piece by piece..tunnel by tunnel..cave by cave..so if you want to protect you childrens...childrens...children.. then you should just shut it..im tired of hearing car bombs everyday..lets finish these ***** off for good over and out
- philthiest, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Am I the only person who saw the headline and immediately thought of Beck the musician and thought that this must be a new development in his Scientology brainwashing?
...Yes? Oh... ok. - CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The Iraqi's are taking responsibility for their future by fighting American invaders and each other."
The majority of insurgents aren't Iraqis but immigrants from other nations who have much to gain if America leaves Iraq. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I say leave, let it all go to hell and then turn the region into glass. Then they will never attack us again. Never forget! Praise Bush and his only son God!
- CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Gooks" and "ragheads"?
Aside from your gross generalization about the number of people who were murdered after we left Vietnam (2 million is not a ***** "few"), your racism is purely disgusting. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Can any off you libs who hate the guys comment actually prove him wrong? Lets see you do it without insults and with postive proof. I dare ya!
- Slython, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12You could almost say that Beck is a "Loser baby", and doesn't know "Where it's at"
- CogitatorX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@illahtech
"I'm an SF liberal" seriously, who says that? Is that like how Bill O'Reilly is an independent? - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I wonder if he thinks it's an equally shameful act to remain as the arbiter of a civil war based on fundamental religious differences that date back to the 7th century whils simultaneously bankrupting our country over a "war" that simply cannot be won.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15I think invading Iraq to begin with might be the most shameful act since slavery.
- jkenda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You may want to talk to the Cambodians about how the domino effect worked out for them
- Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's incredibly disrespectful to even BRITISH soldiers to even compare the intents and motives of American Revolution riflemen to that of the theocratic or Baath insurgents.
Hell, even the Redcoats were never so brutal as your vaunted "freedom fighters". There more to freedom than a slogan. -
Show 51 - 100 of 218 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