digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Bush Faces Opposition on Iran Attack

consortiumnews.com — A number of U.S. military leaders, reportedly including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have waged an extraordinary behind-the-scenes resistance to what they fear is a secret plan by George W. Bush to wage war against Iran.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Coven, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Looks like there are going to be a bunch of new wanted ads in the Washington Times tomorrow.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35They are all wrong, and he's right. He's the decider. Freedom is on the march.
    • Performance, on 10/12/2007, -15/+55In a truly democractic nation shouldn't the people be able to get rid of a president?? Everything happening doesn't resemble democracy. Sounds more like a "nice" dictatorship.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27"In a truly democractic nation shouldn't the people be able to get rid of a president"

      Yes, every 4 years you get the chance. Sooner if he/she commits a serious crime. The power of the presidency is limited by the other two branches of government. Only congress has the power to declare war, and the president can only commit troops for a limited time, so it's not like Congress has its hands tied in this matter.

      Also, if the democrat-controlled congress wanted to, it could end the war in Iraq now . . . but for some reason they have found it necessary to continue approving billions and billions of dollars for this misguided war.
    • mtownand1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22screw this, i'm not getting drafted to fight in bush's conquest.
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25"but for some reason they have found it necessary to continue approving billions and billions of dollars for this misguided war."

      The reason is that the republicans will disingenuously blame the democrats for any further failings in Iraq due to their blocking of funding.
    • AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17You're right, the congress has the power to declare war, but the president can send troops anywhere if it is in defense of the nation as Bush has claimed the war in Iraq is for. Congress never declared war, therefore they cannot rescind the declaration in this situation.
    • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18@nixonrichard

      Immediately ending funding would put the lives of our troops in danger. The democrats, unlike many in the Bush administration, value the lives of our armed servicemen and women.

      Life isn't simple. Not in a democracy.


      *if you can say where I quoted that from, I'll give you a congratulatory statement...
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -27/+8"The reason is that the republicans will disingenuously blame the democrats for any further failings in Iraq due to their blocking of funding."

      So, democrats are perfectly willing to let our soldiers continue to die in Iraq as long as it doesn't generate any bad publicity for them?! That's sick!
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23"So, democrats are perfectly willing to let our soldiers continue to die in Iraq as long as it doesn't generate any bad publicity for them?! That's sick!"

      Save your outrage for the ***** that sent them there in the first place.
    • hootymcboob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"Immediately ending funding would put the lives of our troops in danger. The democrats, unlike many in the Bush administration, value the lives of our armed servicemen and women."

      This is *****. They would have enough funds to get them the ***** out. The only people it would endanger are those with "interests" in Iraq (you know who they are) and those Iraqis that have worked with the occupation. Cutting off funds has been done before, look it up. Don't take the word of those ensconced in power.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"Immediately ending funding would put the lives of our troops in danger. The democrats, unlike many in the Bush administration, value the lives of our armed servicemen and women.

      Life isn't simple. Not in a democracy."

      So, what is the purpose of Congress periodically approving funding for war in the first place? If ending funding puts their lives in danger, why would Congress ever deny funding for a war? Also, it's not like cutting off funding would leave troops stranded in Iraq, they would just have to be pulled out before the current budget ended.

      It just pisses me off that we elected a democratic Congres for ONE reason . . . the war, and now they act like they want to draw it out so they can get a President out of it too. That's ***** up.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Dregga:

      The reason is that it would be irresponsible to go into a country, bring down their dictator, install a new government, draft a constitution, and then after all that work, plunge them into a civil war and leave.
    • smokinjuan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11'... we elected a democratic Congres for ONE reason..."

      'Cause it's the only other ***** choice?
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The Consortium? Give me a break. Do any of you have any idea how many times a week these guys get called out for being wrong or just making ***** up? Do your research.
    • Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@nixonrichard

      Lets be real here. Dems have zero chance to end the war. They do not have the 60 votes required to overcome a republican filibuster. This is what the non-binding resolution was for. To see what kind of support was around to stop this war. Republicans have not learned from the 06 elections and are still going down the path that, I think, if things are the same will see them unemployed in 08.

      While it is nice to say dems can just shut down funding to the military without 60 votes that is only a guarantee that more soldiers will die from lack of funding as Bush leaves them in place and just points out that they are dying because they do not have funds. I do not think bush gives a damn about the military except as a political tool against the dems and a means to make his nutty dreams play out. he'd not pull them out without funding. Its like with Theodore Roosevelt, he sent a fleet 1/2 way around the world against congress wishes and them told them if they wanted that pi-tic-u-lar fleet back they better fund the return trip.

      Bottom line the only way dems can end this war is with 60 votes to allow them to make specific legislation that stops it and overrides any filibusters. Anything else is just meat for republicans to block and then use as fodder against the dems.
    • Vrail, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This country was never formed to be a true democracy. It was formed as a federal republic. There are enormous differences, not the least of which is the electoral vote and indirect election of the senate (changed with the 17th I think it was amendment) to keep the power out of the hands of the easily swayed mob.. AKA the uneducated average digg or AIM user.

      As for this article, don't you think it's funny that Bush faces opposition before he has even given hints of his plans? We need to stop jumping the gun with our hate mongering and think about what's really happening. There is one year until the next election. Bush hasn't announced an official withdrawal from Iraq. There is no conceivable time frame that would allow a full scale successful attack against a country as militantly armed as Iran. By the time we have the resources to manage such a war that would be the largest since (but not as) WWII, Bush would be out of office, and no smart republican is going to advertise his intentions to invade Iran while running for president. We're not going to Iran people unless Iran directly provokes us through direct military action agasint US targets in the middle east or US cities.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Lets be real here. Dems have zero chance to end the war. They do not have the 60 votes required to overcome a republican filibuster. This is what the non-binding resolution was for. To see what kind of support was around to stop this war. Republicans have not learned from the 06 elections and are still going down the path that, I think, if things are the same will see them unemployed in 08."

      No, dems could single handedly end the war. The do not need 60 votes to cut funding, they need 50, which they have. You can't filibuster NOT approving something and then magically have it be approved. As far as the Roosevelt comment goes, this is a completely different situation. Bush has already exhausted his time to commit troops. Democrats reject future funding of the war . . . Bush goes on notice as having limited time and money to pull the troops out of Iraq. When democrats control both houses of congress I get really pissed off when they say "there's nothing we can do about it but continue to give bush the money he wants." That wasn't their attitude before the election. You control Congress for God's sake! Grow some balls!
    • asian1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From the looks of the posts on Digg, it looks like Iran is going to end up with nuclear weapons. Can anybody describe a scenario where that won't happen?
    • Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 You think he'd pull the troops out. I think he'd leave em in and just let the funds dry up and ask congress WTF they were going to do. The Roosevelt comment is not exactly the same but it does show that my line of reasoning has a parallel to back it up. He does NOT have to pull the troops out. I think the Dems believe he is going to leave them in too otherwise the choice for them would be as easy as your making it out to be.

      They need 60 votes to end the war without all the mess and agony of trying your way and finding out "yep, he is leaving them in" its not like Bush is going to need to worry about re-election again.
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1clearly those military leaders are conspiracy theorists also, ive been saying bush wanted to invade iran for 7 years and everyone told me i was a conspiracy theorist

    • BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@asian1
      The scenario in which you don't listen to FOX News.
  • coldfirenj, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Bring em on! (/sarcasm)
  • spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23Can we pause Bush and Cheney and fast forward the time to 2008 elections and then unpause them?
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I think you need chronitons for that.
  • m1th, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26If only the American people knew... http://digg.com/videos/educational/BBC_Documentary_Rageh_Inside_Iran
    • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21BBC > all American MSM outlets
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Agreed. It's incredible the amount of misinformation floating around the public consciousness on the topic of Iran. There is close to zero understanding of it's people, policies and culture.

      Danny Postel gives a good lecture on the subject:
      http://chiasmos.uchicago.edu/events/postel.shtml
    • NarmaK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The funny thing is that Iranians watch BBC news.
    • cornswalled, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@hambend

      They're ruled by an extremist regime, with most the citizens adhering to a religion that demands the execution of "infidels"

      They're developing nuclear weapons.

      They want us dead.

      They're arming the insurgents in Iraq.

      And I'm supposed to care that most of them are under 50?????

      Bomb them back to the stone age like we did with Afghanistan. Once we cut off the Iran weapon supply to the Iraq insurgents we'll be able to stabilize Iraq and free up the troops we need to do the same in Iran.
  • blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -25/+15Lets go kick some Iran ass. America!! ***** yea!!! Coming again to save the ***** day yea!!
    • Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Careful now, you're going to attract all the littlegreenfootballs people's attention.
    • MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If Bush could get up and recite the "Pussies and Dicks" speach, we might have world peace!
    • evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Internet!! ***** Yea! Porno!! ***** Yea!
    • DocMalk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Want to tell that to my Persian co-workers, jackass?
  • eschompthis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23I want to know what goes through this dumbass presidents head? They should make a law stating if a president declares war, then he is obligated to be in the front line, the vice president should then take over. Maybe this will make waging wars a little harder for the president.

    I blame all the idiots that reelected him,
    • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Maybe you should ask what goes through the dumb ass president of Irans head.
    • Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Hmm... my people are dumb and I'm powerless because of the clerics who run my country. I can get more popularity if I make ridiculous threats at the western powers, and maybe stay in office for a while longer. It might also be a very good idea to get some nuclear weapons, since the president of the US has openly said I should be ousted, and that he would do so by force if necessary. I also think he's an arse for unconditionally supporting Israel, which all of my citizens perceive to be oppressing their fellow Muslims."

      Now I don't have the advantage of my local media constantly telling me the guy is insane or how he's going to cause WW3, but I believe that's pretty close to what the Iranian president is thinking. I definitely don't agree with him on anything, but to a European he doesn't look that much worse than Bush, Putin, or the guys who run China. Just remember he's an attention whore who loves to use over-the-top rethorics when you listen to him.
    • stevenb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@eschompthis

      Nothing goes through his head.

      The corporations and various other "influences" tell him to do something, and he says "yes sirs".
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@Parokki:
      Interesting post.
      I was pretty amazed that you were able to get to -
      "but to a European he doesn't look that much worse than Bush, Putin, or the guys who run China"

      Wow.
      If that's true of the average European, Europe's gotten more ***** up than I would have thought possible.
  • mikefitz2, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5we should have been in iran in the first place, essentially we've already blown on load in iraq which is why people are getting upset
    • CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19why is america attacking anyone?
    • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@Cannedmango

      Where have you been the last 20 years? in a van down by the river? thats my bet
  • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6You guys ever consider the source of this unsubstantiated claim? Nothing but "one source revealed" and "once source directed me to an article that talks about Bush having a hair trigger plan". Don't you think it prudent for the Commander In Chief to have a rapid strike capability against Iran, a nation whose leadership has openly declared it's desire to rid the world of Jews and Infidels; a nation that is rapidly pursuing a non-peaceful nuclear agenda in flagrant disregard of the United Nations?

    Grow up with the automatic Bush bashing guys, it is pathetic. In this case at least, he is doing exactly what he should be doing in PLANNING for the possibilty of war. Use some common sense.
    • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3gotta ask, why the Digg downs? At least sack up and tell me how deeply misled I am in what i said.
    • Zacharute, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I agree with you 100%
    • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4It is a sad commentary (or lack thereof) on how pre-formed bias creates irrational thinking, isn't it?
    • NetherChris, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3A true response (rather than digging you down) would be to actually contest what you said.

      The complete lack thereof just means that people will blidnly follow a doctrine of "Conservatives are ALWAYS wrong". Which, if you notice, is the only reason the Democrats took back the House/Senate this year -- they had no platform, no issues, no plan for reforms, just the statement "Hey, we aren't Republicans..."

      I challenge all of you who want to digg people raising reasonable points and rhetoric down to instead respond to them, and have an intelligent conversation. The comments on here are just flat out disappointing, especially considering most of you probably vote.
    • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The problem is that my statement is correct, and that is why they can't reply. Just count the number of times UNNAMED sources are quoted in this clearly partisan article for starters. And arguing against the President having contingency plans on the table when dealing with a rogue nation like Iran who have declared their agenda over and over again is stupidity at its finest. It is just far easier for some ignorant plebians to push the little red thumbs down button than to actually (though vainly) attempt to coherently challenge my post. If they actually stopped and tried to do that logically, then they might realize how ignorant their thinking really is.

    • trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Most of the time people getting crying about getting dugg down on digg are just crying wolf or trolling, this time it is not the case.

      I am a liberal and I see nothing wrong with inarguable's post, don't digg him down unless you are willing to respond explaining why.

      This is what the flat earth society is really about even though most people think they actually believe the earth is flat.
      The point is that someone who believes that the earth is a sphereoid is correct, but if they don't know WHY they should believe it and are just following what others have told them is true then they are no better than someone who believes that the earth is flat.
    • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well said Trogdoor, and thanks. An ignorant opinion is worth nothing, and if one truly cannot cohesively explain why they feel the way they do, then they should seriously think about analyzing just why they actually feel the way they do.

      Some people just don't like discovering they are incorrect in their initial bias, and if they lack the intellectal maturity to appreciate that they are not as smart as they think they are, they do the next best juvenile thing - Digg down and run away scared. All these fools do is perpetuate the stereotype that far-left thinkers lack the ability to debate an issue maturely. (BTW, i said 'far-left', I didn't say 'Liberal left' - there is a BIG difference between the two!) With that said, I do appreciate those people who can see past their not entirely misguided anger towards President Bush and carry on a reasoned debate about an issue like this. (Of course, we are still waiting for that debate to begin here on this topic obviously).
    • XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know that my message will be buried within 5 minutes, but i agree with you, too, inarguable.
    • XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sorry for the double post, but i wasn't finished (laundry). I'm sorry to say that this problem has leaked down from one generation to another, I'm afraid. I'm a Junior in high school, and really, the only non-partisan guy I've met. For instance, when i tried to get my friends to watch Loose Change (great fictional work of art, awesome soundtrack, almost up to Michael Moore's level), they all nodded their heads and jotted it down word for word. Then, when i tried to show them Screw Loose Change, they all said "I'm not sitting through this Conservatively-biased *****!" Just goes to show what this nation is turning into. A bunch of mindless, angry, fight-the-power, ignorant, closed-minded zombies. I hate my generation when it comes to politics...

    • hootymcboob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You guys ever consider the source of this unsubstantiated claim? Nothing but "one source revealed" and "once source directed me to an article that talks about Bush having a hair trigger plan". Don't you think it prudent for the Commander In Chief to have a rapid strike capability against Iran, a nation whose leadership has openly declared it's desire to rid the world of Jews and Infidels; a nation that is rapidly pursuing a non-peaceful nuclear agenda in flagrant disregard of the United Nations?

      Grow up with the automatic Bush bashing guys, it is pathetic. In this case at least, he is doing exactly what he should be doing in PLANNING for the possibilty of war. Use some common sense."

      Ok; I'll bite. This is the second time I've heard that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (who is more connected and knows more about military planning, doctrine, strategy and tactics than every single one of us debating here) has privately balked at the possibility of war with Iran. Would a man who is trained the deadly serious art of war seriously entertain resignation over a "prudent" "rapid-strike capability"? Would you not give the benefit of the doubt to a Marine Corp General? If not, please list your credentials and accomplishments that would preclude you from such a judgement. Gen. Pace himself took this debate public with his open repudiation of the "iran gov't shipping weapons to iraq insurgents" news. Although it was subtle, you can appreciate the need for subtlety when contradicting the stated line of the regime - whens the last time someone in the government disagreed openly with the president and kept their job?

      Also, please list the technical achievements thus far of the "non-peaceful nuclear program" in Iran. Last I heard, they were having trouble bringing their first uranium enrichment facility online. Note that for a significant uranium production capacity, they would need several such facilities of 60,000 centrifuges or more running around the clock for the better part of a year. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6348797.stm) As of now, they have two facilities with 300 centrifuges each. Also note the CIA's own assesment in late 2005 said "10 years from the bomb" for Iran - so that means they're still 8.5 years away. And let me preemptively cut you off from a favored conservative argument - that the "CIA failed in Iraq intelligence assessments, so they cant be trusted on Iran". Well, that's just ***** - Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon and the neocon movement in the government shoved the Iraq wmd intel down their throats, and when they wouldn't agree, they made an end-run around them (hence the need for OSP.)

      This isn't about hating Bush. Obfuscation on that point won't fool anyone. Israel is capable of taking care of itself.
  • 1KrazyKorean, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Sorry Of Topic: But does anyone remember when Bush was asked "How do you feel that Arnold Schwarzenegger being the New Governor of California" His answer was " I would not want to arm wrestle that man" LOL whats wrong bush...
  • SuperCUBE, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20If this happens, World War III's bubble will burst and nuclear winter will begin and it is when I will be diagnosed with Raynaud's Syndrome so I won't have to serve

    Sweet Jesus, why did you guys vote for him again, you God damned douches?
    • CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13@supercube

      no matter what they say of you, or how much you get dugg down.... I'm supporting you supercube. Douches... all of them
    • evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4So if you support democracy, your a dooshbag?
    • SuperCUBE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9If you support war-mongering, then yes, you are a "dooshbag."
    • grizzlybear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3blame diebold
  • DarkPrincess74, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8But umm they have weapons of mass destruction, plus they are conspiring with terrorists, they need democracy and when they get it then it will spread throughout the area, and there needs to be a regime change in the area. Strangely many of these things are true but this could be solved by diplomacy instead of half-assed military plans that are all about debt and funneling money to wealthy friends and friendly companies of the president.
    • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Correct. very correct
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2digg down
    • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Strangely many of these things are true but this could be solved by diplomacy[...]"
      Have you been paying ANY attention at ALL to this issue?
      Diplomacy has been ongoing continuously, to absolutely NO avail, to the point where even the Euros have agreed that sanctions may become necessary. No matter WHAT diplomacy has been tried, the result has been the same: Iran's president says that nuke development will continue and that the US, Israel, and all infidels will be destroyed.
      Wake the hell up.
  • Zacharute, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6This is all propaganda... The only reason why Bush has 2 extra carriers in the area is because he is afraid Iran is going to invade Iraq. If that happens then everything we have done up to this point goes to *****. Iran is already supplying terrorists with weapons so we have to take precautions. Wouldn't we be stupid not to?
    • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You do know that if Iran "invaded" (as per the dictionaries definition) Iraq, there literally would be hell to pay from the dummies (I mean admin.). I think the counter-attack would be a hailstorm of missiles and bombs like we haven't seen before.

      Do you think Iran is willing to risk their entire country being blown up? I don't think so.
    • Zacharute, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@TheGuruStud
      Are they not already risking something by supplying weapons to the terrorists?
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Dude, Iran is not going to invade Iraq.
    • evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Iran will invade Iraq once we leave. Stop listing to what CNN and FOX tell you and do some research yourself.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't watch CNN or FOX. I haven't watched that ***** for years. Do you actually have any reason for believing they are going to invade Iraq? If so, logically present your argument or evidence.
    • Mercymillennium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Iran won't invade Iraq. Why should they? The 2 governments are the same religion and of like mind. If America left tomorrow Iran and Iraq would be fast friends the day after. It makes me laugh to think that we basically just gave Iran a staunch ally once Iraq sheds American troops. Saddam was propped up BECAUSE he was against Iran. he was a "balancing" force in the region.
    • KrazyA1pha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ evilesttoast
      "Iran will invade Iraq once we leave. Stop listing to what CNN and FOX tell you and do some research yourself."

      Your ability to research the future amazes me!
  • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17This would be the biggest mistake, US has ever made. The difference between Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran is that Iran is a well established country in the sense of an actual military. Iraq not so much and the Taliban not so much, and look at the resistance both of those are still keeping up. Iran will actually own US at this stage not because it has a better military (which is far from the truth) but because US will not approach it correctly, just like it has not approached Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has a very strong military, and are extremely intelligent. And for the fact that US is even beginning to consider this, is an indication that they have once again underestimated their opponent. For the sake of all the people, both American and Iranian, which will include thousands of innocent children they should not even think of this as a possibility.
    • Zacharute, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4"And for the fact that US is even beginning to consider this, is an indication that they have once again underestimated their opponent"

      When has president Bush ever stated that he wanted to invade Iran... Oh thats right... He hasn't.
    • hootymcboob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20"When has president Bush ever stated that he wanted to invade Iran... Oh thats right... He hasn't."

      When has the president fully and honestly stated his intentions? Oh that's right...He hasn't.
    • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Again, look at the passed 6 years actions, and look at the recent actions, they are clearly setting up the possibility of this, not one said they will. They have moved more ships in the the gulf and are trying to up their military presences. And just before the past election what happened? attack Iraq. So I would not put it far out of reach for an attack as a "political strategy". It is amazing how many people truly don't understand the complexity and deceit that is occurring in the middle east.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If you remember in the six month lead up to our invasion to Iraq, it was the exact same thing. The leaks of the administrations decisive intention to invade Iraq were in the public realm. The press was asking the administration about it constantly and the administration, namely Rumsfeld, continued to say that this was just rumor gone wild. In fact they had made the decision several years earlier. This is why, with the situation with Iran, that nobody trusts what the administration says. It is well know that they had decided on this series of invasions back in 2000. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran. In that order specifically. Though reality has slapped them in the face, and the order and timeline may have changed; it is apparent that in their plans are still a go and we will see our country beaten down and destroyed by our own leaders.
  • kalrhael, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7The president has repeatedly said we're not going to attack iran, but we still have all these idiots screaming bloody mary "OMFG!!! we R gonnna attakc teh iran!!, bush SUXX!!!"

    It's just sensationalist crap, and as usual everyone buys into it. But hey, long as it makes bush look bad it's worth it right?

    What a joke
    • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The problem with what you said is that Bush lies.... and for some reason it is ok.
      And actions he has taken show intentions, such as moving another carrier into the gulf. You have to stop listening to CNN and listen to a non American owned news agency, and open your eyes, please.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9So, when they repeatedly said that they were not going to attack Iraq, were they telling the truth then too?
  • gadzopolis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4If war stops, so does a huge part of the American economy. Bush knows it, so does all of congress. Billions and billions of dollars for war is all using American made guns n ammo. No Chinese competition here.
    • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Last time I checked w/o ***** in office our economy was doing damn well, even after the "terrorist" attack the economy was trying to rebound until Iraq.
      So, I don't think this is WWI or II where the war will jump start the economy (nor is it a justified reason, b/c that's what you were implying).

      I bet your mother is real proud.
    • gadzopolis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I wasn't implying anything. Just stating what DW Eisenhower did all those years ago.
    • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1should've stated that then
    • gadzopolis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That wouldn't have been any fun.
    • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6All I am going to say about the billions and billions of dollars is that
      1) that is completely correct
      2) Read 1984 -> waste time and money on war and the general public doesn't get smarter and wise up to the fact that the government is awful.
  • ravens326, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Please do not attack Iran. Millions of people would die on both sides if this occurred , and it would spill over to neighboring countries. Please for the love of the planet, no more war.

    http://www.dpodgor.net
    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Millions on both sides???
      I doubt it.
    • ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Don't worry. Bush won't attack Iran unless God tells him to.
    • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Of course not on both sides US will pull out with in a month of attacking because it will for sure be dominated.
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4So, people are against Bush doing something that he has no intentions on doing?

    Amazing how desperate the left has gotten. They claim that Bush intended to attack Iran so many times that in their minds, it has become a reality.
    • hootymcboob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Amazing how desperate the left has gotten. They claim that Bush intended to attack Iran so many times that in their minds, it has become a reality."

      Amazing that for all the blustering the right does about loving the military, when it comes out that the military is fed up with the civvies, they turn on them like a rabid raccoon. Have we already forgotten the so-called "generals revolt"? I don't know about you and your credentials, but I'm betting you do not have the standing and cajones to publicly call Peter Pace a lying coward.
  • opollis, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9Ok, could it not just be that Iran has a ***** in power? I hate it that so many people just refuse to see what is right in front of them. Ahmadinejad has openly said that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Bush is going to be underfire for the last year and 11 months that he is actually in power. All I see is Bush will do this and Bush will do that while the Iranian prez ACTUALLY says he intends to destroy Israel and is developing a nuclear program that "has no brakes." Am I the only one on here that can connect the dots? Bitch all you want over Iraq, but Iran is a HUGE threat. I wonder how many people actually read the article before digging it.
    • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Congrats, Opollis! You've fallen for the 'a-threat-under-every-rock' mindset that got the States into the present ***** in Iraq. For your sake, I hope you're not of draft age because you can make book that if Georgie and company decide to open a third front, you'll be in the ***** PDQ. Enjoy it while you can
    • hootymcboob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"I hate it that so many people just refuse to see what is right in front of them. Ahmadinejad has openly said that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the map."

      And? Perhaps if you took the time to learn about Iran you'd understand that the Iranian people do not support that kind of rhetoric. Reference the recent elections in Iran where Ahmadinejad's party was dealt a defeat. Also realize that most of the Iranian political structure is handpicked by the mullahs - this does not mean that Iran has the will to go to war when they are clearly not threatened.

      As for Israel, they have shown time and again they can take care of themselves. Why does Iran want a nuclear bomb? It is viewed as a bulwark against US invasion. And as of right now, their nuclear program is for peaceful (read: energy production) purposes only. If I was Iran, I'd want to free up as much oil for international sale as possible, given the record prices in the market.

      Think for yourself....if you dare.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"Iranian prez ACTUALLY says he intends to destroy Israel and is developing a nuclear program that "has no brakes.""

      Actually if you read his speeches, he actually doesn't say those things. Next time he "says" something horrible, compare what the MSM reports as being his words and the actual text of our government's translation. You will see two totally different realities. Also, no part of our government claims that Iran is create weapons grade nuclear material. The entire issue is the lack of oversight in their enrichment of uranium for civilian reactors. However, in the press, they report something like, "Iran Resumes Uranium Enrichment", letting the reader infer that they are developing weapons grade material. It is simply untrue.

      Also, @opollis, it is people like you who live in fear and see danger EVERYWHERE, that is making this planet unstable. You and people like you have a serious case of little man syndrome, which is simply irrational. The fact is is that the US is the most powerful nation on Earth in almost every way, and we need to start acting like it, which means not jumping in fear and screaming at every little noise we hear. Or getting our panties in a bind every time some country pisses in our direction. Get some balls.
    • opollis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3You liberals deal in conspiracy. Much like the 9/11 loose change *****. It's been debunked. If you read my whole post you would have seen that Bush's hands are tied right now. Draft, good luck buddy. I am of age for that. I am also in college, makes me wonder where you are to be so quick as to believe that despite Bush saying no draft, there will magically be one.

      As for the other guy, that Iranian prez has supreme power. Do some research on him. Iran is not a democratic nation nor do they have a say in their fascist governments actions. And another thing, I DO think for myself. I don't watch the news. The news, blogs, and conspiracies make you believe exactly what they want. One more thing, do you believe that "truth is relative". That is an old ancient greek saying by Callicles. Means that truth is what you are told. You obviously read and believe what you are told by media. I believe something when it is a direct threat by a ***** huge ANTI SEMETIC *****. I will not let anyone allow another Holocaust.
    • opollis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3At d00ley, ahhem.......9/11 taught me that sudden and UNprovoked attacks will occur if we let them. And heres one more thing.....read and don't run your *****

      "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

      The last time this was unmistakenly obvious was in WWII. When the Iranian president attacks Iraq or Israel and they will, I will be here to say "I ***** TOLD YOU SO." But, the sad part is nothing will happen in Iran anytime soon. The only way a democrat controlled government will do anything is if we or our allies get attacked first. Call me a neo-con, call me a danger mouse, I dont care, I am right on this. You liberals do not see the big picture.
    • bicyclethief, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Is it possible for you to jump the gun anymore?

      First of all, everyone agrees Iran is YEARS away from building a nuclear weapon even if they were left unfettered.

      So just chill your testosterone Rambo. You'll have to let someone else save us from another Holocaust mmkay?

    • RockTheWall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You, sir, just proved that you know nothing at all about Iran. The way Iran's government is structured is such that the President does not have the power typically associated with such a title. Instead, the true head of government is the Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Khamenei. Ahmedinejad does not possess the political stature to unilaterally lead Iran into anything. He's a nut who can't follow through on what he says.

      If you did even further research, you would find that Ahmedinejad has no political capital either, as he's left the Iranian economy in ruins and the entire electorate hates him.

      This is precisely the issue with American perceptions of Iran; the country is portrayed as another brutal Islamic despotism with a raving lunatic citizenry waiting to turn their AK-47's on the infidels. There are radical Islamic elements, but Iran is more like a Western country than any other Middle Eastern state. There's serious political dissent and a secular class. Indeed, pre-1979 there were huge Communist and Socialist factions vying for power. Many of those people are still there. Iran is not Iraq, it is not Afghanistan or Syria, it is a country that used to be first-world with a dynamic population that looks surprisingly familiar.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"9/11 taught me that sudden and UNprovoked attacks will occur if we let them."

      First of all, the attacks on 9/11 could be seen coming from a million miles away. Anybody who was surprised that morning was either asleep or an idiot.

      Also, regarding Iran attacking either Iraq or Israel: What would be their motive? In either case, Iran would cease to exist. In the case of Iraq, if Iran invaded Iraq, we (the U.S.) would come down on them hard and with full force, with the backing of the entire world. It would not be an ambivalent situation fraught with questions of motivation and an undefined mission as in Vietnam and Iraq II. It would resemble WWII and Iraq I, full and open war. The kind of war in which we dominate. In the case of Iran invading Israel, come on, get real you idiot. If that happened, Iran would not inhabitable for 1000's of years.
      The fact is, the only threat Iran presents to us is an economic threat through the Oil Bourse. The Oil Bourse is THE main reason why we invaded Iraq when we did and is the ONLY reason, those in power here tout Iran as a threat.
    • opollis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I said attacks Israel.....not invades. Israelis, Jews, whatever, will never let anyone take what they have ever again. Call me an idiot or call names, it takes more away from your point when you call names. I call you a liberal because you are one. I guess you are a democrat I presume, do you believe that the rich people should pay more for being successful. Different topic, but that is something else libs stand for. Taking from those who have earned money and giving it to those who are too lazy to make it.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually, I am a conservative and probably more so than you. I noted your use of "liberal" previously and the fact that you use it to address those that disagree with you leads me to believe that you do in fact use it in an loose and derogatory way. In short, I think that, for you, calling someone a liberal is, in fact, you "calling names". I also know that your loose use of the word "liberal" indicates that you spend much of your time listening/watching faux-conservatives who constantly whine about "liberals" all day long. Like I said, I am a conservative that believes the Federal Government should be 1/10 the size that it is currently, at least. So, in your little world; where anybody who disagrees with Bush, or disagrees with your little faux-conservative talking heads, or who is not eager to go to war, is a liberal, you have a horrible grasp on reality. Just snap out of it. Snap out of your ***** party politics mindset.
    • bicyclethief, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@d00ley

      You're right on about opollis.

      When will people realize there is a sheep-mindset on both sides: liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican. And from his comments, opollis certainly seems like one of these.
    • hootymcboob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"As for the other guy, that Iranian prez has supreme power. Do some research on him. Iran is not a democratic nation nor do they have a say in their fascist governments actions. And another thing, I DO think for myself. I don't watch the news. The news, blogs, and conspiracies make you believe exactly what they want. One more thing, do you believe that "truth is relative". That is an old ancient greek saying by Callicles. Means that truth is what you are told. You obviously read and believe what you are told by media. I believe something when it is a direct threat by a ***** huge ANTI SEMETIC *****. I will not let anyone allow another Holocaust."

      Actually, re-read your research, pal. The Supreme Leader has supreme power, not the President. He's the mouthpiece for the Ayatollah. Here, I'll do your research for you: http://www.iranchamber.com/government/articles/structure_of_power.php

      "The president is the second highest ranking official in Iran. While the president has a high public profile, however, his power is in many ways trimmed back by the constitution, which subordinates the entire executive branch to the Supreme Leader. In fact, Iran is the only state in which the executive branch does not control the armed forces.

      The president is responsible for setting the country's economic policies. Though he has nominal rule over the Supreme National Security Council and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, in practice the Supreme Leader dictates all matters of foreign and domestic security. Eight vice presidents serve under the president, as well as a cabinet of 22 ministers. The Council of Ministers must be confirmed by Parliament."


      And as far as I know, YOU have no say in whether or not theres another holocaust; Israel will have the last word on that. Your job is to educate yourself, stop being a smarmy punk in college who thinks he knows it all (and can change world events), and stop believing everything you read. If you read something, consider the source. Look for a backup source, or two, or three. Piece together the fabric of media reports and read between the lines.
  • dennisbier09, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6well with a little bit of luck the USA won't have to enter Iran, as there appears to be a growing Sunni nation alliance which strongly opposes Irans behavior. So much so in fsct, that countries like Saudi Arabia are openly speaking of normalizing relations with Israel. They hate Iran more than they hate Israel!

    My source: http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com/2007/02/40-iran-as-real-israel.html
  • ckedge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I'm a Canadian neocon* and even I'll get out on the streets and protest if they or Israel attack Iran. Hell I'd almost support sending Canadian ADATS anti-air batteries to Iran.

    It's NOT that I think they're a "just government" - and I know they're the cause or an enabler of a lot of the hell in Palestine, etc etc, - it's just that it's guaranteed to result in more people dying than in being saved - in almost 95% of possible futures.

    I think we should deal with Iran the same way we're dealing with North Korea and China and the same way we dealt with the former Soviet Union - by pumping in as much information about how much more well off than them our citizens are and how well our economic and system of freedoms works - and then waiting until they change themselves. And in the mean time holding MAD over their heads should they do anything idiotic like throw a nuke at anyone outside their boundaries.

    (*) yes we do exist, something like 30% of Canadians and 20% of Frenchmen supported the war in Iraq.
  • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@zacharute

    We're still funding them too (the terrorists), even if it is indirect. Think about that one.
    The whitehouse can't conclusively prove Iran's involvement w/o lying their asses off (obviously this hasn't stopped them before).
    But it is going to be a lot harder to sell, since the obvious anal rape and back stabbing they've given their own country.
  • knickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3digg this down
  • mcfriendly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If you are all such great supporters of BUSH and the war why aren't you over there fighting the war? Arm chair warriors - all mouth and no heart!
    • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I was on the ground in Kuwait as a civilian helping the war effort during the start of the iraq campaign. Where were you? smoking a J with your friends playing x-box? yeah..
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@mrkamikaze - Tell us more about your efforts in Kuwait as a civilian.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1oops
    • Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I was on the ground in Kuwait as a civilian helping the war effort during the start of the iraq campaign." -- mrkamikaze

      ...and I watched people do more before 8:00am than you do all day.
  • Calann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I would like to say that Bush is not stupid enough to attack Iran, but I've been underestimating his stupidity for a long time now.
  • ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The US will probably not attack Iran because Iran could probably put up a decent fight.
    • Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2yeah for about a week.
    • mabijaoude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"a week" Iran has a full fledged military, and will more then likely own US and will not stop until US pulls out, which it will after losing many lives.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"yeah for about a week." -- Just like our little war with Iraq, right?
  • majortom1981, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well Considering that Iran has F-14's wich are probably upgraded due to not getting aprts from us so they are probably upgraded with help from the chinese and russians . They also will have nuclear weapons .

    IF Bush attacks Iran he is just dumb. Their military will be no slouch.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2why do these stupid conspiracy theory stories make the front page while real news is ignored. Keep drinking the kool-aid.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I dont blame them. Bush cant be trusted anymore
  • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0......
  • Joxyl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Here's a clip that I saw a couple of months ago that really made me think about Iran. Kind of disturbing once the crowd starts chanting "Death to America." Especially after the Iranian nuclear ordeals and such.

    The video is kind of propaganda-like, so if you actually want to see the footage, just fast forward to 2:25 for the beginning of the rant, or 3:56 if you just want to see the crowd he's addressing chanting "Death to America."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnPblFT6mg

    But I understand that money is what makes the world go round, and more than likely plays a large part into what the U.S. does and doesn't do.

    EDIT: I forgot to add the link. Sorry.
  • muffins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Hey I just got done listening to this one song. It was really good. Regardless of what was going on in the world.
  • dcameron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@mrkamikaze

    I was protesting an illegal, expensive and irrational war. You could have been there too.
  • atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This would matter if Bush had publicly stated that he wanted to attack iran. He hasn't said anything. In fact, they are about to work with Iran on the stability of Iraq along with Syria. If anything, we are getting farther away from an attack.
  • AntiJihadi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Oh, the irony. The next Michael Moore film simply must be a documentary on the many intrigues of George Soros!
  • Twango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How much of our future does this guy want to spend while he's in office?
  • suburbanprinces, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I appreciate how this article points out how wars are sold to the public and how what the public is told is the reason for the war is not necessarily the truth. The more reporting that can be done to reveal the true agenda of Bush and his neocons the better off we'll all be.
  • asianRZ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Bush wont attack. That's not how we Republicans think. It's just a plan. That's why God gave us two ears and one mouth; to think twice and speak once. There's no harm in getting ready if (emphasis on if) Iran did succeed the nuclear program, test launch, target it here, and eradicate the people of US.
  • BlackKrishna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3::: TARPOLOGY 101: LET'S GET IT :::

    Webster G. Tarpley has been studying terrorism and oligarchy for years, and he suggests an aggressive faction has taken the reigns and is looking to start WW3 to protect their hegemony when the U.S. dollar falls.

    Look for his stuff, he has the best solutions to save the world.

    Peace, (NOW!!!)
    BK

    Infowars.com... PrisonPlanet.com... SaveTheInternet.com... FreedomtoFascism.com... RonPaul.org...
  • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0......
  • geveen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There is this pattern that only a fool will miss. The US finds every pretext to go to war out of the necessity to keep its arms industry going; obviously the arms manufacturing honchos have a great deal of money poured out to American politics.
    The Iraq war situation is the worst the US has got into. Saddam, although one of the worst tyrant ever and he should have been assassinated by his own people, was never any threat to the US.
    In Afghanistan, with the 9/11 tragedy, making it absolutely necessary to hunt out AL-qaeda and Osama-bin-Laden, the US forces are no where near their goal.
    Its a no win situation and we are all in for a long haul, at least in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Muslim radicals will be at their job for a long time. Going after Iran now would create more complications, most of all we would only be putting more ammunition in the hand of terrorists.
    What is best in the interest of the whole world is to have a major thrust,a bull-dozer thrust.....a real major effort over several years...to boost education, economy and infrastructure of the Middle East, changing their economy in a dynamic boost to the region.
    This would catch the radicals off-guard ,with a majority of young people in universities and at good productive jobs and a domino effect that would be impossible to stamp out; the Middle East should be made an investment opportunity as China and India.
    Imagine the billions of dollars in the war effort in Iraq going instead to the Iraqi economy.
  • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pat Robertson and Falwell are so happy now that Biblical prophecy of Armegeddon are coming to fruition. They've done their part in getting Israelis to kill off the Palestinians and retake most of Israel, so now that the Jews have returned to Israel, Jesus will return and the end of Middle Earth will begin. Too bad they and 95% of so-called Christians are destined for Hell.
  • remotecontrol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The pathetic part is, this is probably seen as good press by the Bush admin. More fear, uncertainty and doubt. They *have* achieved their mission in Iraq - instability justifying a large US Military presence. The end game here is U.S. bases in Iraq, Iran, and any other country with oil and no U.S. military base.
  • Workage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Bush Opposition" is getting old
  • ebola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they really go and invade Iran, that's it folks, kiss your asses goodbye. It's the end of the world as we know it. Iran isn't going to take it lying down like Iraq because they can see what's happened to Iraq today - total destruction. You can bet your asses they will pull all the stops, and take revenge against us 'infidels', using bio-terrorism, dirty bombs, blowing stuff up in big cities, missile attacks, blowing up trains and buses, polluting our rivers with anthrax, and anything else they can.

    An attack on Iran will be a *really really really* bad move. They will be destroyed anyway, but they will make damn sure we are too. You can bet on that. And you can bet it won't end any time soon.
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Spoken like a true Coward.

      Its impossible... It cant be done.... Nice confidence.

      Pussies. Go check your mailbox your welfare check is in.
  • KevinRoseFetus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He better plant WMD's this time so at least i think it's reason enough to let more U.S. troops get blown up by IED's.
  • powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is hysterical. Literally.
    I suspect the only reason for all this "don't attack Iran" garbage is that it is becoming more and more obvious that we NEED to attack Iran, and the Coward Club is getting its ducks lined up to hamstring the nation as quickly and effectively as possible.
    Many of the comments here are completely disgusting as well.
  • NarmaK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anyone here that pronounces it as eye-rann loses any argument currently engaged.
  • chatty82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush's retarded "advisors" told him he could "Pick Iran or Iraq to attack" and he was advised Iraq had prostitutes the troops could go to and Iran didn't have prostitution. So he chose Iraq. The so-called "prostitutes" in downtown Bagdad have killed more servicemen than the terrorists because the troops insulted the ones that have sores all over their bodies. If I were a man I wouldn't solicit ANYONE in the Arab world for prostitution due to the threat of disease. If I was President I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I have a retarded stepsister that took courses in witchcraft (inhabiting other woman's bodies) and a subject called "mass murder" at different levels. It doesn't have anything to do with Iraq. Iran is the thing he should have picked since the Iranian terrorist organisation is everyone's enemy. Al-quaida and Hepzbollah are enemies of each other. He wasted the best troops practicing on innocent people and got us hated.

    Government sponsored genocide is what got Germany attacked by both the U. S. and Russia in the 40s and that is what George is allowing his pals to do in Amsterdam, Rome, and Bagdad.
  • lasenorita, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone, visit StopIranWar.com and digg Wes Clark's article:

    http://digg.com/politics/Stop_the_Iran_War
  • stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, it's a MUCH better idea to let these killers get their hands on nuclear weapons.
    The old strategy of MAD, (Mutually Assured Destruction) that kept us and the Soviets from nuking each other can't be depended on with the jihadists.
    Did you know Iran's former president made a speech a few years ago saying that once Iran has the bomb they should immediately nuke Israel? And that, even if Israel retaliated and killed every Iranian it would still be worth it?
    You cannot bargain with people like that. Lest you think they'll be satisfied once five million Israelis are dead, remember Iran current president hosted a conference a few months ago called "A World Without America".
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 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.