What is Digg?105 Comments
- phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -4/+58Let's not get duped again. For a little reminder...
This is what Bush said in March of 2003, while making his declaration of war with Iraq.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Full speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20 ... - phnx0221, on 11/08/2007, -4/+37The Bush Administration has virtually no credibility left in the rest of the world.
We used the same weapons of mass destruction rhetoric before, it just ran under a different name.
We used it to "save the world from the evil terrorists", while instead what resulted was the creation of thousands of new terrorists, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers.
Our government, has executed the very acts of terrorism it fights.
Our rights are being infringed upon, almost on a weekly basis.
People of color live in an even greater fear, at risk for profiling, detention, interrogation, and an even further restriction on their personal rights.
The acts of torture and abuse are now common knowledge.
I cannot possibly fathom why, after all of this, and more, we as a nation could even think of letting these actions be taken. I'm glad that more and more of the mainstream media is comfortable enough to be putting forth these questions. But, when the drumbeat goes higher, we need to know that we, as people, are not going to allow hundreds of thousands of deaths all over again, for a war that cannot be justified.....again. - SheilaNoya, on 11/08/2007, -4/+26We're concerned because Iran says they will defend themselves if we attack them without any valid reason? WOW - Imagine that.
- Calann, on 11/08/2007, -2/+23Right now there is no insurgency in Iran. There are no car bombings there. No U.S. troops are being killed in Iran. There are no terrorist streaming into Iran to fight our troops and the Iranian government is not on the verge of a collapse that might destabilize the entire region.
George Bush could change all that if we let him. - inactive, on 11/08/2007, -6/+25" I think the right thing was done in Iraq,"
A million dead civilians to stop WMDs that didn't exist in a country that was never a threat. Hmm. Yeah, I agree, we should take your opinion with a grain of salt. - CannedMango, on 10/30/2007, -2/+17What's amazing to me is how people can be duped again so quickly. Have we learned nothing?
The other, more frightening, answer is that as a society we are prevented from learning from our mistakes because we have a critical mass of uneducated citizens who are incapable of learning even the most basic lessons. If this is the case, then the government can do whatever they want for as long as they want as long as they say what is necessary to placate the ignorant majority. If this is indeed the case, then we need to start finding people who believe that Iran is an "imminent threat" and make them WTFU (wake the f*ck up). - inactive, on 11/08/2007, -3/+17It is mostly about oil. Crude closed at $92/per barrel last Friday; when Bush took office it was $18/barrel. Coincidence?
Who profits? It isn't the majority of Americans--the middle class and poor. - synarchy, on 11/08/2007, -1/+15Look, the Council of Foreign Relations wants the war broadened to include Iran and will have it no matter which "party" wins. We know the necons on the Republican side are all for it, but Hilary, Edwards and Obama won't rule it out either. Here's the CFR on it: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13421/
- phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -4/+16Here are some links to supplement why the Iraq war is wrong. There are many, many, more, but I think this is good enough for now.
If you think the Iraq war was right, and that we we're winning, and that we went in with good intentions,
please elaborate in your own words. Personally, I'm amazed that you think so, because I simply cannot justify the deaths of millions, mostly a civilian population, and the complete destruction of almost all humanitarian infrastructure. I'm intrigued to hear why this is justified for you.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020708/editors
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/07/07 ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/ - bratpack8, on 11/08/2007, -5/+15Now that it's clear that the Democrats completely lied through their teeth last year when they were elected on the grounds of 'getting us out of Iraq,' it is time to consider the few candidates who promise AND have a track record of keeping their promises. Ron Paul 2008. Bring the troops home. Peace.
- phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11Or Dennis Kucinich, or Chris Dodd, or Mike Gravel.
Ron Paul is the only republican advocating for immediate withdrawl from Iraq, and against going into war with Iran. But he is certainly not the only presidential candidate to do so. - phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10You still fail to put forth in your own words, the reasoning as to why you feel the Iraq war is a justified war. And, pertaining to the article submitted, and thus, the content of this thread, why a war with Iran would be justified. You continue with your own rhetoric, attempting to damage the valid opinions of millions of people in this country, and throughout the world, as saying that Bush's lack of credibility, is nothing but rhetoric used by people who have "no real jobs", and bureaucrats in Germany? Statements such as this distract from the points given, and seem to be used by people who have no valid arguments of their own to back up a point, or argue another.
Bush's credibility has been undermined because of the illegitimate justifications to go into Iraq, and now the illegitimate justifications for war with Iran. Weapons of Mass Destruction, capabilities of producing nuclear weapons, or already having nuclear weapons, preempting an imminent threat to the United States and our allies. He doesn't mention the fact, that nuclear capabilities were given to those governments by the United States, but only when the governments had American influenced politicians. Governmental figures that were horrible dictators to their own citizenry, using techniques of torture, propaganda, and fear, that were mastered and shared by the C.I.A.,
while granting extraordinary power and financial leverage to American or western countries who had deep interest in their "strategic resources".
The burden does not fall to me to justify my feelings of how this war is illegal, immoral, and has been used to push forth an agenda that has been wanted not only by the current administration, but during the last forty or so years of American policies. The burden, falls of proof and legitimacy falls on the aggressor, or the advocates for the aggressor. - spoiled1, on 10/30/2007, -1/+9And, when is an oil rich "middle eastern" country allowed to have a free will?
- phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8Precisely. Our job is harder because the government fears the massive population, so it instills a massive and effective propaganda campaign that spans themselves, television, radio, newspapers, etc, until it gets into the heads of the people, and they honestly believe that those are their own thoughts they have come up with. They don't realize it was carefully and masterfully instilled into them, to make them docile, to make them passive, into thinking that voting is enough to change their situation, or the situation of others.
However, we do have it easier, in one aspect, and it's a huge one. The internet has made it so that other opinions, and much more importantly, other FACTS are open to review, at incredible speeds, without which, would have virtually no regard.
So, we have that on our side. We have popular dissent on our side. From the actions of this administration, and the lack of action thereof (Katrina, San Diego), our society is much more aware, much faster than they have have before. We need to use that, and inform people so that they are fully aware of the decisions and horrible atrocities that are made in their name. - KibibyteBrain, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8And you don't think Iran would counterstrike? They are right by our troop positions, and also have practical airstrike capabilities. They have a fleet of missile boats that could cause chaos at sea too, and would prevent much interference from that angle. I think there is a chance they'd hold back so long as the airstrikes were very very targeted to only nuclear facilities, but talk about playing with fire.
- phnx0221, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6There is a great quote from Emma Goldman in her speech on Patriotism:
"Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each little spot being surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. " - phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6What is the difference between Iran having nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, or the U.S.? They have not directly threatened nuclear action against any other country, while we have, while Israel has.
At this point, they are years away from developing actual nuclear weapons, much less the means to deploy those weapons.
Why not, instead of worrying about whether or nor Iran has the capability of possibly producing nuclear weapons, we worry about the countries that have them now, and are not abiding by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty? Why not cease all nuclear production, and work on dismantling those that already exist? - spoiled1, on 11/08/2007, -2/+8The real problem is "This administration telling lies to achieve 'goals' that will do nothing at best but to fill up pockets of big corporations and the kick backs that the government officials will receive, this will wreck havoc in middle east even more"
Bush administration rejected all attempts by Iran for reconciliation, making Iranian moderates look like idiots for giving too much concessions to Americans and hence popularizing radical elements of Iran's political establishment.
FTA:
>"But the important thing is that the Iranians agreed to talk unconditionally, Mann
>says. "They specifically told me time and again that they were doing this because they
>understood the impact of this attack on the U.S., and they thought that if they helped
>us unconditionally, that would be the way to change the dynamic for the first time in
>twenty-five years."
But what did Bush do?
>"That was the speech in which Bush linked Iran to Iraq and North Korea with a
>memorable phrase:
>"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to
>threaten the peace of the world."
>The Iranians had been engaging in high-level diplomacy with the American government
>for more than a year, so the phrase was shocking and profound.
Radical begets radical. - mickhyde, on 10/30/2007, -3/+8Hang on ! hang on! remember... War! what is it good for? absolutely nothing... say it again... and keep saying it.
- Bodhinature, on 10/30/2007, -2/+7So what you are saying is that three nuclear armed sovereignties will attack a non-nuclear state.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/30/2007, -2/+7The two differences now are:
1) Iran does actually have a program, at least they claim to.
2) The U.S. would have a rough time trying to even capture ground in Iran, and holding it would make Iraq right now look like Disney Land.
So I think the Bush administration/the right are all talk right now. I think they are bringing hostility with Iran to the media stage to distract people from Iraq and gain support from some of the stray sheep lost from their base who bought into the whole "War! Go team!" thing before. Bush can still look like a "war president" and not a "failed occupation president". And it seems people from both parties, and apparently on digg too, are falling for the trap, as Iran is brought up all the time now. - phnx0221, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5And we already have our hold on the Saudis. Their government, the one that is one of the most fundamentalist in the world, the one that spawned 19 hijackers, is run by U.S. friendly politicians. We put the people in power there, and trained them with our C.I.A., and fund their horrible dictatorship against their people. The people actively hate us, but their government is still working along with U.S. interests.
Iraq was also about oil, but it wasn't that simple. It was about placing the U.S. in prime position of influence, so they would have leverage and bargaining power with the rest of the world, to keep their contracts going to our contractors, to keep percentages of profits, and legislation power flowing through our diplomats and business interests.
Iran is also held in that regard, but we have something against them too, ever since the population overthrew the government we put in place after a coup on their democratically elected government. Ever since 1979, we've been pissed at Iran, and vowing for revenge and a reinstatement of the control we once had. - WorkingDead, on 11/08/2007, -2/+6People in favor of this war usually lead a privileged life style that they wish to maintain or expand at the expense of the people they want you to kill for them. You or I are no different than any Iranian, except for where we grew up. We are just more lucky regarding the circumstances of the formation of our country. Also, we are just as complacent with our tyrants as they are with theirs. In fact, most rational Iranians live and let live pretty similarly to the way most rational American people do. You'll find however, that you have no way of communicating with any of these people to peacefully resolve our differences. Why is that? Ask yourself that question.
- jake8689, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4under who's leadership
- mrgreenjeans, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4Go ahead and digg me down, but please read what Ron Paul has to say about it.
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Christian philosophy is more like radical Islamic fundamentalism than you realize. They are two sides of the same coin:
They both share the same attitude regarding women. They believe women should be subservient to men. Accomplished women are threatening to them. They work to prevent equality between the sexes. Women shouldn't be allowed to wield power, whether it's driving a car or piloting an F-18.
Both are hard-liners on crime and punishment. Arabs cut off hands and behead people. It's not that extreme with conservatives, but they also believe in harsh punishment in the name of justice and to send a warning to future wrong-doers. Conservatives believe in the death penalty and long prison sentences.
Both are isolationists. They are suspicious of people of different nationalities, ethnicities, and religion. They exhibit xenophobia. They use religion as a means of distinguishing self from non-self, friend from enemy. Foreigners are always suspect.
They are traditionalists. They cherish what already exists and are wary of new ideas. There may be inefficiencies and injustices with the current system, but they don't want to rock the boat. New ideas are blasphemy. Progressives are looked down upon.
They want religion to be the heart of government. They don't want a separation of church and state. Laws should be based on religious teachings. Religious leaders should be in charge of the country.
Look in the mirror Christians. Today's radical Islamic fundamentalist is really yesterday's Christian. - inactive, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4Let Him?.....he is gonna do it no matter what what the general consensus is...............
- yojiffyskippy, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3It's a combination of the war and the dropping dollar but I'm not sure which is the biggest contributor. And anyone that tells you that they know which is the cause with certainty is not being truthful. There's no way to separate the two variables.
- yojiffyskippy, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3You may not have a clear understanding of how the US Congress works. But the Democrats don't exactly have the numbers to define any policy. I'm not saying they would make changes if they could, I'm just saying that they simply don't have the numbers.
- itux1985, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3You know I have wondered in the past how many people really buy this Neocon propaganda. You know a real poll on how many U.S. citizens buy this garbage. I bet its under 40%, but you'll never know....
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -3/+6it's all about the oil.
iran, second world's largest oil reserves.
iraq, third largest in oil.
sauidis, first, (they're "good guys", they follow orders, even if they are the most fundamentalist islamist country in the world, spawning most extremists ever) - mrgreenjeans, on 11/08/2007, -2/+4"In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.[4]"--Published on 2 Aug 2005 by Media Monitors Network. Archived on 8 Aug 2005.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
And now it's Iran's turn for doing the same. - knomevol, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2ps, may i present, perhaps for your livelihood, perhaps for your entertainment, the Constitution of the United States of America:
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Republicans are worse than the "terrists".
These nutbags want to see Armageddon, if only to prove that they didn't spend their entire lives dedicated to a loser lifestyle. - knomevol, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2W: (hand on family Bible) "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- afruff23, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Dodd isn't taking military action against Iran off the table.
- skews13, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3cool your jets.for one. young persians(iranian's),don't like the old mullah's.anymore than the rest of us do.it's up to everyone with any sense.to support these young people in much the same way as you would support any underground movement. the old guys are losing support,and they are trying to hold on to their power.any way they can.it might surprise you.but the military leaders there,would side with the people.if there was enough of a ground swell.
- stevenb, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3And which news sites are you browsing? The ones where just about any country in the middle east sells weapons to any other country, or anyone with money?
Or the one that states that the US accounts for well over 50% of the arms exportation in the world? Us attacking Iran over this... would be like South America attacking us because gorillas down there used M16s and hand grenades that were of US origin. It's ridiculous at best, and quite an ignorant statement. - inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Protecting oil flows for the rest of the world? You are an ignorant *****. It is all about protecting the petrodollar, which is not a very altruistic intention .
- inactive, on 11/09/2007, -2/+4Bull. Hezbollah was founded in the early 80s as a response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. That invasion was unprovoked. There had been a ceasefire in southern Lebanon between PLO-fighters and Israel for months. After a non-PLO group (that is widely rumored to be working for the Israeli Mossad) shot and wounded the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Israel used that as an excuse to bomb South Lebanon. When the PLO fighters started shooting back they used that as an excuse to invade, killing thousands of Lebanese. Hezbollah was founded as a resistance against the Israeli occupation and finally succeeded in driving them out. I am no fan of Hezbollah's Shi'ite fundamentalist agenda, but they are not the aggressors.
Israel has bombed Syrian (and Lebanese) targets sporadically and the whole propaganda crap that has been popping up lately has been accompanied by a remarkable lack of evidence. - bratpack8, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Since I started understanding economics about 15 years ago (i.e. started to read and pay attention), my eyes have been opened to how the world really works. Thanks for the link as I will definitely read it. I've been saying this for the past few years, that our dollar (and our government's massive inflation of it) is what is causing most of these wars, and the reason we have troops all over the world. Our money supply has increase 800% since 1980. Think about that for a moment.
- cheesehead, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2I believe it is Bush's attempt to introduce more missile bases in Europe that is kicking off cold war 2. Bush couldn't do a better job of destroying your once great democracy if he tried. Also, ethanol is a ***** solution, unless you own thousands of service stations with nothing to pump.
- jefu, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Do you mean the ethanol made from corn that requires more oil to produce than it replaces?
- bratpack8, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2They have the majority in Congress, which is a huge head start. I understand about committees, etc, but my point is that many Democrats are part of the military industrial complex along with the Republicans. All you have to do is look at their political donors to figure that out. Hillary is a perfect example of this.
- yojiffyskippy, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2You are partly correct. There's no need to invade Iran to reach the objective of removing or reducing their nuclear capabilities. Likewise, there's no need to turn the entire country into rubble which by the way we didn't do to Iraq when "big-daddy" was in office.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2yes, start googling 'petrodollar' because if you think the bush regime cares about others you're an idiot. they are fascist pigs, they don't even care about americans, let alone others.
- blackhawk919, on 11/09/2007, -1/+2The invasion was unprovoked !? You may need to go back to history class. The PLO had assembled an ARMY on Israel's northern border prior to Israel's RESPONSE to the PLO's repeated attacks into Israel. The areas north of Israel had also become a haven for terror groups bent on Israel's destruction:
In March 1978, PLO terrorists infiltrated Israel. After murdering an American tourist walking near an Israeli beach, they hijacked a civilian bus. The terrorists shot through the windows as the bus traveled down the highway. When Israeli troops intercepted the bus, the terrorists opened fire. A total of 34 hostages died in the attack. Israel responded by pushing the terrorists back into Lebanon and withdrew two months later. Over and over again there were attacks against Israel and over and over again Israel responded but did not continue further into Lebanon.
When the PLO made their assassination attempt and after the constant attacks from the north there was not much of a choice for Israel unless you consider rolling over and letting them kill you is a choice.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger defended the Israeli operation: "No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).
"On Lebanon, it is clear that we and Israel both seek an end to the violence there, and a sovereign, independent Lebanon," President Reagan said June 21, 1982. "We agree that Israel must not be subjected to violence from the north."
Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000.
Hezbollah did nothing to get Israel out of Lebanon. Israel pulled out on it's own accord. Hezbollah has done nothing but target civilians with rockets, use civilians as human shields and spread terror in their near constant assault on Israel ever since they pulled out. - Lyrl, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Iran's daily oil production has been flat for a number of years now. Typical oilfields will plateau when about half their oil has been extracted, and then daily production will begin dropping. I don't think Iran is kidding about having a large future need for alternative energy sources.
That said, the group of countries that have nuclear weapons appear to be prestigious in the eyes of the Iranian people. So the Iranian government gains popular support if it appears (to its own people) to be working towards joining that group. As far as national security, the Iranian government has seen the huge benefits reaped by Pakistan and India and North Korea when they became nuclear - and believes that it would benefit, too. It makes sense the country would be attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. We're just very lucky that (so far!) they don't appear to be devoting substantial resources to the effort, largely putting on a macho show for the international community and their own citizens. - yojiffyskippy, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I don't have any first hand proof. But it does seem like the likely strategy by Iran. It's a Win-Win for them. Kill some US infidels and contribute to the decline of Iraq.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is