What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
245 Comments
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -8/+133Hornberger really lays out the issues. Do they hate us because we are free or because we enslave and kill them? Duh?
If they hate us because we kill them, wouldn't they stop hating us if we stopped killing them? Duh? Granted, it might take a little time to convince them that we have reformed and we really aren't going to attack, invade and occupy their countries any more or overthrow their governments and replace them with dictators of our choice. But bringing our troops home from all over the world is a necessary first step in rebuilding our reputation. - faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+75"They hate us because they hate freedom" is one of the many ludicrous Bush statements that never gets challenged in the mainstream media.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+45"...through one partisan lens will not Digg it because of their other partisan lenses. "
I don't think that's true. I dugg the article. ThinkProgress and LewRockwell would agree on the first 99% of it, and I think diggers are generally smart enough to read and decide for themselves.
Frankly, the only place the article goes astray for me is where pure libertarians typically go astray: thinking that free markets cure all ills. I'm a strong believer in Capitalism, but libertarian economic theory is a century out of date, and especially dangerous in the current system where corporations have more political power than even organized individuals. However, on CIVIL liberties and the dangers of imperialism, we can all agree.
(minus the authoritarian types, who seem to cause the most problems...). - UrbanVoyeur, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Rome did not go from Republic to Empire overnight, and neither will the US. We still have time to stop this, to return to our egalitarian roots.
But if we do not act, if we do not recognize the seriousness of this usurpation of democratic powers, then nothing will prevent the coming dictatorship.
Remember: At one time, the Executive and Legislative branches of the Roman Republic were co-equals. The catalyst was one ambitious man who hungered for power and believed in the righteousness of his cause. Today his name means "absolute ruler" in over 20 languages.
It took another 2,000 years for democracy and the Republic get a second chance. Let's not blow this one. - aywwts4, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Yay, because we don't live in a dictatorship we shouldn't be complaining, do your American Duty and be complacent and stupid god-dammit! The Government knows whats best for us, lets not trouble ourselves with it. We can start complaining only once we don't have the right to vote, dissent, bear arms, or complain about the government without disappearing into the night... Admittedly complaining gets a bit harder then.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27True. But if they started challenging Bush's statements on, say, Iran, then they'd have to conclude that everything he says about the enemy applies more to him and his friends.
And btw, I don't think that's an accident on Bush's part. Every Bush had a weakness in the elections, he painted his opponent with it instead. Bush was a deserter, so Kerry was a coward. Bush couldn't speak, so Gore was stuff. Bush wants to be a dictator, so he attacks Saddam.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't see the pattern. - gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -10/+33This, obviously, makes a lot of sense and should be dugg up to the front page.
But, since it is from Lew Rockwell, many on Digg that would agree with most of it, through one partisan lens will not Digg it because of their other partisan lenses. LR and RP. The second will likely get it buried if it has not been already. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+26"Terrorism is a form of rebellion, it poses a grave danger to the populace and in some cases, when carried out by foreigners, represents invasion."
That's a crock of *****. Israel has faced terrorism for 60 years and it survives, and remains a strong democracy with the rule of law. There is nothing al Qaeda could do to us that is anywhere close to the harm we've already done to ourselves.
The only people who have the power to end the American Experiment are the American people. They could nuke New York (god forbid) and the nation would survive, as long as we stuck to our principles and didn't cave in to fear. - Liam76, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24The president can't send the entire nation into war without congresses approval.
He can deploy them in emergencies only, and for extended periods he needs congresses approval, which so far he has recieved. - trer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26@wargalas
You've gotta be kidding me. The Saudi Royal family is one of the most corrupt regimes ever. They have oppressed their own people for so long with the blessing of the United States government. While I don't condone Osama's tactics, he has legitimate gripe with the Saudi royal family and by extension, the United States government. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23This is rubbish- we are hated not because or for our freedoms. We are hated, loathed and despised because we arm third world nations with weapons, then march in call them a threat and disarm them or over-throw their government leaders (whom we placed in that position) then we set up a puppet regime. Or worse, we take all these "supposed" mis-placed Jews and give them land that we don't even own- so we can maintain access and control over the Suez Canal- also make it a strategic military base so we can wield power and influence in the middle east and be as close as we can to Oil and Poppy.
If we just got the ***** out of there (which will never happen) they probably would not be so hateful. Let them have that side of the world- let them kill each other or whatever it is they do. Its really none of our ***** business other than Oil- which we do not need from them.
If we destroyed secret societies and the power elite- we would not be having this discussion. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Its convenient because they never have to explain the real reasons they hate us.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+24I think the reason the west is hated by muslim fundamentalists is because they feel threatened and disempowered by America's ever increasing cultural expansion. A lot of muslim kids watch American movies and listen to American music and wear American fashion. Seems to me that they are a lot more pissed off that Islam is losing traction amongst muslim youth than they are about American intervention in middle-eastern affairs.
I guess it's really a natural consequence of America's capitalist success. - Annesgreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Hornberger is completely right. We turn our Republic into an Empire when we look to the government as a godlike force, and to our elected officials as royalty. Look at the current primary election. We digg the hell out of Mike Gravel stories, but nobody actually thinks a guy like him or Ron Paul could become the President, nor will anybody actually vote for these guys, because it's the people with the money, the connections, and yes, the pedigree, that become President again and again, and they all follow the same will to power as did the government before them.
We like guys like Gravel because they're different, but we'll never vote them into office because we're scared. Instead, we vote for who we're told to vote for, and that's how empires get built. - ijacker, on 10/11/2007, -8/+22i, for one, welcome our new republican overlords...
oh, wait... - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Whiteraven, I believe you are wrong regarding the Habeas Corpus suspension rules.
"As we always have. The Constitution recognizes the limitations of Habeas Corpus. Terrorism is a form of rebellion, it poses a grave danger to the populace and in some cases, when carried out by foreigners, represents invasion. The Constitution explicitly allows the government to forgo the usual protections in the face of such threats."
No. Habeas Corpus can only be suspended under circumstances where the normal court system has been incapacitated, such as with literal rebellion or invasion as area-wide conditions. This is supported by subsequent Supreme Court precedents. These conditions do NOT refer to the crimes alleged, but to the ability of our normal court system to function. There has been no constitutionally acceptable time in the last few years where habeas corpus could be suspended, with the possible exception of NYC for a duration after 9/11.
As such, conditions such as Jose Padilla's incarceration are unconstitutional and arguably grounds for impeachment. - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17@faithhealer
I agree with you 100%. To this day I can't believe grown men and women can listen to this nonsense and nod along as if it somehow makes sense. They "hate freedom"? More like they hate having another country take away their freedoms. Anyone with half a brain who does an ounce of research would hang their head in shame at what the US Government has been allowed to do over the years. It's time for the people to take back their country before they forget that it ever existed. - Crimsoneer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20@joybran
From somebody who is from the "rest of hte world", if you want to fix your reputation, start by fixing the mess you made in Iraq. Pulling out your troops isn't going to help anything if you leave it even more of a mess than it is now. - trer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15@wargalas
Maybe we shouldn't have armed Saddam and put him in power in the first place. We should never have meddled in the Middle East to begin with. Doing business is one thing. Conducting covert ops, secretly subverting governments is another. Read up on Operation Ajax and the successful coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddeq by the CIA in Iran to get a taste of the kind of interference that the United States has engaged in for so long. Like I said, the first attacks on the Middle East were perperated by the United States. 9/11 is what the CIA has acknowledged as "blowback". - CaspianXth, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Why is every piece of political opinion labeled "propaganda" these days?
- synthox, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13We have a Sith in office what do you expect??
- Karroog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Please rise up and actually take action! Seriously, no one agrees with this administration. On a sad note, NO ONE WANTS TO DO ***** TO CHANGE IT! IF we actually did SOMETHING that would make this country better, but the sad part is people think the only thing they can do is every 4 years in a closed curtain.
Start something, lets get the country back to the way we want it, and not how the rich people want it. - argotechnica, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Is it really that different? "The indications of his future regime were subtle at first. [His] term... ended during the rise of the Separatists, but that crisis allowed him to extend his stay in office. Once the... Wars erupted, the Senate's inability to efficiently wage war on scattered fronts forced him to enact executive decree after executive decree. He added amendments to the constitution funneling more power to him, effectively circumventing the bureaucracy of the Senate."
(via: http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/palpatine/ ) - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13I'm in your country, re-writin' your lawz
- praxisseizure, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Very rarely are we given the choice between good and evil. We are almost unanimously fed the choice of evil vs evil. All good is suppressed, locked out, censored and ejected from public view; hence our current predicament with Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. This time we're starting somewhat early to spread support, but that's having a minimal effect at best outside the internet and the younger digital generation. The fear mongers and charlaitans still get the vast majority of support from established institutions.
We have to do this ourselves and get the message beyond the intertubes. That's the only way we'll have a real choice of our elected officials or our destiny. (or violent revolution, which would be the less reasonable way to go about it) (or, or, mass abstinence from the system; but you like to eat right? Kinda need money for that... so lest we be farmers that's not really a feasability) - Scheissen, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Iraq invaded Kuwait a year after the Berlin Wall fell and their war with Iran and Soviet Russia.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@Karroog
Most of what this administration does is under two principles:
1) They won't care enough to take action to stop us.
2) If they do, we'll just distract them until they forget. - Galactoise, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14I really thought this topic was going to be a Star Wars parody from the headline. Damn.
- Liam76, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9@ trer,
America's involvement in the middle east did not happen in a vaccuum. Look at all the countries that fell under the sway of the USSR and compare it to the ones the US got in bed with. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the US has clean hands there, and as ugly callous or wrong as it sounds it was better than USSR taking over, and th eUS and USSR playing games in these other countries was better than a nuclear war. - jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9"The Constitution explicitly allows the government to forgo the usual protections in the face of such threats."
The Constitution is good, it isn't perfect. That was one of the mistakes.
"The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. It is inherently subjective. Some hold the *opinion* that these actions are unreasonable, others hold a different opinion."
Absolutely. You might want to consider that only one group of "others" count. The absence of a "bright line" test has allowed the definition to shift so far that almost nothing is considered unreasonable. Yet there's still a requirement for probable cause ( > 50% is not subjective ) and a requirement for a warrant (again - not subjective). What happened to those?
Everything written is subject to interpretation. You might find this article interesting:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythFinalDraft.pdf - HumanElement, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9A thorough reading and understanding of Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and the Military Commissions Act leads one to deduce that habeas corpus CAN be suspended indefinitely. You, my friend, can dissappear from the face of the earth and nobody will ever hear from you again unless they want you to. All that's required is for someone to declare (allege) you an enemy combatant.
- Felian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Because dismissing an opinion as "propaganda" is easier then forming and intelligent argument.
Denial and ignorance go hand in hand. - ScionAltera, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Do what? What things, exactly?
- gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I said many not all. It becomes increasingly more difficult to remain intellectually honest with yourself when confronting actual truth that is in conflict w/ your preferred truth/pre-existing world view. I agree with 99% of your view expressed here and it also supports my preceding statement, i.e. the less of a leap you have to make the easier that leap will be to make. However, if someone believes an outlet to be a source of nothing but lies(from a partisan narrow mindedness) then you may miss an important nugget of truth. My experience on Digg does not change my view that people, discussing things rationally from a perspective of/wants of common people can actually come to a better and less acrimonious consensus if the deliberately divisive Big Megaphones can be kept from whipping them into an artificially induced emotional frenzy that serves only partisan divide and conquer interests not the interests of the people.
As to your comment re: libertarian economic theory that will have to wait for another day. 99% to me is a very good start. - Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9@trer
I'm not saying what we've done in the past was right. However, that's what Osama's main bone to pick with us was. Everything else was nothing. Yes, I know all about the Shah of Iran and the things we've done in the past. We armed Saddam because he was on our side at one point in time. Are you saying we shouldn't arm our allies who are fighting against threats that we would have to deal with otherwise? For example, should we not arm Israel to fight against Hezbollah? Should we not arm Mexico to fight against drug cartels? - OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It is no longer possible because of WMD to sustain an empire by military force. All out war today means apocalypse.
The empires of the future will be economic ones without political or geographic borders. Those in America who foolishly believe they can bully the rest of the world through military conquests (the Bush administration) as only weakening America.
Imposing a police state would completely destroy America's economy and the imperialists would no longer have all the hundreds of billions they need annually to sustain their expensive, high-tech war machines.
The best thing that "the terrorists" can hope for is that another warmongering, ignorant, paranoid George W. Bush is elected president. He's doing all their work for them. - Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -9/+14@Crimsoneer
Finally someone who thinks things through rationally! Pulling out of Iraq before they are stable enough to stand on their own two feet is the worst possible thing to do. It let's the Iraqi's know they can't count on us when things get tough. It let's insurgents know that they can just wait us out and claim victory. It also let's the world know we won't finish what we start. - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I agree with a lot of this, but congress approved every war that we are in. We need to place blame squarely where it belongs, lest history repeat itself.
- 1013, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Right, because the destruction of our sovereignty with Bush supported amnesty(oh I mean comprehensive immigration reform) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership is sooo Conservative!
Denial is such an easy place to live. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10We now live in a country in which the president wields the power to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative, without the congressional declaration of war required by the Constitution."
We are not in a "war". Congress has to vote to begin a war, but not a conflict.
Semantics.
"We live in a country in which the president and the military wield the power to arrest an American citizen and incarcerate him in a military installation for the rest of his life on suspicion of being a terrorist, denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
How many US citizen detainees in Gitmo have been there for "the rest of his life"? Honestly, the detention facility has only been active for less than 6 years, not really long enough to consider it the rest of anyone's life.
It doesn't matter if they have. The very act of vesting these powers in the executive branch is un-Constitutional. You can also point out plenty of cases of extroidnary rendition and no one who IS in Gitmo (US Citizen or not) is being given due process.
"We live in a country in which the president wields the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures, regardless of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment."
He wields the power but how many times has it been used?
Again. The very act of vesting these powers in the executive branch subverts the Constitution and the fundamentaly values upon which our nation was founded.
"We live in a country in which the president wields the power to ignore any law passed by Congress simply by signing a statement, in his military capacity as a commander in chief, indicating an intention to ignore the law."
This has been the case for a LONG time, since the 70's if I'm not mistaken. Bush hasn't ignored anything YET. He just announced his opposition to an arbitrary and dangerous timeline.
It doesn't matter how long it has been going on it needs to stop. Please stop using such infantile arguments. Also, Bush HAS ignored plenty of laws by reinterpreting them through signing statements which are (efectively) being used as a Line-Item Veto.
"In fact, we live in a country in which the president effectively wields the same power here in the United States that he wields in Iraq, given his belief that the entire world, including the United States, is a battlefield in the “war on terror.”"
So the US isn't a battlefield in the war on terror? If I'm not mistaken there was a huge "battle" here on 11 September 2001.
No one is saying we shouldn't enhance security in the United States. All that was said is that Iraq is NOT helping and that the provisions laid out to enhance security are ineffective and violate our Constitutional rights.
"James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said that of all the enemies to liberty war is the greatest, because it inevitably encompasses all the other threats to people’s freedom. War is the parent of armies, and with armies come death, destruction, taxes, inflation, regulations, and ever-increasing assaults on liberty at home."
I beg to differ about the economical aspects of it. Our economy is extremely strong, and that is BECAUSE of the war.
There are plenty of studies that disagree with you. At this point your just an idiot.
"John Quincy Adams, in his Fourth of July address to Congress in 1821, expressed pride in the fact that America does not go abroad in search of “monsters to destroy.” If America ever pursued such a policy, he said, she would inevitably make herself the “dictatress of the world.”"
But if we stick our heads in the sand, our enemies abroad will have an easy time of defeating us.
We are creating our own enemies. That is the point of the article. Again, you are an idiot.
"Our forefathers warned against the dangers of big standing military establishments, pointing out that historically rulers could never resist the temptation to employ them against others, which inevitably fomented new enemies and crises, which then would be used to suspend rights and freedoms at home, the suspensions being enforced by the military."
There's another problem, though: If we didn't have a standing army, each time we were threatened we would need to develop and produce new weapons, vehicles, supplies, etc. and train new armies starting with almost nothing. Oh, just to let you know, the Posse Comitatus act was never suspended or anything. Nothing is enforced by the military (except the Coast Guard, but that doesn't count).
Operative word: BIG. No one said disband the military. It just needs to be downsized and the influence of the Military-INDUSTRIAL Complex needs to be eliminated.
"What distinguished our ancestors from modern-day Americans was how the former viewed the federal government. Today, Americans look on the federal government as a close friend or even as a parent, sometimes even a god, given that it provides the people with retirement, health care, education, housing, food, money, and other “benefits.” Our forefathers, on the other hand, viewed the federal government as the greatest threat to their rights and freedoms. They believed that government, being force, was neither their friend nor their parent nor their god." Correction: SOME of our founding fathers viewed the federal government as the greatest threat to their rights and freedoms. Did you ever hear of the FEDERALIST party?
It seems they have been proven wrong by history. I used to be a staunch Federalist but after Bush I have to agree with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
"Even the restrictions on power in the Constitution did not satisfy the American people, however. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, people demanded and secured passage of 10 amendments to the document that expressly forbade federal officials to infringe on fundamental rights and to convict people of crimes without following long-established legal procedures, some of which stretched all the way back in English history to the Magna Carta in 1215."
Actually, several states wouldn't ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.
Another irrelevent statement....
"The issue of why they hate us revolves around two conflicting rationales. The federal rationale is that foreigners hate America for its “freedom and values.” The other rationale holds that foreigners hate our nation because of extremely bad things that the federal government has done to people overseas."
How many of these people would hate America if they were not indoctrinated from birth with anti-Americanism or using things like religion as an excuse to cause harm? My guess is not many.
And how does invading their country, destroying their already limited infrastructure, and precipitating the deaths of ~655,000 civilians help? Again, you are an idiot.
"Of course, this isn’t the first time that federal officials have attempted to shut down a critical examination of federal actions in the context of terrorism. After Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, recall the immediate response of U.S. officials when libertarians tried to point out why McVeigh had committed the act. Federal officials suggested that to engage in such an examination would “justify” McVeigh’s actions and, therefore, would not be in the best interests of the country. President Clinton even questioned the notion that one could love his country and, at the same time, hate wrongdoing by his government."
Whew, for a second there I thought this entire article would be a Bush-bash. Looks like the dems aren't as clean as they seem.
Your inability to approach the article on it's own terms, instead preferring to make erroneous assumptions about the contents, proves you are a partisan shill.
"But notice something important here: Since Waco, there have been no more federal massacres of American citizens, and there have been no more McVeigh-type retaliatory terrorist attacks. Who can doubt that if U.S. officials were still massacring large numbers of Americans, there would be more Oklahoma City retaliatory terrorist attacks?"
Where the hell did talking about Waco come from? The Branch Davidians were doing a bunch of illegal things and when the police launched CS canisters (nonlethal, it wasn't intended to kill anyone), fires started. And this sounds like the author thinks the killing of 168 innocent people (including children) was an appropriate response for Waco. I think not.
Timothy McVeigh used Waco as justification for his attack. Your reading comprehension: 3rd grade.
"But Iranians knew that in 1953 the CIA had surreptitiously entered Iran and fomented a coup that resulted in the ouster of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, a man named Mohammed Mossadegh. Not surprisingly, Mossadegh was highly respected by the Iranian people, and he also was selected as Time magazine’s Man of the Year."
This explains the anti-Mossadegh demonstrators in the streets (Iranians). Sure.
After the CIA bombed mosques in Iran they distributed pamphlets implicating Mossadegh saying he wanted to destroy Islam. Hence anti-Mossadegh sentiment and the fall of the first(?) democratically elected government in the Middle East in a "popular" revolution.
"Ousting Mossadegh from power, the CIA replaced him with the shah of Iran, who, with his savage secret police force, proceeded to oppress, brutalize, and torture the Iranian populace for the next 25 years."
So it's better with Ayatollah? Ha.
The point is that ousting Mossadegh created the theocratic government of modern Iran. Again, you are an idiot.
"It was no different with respect to the Iraqi people. While President Bush today bases his invasion of Iraq on the notion that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator who was trying to secure weapons of mass destruction, he fails to mention that U.S. officials, including President George H.W. Bush, had been strong supporters of this dictator throughout the 1980s. In fact, the current President Bush also fails to mention that it was the United States and other Western countries that furnished Saddam with biological and chemical weapons along with nuclear technology."
When the US supported Hussein, Iran was a greater menace than Iraq. The nerve gas he used in his greatest atrocities was VX, a SOVIET nerve gas. The nuclear tech that he got was mostly from France. I don't see how the US was the "most" wrong here.
Doesn't change the fact that Saddam was in power solely because of the US. Your an idiot.
"Then, when Saddam became the new official enemy of the United States after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. government, in combination with the UN, proceeded to implement what is arguably the most brutal set of sanctions in world history. Over the course of more than a decade, the sanctions contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center, angrily cited the sanctions as one of the reasons for that attack. Later, two high UN officials resigned in protest against what they termed U.S.-government–caused genocide. The most authoritative studies have concluded that approximately 300,000 children lost their lives from infection and illness attributed to the sanctions. But when U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes whether the deaths of the Iraqi children had been “worth it,” she answered that, yes, the deaths had been “worth it.”"
The sole purpose of sanctions is to be brutal. Do you think a country will give up if you aren't brutal? Oh, and I don't see how this is genocide. There was no intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There was just the intent to make the people overthrow a brutal dictator.
Not necessarily malicious intent but we knew damn well what we were doing when we imposed sanctions on them. Do you even listen to yourself?
"Then there were the illegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which had been authorized by neither the U.S. Congress nor the UN. The missiles fired by U.S. warplanes in the enforcement of the “no-fly” policy killed an untold number of additional Iraqis."
No-fly zones do not need to be approved by Congress or the UN so this has no relevance. The Iraqis killed were soldiers actively engaged in trying to shoot down US aircraft.
Technically Iraq was a sovreign nation and for a foreign power to impose restrictions on their airspace was an act of aggression. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.
"Finally, there has been the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so, which has resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis (a recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University put the number at more than 650,000), not to mention the conversion of Iraq into a hellhole and wasteland of violence and destruction."
I fail to see how this occupation is any more brutal than life under Saddam. Most of the Iraqis killed were killed in the first few months of the war and/or by other Iraqis.
The destruction of Iraqi infrastructure has caused a spike in civilian deaths because they now lack access to basics such as clean water, reliable medical treatement, etc. If you include structural violence the number of civilian deaths reaches well into the hundreds of thousands. You fail to see this because you are an idiot.
"It is almost incredible that, although U.S. intelligence agencies have recently concluded that the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism against the United States, there are still U.S. officials who maintain that all the bad things that the U.S. government did in the Middle East had nothing to do with the anger and hatred that led to the 9/11 attacks. It’s all because they hate America’s “freedom and values,” not because the U.S. government has killed, tortured, abused, and humiliated people in the Middle East for years."
Not that they haven't been doing that to themselves, too.
You cannot justify that statement nor does it have any relevence to the argument.
"I could be proven wrong but my hunch is that U.S. troops will be trapped in Iraq for the near future. Since President Bush has suggested that anyone who calls for exiting Iraq is a cut-and-run coward who would put our nation in jeopardy from terrorists, the chance that he will convert himself into such a person by ordering a withdrawal from Iraq is remote."
I personally don't think anyone who wants us to withdraw now is a coward or anything, but they are certainly naive. If we pull out immediately, the deaths from the invasion would have been for nothing, and it could easily have made it more dangerous to us.
If we stay we cause more meaningless deaths and we have already created a greater problem with terrorism. Staying won't help.
"While U.S. officials and their mainstream media supporters have been fairly successful in immunizing Americans from the horrors of the war, death has an interesting way of forcing people to face reality. The increasing number of casualties among U.S. troops has caused Americans to confront the war in Iraq, like it or not. Moreover, since Bush undoubtedly wants to continue the occupation until he leaves office, Iraqi insurgents will have plenty of time over the next two years to ensure that Iraq stays on the minds of the American people with well-planned ambushes and sniper attacks."
I mourn the death of our troops, but at the same time, it is a remarkably low number of dead for that extensive of a military operation.
This statement is a contradiction. Either each life lost is important (and worthy of mourning) or just a statistic. Pick a side. - rootofunity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7And Emperor Palpatine as VP. The mysterious man behind the scenes.
- moocow1452, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You lowly mortals forget, Bush is god.
Why must democracy be so unfair to all Americans? When we want to say "No," to war, the guy who represents us says, "Yes!" and jumps right into war with sketchy evidence, and while he's there, captures Iraq's dictator, and has a grand plan for a new democracy that nobody really wants. It's like the police going to your house searching for reefer, when you have a flowerbox in your window that contains plants that from a helicopter might look like a harmful substance. Then while they are in you home, they say that your 12 inch TV in your house is not up to code, take it in for contraband, and give you instructions on how to get a 60-inch HDTV, out of your own pocket, and the police do not leave until you do so.
If that is not Big-Brother-esque micromanaging, I do not know what is! - sunshinemonster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8What good would government be if there were no wars to fight? Oh, I don't know, maybe... EVERYTHING. A government keeps the peace, allows representation to decide on subjects to increase the equality of life. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are all possible thanks to government and it shall not intervene.
P.S. It'd be great if there were no wars to fight. - nirvanix, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The only way things are going to get better between the USA and the rest of the world is if the American people drop this delusional sense of morality you have about yourself as a nation. I don't blame most Americans because you were kept in the dark about what your government has been doing to the world over the last 60 years, and by and large I think you are a decent bunch. But now that you know that your government has been installing dictators around the world - dictators that have brutally suppressed innocent people - you have come to one of the biggest crossroads in your history. You either stand up and say enough is enough and become part of the world community, or I think the world is heading for a long dark road. Never mind about the Russians or the Saudis - they will have to answer for their actions some day too. So will everybody for that matter. This is your time to change the world.
These are the things that Ron Paul and Mike Gravel have been trying to tell you. - tidu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8"anti-american"
The only thing more american than this article is the Constitution. - jiltjouster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It's labeled propaganda because it tries to reconcile in 2,000 words very complex issues with idyllic and sensational language.
Propaganda simply tries to propagate a doctrine or cause. There is nothing wrong with that - that's just a word that carries a negative connotation these days. By labeling it as propaganda, opponents hope to discredit it. It should be taken as a view, as a data point, but not much more, unless you buy into the cause. Then its not propaganda, it's doctrine.
By the votes, many here on digg like the doctrine. He makes some compelling points, wouldn't you say? - ScionAltera, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Take what action, exactly? Force without direction is wasted.
- JustinSaunders, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Which crap is that? I reckon its crap that says:
John Quincy Adams, in his Fourth of July address to Congress in 1821, expressed pride in the fact that America does not go abroad in search of “monsters to destroy.” If America ever pursued such a policy, he said, she would inevitably make herself the “dictatress of the world.”
Yeah that John Quincy guy is totally anti-American. Especially with a faggoty name like that. - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4HumanElement: Nuh uh. All that means is that the relevant provisions in those laws are unconstitutional. US Constitution trumps federal statute.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Here's why this is important (see http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/02/911-and-left.html for links):
The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in a time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, the Saddam-911 deception was necessarily a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.
I Spy
The Bush administration has also used 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it undertakes.
Iran
How about war with Iran? Well, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. What am I talking about? Well, the National Security Adviser for President Carter recently told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. Similarly, a current Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". And a progressive member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.
In other words, the fact that 9/11 has not been exposed as a false flag operation will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.
There Goes the Constitution
current republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"
A former prominent republican U.S. congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the current administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.
General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".
And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.
A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:
"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."
The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag
The Reichstag
Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?
Of course not! The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of liberal causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.
Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and liberal values could have been saved in 1940's-era Germany.
Also watch this must-see short talk on why 9/11 is important. -
Show 51 - 100 of 245 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