What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
113 Comments
- amdahlj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Latest intelligence suggest that they will reach 2016 before we do!
- hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28This man is a disgrace and couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it.
- geronimo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Also a member of PNAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
The same organization telling us how Saddam Hussein was about to attack the USA. - ElectricMunk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16The heart of the problem is that we are kept in a constant state of "reaction" which leaves little time for calm reflection and critical thinking.
That this is a deliberate assault on the psyche of the industrialized, capitalist world is no small wonder. The psychology of mass behavior, reaction to color, sound, imagery and intensity of repetion are all driving the public insane.
Everything is a fight, constant argument. The fringe will always win when the middle either refuses to act or allow themselves to be drawn into the raging "debate" that is already there.
Less-filling, tastes-great is trite as advertising. As social and international policy it is madness.
Turn off your tv's, seek wisdom and discuss rationally. If you have a calm mind, engaging in reasoned discourse is easy. And backing out of an unreasonable argument is easier to accomplish.
Good luck fellow humans, I wish you well =) - Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Want to know a foolproof way to prevent Iranian agents from harming American soldiers? Withdraw all American troops from Iraq. That sounds a lot easier and cheaper than starting another pre-emptive, pointless, and probably illegal war.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I sure hope America doesn't make the same mistake of trusting these nuts and their claims of nuclear weapons... yet AGAIN... -_-
America is too easy to scare... And I'd hope this excuse doesn't work, after what we learned from Iran... - akexakex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12The only nutjob here seems to be you.
- CRASSPUNXTEXHTV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Iranians aren't arabs. there're persian/ Aryan.
I know you were being sarcastic, I was just saying that so other would know. - CRASSPUNXTEXHTV, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14No the Prez said he things the STATE of Israel shouldn't exist, meaning the government not the people. He Also said the Palestine and Israel need to work out a PEACEFUL SOLUTION.
IF you listen to one thing he said you have to listen to all he says.
Btw, I hate the Iranian government as much more than anyone else, but i do believe in the truth. - fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10No one ever mentions this (which is absurd) but perhaps Iran is pursuing Nukes so that it can assure mutual destruction of Israel. Meaning it is more a defensive rather than an offensive tactic.
Even with a nuke, Iran poses little to no direct threat to the US despite what the broadcast TV propaganda machine would have you assume. They would pose a direct threat to American 'interests' in the Middle East, namely, Israeli military domination of the Middle East, the current balance of power, and stability in general. I think it is clear, given the result of the Iraq invasion, that we would do much more to undermine those interests with a unilateral invasion of Iran than continued international negotiations and economic pressure.
The way I see it is that Iran's economy is heading for the *****. Ahmadinejad will not survive the next round of elections as a result. Of course Khamenei will remain and so it is our job along with the rest of the international community to convince him and the people of Iran that they have more to lose in their pursuit of Nukes then it would gain by having them. That is a pretty tough sell when nations with nukes keep threatening him with attack.
Honestly, I think we should also be concerned with the implosion of Pakistan. The so called 'war on terror' has done a lot to destabilize that country. They will have elections there soon and we should fear the election of an Islamic national party because it seems to me that Pakistan could easily turn into another Iran, only they would already have nukes. It makes sense to me that a unilateral invasion of Iran would lend credibility to Islamic national parties everywhere who assert that all Muslims are under direct threat and subjugation by USA and the 'west'.
If you think the Iraq invasion was a blunder an invasion of Iran would be more of a blunder. Look at Israel's attack of Lebanon last year. They had nothing to win (save two kidnapped soldiers) and everything to lose. I argue we, much like Israel, have far more to lose by attacking Iran than we stand to gain. - insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah .. what do you expect. . .he's American.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You're a terrified coward.
- Flytrap, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Actually the Iranians would like the opportunity to join you on that Arab hunt.
They have a few issues that they would like to deal with their southern neighbours - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9They claimed saddam had weapons too.... anyone ever find those things?
- OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Trying to keep soldiers safe instead of wanting them to waste their lives in a pointless war? Why do you hate our troops?
/neo-con - OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11James, your comment was uninvited, unwanted, and certainly not informed. Buried for idiocy.
Why don't you go back to proving that the Earth is 6000 years old and that global warming is a communist plot to destroy our industry? It wouldn't be any more insightful, but it would at least be entertaining. - AnotherCanadian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8every week, the documentary "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" becomes more and more dead on the money
- commnode, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I think the perceived problem is that in the US vs Soviet cold war thing was mutual assured destruction. Two well established powers both held the keys to the others (and everyone else's) destruction. Both the Soviets were really interested in expanding their power influence, not so much with destroying the other.
If a third world nation picks up a nuke, they are a lot more likely to use it. Even on it's worst day the US and the Soviets were far more rational and controlled that a third world theocracy. The 'rogue' element, state or terrorist group, isn't interested or concerned about an all out slugging match. They just want fear and death for their enemy.
That said, I'm only mildly concerned with Iran achieving the bomb for a couple of reasons:
1) It's purely propaganda for them. Islamic theocracy has a history of sucking in tech and advancement, and Iran is out to prove that they've got what it takes. To the world, but mostly to it's own people and the rest of the Islamic community. Same reason they nab British sailors and jam them on TV every few years.
2) It will be a single stage device. i.e. fission, not fusion. Bad, but no where close to the heavy things Russia and the US have in thier silos.
3) They don't have a delivery system. This helps out the US mostly. Getting a warhead to the other side of the global in a missile is tricky business. ICBMs don't come in kits. - SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Hey, can you summarise that for me?
Or does 'Woolsey is a knob' just about cover it? - Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Terror fear terror fear.. terror fear..
The way tyrants rule is by fear.. If you cant see through this your blind..
Do you really thing a country this small is going to bomb a country as big as the USA, with out knowing if it does we will launch more nukes at them than they could make in 20years.. they country would most likely not exist any longer.. it would be a big hole in the ground.
Lets send a few nukes over to the country, that has hundreds of them.... well take out a few cities and flatten them.. Thats a Great idea!
Even bush isnt that stupid... - JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5WE ARE INVOLVED WITH THE CIVIL WAR!
We just funded the ***** Sunni militias. - nesibus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ok...who cares...and if they do make one then what?
They can't fly it over here in a bomber....(even if they could we would blast them out of the sky in seconds)
They can't launch a missle with a warhead over here....(same as above)
They can't sneak it in and use it cause the material is all traceable back to the origin....(we would nuke them off the map, they make one little bomb to have their entire history erased from the earth?)
So...if they have little man syndrome...and need bigger balls...whatever. - Mardala, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8And I suppose you think CNN is blog/spam as well, since the article is just reiterating what the CNN interview said.
- OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8The Decider values political and ideological loyalty, not truth. Woolsey has no incentive whatsoever to act honorably.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How do you walk outside with that much fear hanging around you? Do you also feel the same about Pakistans Nukes? They have more ties to known terrorists than Iran does - where is your concern over India also have Nukes - which was sold to the world as needed to offset Pakistan Nukes....M.A.D and all that..Makes sense right?
So why do you have a problem with Israeli's Nukes being offest with potentially an Iranian Nukes? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Jesus, lose the florid language and state your case simply. This is digg, FCS, not Oxford.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5if you actually were fluent in farsi, you would know he never said that. he said the zionist regime should be destroyed. you know, regime change. i believe this was done recently to another country.
- heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What brand of magic mushrooms is he using ?
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well, considering that "whatever Republican is in office" went off and invaded the wrong country...
- origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Since Russia is providing them the parts and technology, you shouldn't scofff....
- sinaura, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Mutual assured destruction"......no f*cking wonder why other countries want nukes for themselves; if you were in a neighborhood where everyone had a shotgun and all you had was a whiffle bat, wouldn't you want one of those bad boys too? Sure, you can call this country or that country a "rogue/terrorist" state who shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but they can come right back and say that about the US. Nukes are the bane of humanity.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4True, but that does not mean the Iranians have no reason to fear the Israeli nukes. Or the Pakistani nukes for that matter.
There can be very little doubt that the Iranians have every reason to be afraid: nukes to the west (Israel), nukes to the east (Pakistan), Americans to the south (Persian Gulf), west (Iraq) and east (Afghanistan). - wootup, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Do you have any evidence that the Iranian government is trying to make a nuclear bomb? Last I checked, they were building a reactor for nuclear power - as is the right of any nation. In spite of the propaganda from the American government, nobody has provided a shred of evidence to prove that Iran has some kind of secret Manhattan project-type program.
I, for one, learned my lesson from the Iraq War's WMD propaganda: DEMAND EVIDENCE. - bowens44, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even if this were true (it isn't) , I would ask Mr. Woolsey, 'So what?'.
Deterrence works. Thinking that any nation with one or two or even dozens of nukes would use them to attack the US is ridiculous. - WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"If you think the Iraq invasion was a blunder an invasion of Iran would be more of a blunder."
I'd say it's more like one long continuous blunder. The state is preparing the populace for a war with Iran and also a draft to support it. After that doesn't go as planned, the blunder will continue. - 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The tide is changing thankfully. People aren't so quick to believe the ***** coming out of the corporate media anymore. There is hope!
- pandira, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6did you miss the implications of the US Patriot Act? Did you miss the Military Commissions Act? Have you missed the suspension of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus? Did you miss the lies that led to the Iraqi war? No, oddcarom, YOU are the one who appears to be the moron.
- MadN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4These fearsome weapons can be deployed in less than 45 minutes.
Duck and cover.
We must fight them over there, to stop them over here.
"Poland attacked us, really"
/Sarcasm - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sure glad we don't have to worry about Iran.
- JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If the U.S. invades you, you don't have WMD's.
Case in point: Iraq. - Valnar300, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5don't "misunderestimate" that monkey in a suit, and yes I did just quote him to make a point.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3With regard to Iran feeling that it needs nukes to establish M.A.D. between itself and Israel, I find a big flaw in that argument. Israel has had nukes for decades, and has had the ability to strike Iran with one for much of that time. Iran still doesn't have an nukes as far as we know. If Israel was going to nuke Iran, it could have done so at any time for the past several decades. It could have (and might have had reason to) when it bombed Iran's first reactor during the 80's. Could have, but didn't. In other words, so long as Iran leaves Israel alone, then based on track record there doesn't seem to be much need for Iran to need a nucelar deterent to Israel. On the other hand, if Iran is planning on doing things that may provoke a nuclear response from Israel without an Iranian nuclear deterent, then Iran does in fact need nukes. And anything Iran might be planning on that would provoke a nuclear response from Israel would seem to be a generally bad thing for the United States. So I think that a non-nuclear Iran is better all-around - it will keep the Iranians from doing anything too provocative, which is certainly in Israel and the US interest.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"We should offer to buy Pakistan's nukes and treat Iran with more respect."
I don't understand. Where is the profit for Halliburton in that? - diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah - because there are two sides to everything, right? Even if one side is correct. Nice way to politicize facts, idiot.
- PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Now wait a minute here. Who are we supposed to believe on this story? The ex head of the CIA who nobody trusts, or the CIA who nobody trusts?
I sure as hell don't think we want to trust any Iranian timetable because they've got no reason to be truthful. Even if they think by telling the world they're 5-10 years off from a bomb, that timetable deceleration wouldn't stop an invasion anyway, so what's the point there? - Trutholder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Gee i don't know. its because they are running out of oil. and in 20 more years they want to be self reliant.
Open a book and read, before you make any more stupid comments. - lostmyleggins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3can't they just buy one from North Korea and nuclear bomb in a few weeks
- samtronik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Americans listen up!! For the first time ever - I want to encourage you all to listen to what George W Bush has to say about this sort of thing:
'There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once...” [pause] "... shame on...” [pause]
"Shame on you...” [pause] "If fooled, you can't get fooled again." ' - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The propaganda during WW1 called it "liberty cabbage." Seriously.
- PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3While I understand what you're saying, my point was that Think Progress doesn't believe Woolsey and is relying on their disbelief by what the CIA is saying now. I was questioning why they believe them now and not before. Doesn't make much sense unless they're falling in to the trap of believing people they didn't believe before since they're saying something they want to hear.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is