What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.261 Comments
- wibblewibble, on 10/12/2007, -13/+97Need more proof Fox is the mouth piece of the government?
Im more supprised people seem supprised at this. - jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -3/+64Is it not "pro-America" to be so proud of our country that we hate to see it going in the direction it is? Do we have to support our leadership to be "pro-America"?
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -8/+57"What ever happen to pro-America?"
What the ***** does not wanting to senselessly attack another country, on trumped-up charges, have to do with being anti-American? Personally I think that all the asshats that think being pro-war is being pro-American need to get their ass out of this counry and into whatever war they are promoting. If you are so pro war, what the hell are you doing here and not in Iraq? - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47What a suprise. The guest Bill Kristol is part of PNAC and would love the Bush Admin to invade Iran.
- spahn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42@ bgoodknight
what exactly is anti-american? Having a debate is anti-american? Disagreeing with Faux News is anti-american? Disagreeing with government policy is anti-american? Assuming you're a Republican, does that mean that when the Democrats are in charge and you disagree with their policies that you're anti-american? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point here. - snypa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41@bgoodnight
I'm guessing you think its pro American to blindly agree and follow what that moron of a president tells your country, while he gets the US into more ***** than ever? - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40"The guest Bill Kristol is part of PNAC"
And he says the US is going to attack Iran?
Folks, we're doomed.
And I still don't understand how this is a war on terrorists. They could call it a war on dictators, I guess, but there doesn't seem to be much terrorist fighting going on. It almost seems as though the US wants to create more terrorism in the Middle East so that it can control the population. (an Eastern Eurasia/Western Eurasia kinda thing)
Incidentally if you don't know about the PNAC, check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38I'm Pro-*****. Where do you stand?
- jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40It's a sad day when we see our country preparing for a second "preemptive strike" after what happened the first time.
- grendelboogie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35I really hope this isn't a sneak preview. What a horrible mistake a war in Iran would be right now!
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Doesn't Pakistan have nukes? Does anyone think that if Iran is invaded, that the other arab nations won't jump in? At the least they'll probably offer their weapons to muslim groups who will fight against another religiously-motivated invasion. They all believe this is about oil and culture, and if they stand by and let their neighboring muslim countries be invaded, they'll be next. It seems to me Bush is trying to bring about WWIII in hopes that his buddy Jesus will show up. Good grief.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Where are the pro strong defense, strong containment GOP'ers of old? This will be a lonely November for conservatives that haven't fallen for the neoCONmen.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Hey, I play video games, and I know what's going on! Don't blame the games.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28And as far as patriotism goes:
Theodore Roosevelt: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918) - LordRahl72, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32bgoodknight, Get the HELL out of my country!
Or better yet why don’t you and your family volunteer to go over to Iran and start killing people.
I think we should finish the last 2 wars we lost before we start another one we can’t win. - snypa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30I feel sincerly sorry for anyone whose only and primary "news" source if Fox. You can't get more BS "news" than on Fox, and such networks run by Murdoch. That includes Sky News for those in the UK. The BBC World Service is the only decent news service and thats on the radio.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33This is what happens when half the populace is asleep, playing videogames instead of paying attention to what its leaders are doing. When you all are interrupted from your WOW to get drafted to go to Iran, it'll be too late to whine. You should be on the phone to your congresscritters demanding Bush be impeached for war crimes... now before it's too late.
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27And Fox wonders why they're down 28% this last quarter. People are fed up with their blow-hards, fear mongering and hypocrisy. Fox News' 15 minutes are up.
- dysfirkin, on 10/12/2007, -14/+36The Persian People have as much right to defend themselves with nuclear Weapons as the American People have to defend themselves with Nuclear Weapons. If Iran wants out of the Nuclear non Proliferation treaty, then so be it. To say otherwise smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. An Iranian Nuclear bomb is necessary to cover the potential threat by Israel.
- lpferris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Indeed, I do believe that Pakistan has nukes. But because the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence outfit) is in bed with the CIA (look into the ISI-CIA cooperative efforts in Afghanistan in the 80's), Pakistan is essentially us. Or U.S. rather.
Fox News is a load of crap, and now it's a load of dangerous crap. - robrepp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Interesting how already-nuclear North Korea is basically safe from Bush & Co's predations. No wonder Iran's trying to get one going.
- Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Who else thinks leehodge is a little nuts?
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24I am anti-war (unless provoked) conservative. Fox News pisses me off and doesn't speak for me. Careful with the labels please. Thank you!
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Conservative != Neoconservative
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"/hopping the boat to Australia"
Bring beer.
Also I hope you'll understand if we don't allow Americans to vote. - ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Isreal this, Isreal that. My god!
Is Isreal the 51st state or something? - AhmedOmran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19No leehodge, Israel is in fact standing on America's shoulders and living off it's tax money. It qualifies to be the 51st state.
- tj399, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16[for pile:]
neither Iran nor Pakistan are Arab countries. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16This is scary, since Cheney requires all TVs in his hotel rooms to be turned to Fox News when he arrives.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Based on the consitution, being Pro-america must mean you are Pro-liberty.
"Liberty, or freedom, is a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority."
So arguing that people who are arguing about opinions that do not match your own should not argue is anti-american, not pro-american. Additionally, arguing that we should simply listen to and agree with the government goes against all the principles that America was founded on and has based its democracy on. It turns a libertarian democracy into a war-mongering dictatorship. - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20shhh...draft...shhh
- Nafla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Wtf, that's awful. They're scripting an event that hasn't happened yet to make sure they can they can spin the public opinion just right.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17our votes don't mean ***** anyway, and your congressman won't listen to you as soon as he finds out you're under 65.
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Has Iran opted out of the Nuclear non Proliferation treaty? Last I heard they haven't yet....but yeah, they have every right to, and then I think it's 6 months later they are able to start developing nuclear weapons without violating any treaties. But they have to opt out first. (Note, I doubt they have violated the treaty, authoritarian governments have a long history of concealing their own weakness for strategic purposes.)
As far as other countries in the region joining in, ahh, no, they wouldn't dare, and certainly not with Nukes, "WW3" would not last long if they did unless we went out our way not to harm civilians, which would be unlikely if things escalated. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"It's a sad day when we see our country preparing for a second "preemptive strike" after what happened the first time."
More importantly, who the hell is going to the fighting? We already have more troops than we actually have in the first preemptive strike (to the point that people are being recalled to active duty). I can't imagine who they think is going to fight the next one. - blake1001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I wonder what kept North Korea safe before they (maybe) got the bomb?
Could it possibly be their long-standing alliance with nuclear superpower and US trading partner, China? Or, perhaps the overwhelming conventional firepower they had aimed at Seoul?
Ironically, it's not the possible nukes that's stopping the Bush boys from cutting loose on North Korea, it's the danger of conventional retaliation vs the south, and the protective aegis of China that allowed it the freedom to develop those nukes. More irony, the close relationship with China makes it pretty unlikely that even the Dear Leader would actually use those nukes, so a nuclear North Korea is only slightly scarier than the already nuclear China.
Iran's deterrents are not so certain - but, the US hasn't attacked them in 27 years of hateful provocation (from the '79 hostage crises to the current Hezbollah's current outrages), so they must not be non-existent. Obviously the US isn't inclined to 'wipe Iran off the map' the way Iran is anxious to do to Israel, or it would have done so rather than invade it's long time enemy, Iraq and potential enemy, Afghanistan. The idea that a further deterrent is needed is disingenuous. Iran doesn't need a nuclear deterrent unless it intends to go on the offensive or otherwise provoke existing nuclear powers to a much greater degree than it has so far. The only other use Iran would have for a nuke is to quietly (and deniably, since there were plenty of Russian nukes that went missing after the Cold War) pass it to one of it's pet terrorist groups for rush delivery to Tel Aviv or New York.
The idea being floated, though, of a conventional strike against Iran doesn't strike me as very likely. Maybe the hope is that talking up the possibility will generate a little pressure on Iran to agree to terms a little less favorable, that might slow it's nuclear program a little. A conventional strike would face competent defenses (unlike in Iraq, Iran has a strong, reasonably sophisticated air defense), and couldn't destroy the most important facilities, which are buried too deeply, even were it completely successful. And, of course, the attack would further paint the US as evil war-monger, while simultaneously, it's inevitable failure would make Iran the idol of the muslim world, turning it into an instant petty superpower, even before actual nukes start rolling off it's assembly lines. - Korvaras, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Last time I heard, building nuclear reactors, to power your country wasn't part of the nuclear proliferation treaty. Seriously. Jesus people, you americans are on one end of a seriously bent propaganda stick.
- sanguinekane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@ Chompy
"The reason Iran shouldn't have nukes while the Western World should is the same reason you can sell a handgun to an adult but not to an angry 3 year old."
Errr, hate to break it to you buddy, but as a culture, people, and country (or equivalent) Iran/Persia has been around a lot longer than the US. If anything, we're the angry 3 year olds. - wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Neoconservatives are noobs. Yet somehow they flourish above many others. Why is that? I am not sure how such new political idealism and extreemism can win over reasonable thought and progress.
Oh - right. Fear and the illusion of power. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11leehodge, did you really need to waste 3 comments to spew your crapo.. notice how the left doesnt stoop to simply calling anems, where you have to in every posts.
Try learning how to debate your point because really you just come off as ignorant.
ANd being anti bush, doesnt mean you are a liberal, and if you keep claiming that, the gop will have a very hard time getting reellected without the moderate powell conservatives and the conservative reagan democrats.
Seriously look at how more mature the other comments are compared to yours. I am not sayig you dont have valid points of a valid opinion but you sure dont express it well. I would be more than glad to debate with you the finer points of the situation at hand. But we must be mature about it, you cant just call people names and run home. - jwaddell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12truly diabolical
- Rigbymatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12http://f0rked.com/flash/v=endoftheworld
replace china with Iran
the rest will be the same
/hopping the boat to Australia - Rigbymatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Nuclear war?
with todays nuclear weapons?
well fellow Diggers, its been nice knowing you, if this happens the human race is gone.
lets pray its Fox being Fox - kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11They haven't even won the war in Iraq...What makes them think america can win a war agaist a nation stronger, richer, bigger, and oh ya alot stronger?!?
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Their tagline/intro should be "Necon News, we like to invade and destroy" or "Fox News so republican we bleed red" or "Fox News, we like to piss off the Liberals and Moderates"
any others? - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9leehodge. I think it is you who is a moonbat.
Definition:
a moonbat is someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8And to show that history is repeating itself, the President of Iran challenged President Bush to a debate, just like Saddam Hussein did...of course, Iran actually is a threat, but I doubt we have the power to deal with it.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8leehodge, please stop polluting my internet.
- puke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Israel wouldn't have the capability to invade foreign countries and steal land if it weren't funded by billions of dollars each year from the US.
- brockpetrie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Actually I think I'll stay here. I'd just rather not have ***** like you voting absolute ***** into power that piss all over this country and this world. You want this war? Go buy a gun and plane ticket. Have fun.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 260 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is