What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
167 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -10/+88I hate that guy
- fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+59What war? The so called war on terror? Right, well I think there is pretty compelling evidence that the belligerent and ill conceived manner in which we are waging this war fuels radical Muslim militancy and thus defeating its own purpose. The whole notion of stopping terrorism by making war is absurd. You can greatly reduce the likelihood of terror attacks with security and policing but war, especially in the Middle East, does not stop terror. There is no winning in a war against terror.
If you are referring to Iraq, I think you are confused because we are occupying Iraq. There is no winning in an occupation either, eventually we will just hand over security to the Iraqis and our troops will go back to there bases.
If by war you mean lucrative oil contracts for multinational corporations well then your fears may be justified. The Iraqis seem to not want to revenue share with big private oil companies. I think they secretly want to nationalize their oil like every other major producer of oil in the world. It looks like they might be able to wait for a long time before any private oil company wins those contracts.
well, maybe you are referring to our war with Iran, we kind of just started that war yesterday by naming many tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers as part of a terrorist organization. And see as how we are at war with terror... If this is the war you are talking about, then I am worried because I don't think we are going to win this one. And not because it's impossible. Honestly, I don't think we have the skill. I have the feeling that Iranians are simply better at declaring victory than we are. Even if we actually do win they will say that they won and more people will believe them than us. Watch. - L4WL3RS34L, on 10/22/2007, -2/+56You guys seriously need to start saying Robert Gates, because Gates automatically means Bill Gates on digg.
- laterthandawn, on 10/10/2007, -9/+47Imperialism 2.0
- lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+42This has, of course, been the plan all along. War is peace.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+37so when is iraq going to become #51?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33uh, because they lied to start the war and 1.2 million iraqis have died and saddam offered to leave the country... you ***** moron
- dmgordon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27I do make that an issue. There's no reason to have troops in Germany, or Japan, or any of those places. We're not supposed to be an empire and it needs to end.
- commernie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29I think you mean #52...Israel has been the 51st state for years.
- lalalalamppost, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24This was the plan all along. It's what Bush Co wants. It's what Israel wants. It's what Iran wants. It sure isn't what the American people want.
- fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Right but when they said "short term" they MENT "long term" and now when they actually say "long term" that basically means forever.
- laterthandawn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18If you ask someone in Israel, the prevailing attitude is that it already is.
- Progrockusa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16how can you have a war on terror?
How can you have a war on drugs?
these are not physical things
A war usually consists of one army versus another army, that is a war.
when you send your army into an area that has no army to kill their people that is tyranny.
last i checked thats against the constitution this country was founded on. - yamyogurt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16the rest of bush's term may seem like forever...
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14complete with their own senator, lieberman.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12you're right. i doubt they plan to keep troops there past our sun's supernova.
- trisquithere, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17I really hope Ron Paul gets elected so we get the ***** out of there.
- Progrockusa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11we've had troops in both of those countries for decades
- pyrotix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Thanks for not mentioning Canada
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14To those complaining that long-term does not equal forever, let us put it this way... It will be till the end of this empire, which was once a republic. And the end will be precipitated, because of this.
- JasonsLan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9don't forget japan, we've occupied japan since WWII
its normal, if we kick your ass in a war, we're going to retain a military presence there forever.. - Jibberwalk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And Japan. And Afghanistan. And Turkemenistan. And Turkey. And Iceland. And Spain. And Panama. And Kuwait. And Saudi Arabia. Etcetera etcetera...
The point of course... we have troops everywhere. - Vancouver55, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Not forever. Just till the oil runs out.
- LuCiFer6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Iraq is going to be a tour of duty like Korea, Germany, Japan and so on....
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10As long as no one's shooting at them, and their welcome by a Democratically elected Iraqi govt. I don't see a real problem above what's going on in Germany and S. Korea. However, getting the country stable so no one's shooting at them is no easy task.
- siszam, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13We lost the moment our leaders thought the answer to a few thousand dead was to send thousands more to die. Only a moron thinks death is the answer to death.
Oh I know. I'll go kill and disable thousands of Americans. That'll teach those dirty terrorists to kill Americans. HA! Take that! Dir Dir Dir! - geneshifter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Oh, it is you sir that is the Kool-Aid drinker if you think this war was justified.
- Assezdefromage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Not really. They could only refuse to pay to pull them out. The prez would just need to find another source of $$.
- Squeeky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Have you SEEN the size of the embassy they are building in the green zone? It's absoloutely enormous. It's arguably the largest foreign embassy in the world. It's a $592 million dollar, 104 acre complex. Complete with swimming pool and tennis courts (wouldn't want the embassy staff to get bored), and it's own power and water treatment plants. These ***** want us over there for a LONG time.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy ... - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7boy, americans sure need those maps soon.
- lololwut, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12How dare you criticize the servants of our glorious emperor George W. Bush!
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7so less than what we keep in Germany? If we keep posting permanant brigades in all these countries, how will we have enough on our own territory to defend us instead of non-citizens?
- xerexes1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Technically, the US is still at war with North Korea. This has just been a 50 year impasse. As for Germany, why is the US still there?
- Kugellehr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Now for love of the US tax payer, pull out of Japan and Germany. How much money are we wasting there. Wasting. The japs and the Germans are plenty powerful enough to take care of their own affairs....and i dont envision a soviet union invading a divided Germany anytime soon.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Right after Germany and S. Korea.
- commernie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11WTF does your Ron Paul comment have to do with the article? Ron Paul worshippers: please, please stop spamming us with your *****!
- sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Are you an idiot? I don't seem to recall any American soldiers being "abandoned" after WWII or WWI. And where did you get the idea it's "difiicult" move the last division? Seriouosly, while your writing shows some skill, you're really not very smart.
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5the rest of bush's term will be forever,,,
Hail to the Fuhrer! - shadeOgrey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Our bases in Germany are key for staging any operations in the middle east. Ramstein AB being the largest of our bases in Europe. And the impasse in Korea is called an armistice, which is just an agreement to end combat.
Of course as far as my political opinions on all this goes, I don't think we should have any permanent bases outside of the country. Just providing some info as a veteran. - yellowsnowcone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Anyone who is surprised that the US will have a long-term presence in Iraq is a freaking moron. It's been 50 years and the US is still in South Korea ... so yeah, the US will have an equal number of troops in Iraq for at least a half century
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5so you would be ok with another country having a military presence all over the globe, including in the US?
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Interesting point. But what if I said we were there because the US troops are almost the only thing standing between even worse sectarian and terrorist violence? I mean, if we started this whole mess under false pretenses, is it morally better to then leave them when it doesn't go as planned?
I'm not necessarily saying this is how I feel, but I consider it a pretty strong counter-point. - regexp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Um ... ok ... you do know that Bush is commander in chief right? And that Congress authorized the war right? And Gates is basically just doing what he is being ordered to do right? And that congress at any time can defund the occupation and bring home the troops right? Or that Bush can bring this the troops home at anytime right? Your anger is misguided and should be directed toward your congressmen or to bush.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+551. Puerto Rico.
52. Germany.
53. S. Korea.
54. Iraq.
55. North Korea.
56. Cuba... - mickrussom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4My message to Robert Gates:
You ***** war criminal. The people want us out of Iraq. 70%+ of the people. 70%+ of the military. Congresses approval rating is the lowest in recorded history.
You bastard son of a bitch neo-cons better hope you don't end up strung from a lamp post like Mussolini. - rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The Treaty of Versailles *caused* World War 2.
- revelude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5On top of the world's biggest embassy, we're also building a handful of permanent bases to house all of our troops in the region.
Isn't an announcement like this to be expected? - zachblume, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"et cetera" kthxbye
- Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you're talking about Hillary Clinton, she's one of "these *****" who wants us over there for a long time.
- UsernameTaken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3*****, the commander in chief can move troops around, and he wouldn't require permission from Congress to move them back home. Vote for Ron Paul and put an end to all this pseudo-patriotic *****.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is