What is Digg?222 Comments
- sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -12/+92@pipdip
How? Iran has no navy capable of global reach. They have no air force bases within reach of the US mainland. Their longest distance cruise missile is only capable of striking targets in the ME region. Aside from somehow managing to sneak IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) through a US Airway transatlantic flight, how could Iran attack the US mainland? - martin308, on 10/30/2007, -5/+68If Civ4 has taught me anything then the world ends in 2050 so they are just trying to get as many points as they can before then
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+65to the neocons:
lets be honest here, do you really think that the benefits associated to an invasion of iran outweigh the costs? keep in mind that i am asking neocons only, and therefore from a purely utilitarian point of view, which means that morality is not an issue. - javip, on 10/12/2007, -15/+68someone needs to remove that manic in the U.S. too.
- IrishJoe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+60Article II of the US Constitution says that all treaties ratified by the Senate (and the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the Senate) are the highest law of the land equal in stature to the constitution itself. Practice shows that these treaties need to be executed (effectively activated) by statute which, via the War Crimes Act of 1996, the Geneva Accords were. So violating them is punishable according to the War Crimes Act up to the death penalty.
A Republican Congress passed the War Crimes Act in 1996 to threaten Bill Clinton with the death penalty if he violated the Geneva Conventions in Bosnia. Clinton signed the bill into law. Now it may be used against a Republican president and/or his administration. - Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51"Iran is a country, they have a "legit" army. The only reason we're not at war with them is probably China."
Iraq had a legit army too, it took about 3 weeks to defeat it and capture Baghdad. Iran would probably fare a little better, but the problem isn't Iran, it's us. Our military is already stretched too thin, and we are spending too much money on Iraq. Plus there would be no public or international support, this administration has lost too much credibility to initiate another war.
If we start something with Iran, we would still need to maintain an army in Iraq, and along the DMZ in South Korea. That would be nearly impossible without full support of the world community and American public. So Iran would need to attack first, and thats not going to happen - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+55Invade Iran? Sure why not. Bush has a perfect record so far - just add this to the list.
- Aliasing, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50I think being a superpower exempts you from those.
Not saying it's right, but hell, that seems to be the reality. - cagedog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45How would we pay for a war with Iran? Our troops in Iraq don't have the gear they need and we've over-extended their tours of duty but somehow attacking Iran is a good idea? What do you think will happen to oil prices? If we attack Iran, we'll end up unleashing a war that will engulf the enitire Middle East. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Isreal (who has nukes and will use them). I don't think much oil will get shipped if that happens, then what do we do? Do you think China and Russia are going to sit back and just watch? Bottom line: if you think war with Iran is a good idea you're a stupid *****.
- BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46@arbguy1
Neocons dont have to worry about the costs. It isn't their sons and daughters fighting after all.
And the budget doesn't mean ***** to them when noone calls back U.S. debts. - arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41If Civilization 4 taught me anything, we can always build a spaceship and escape to Alpha Centauri.
- MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32The first thing Iran will most likely do if attacked is take all their oil off the market, so expect every American to feel it in their pockets. Then they will block the Strait of Hormuz which is a vital shipping lane for oil, then price of gasoline will skyrocket. Bush will have no other option except to put boots on the ground when his expected public overthrowing the government doesn't happen. You now the story from that point on.
Instead of $4 billion a week in wars it'll jump to over $10 billion or more since the price of oil will be over $100. Since there's no army he'll have to introduce a draft but obviously it won't be called that. Maybe something like "Patriotic Duty".
I have absolutely no doubt he's already given the go-ahead for the strike. - AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34@Pandimonium
Ahmadinejad never actually said Israel should be wiped off the map.
He said (and this is a direct quote)
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
Note the word rezhim-e (regime).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527 - cr4ft, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42So wait...they're attacking Iran because they have nuclear happens...yet the US has them, and so does Israel, and so does North Korea.
Oh wait...that's right, Iran is a Muslim country...it must be attacked...
American government is the dumbest ever...our founding fathers would be disgraced. - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Bush/Cheney don't. Care. They are not well. Bush thinks he's doing God's will, and Cheney is delusionally paranoid. Neither are listening to anything civil or military leaders are telling them.
- spukeesan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@Lax32
I wouldn't be so sure - we already have the Eisenhower Strike Fleet en route to the Gulf, and judging by our government's deliberate sanction against peace talks with Iran, it's well beyond speculation that Iran is the next step in this war. I'm still not sure how the administration justifies escalating a war we're already losing, but it seems to me that we're in it for the long haul. Whoever wins in 2008 is going to have a pretty big ***** mess to clean up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30"Article II of the US Constitution says that all treaties ratified by the Senate (and the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the Senate) are the highest law of the land equal in stature to the constitution itself."
Bah! You're talking about the administration who's leader said that the Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper". Nothing matters anymore except corporate interests. Why even ***** bother? - iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21You can dig me down but the fact is that the Bill of Rights PROTECT our rights, they do NOT grant them. No treaty can take away a right because a right is not given to us by our government (that is a government by the people FOR the people). The Bill of Rights outlines the most basic rights which are given to us by our creator. The Supreme Court has upheld this many times and based a lot of their rules on the intent of the framers of the country.
Madison had this to say:
"I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation."
Jefferson said this about Treaties.
"By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated.... It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. "
Alexander Hamilton said:
"The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is, that it shall not change the Constitution.... On natural principles, a treaty, which should manifestly betray or sacrifice primary interests of the state, would be null."
It is clear that treaties cannot override our Constitution. It has become a popular phase on talk radio in the last 5 to 10 years that treaties override our constitution. That is a popular saying brought up whenever the fake conservatives (neo-cons) talk about the International Criminal Court. The fact is, the Neo-Cons want globalization and things such as the ICC so they say that it's legal (but bad) and then blame it all on the Democrats for letting it happen. Then they roll over and play dead and ignore the issue. - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Uh. no. It will ignite world war III, and it will go on for a century. Stop dreaming about destroying your "enemies". You can't kill everyone.
And Bush is a fundamentalist. Southern style. That means, last days, rapture, war against evil. He's as obsessed with the end of the world as any of the "madmen" you can quote. He just won't admit it out loud. He won't answer the question: do you think you are in the Last Days, Mr. President? - headphonz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@bobcrotch
"Let a nuclear capable nation push their weight around and make threats?"
hmmm...sure sounds like you accurately described Bush country... - Nirgaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18He has indeed "radically transformed" the region. It is well on its way to becoming a unified fundamentalist islamic theocracy with a deeply entrenched hatred of the west.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Genius: That "rag" has been right on every point for five years. Fox has been wrong.
AND: The ENTIRE BATCH OF QUOTES WAS FROM RIGHTWINGERS! Grover Norquist, no less! They're all *neocons* saying that Bush wants to invade!
Get it? It's YOUR side saying this. GEEZ. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20[quote]The first thing Iran will most likely do if attacked is take all their oil off the market, so expect every American to feel it in their pockets.[/quote]
Forget about the oil. The first thing Iran will do is attack the US troops stationed in Iraq with cruise and ballistic missiles. Then it will send the ground troops in while Syria, Lebanon and Palestine take care of the rest.
Think back to what the Lebanese did to Israel's armor recently. Those antitank missiles came from Iran and/or Syria, they work just as well against Abrams tanks as they do against Merkavas. The US does not have the ground troops required to attack Iran, or even the troops required to defend themselves against an Iranian attack in Iraq.
The Neocons misled America. George W. Bush was a fool for blindly following them despite the warnings from experts, military commanders, and at least one Jedi master. Now, we are all *****.
The only way out of this is to stop using oil, stop tolerating religious bigotry, and bring all the corporate criminals throughout the world to trial. - yurbud, on 10/12/2007, -16/+32Norquist admitted on camera writing part of the privatization plan for Iraq, which means he confessed to committing war crimes outlined in the Geneva & Hague Conventions.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Nice way to dodge the damned point. It's NEOCONS WARNING US about Bush starting a third invasion. GROVER NORQUIST. Superneocon. He's stating outright that Bush's people are insane. That thinkprogress covered it means little: the story is everywhere. He testified in public for godssake.
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own reality. Of course, Fox gives you the latter option.
And Thinkprogress told you:
Bush was lying about WMDs. Cheney outed the CIA front company for vengeance against one man who told the truth. Bush AWOLed. Cheney was the man behind the throne. The media was struck dumb for fear of being called liberal. The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq because they were close to declaring the place clear. Bush's boy Bolton bugged the UN, and the weapons inspectors were bugged as well. Bush's little worldchanging group wanted to springboard across Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Billions were stolen outright, and the oil is still not being metered to this day. Thousands of little news items, rarely reported on as a whole. Seems to be all true.
Fox told you:
Iraq bombed New York. All Muslims are responsible. Bush was a hero. Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in (BIG lie, they were in and frantically trying to complete the inspection, but Bush gave them 30 days to get out or be bombed themselves). Bush found WMDs in Iraq and went to war to save us. Bush would find Bin Laden. Bush would balance the budget, cut taxes, and Iraq's oil would pay for everything. We'd have a lovely democratic Middle East once we slapped a few darkies around. None of this seems to be true. - Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Good luck getting any support for that.
A war with Iran would require a draft. Theres no way that after a current war that is becoming a complete mess, an older generation that remembers what Vietnam was like, and a whole bunch of kids who dont want to get drafted to fight a country that we really have no buisness going into, Id say it would never realistically happen.
Lets face it, we all got caught up in patriotism with Afghanistan (and rightfully so), that kinda carried on to Iraq, but no way would that ever continue to Iran. - shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27How come Norquist isn't in jail, yet?
- oscarsonthepond, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19A "former CIA officer" "heard from sources." IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
- TheShadowKnows, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20The Western media acts as mouthpiece for the agenda of the paranoid (lots of reasons for this, the point here is that's its function), so the "wipe Israel off the map" meme gets amplified loudly and uncritically (again, since it supports the worldview of some).
But here's what Ahmadinejad actually said, along with a literal translation:
"Imam (Khomeiny) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
To paraphrase, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
It's a statement of how the Zionist regime in Israel must inevitably collapse, no different than having said the Soviet regime must inevitably collapse. In a political way it's very similar to the Christian statements that those who accept Jesus will have eternal life, while those who do not cannot.
So, the "wipe Israel off the map" claim is just another modern-day equivalent of "Remember the Maine" - a useful (from the standpoint of those who want more war) rallying cry to inflame the masses.
No particular offense intended to anyone who believed the statement was true, since learning not to immediately believe everything one reads (even this comment) or more importantly, everything one prefers to believe, isn't a widely taught skill - yet. - sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Bull.
We have already "invaded" Iran. We've been doing it ever since the first day of Gulf War II. The border between Iran and Iraq is porous and sneaking through is about as easy as loading a small group of Commandos on a Humvee Jeep. At this moment I can absolutely guarantee you that there are SF operating inside Iran gathering Intel about its weapons program and Iran has likely even capture of few of these groups. Don't expect to hear about in the media because it's embarrassing for the US because it means we're caught red-headed and it's embarrassing for Iran because it displays their inability to protect their own borders -- besides, capture US commandos make great bargaining chips.
Further, we have routinely violated their sovereignty by capture their diplomats. Regardless of what the so-called diplomats were doing in Iraq, they were welcomed by the Iraqi government as representatives of the Republic of Iran; therefore they are diplomats. By seizing representatives of foreign government the US Military engaged in an act of war. Imagine if Iran seized American diplomats in Moscow using its IRGC.
Tragically enough, it should be expected that Iran is acting against our interests in Iraq because they, as any self-interested sovereign nation would, are acting in their interests in Iraq. To say that Iran is "meddling" in Iraq and should therefore be punished is a flimsy excuse to pick a war with another nation. If President Bush can't deal with Iranian influence in Iran then perhaps it's time we held official talks with Iran for the first time in almost three decades instead of relying on the Swiss to be our go-betweens. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I've said this and I'll say it again: we cannot invade Iran. Not because of their mighty army, but because they are a cohesive group with a strong cultural identity (Persians) who would fight us tooth and nail. Sure, we could crush their army and bomb their assets, but an occupation would make Iraq look like a picnic. Nor can we expect their army to evaporate before us. No, best stay away, do a little strategic bombing.
- Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22I'm already pretty sure I know how smart the US government is. I don't need thousands more fatalities on both sides and another hanged "president gone rogue" to reaffirm it.
- Ystig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The state of American diplomacy is an increasingly baffling thing. Already, quite a few governments across Europe (e.g., Spain, Italy) and the Americas (Canada and most of South America), and all the moreso, the Middle East, are being challenged by their electorates for being too friendly to American interests, or too congenial in their relations with the American government. America wanted the world to "get tough on terrorism" and for all its endeavours, the US has largely succeeded in getting the world "tough on America". Given the apparent magnitude of this concern, the government's obliviousness to it (which I'd say is mostly though not wholly shared by its opposition) is shocking.
The American government is digging itself into an increasingly deep and dark diplomatic pit, from which its allies retreat not only out of pragmatism (i.e., because for most countries, there was no utilitarian, geopolitical or electoral justification whatsoever for sending troops to Iraq), but out of principle itself (i.e., because the very principle of being a "pro-American" government is perceived as domestically disadvantageous, in the majority of the world's democracies at present). The danger inherent in becoming (or staying) the world's most undesirable ally is one which the United States cannot afford. No country can. But as China, India and the Middle East rise to the challenges of 21st century commerce, the USA can afford it least of all. - dchesterton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@pipdip "That would actually be a good war." There is no such thing...
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12There is no way the US can occupy Iran without instituting a draft. America has blown its load in Iraq.
The US would also need UN authorization to invade for it to be a legal war.
The only possibility is that Bush might try attacking Iran's nuke facilities, but that would fail. They are spread out in different locations, some are in fortified bunkers, and we do not even know the ones we are aware of are all of them. Now they're also protected by Russian Tor-M1 anti-air missile systems that are capable of knocking out cruise missiles. That is in addition to Iran's other AA defenses.
In addition to this, any attack on Iran would mean major trouble in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as repercussions throughout other parts of the world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@bobcrotch
yeah, they hate you because you're always pulling ***** over there. nevertheless, these countries are all open for negotiations. they are known for negotiating amongst themselves (truces between israel, egypt and jordan for example). the thing is though, there is not much to negotiate with the US: it's their land, and therefore their oil. if the US wants it, the US has to pay for it. the practice of hijacking local governments is completely out of the question.
the nazi analogy was just that, an analogy, not a one-to-one correspondence. - Aaryn015, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16That sounds like a whole heap of fun right thar. Be sure to pack a few spare pair of underpants.
*sarcasm* - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@bobcrotch
it is well known that your government uses the mainstream private propaganda networks to make people paranoid and scared, in order to have political support for a war. if a sovereign state is an enemy by virtue of rejecting a foreign power taking over the local resources, then that is more akin to corporate rivalry, and should be settled with peaceful means (i.e. the invading power should back off) - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11It was Grover Norquist, superrepublican, and he testified in public, not on thinkprogress. thinkprogress simply reported it, which is more than most of the "news" networks will do.
- galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I don't know what the big deal with a draft is. This country is just full of ***** pussies. At least 50%, who voted for Bush that is. All macho and wanting to drop bombs from afar but being afraid that another country obtains WMDs.
What happened to personal responsibility? You wanted gung ho macho kick ass and now get ready for it, with the next war. Prepare for a draft or if you have children in draft age, get ready to turn them into cannon fodder. You stupid idiot coward ***** hypocrits. Praise the Lord (tm) !!!
That is the cost for defeating the evils of gay marriage and the protection of lumps of cells who might become humans. You thought that didn't cost anything? Well, it already cost 100s of thousands of deaths of real people in Iraq, thousands of killed American soldiers and tens of thousands of maimed American soldiers. And a mind boggling number of billions of good old fashioned money. Good Deal !!!
Glory, Glory, Halleluja (sp? - I don't care...) and we are the Champions, all right.
And for the other ones who are agains this awful government, the meaningless slaughterings in senseless wars who don't want to die for nothing of real importance: Good that the bigots in charge left the *****-ban in place so far. The bigots think gayness is a choice anyways, so just choose gay for a while and tell the selective service to ***** off.
Oh, and I am so not looking forward for the massive increase in taxes or hyperinflation to eventually pay for all that *****. But of course the morons in this evangelically dominated asylum for sure are going to blame the "financially liberals" for that one because after all their pea brains are just that: pea brains. - Nirgaul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11In a quasi free enterprise like we have, there is no true democracy. There is too much corporate money feeding misinformation through the mainstream media. Take for example the recent multi-million dollar effort to convince people that climate change is a "liberal" myth. These are Nixon's people, selected because of their ruthlessness. When you have vile brigands like Karl Rove piloting the media spin, and the distribution is so eager to indulge, it is very difficult to reverse the cycle. There is something inherent in all of us that loves a simple answer with an easy cause/effect relationship. After the pranging of the WTC towers, it was easy to sell ethnic hatred, patriotism, and religion, all wrapped up in neat packaging, and delivered from the pulpit by a febrile dimwit (Bush).
- quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -20/+29"how could Iran attack the US mainland?"
With a bomb. In a backpack. - jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12why does people always beat up on liberals so damn much but when i say something about a Conservative i get called a traitor also liberal have done way more for this country than any conservative did
ie. salvery ending , equel rights that whole thing - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Rightwingers don't like the "D" word. War's isn't as much fun if it's *your* penis that gets blown off, rather than the equipment of those losers down the street who signed up, stupid people... when you get blown up from below, you lose more than your legs.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@cr4ft:
You mean our founding fathers would be "dismayed". (The current administration IS a disgrace, I agree.) - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@lax32
"Lets face it, we all got caught up in patriotism with Afghanistan (and rightfully so)"
Only the most ignorant and ill-informed would say that!
(No offense, if you are just really young...but you ARE uninformed...again, no offense intended!)
The fact is that Unocal was in negotiations with the (taliban) government of
Afghanistan to try to build a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan.
The negotiations were headed by a guy named Karzai, and another guy named Khalilzad, on behalf of the American multinational energy corporation called Unocal.
In August, 2001, the negotiations broke down.
Then, conveniently, in Sept 2001, "somebody blew up America," after carefully planting all the required demolition charges, and controlling the corporate-owned 'news' media and what they would report.
More conveniently, the rogue US misadministration attacked Afghanistan, using the military to do the demolition required before the pipeline construction...including demolition of people and villages. (Note how it has been blacked out from the news, since the Iraq debacle was begun.)
Then, even more conveniently, Karzai became the head of the new puppet 'government' of Afghanistan, with Khalilzad becoming the US special envoy to that government.
The stink of corruption and fascistic corporatocracy is incredible!
Yet there are still some otherwise intelligent Americans, who believe all kinds of other stories about the reasons for the two invasions that bush&co. have perpetrated.
When did 'patriotism' become a blind adherence to what you are told, with no research or thinking on your own? Perhaps it has always been so with patriotism, and any other ...isms as well!
Heil Der Fuehrer! R-tard! - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Don't expect any constraints imposed by law or reality to stop Bush. He's The Decider.
- citizenmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If it's critical of the administration, it must be from liberal sources! Grover Norquist is about as liberal as Hitler, guys. Freaking read up on your history.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9He's shown nothing. He's asserted.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Why do you assume that everyone is suicidal? Why the hell would anyone lob a nuke at Israel? It's just yakking. Think! They want a nuke so they have a bargaining chip -- seems to have worked for North Korea. suddenly we're negotiating.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is