What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
69 Comments
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52Funny that the White House constantly throws up objections to...facts.
- LeCastor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48Finally!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41Reality has a well known liberal bias.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26@nfulton
Awesome doublespeak. Nice job! - Matrix_Prime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14the point is, if it IS a civil war, we are supposed to pull troops out. The White House fails to acknowledge the term "Civil War", because the troops would have to be pulled out, and the whole Iraq invasion would officially (though I think we are long past that point) be declared a failure.
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17What a bunch of boot licking cowards the US media has become.
Did master finally give them permission to report something that started over a year ago?
Land of the free and home of the brave indeed. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Because its another step in making our incompetant leaders 'fess up to how our bad they have ***** that place to hell and back. First, the Bush administration flat out denied that there was an insurgancy for MONTHS. Now they have been doing the exact same thing with the civil war. NBC is the first to call them on it this time around, and have opened the flood gates for everyone else.
- saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"insurgent" is a word made up by the administration. We once had "insurgents" in the US, only we called them "patriots". We claim we want to "free" Iraq, yet we want them to be "free" by our standards. What if the majority doesn't want a democracy? What if the majority wants to be a muslim nation ruled by their religious leaders?
Were the north and the south "insurgents" in our very own civil war? It's easy to get confused if you listen to the propaganda machine that is our executive branch. Make no mistake, those are Iraqi civilians fighting for what they believe in, and fighting for the direction they want their country to go. Personally I think we should get the hell out and let them finish it, because regardless of what our intervention brings them now, as soon as we leave, you can bet your ass they'll settle it themselves. - ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11John Titor was predicting ("remembering") a Civil War in the United States. It's been a while since I've read it all, but he stated it pretty clearly I believe. One of the fun things about the John Titor ordeal was that it was all very precise, and not extremely vague ala Nostradamus.
- chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Well that's great, that's just *****' great man. Now what the ***** are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty ***** now man... That's it man, game over man, game over! What the ***** are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12More arguing over semantics, gotta love it. Let's just get it over with, call it a civil war, and figure out how the hell we're going to make things better. You know, come up with a plan...something that seemingly hasn't been done yet.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What's going on in the world where it's news that reporters are reporting the news?
- ThisIsBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."
Sounds good to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9of course not, but there is a difference between a war and a civil war. civil war in iraq is exactly what we didnt want to happen over in iraq!
In other words, Bush done ***** up, and now the war is spinning out of control. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Although it's just a term, I'm glad its popping up. Its just more concrete evidence that Bush is a moron, the war is unjustified, wrong, and ultimately end badly.
I cant wait to tell this to all the Bush/conservative zealots that are still out there...even though there are only a handfull left anymore who truly support the war.
But regardless, its a shame for those in Iraq. - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Matrix Prime has it right. We go in under false pretenses, and lying to the American People. (facts are too numerous to list here) We basically create civil unrest using P2OG doctrines and add to the already tension filled atmosphere. (lets remember that these people have been fighting for centuries) A full-on civil war ensues, and we don't take responsibility for it. Instead we stick our heads in the sand and "stay the course".
What America needs to do, or perhaps the White House (as the leaders), is to fess-up and come clean to the American People. We are paying the bills for goodness sakes. We made a horrible mistake (and keep making them I might add) so we need get ourselves out of there and hope that history will be kind on this administration's tenure.
American foreign policy needs to get a complete face lift, and corporate lobby needs to be removed from Washington. Unfortunately, our large corporate lobby groups are ONLY in Washington to make money, and they don't care a split pea about anything else. Which is strange, because a lot of these lobbyists are American citizens also. We are just screwing the whole system when we lie and work off a sole profit motive for war.
If you work at the following companies, please investigate your own company and find out what they do. You may be really surprised. [The Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Raytheon, CACI, Titan, Bechtel , Aegis, General Dynamics, MITRE, Chevron, Dutch Royal Shell, Exxon and Blackwater]. There are many more.
http://iraqforsale.org is only one of many movies talking about this stuff. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Since that news term is vehemently and adamantly denied by the President and his administration.
- interrogate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?
- loggia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9MSNBC and NBC will be so attacked over this that they may have to back down.
They are doing the absolute right thing, but we live in an age where anyone calling it like it is is called radical - as if the Bush administration is the baseline for some kind of normal. Witness the treatment of incoming controlling Democrats who are already being treated as reactionary and people who ACTUALLY GET TO ASK a direct question of Bush or Cheney are "hecklers." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Because 90% of america doesnt realize that, and the bush administration will do every damn thing possible to sweep this war under the rug.
You tell me why it is not news when most of america doesnt realize its a civil war. Shouldnt america know what bush got us (and iraq) into? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@xZel
Thats called Bush - kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They shouldn't call it just "Civil War" but "Civil War ( caused by Bush ) ".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Asskey, you can imagine the conflict FOX News had...
- chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I realize you probably wanted to click on the reply for the thread above this one, but it amuses me to think of the Bush admin. as Ailens from the planet *****.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It contains "Inconvenient Truths". Sometime known as facts.
- teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was thinking that myself. I remember how the white house insisted we call suciide bombers "hoimicide bombers" and **some** news networks ackcoughgagFox ACK! went along and promoted the term quite often. Now to me that was the height of idiocy because most bombs are meant to kill people (at least these types of bombs anyway). so they kill people, which is murder or homicide. It's meaningless and reduddant to call it a homicide bombers, because it is undestood that the intent it is to kill.
but when you die with it on purpose, you've commited suicide, a notable distinction.
Thankfully almost no one other then Fox went along and the term is basically languished.
I hope other networks will follow in MSNBC footsteps. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"How about bitching about congress's failure to actually DECLARE war? I'd think the largest expenditure in US military history might at LEAST deserve that."
Declaring war on Iraq means declaring war on the Middle East. You can't declare war against the insurgents anyway, because (1) the U.S. military and its allies are not Iraq and cannot declare war on its behalf and (2) declaration against the insurgents would become a de facto declaration against Islam. You and I know this would not be the case. But how we understand it is not how it would be interpreted. How we understand is not how the insurgents would *allow* it to be interpreted.
If we declared war somehow, the floodgates would open all across that nation. And we would be officially responsible for all the collatoral damage, i.e., dead Iraqi civilians and destroyed homes and business.
No thanks. - spikygoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Middle East has been in a state of Civil war for ages. Bush & Co like to sugarcoat things.
It's like calling a janitor a Custodial Engineer.
Renaming things doesn't change reality. - SimonGray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Neither of the factions are in government. There's a difference between Shiiti/Sunni and Shiiti/Sunni insurgent.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Asskey, you can imagine the conflict FOX News had..."
Don't Fox news still show images of Iraqi children throwing flowers at the troops feet wherever they walk? - secretivecoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bush | Reality
------------------------------------
Enemy Combatants | POW's
Quarantine | Blockade
Major Screwup | Civil War - ajpeters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not sure if it is a civil war, but the administration also did not want to use the word insurgency for months after the insurgency started.
- AdmiralPants, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Dugg for the Aliens references.
- ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Check out http://www.johntitor.com , which has more information about John Titor than anyone could care to know. Very fun read, though.
His theory of "worldlines" involved the idea that, as you travel through time, you're traveling through a series of layers, and in effect can never return to the exact same worldline of which you left. You can return to something very, very similar, but not the same. So there was always a fallback on his predictions that it may not occur if something significant happens differently in our worldline, but the chances that his predictions are true are fairly high (his words not mine). - habfan29, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some of the Canadian press has already begun calling the 'war' in Iraq a civil war. Glad some of you guys might catch up.
- 2tonshoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great!!!
I was getting tired of reenacting the US Civil War. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Titor's main prediction/future theory is that in 2008 the majority of the people will be able to see a plainly obvious event or series of events that would send the US into a downward spiral of it's own civil war starting in 2011 and ending in Russia nuking the "main" US cities in 2015.
His "facts" are supposedly variable by a slight bit of time but that on any given timeline 2008 would be the latest year at which these events would happen. He said basically things may have a 1 year leeway time plus or minus but things in "our" timeline are generally on course.
I had to google it...sounds pretty odd to me. - ProfessorRiffs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Get it? Turkey? Gobble? Oh, you hiscity........
- Matrix_Prime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Ajajadude Based on US law....but the US Government keeps breaking that anyways, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unlike the US Civil War the elected Iraqi government is trying not to take sides. And this war is being inflamed by third parties (Syrians, Iranians and AlQaeda) that seem to be more interested in hurting the US than helping the Iraqis.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@nfulton
So the 'solution' is to hire murder squads to kill civilians en' mass?
Class act...
I think the real flaw in all of this is in trying to recreate a country in your own image. Who says the rest of the world wants to live by American standards? - ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ ilyag
I've used the word "fun" a couple times through this thread, and that's all it is. It's actually a really entertaining read. It's all *****, but it's entertaining.
I can't say I was one of the 'freaks' who made a website and turned it into a big deal, I just read through it all after it was over. However, I can definitely see why they took the time to do it. The guy, time traveler or not, knew his *****. He backed everything he said up with some really solid science, and he was a very good writer. It's just like any other viral media that gets popular.
To summarize: chill the ***** out and enjoy it. - CoryTrevor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow. It looks like the press is finally getting it's balls back.
- hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1War by proxy is more like it, with superpowers backing all sides.
Kurdistan, being squeezed out so Turkey can gobble it up, supported by the EU.
Arabs backing Sunnis, supported by the US.
Iranians backing Shias, supported by the Russians.
It's just a land grab... Ok, ok, an oil, water, and land grab.
We all know it's coming. Except of course the current government coalition.
Calling it civil war is pretty shallow considering the global power blocks involved. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Usama bin Laden hates us because the US got involved in the Russia/Afghanistan thing. We trained them and then when Russia backed off we left immediately. I think some more haters are gonna come up if we leave immediately--even more haters than if we stayed.
- SirBarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ditto.
- jshrimp3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Since when is a news company deciding to use a certain term newsworthy by itself?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Almost as smart as those who get their news from fox news, the most trustworthy news corporation in the world!!
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This 'government' is not able to provide basic service or offer protection for it's people. It's a government that is not willing to attempt to disarm the militias that are the source of so much of the violence over there. This Iraqi government is all but defunct and once US forces leave, be it now or 2 years from now, it will be. The different warring factions in Iraq are acting with this knowledge right now.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 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