What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
138 Comments
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -9/+55Lets save big money and remove our troops from Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and let the middle east do what ever it wills. They don't need our help
. - ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -4/+44Iran has the same problem we do, can't control the bat-***** crazy politicians! Really unfortunate situation because many Iranians are nice people, educated, hard working and just want the same things we do. Practically everyone in that country lost family in the Iran-Iraq war and the last thing they want is to be dragged into another one. Some of the crazies in their government think the only way to prevent an American invasion is if they have the bomb, but given our governments love of invading countries and overthrowing governments you can hardly argue against that logic. Not that I want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon though...very stupid situation we are in now with no good options. The only way out is if we carefully work ourselves out of the standoff and allow the real democratic movement in Iran to take hold and throw the ayatollahs out. Putting pressure on them only makes them more powerful, the same way Bush was only popular right after 9/11 when America truly felt threatened.
- vroom101, on 10/10/2007, -3/+40Here's the full article on one page: http://www.slate.com/id/2173107/pagenum/all/
From the article: "There is a palpable sense among many Iranians that the United States might start dropping bombs on them at any moment. After all, Iran is literally surrounded by American troops: The U.S. maintains military bases in Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. A fleet of heavily armed American warships is conducting military exercises in the Persian Gulf. The CIA just received a presidential directive to launch black-ops meant to destabilize the Iranian government." - fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28I have to ask the same questions again and again as I did during the run up to the Iraq war: Why MUST we attack Iran? Why now? I have to repeat these questions over and over again because the answers from the White House simply do not make sense given the facts on the ground.
FTA: The majority of suicide bombers are Saudis, as are about 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. And nearly half of the foreign prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.
FTA: The country without nuclear weapons (Iraq) was attacked and occupied by U.S. forces. The country with nuclear weapons (North Korea) is being plied with hundreds of millions of dollars to give them up.
FTA: Washington's policy of "helping" the cause of democracy in Iran "has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West." It's not so much the fact that not a penny of the $75 million for "democracy" has been accepted by any organization inside Iran. It is that Bush's comments only exacerbate the paranoia of the Iranian government, resulting in further suppression of dissent, greater international isolation, and less opportunity for Iranians like Kamran to achieve their "full economic potential."
Now the argument that some seem to espouse here – Kill all the sandniggers! – is at least consistent with the facts on the ground that some Americans are simply cave men racists. And sadly, perhaps that is the real answer to these questions I have to keep asking. But if that is the answer, then it leads to my next question: Why doesn’t Bush have the balls to just come out say it? - spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Care to qualify this statement? From what I've seen, most or all Middle Eastern objections to America involve military occupation or otherwise assault on their way of life. In summary, they think America has waged war on Islam - their religion and their land. Wouldn't it be a show of good faith to bring those troops home and defend the homeland instead of this perpetual offence?
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19That my friend is the wisest thing I've heard in a long time. Add removing our money from Israel to that list and you have a clear picture of my position.
- GGreen420, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12unless you consider being the worlds largest democracy an accomplishment, then your right , India is worthless. And histories greatest non-violent leader and largest display of civil disobedience... again useless. Taj Mahal and other great architecture, meh. Founding Hinduism, who cares. And as for Iran? Who ever heard of the Persian Empire? So what if they were the worlds first great superpower... and unless you consider things like algebra and alcohol important, the persians were pretty negligible.
GO AMERCA! - cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14This map pretty much sums up the Iranian view of America and why they might want nuclear weapons:
http://www.arte.tv/i18n/Import/MOK/articles/20335/imagesmap/im__2033503/504272,property=imageData.jpg
FYI this map is of summer 2003. - Egoist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12"The CIA *just* received" -- When was this article written, the 70's?
- cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16And what has the US given to civilization? XXXL pants and plastic boobs?
- fancypantscz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Why is it our concern as Americans that people in Iran are living under Sharia law?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11You can't even see America from Iran...
- buggles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I thought this quote was extremely interesting:
"He doesn't vote in Iranian elections anymore. He barely reads the newspapers. He's stopped watching CNN International and the BBC. He has more immediate concerns, like how to pay his mortgage, how to afford skyrocketing gas prices, what to do about the impoverished Iraqis flooding into the country, and, most of all, how to use his immense computer expertise to make a decent living. The only time he pays any attention to the news is when the Iranian press announces yet another impending threat from America."
It is striking how closely this matches my own sentiment, as an American. I wonder if he has some contacts on those handbags.... - satx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13Jesus Christ I hate neocons.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Not so off since in 2002 Osama Bin Laden wrote a long letter that it would all be over if the US and its citizens converted to themselves to Muslims.
- DarthTater, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6To think that America is on all those places just to help is, to say the least, naive
- Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Actually, I think the neocons and the right-wing Christian fundamentalists would be more comfortable under Sharia law.
- Itazura, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It is an almost ironic take on the previous communism scare America once had, only now it is America forcing "democracy" onto one country at a time. Someone in government should try reading a history book, maybe then we wouldn't repeat the same mistakes.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6At what point do you drop the whole uber-defensiveness thing and acknowledge that certain macho posturing, however well it plays for domestic audiences and re-election funds, actually hurts America as a country on the international stage?
- digsig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That's one of the main reasons the UN condemned the us invasion of Iraq. You can't just go about launching "pre-emptive" strikes. You can't just meddle in other countries internal affairs. You can't disallow certain countries from arming themselves for defense.
All this is international law 101.
But what goes around comes around. - spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Do you deny that military forces surround Iran right now? Coincidence? Are they just having a big game of ring around the rosie with warships and cruise missiles?
- anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The US military has stock piles and stock piles of weapons of mass destruction. What would happen if the world's countries, after watching disturbing U.S. aggression over and over again around the world, adopted US military thinking and launched a preemptive strike on the U.S for their threatening possession of weapons of mass destruction? There is no way you can defend against snukes. The US would be reduced to a rubble like Iraq looks today. The US military's last 40 years of little empire building follies are putting everyone at home in the US at risk that warfare will backfire right onto their doorstep. They need to be shut down.
- xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5But even if it is deemed that things need to take place in Iran, this president is not the one to do it. He already has a lot of troops out in action. If the current militaristic tasks can't be completed as expected, why start more?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The alienation of the Moderates was by design.
An anti-Western extremist could not have been elected without Bush's help scaring the populace. By having an extremist paper tiger -- Bush can then push through more liberty-destroying policies.
See how it works?
Pakistan needs the threat from India to keep people from realizing that their government bites.
Saudi Arabia needs a threat, or at least a civil war to send all their extremists, so that they don't start thinking about that non-theocratic ruling class.
The Bush family has always promoted totalitarian extremists over Democracies. It's good for business. - blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4As you stated _extremists_ think that way. The majority of the people would just like to be left alone in their countries, without foreign troops walking in their streets or flying over their head or supporting their corrupt regimes.
I, for one, am convinced that democracy would have flourished in the middle east had we not constantly supported dictators and kings in the region. - buggles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4For one, that happened in England, not America. Secondly, I would speculate that would be the "UK's view of ISLAM". Iran is not Islam. As a matter of fact, most of the Iranians that I know are either agnostic or Christian.
As an American, my view of Iran is yet another country that is oppressed and ravaged by Islamic militants. My impression is that there are a great deal of Muslims in Iran, but also a lot of wonderful and friendly people. As one of the oldest nations and cultures on the planet, I would love to visit there as a tourist.. but fear the Muslims would want to hack my head off. - smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7You know what I've never understood, what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they cannot have nuclear weapons? Its pretty arrogant to think that.
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7what do you have against plastic boobs?!?!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12While I appreciate the logic behind Ebadi's argument, I nonetheless believe that it's the role of the US president to prepare for war with its enemies even if everyone hopes it won't be deemed necessary. I also think it's hypocritical to criticize US foreign policy while failing to criticize with equal force the faults of the Iranian regime.
But really that just an example of Slate's slant. We are supposed to believe that Iranians don't like their government, but Bush's public declarations are forcing them to be ambivalent. That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that Iran is not a free country. It should be plainly stated that there is no intellectual parity between Iranian critics of American policy and American critics of American policy. - sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What do I need to get a clue about? They want us gone, they say it over and over. And I couldn't agree more, I want us out, we're not doing them any good. We should take all our toys (weapons, drilling rigs, trucks, computers, DVD players, etc) and go home. And that includes Saudi Arabia and Israel, our so-called friends. As for taking responsibility for our actions, well, we seem to failing miserably at it right now, what makes you think it'll get any better?
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis, too (19/21, I believe). Why the ***** do we keep going everywhere BUT where we need to go?
- dragon76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Um, after we ***** up Iraq the FIRST time, we just left. So you mean, we shouldn't just leave AGAIN.
- LomaAsu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Well in Iran US is a big satan, and I can't blame them. They were about to be democratic in 50's, but thanks to US the legally elected government was overthrown for nationalizing the oil markets. As us is budgeting money for "democracy", at the same time FBI is calling that terrorism, if some other government would give money for "non-capitalizing" politics in US... Funny!!!
Document on CIA in Iran.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cgpyuBya8Kg - swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3our actions are causing more problems than solving. Leaving Iraq will NOT cause civil war, they are already IN civil war.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How erudite zadaka! What wisdom!
Perhaps you might be willing to share the deep thought about middle eastern political reality that brings you to the conclusion that someone who suggests nonintervention needs to "get a clue".
So once we get that clue, what will our course of action be? Invade Iran? Start WWIII? - luseton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 According to a report released by the New York Times, of the 60 to 80 fighters who enter Iraq each month to join al Qaida in Mesopotamia, half are from Saudi Arabia. The majority of suicide bombers are Saudis, as are about 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. And nearly half of the foreign prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Yet, far from threatening to confront Saudi Arabia's murderous activities, Bush has just offered to supply billions of dollars in advanced weaponry to that country. Why?
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Leave SA too. They are one of the biggest problems over there.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If OIL goes to$100 a barrel, we WILL find a way to wean ourselves off it. Then we can tell the middle east where to stick it sideways.
- luseton, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5DaveV,
It is because morons like you, the country is in such a sad state with 4,000 troop dead. Get some senses first. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"American Taliban".
- CaymanCarpediem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Agreed, that is a problem. Though I do question if actions which we know creates more extremists is the best answer.
- blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Slightly more bases here:
http://jack.link-u.com/wp-content/usbases.jpeg
Full version (whole world, big image):
http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg
I have no idea why they're freaking out. It's not like the world's most powerful army is creating bases all around their country.
BTW, you should have a look at the full world map to realize how particularly dense the military force is in the region. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, the crazy totalitarian government NEEDS a threat like George Bush in order to make life suck for their people -- and likewise for the US.
If we weren't busy filling out forms and working two jobs, we might get out and start pushing for healthcare for the millions of kids who don't have it. Keep your populace scared and busy, and you can get away with anything. - bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2countries sign the non-proliferation treaty on their own.
no on forced them. - thewatchman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3it's ironic how the world's oldest cultures (Egyptian, Arab, Persian) are all the least civilized. Islam is the culprit.
- Schpariel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3> What right does Iran have to fund terrorism against sovereign nations like the US and Israel?
There is no proof. It's just the same BS your government spouted before invading Iraq
Oh, and you may want to look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States - nutzngum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3this may not be completely on-topic, but to this day I just don't understand where the US gets the impression it's their *right* to walk into a foreign country and depose the current leaders. Canada is 1/10 the population of the US...what happens if someone up here does something to piss off the US Govt...I mean, we DO have the Alberta oil which might need "liberating"...
- luseton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Can we send you to be on the front line when or after we nuke Iran?
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2DaveV: They're doing the same media PR dance they did before they chose to invade Iraq.
And in case you didn't notice, we did attack Iraq. - blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They have that right simply because no one can actually stop them from doing it. On the other hand they only attack countries which do not open to "free market". Free market is a very efficient way to colonize weaker countries while more easily accepted than say, war.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
