digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing'

thinkprogress.org — "I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we ’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • motogoat, on 05/06/2008, -14/+255Shocker! War mongers howling at the moon over another potential war. Who'duv thunkit?
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -4/+28Crazy talk man...pure crazy talk!
      • orangefly, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Manager: That's Crazy Talk.
        Bart: No, it's true.
        Manager: No, I know, that's my brother, Crazy Talk. We're
        all a little worried about him.
        • OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5He sell sFireworks on the reservation
      • davidg11, on 05/06/2008, -17/+2What exactly is the problem of conducting surgical strikes in Iran?
        We did it in Libya and they're making peace with us. Anyone remember Qadafi's "LINE OF DEATH"?
        I don't have a problem with surgical strikes as long as that's all that it is AND (and a big AND) the intelligence is rock solid. The only good thing about the Iraq war is that the American people are now going to demand specific PROOF before going along with a surgical strike. (Remember the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan which Bill Clinton demolished? WHOOPS!)
        • relic180, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6Well I got only two things to say to that.
          It will not ONLY be a surgical strike, it will merely begin with one. And that "rock solid intelligence" you're hoping only shows that attacking Iran (and surgical strike or not, that's what this is) is a stupid, stupid idea... for so many reasons I don't even know where to begin.
    • plimpton777, on 05/06/2008, -6/+51I can haz moar war plez?
    • CanIGetAWitness, on 05/06/2008, -10/+41and on Fox, couldn't of seen that coming.
      • takamalak, on 05/06/2008, -10/+22"couldn't of seen that coming."

        Couldn't *of* seen that coming? Really man? OF?
        • evil-doer, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13couldn't've
          I love triple word contractions
        • CanIGetAWitness, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Yes. Really. Do I "have" to give a damn in a digg comment? I was on my 12th hour of working, sor-*****-ry ;^)
          • CanIGetAWitness, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2"of work", so you don't cream your jeans with another comment correction.
        • CryRightardCry, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Ah, great.
          A Fox apologist will now try to change the subject.
    • bclinton, on 05/06/2008, -55/+8If we are classified as war mongers.....what do you classify Iran as? A peace seeking nation being picked on?

      You fcking moron.......
      • jimfeet, on 05/06/2008, -6/+48Let's see if we can do this without undue emotion and nationalism. I know! Compare the wars the US started in the past two decades vs. the number the Iranians have started.

        OK, now that we've done that, of the two, which qualifies as the warmonger?
        • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -20/+7The entire Arab Israeli conflict is being constantly fueled by the Iranians. They sponsor terrorist groups in Lebanon(hezbullah), the Hamas, and arm the syrians with weapons intended for use against the Israeli population. Arab nations such as Egypt and Jordan have long lasting peace treaties with Israel. Many other arab nations are growingly willing to have dimplomatic relations with Israel. The only reason Israel hasn't reached a peace agreement with the rest of their neighbors is Iran forbidding it, and arming and training terrorists in Israel neighboring countries, so they can pull out terrorist attacks and deny any chance of achieving peace in the middle east.

          As we speak, The Iranians are secretly developing nuclear weapons(which they will arm terrorist groups with), and sponsoring terrorist militias in Iraq, which bring out attacks on Ally forces as well as the Iraqi population.
          Iran has already started the war, they just haven't declared it. They do it secretly, acting innocent, while in fact they are responsible of thousands if not millions of deaths each year.
          • Terr01, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11" Arab nations such as Egypt and Jordan have long lasting peace treaties with Israel."

            Well, we also pay them lots of money to keep it that way :P

            And did you see these nuclear weapons yourself?
          • OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2Could not agree with you more dkapuchino. The fact is Iran needs to be taught a lesson. Lest we forget that the now president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/ahmadinejad79 ... ) is in fact one of the people responsible for the assault on the United States embassy and the taking of 55 hostages - which lasted for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981.

            Further, it has been proven over and over again that Iran is Promoting and supporting (financially, and Militarily) Islamic terrorist world wide - all in the effort to destroy the Nation of Israel, the United States and anyone that gets in the way of Allah and Islam (that includes Women and Children) - with Training, supplying munitions, supplying troops and now enrichment of uranium for military purposes. One does not have to see these nuclear weapon's to know what the Iranians are pursuing - their past and present action are proof enough.

            I, for one, support not only a strike on Iran but the elimination of the entire country from the map. It is sad because I have relatives from Iran and even they are saying: "Now is a Time for a Cleansing." I suggest that all we need to do is drop a few cobalt bombs on Iraq and Iran and we will give the entire world a good amount of time to figure out what they will do with them once we can gain entrance back into that area of the globe. And like it or not - I can see Bush attacking Iran just prior to the November elections.

            Either way - a real message must be sent. The Blue hats are corrupt and are like "***** on a bull" - Useless!
          • relic180, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Blah blah blah.. here's a novel idea, Quit starting ***** wars, American government!!
            And we're going to need to see proof of your nuclear weapon theory along with all the other hypothetical b.s assumptions you just made.
          • CryRightardCry, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3So are you going to man up and elist for that fight?
            Or are you one of the rightard warmongers who prefers to sit their fat ass on the couch while calling for others to go die for the PNAC agenda?
          • mystcnurse, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Well, they say so on FOX, geez! What more do you want. O'reily is GOD after all.
        • bclinton, on 05/06/2008, -15/+2Hey stupid sht - the US has not "started" any war. We have been involved in many but never have we been the spark that lit the fire. So Iraq attacks Kuwait and we are supposed to sit by and watch as they do that then most likely attack Saudi Arabia etc....Then Iraq continualy rebuffs the UN and attempts to hide weapons after they agreed to the UN that they would not so we attack them. Who is the spark? Stupid asses like you make me want to puke. Constantly complaining and whining about policies you know nothing about while brave men and women are over there sacrificing so you can do that.

          You snotty nosed nosed stupid sack of sht.
          • BossKey, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14We've never "been the spark that lit the fire?"
            There was no fire in Iraq until we shock-and-awed Baghdad with cruise missiles.

            Talk about those brave men and women...I read an account of a US Army commando yesterday. He said due to our commitments in Iraq the Special Forces are undermanned for their other missions around the world. Equipment is being worn out. Army families are strained. Tours are too long.

            A terrorist would have been proud to have worn down America's military. That terrorist's dream has been realized, and their agent was George W. Bush and his administration. Bush has degraded our nation's military readiness with the traitorous, anti-American war he started in Iraq that is killing our own nation.

            If you truly supported the American military and sought to keep it strong throughout the world, you would have let them finish the job in Afghanistan and opposed this distracting, resource-draining, terrorist-serving war in Iraq.
          • bclinton, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2Ah....so Saddam did nothing to provoke anything? You are are truley a brilliant person. He was minding his own business and allowing the inspectors unteathered access to inspect for weopons? I think the problem is that you were were not born until about 2000 so you may not be aware of what happened before then.
          • Dumbledorito, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9@bclinton: You mean saber-rattling and being a blowhard? You mean trying to somehow appease the US, which was determined to invade before 9/11, yet not let every other militant government in the area know that Iraq couldn't defend itself against a squadron of balsa-wood gliders armed with botttle rockets?

            Yeah, Saddam was a bad, bad man. He was also SO not worth the price we've paid for invading, along with all of the fallout that has resulted.

            Is that clear, or do I have to use your language of "fck," "sht," and so forth? Grow up.
          • bclinton, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2So we go back in time and do nothing. Is that your plan? 9/11 changed the rules of the game. The US would not sit idoly by anymore and react when something happened. If a nation appeared that maybe they would be a threat in the future then we take action. Too bad you didnt lose anyone in the attacks of 9/11 - maybe you would have a different perspective. I was fortunate to not have lost anyone but i feel for the ones that did. I will hate to see what happens if Obama or Clinton make it to the whitehouse. I can only imagine what would have happened if Gore made it in.
          • jimfeet, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6@bclinton: Interesting. I intentionally didn't pick sides in my comment but instead left it to the reader to figure out for themselves on their own terms. I can only assume you did the math and in spite of your assertions the US didn't start any wars apparently you didn't like the answer you came up with.

            If the US didn't start more wars than Iran, then I guess that would make Iran the warmonger. OK, so what is it that inspired you to vent your spleen in an expletive laden mindless diatribe?
          • bclinton, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2@jimfeet
            Some big words there dude. It would be quicker to just say "You spit out a bunch of BS" more people would understand you.
          • BossKey, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2"Ah....so Saddam did nothing to provoke anything? You are are truley a brilliant person. He was minding his own business and allowing the inspectors unteathered access to inspect for weopons?"

            Nice one bclinton. Of course, the weapons. On that day when we finally did find all those weapons of mass destruction, our rationale for Iraq was finally justi........oh wait....
      • digitalhair, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8what do you classify Russia as? ...a peaceseeking nation that's being picked on? yeah, let's strike Russia and start ww3... your analogy doesn't justify Bolton's warmongering, "***** moron". people like this always come out of the woods when there's a call for war.
      • Vet4Peace, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Let's set our own standards a little higher than the theocratic dictatorships of the world, okay?
    • devophl, on 05/06/2008, -2/+36I suspect the neo-cons are really worried that their grand strategy to control vital parts of the Middle East will be derailed if the next president is a Democrat. Why not get the war with Iran going now so the next president has to deal with Iran.
      • j0ew00ds, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12you think the Democratic candidates aren't neocons? check their voting record.
        • obliviousfool, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Hillary certainly is. Obama is probably sitting on the fence. If you wanted an opposition Democrat, y'all should have sent more cash to Kucinich!
    • MxM111, on 05/06/2008, -14/+8Obama followers! Please do not vote for McCain even if Hillary wins. Chose the lesser evil!
      • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+21Vote third party in that scenario.
        • Pstmann, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5Unfortunately in American national politics, voting for a third party is the same as not voting. This is not a parliamentary system. It is a two party, winner takes all and everyone else loses system. There is no room for "third" wheels.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9There will be if all the people who think it can't happen actually wake up and vote for it. Voting for Hillary or McCain would sanction more of the same.
          • Terr01, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4A) Yes, and if all the stray gold atoms in the state were to happen to be blown around into a pile on my desk I'd be rich, but I'm not holding my breath and staring at the table thinking it's really going to happen.

            Anyone whining "But if we all just voted for Nader..." (or whomever) is naive. We won't get a viable third-party for the Presidency (or even Congress, exceptions like Bernie Sanders notwithstanding) until we reform our voting system. It's basic math (and game theory.)

            B) Not voting for them wouldn't weaken them or their policies. Even now most American's don't vote, how is changing that by a few more percentage points really going to shame anybody? It might make you feel better personally, but it's a just a gesture.
      • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -4/+13But Hillary would "obliterate" Iran if there was an attack on Israel. I think I'm writing in Obama if Hillary gets the nom.
        • MxM111, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4She said that she would obliterate Iran IF Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. Since the later will not happen, I do not see how the former would happen either.
          With McCain we will have a real possibility of bombing Iran. So chose your lesser evil, or loose you voice.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4Iran isn't going to attack with nukes, it's gonna arm terrorist organizations with nukes. They've been funding them for years, supplying them with missiles, weapons and training. It's just a matter of time till they start leaking nuclear technology to extremists as well.
          • LadyKofNYC, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Proof?
          • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8All the evidence shows that Iran abandoned their nuclear program due to lack of funds years ago. Anything else you've heard is just fearmongering. What's the point of even having intelligence if all the people in power want to ignore it whenever it says something they don't like?
          • caferrell, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6@dkapuchino You watch WAY too much TV. Try getting some of your news in print that has three and four syllable words.
      • MxM111, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Then you will lose your voices, and McCain wins. Will it make you happy?
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13Under that system you are all losers regardless on who gets in. Because clearly, the voters are the extraneous part in American politics.

          That said - what are you guys waiting for?
      • iainc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Er. No, thanks. She's just as bad. Best not to vote in that case.
      • Chompy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well, duh.
      • Vet4Peace, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I'll do a write-in vote for Ron Paul if that nightmare scenario comes to pass. Hillary is NOT the lesser evil.
      • CryRightardCry, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2WTF?
        Do you REALLY think Obama supporters would vote GOP?
        Are you ***** retarded?
        Obama voters going for McCain is a fantasy that the GOP is putting out there.
    • Andysan, on 05/06/2008, -25/+6The best thing to do is wait until Iran has nukes, attacks Israel, and shuts down the Middle East oil supply. We must never, ever, use common sense and eliminate a threat BEFORE it becomes active. Try to think through the fog and picture millions of dead people and total chaos as in WW II -- all because nobody had the courage to eliminate Hitler before it was too late. But then again, no courage, no sense, no honor, no honesty,and no integrity are the badges of honor America stupidly wears today.
      • SpencerMc, on 05/06/2008, -3/+21Ever heard of sovereignty? It may be largely ignored today, but it's kind of an important concept.

        Oh, and Godwin's Law.
        • Chompy, on 05/06/2008, -10/+1Ever heard of crazy people? I'd rather the fate of the world wasn't put in their hands, thanks. I don't think we should invade Iran but a few clandestine assasinations wouldn't necessarily bother me.
          • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Been there, done that.
            Phase 1: Remove current government.
            Phase 2: Put in US friendly government and claim country has been "liberated".
            Phase 3: Either elections are opened and an "extremist" wins or our puppet government is overthrown.
            Phase 4: Consider performing Phase 1 again.

            If we want to avoid wars in other countries we can't afford we have to work on our global image and be able to work with countries we don't like instead of just restructuring them temporarily.
          • RDinSB, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Yea Chompy - by your reasoning some in the world should consider surgical strikes right here in the USA - we are currently led by a CRAZY MAN!!! He hears Jesus (Or God, I am unclear on that point) and Jesus told Dubya to attack Iraq. I am not making this up - he has told people that God speaks to him, and that he hears him.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2Dugg down due to a realization of the truth and a lucid understanding of what the future beholds.
        So what if they nuke Israel, shut down the middle east oil supply and give away nuclear technology to terrorist organizations? who cares?
        • jebudas, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9@dkapuchino
          All of your points are based on fear, not reality.
      • Kohaxx, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12Buried for having the delusion that killing en mass random women and children in Iran to take out the terrorist cells makes it ok.
        "The end totally justifies the means right? Who cares if we kill tens of thousands of innocents if we get the bad guys and protect Israel and our oil! It's just a shame we weren't able to kill everyone in Germany to prevent the holocaust."
    • jholdn, on 05/06/2008, -8/+0"If a single US soldier is dead because of a single" TOW or Hawk missle "supplied by Iran" supplied to Iran by the US "what are we waiting for?"
    • dn11, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6with "diplomats" like this who needs psycho trigger happy military men.... Bolton can fill in for you John McCain, you aren't needed anymore.
    • trickyt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5did anyone notice the menacing way his mustache wiggles when he talks?
      • mraustin1337, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2"...why delay? If one US Soldier is dead because of an IED supplied by Iran, what are we waiting for?"

        Wow. Just wow. I listened to that like 10 times to make sure I was hearing it right.
    • 533n, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3I really think in this day and age only Americans would fall for this. I mean invading Iraq was bad enough, but now Iran too? The fact that Americans think they are going to help is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. There are war toren countries in the world where hundreds die daily, but America doesn't give a *****. I wonder why, probably because there is no oil there.
  • quesi, on 05/06/2008, -9/+181I shut off my cable. Can't deal.
    We must remember the lead in to Iraq - why are we going to let them gank us again?
    • cg4et, on 05/06/2008, -4/+71It's all happening again. The same stuff, the same drumbeat for war. I can't believe it is happening again.
      • JDenigma, on 05/06/2008, -5/+46It goes to show how stupid we human beings have become.

        The worship and deification of the State much like with religion, leads to a mindless, sycophantic population loving the whips from its master. Bunch of mindless, brainwashed drones people are.
        • caferrell, on 05/06/2008, -3/+32I think that we do not understand the real power of the media. Television mesmerizes people, the beta waves in their brains decrease significantly when people watch TV. So they don't really process information, it basically enters symbols and keywords tied to emotions direcly into their deep memory. For that reason, corporations spend billions of dollars on TV advertising every year - because it works!
          People cannot watch a lot of TV, especially without reading or listeneing to other forms of information, without being bent to believe the official line.
          If people don't turn off the tube and think for a change, nothing in this country will change, things will not get better, we will be constantly involved in war and our personal financial situations will become increasingly precarious.
          As George Carlin says "they got us by the balls!"
        • BeyondDGrave, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1we human beings? ...nothing is stopping you from changing the course of events for the future...if you want change, make it...otherwise, stop your bitching...
        • JDenigma, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2BeyondDGrave

          I would agree with your sentiment that I and everyone else for that matter should do what is in our power to change things because the world is after all what we make of it, but why do you insist on getting combative there by accusing me of bitching and doing nothing else?

          What's the matter with complaining anyway? It's part of the process in trying to get the word around so long as one doesn't do just that and waste their time on arguing on digg and researching information about crazy conspiracy theories, which accomplishes nothing. Yes, that kind of a thing is a waste of time, but I'm also exercising my free speech online just to vent. You assume things about me without knowing anything. You're just being a critic.

          I hope you yourself are an activist for liberty and getting government out of our lives and not just another Statist whining at me.
        • JDenigma, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2caferrell

          Obsessive compulsive tv viewing habits is just one part of the problem, but I wouldn't want to oversimplify things by pinning it all on that as the source of all our problems.

          It is true that the American population is hooked on their tube and fewer people are taking the time to educate themselves and be informed by reading books. I'm not a luddite who is against tv altogether. I'm not against watching tv so long as it's done responsibly and is disciplined viewing as opposed to this obsessive compulsive viewing of it in which people watch it out of habit and vegetate and zone out on the couch watching their sports, reality tv, trashy daytime tv programming, even educational programming on tv. Watching tv is something that isn't necessarily bad in itself and there's nothing wrong with entertainment, but the problem is people have placed it too high on their list of priorities and they watch too much of it when they could be doing other things. Be a well rounded person and relegate tv viewing to lower on your list of priorities and it wouldn't be so bad.

          I know how habitual tv viewing is a problem. I see it in my life with people. I see it with my family members and when people get most of their news from that they're highly subject to being influenced to the skewed, unbalanced news that the big government corporate media industrial complex, feeds to them. It becomes all they know and if they didn't hear about it on tv, then it's not news to them. The major American media news outlets on tv are in bed with government so they can't be trusted for information.

          I would say though that tv viewing by Americans today is more like a symptom of a larger problem and a reflection of our problems as opposed to being the root cause of our problems. Sure, it exacerbates the problem, but it isn't the root cause. There's a reason after all as to why people get dumbed down enough to be willing to fall into the trap of watching too much tv in the first place.

          The dumbing down of the American population could perhaps being attributed to a myriad of factors with the most "conspiratorial" of those perhaps being the origins of the American public(government) education system and the very nature of the system in its design and purposes. The problems with Americans ignorance, misinformation, and apathy is probably a result from largely

          1.) tv viewing habits of course

          2.)the dumbing down of people in the government education system which has so many problems I wouldn't even know where to begin

          3.)misinformation that is taught in revisionism of history and economics in mainstream published books that people read assuming they even read at all. Americans are just so misinformed and ignorant about history and economics and those subjects are so intertwined in politics that it affects what we get in government when those very same people go to the ballot box to vote.

          4.)people are easily manipulated and scared into sacrificing liberty every time there is a perceive crisis by the government whether that crisis is real, imaginary, or exaggerated. This has happened every time in the history of our country when there has been some crisis. The government exploits it and uses it as an excuse to rapidly grow the State more and people fall for it every time. They value their security more than liberty and their security is an illusion anyway.

          We have been long having a problem with the growth of government and the "Idiocracy" affect on the population even before tv was so widely used. It's a deeper problem that has led to the dumbing down and desensitization of people becoming barbarized by politics and wanting to use it to control their neighbors. The recent problem in our history of people watching too much tv is largely just a symptom of that much deeper problem.
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -3/+26Wait until you see others, some 7 years removed of hearing these exact same lies before, fall for them again..because....

        The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud......

        Idiots.
        • sarixe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Well it's true that the smoking gun could be in the form of a mushroom cloud... but the question is, whose will it be?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -4/+51I can, because ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was done about it the last time.

        And it seems absolutely nothing will be done about it in the future. Ron Paul and Kucinich tried, through different accountability bills, impeachment resolutions, anything and both Democrats and Republicans refuse to vote in favor of anything.

        They won't investigate just how falsified information was presented by elected heads of state to Congress, they won't investigate the VERY CLEAR conflict of interests of war mongerers that just happen to benefit from defense contracts.

        Lying to the American people, unjustified war, crimes against humanity (that's what torture is), ridiculous spending, outsourcing military operations when you have the most powerful army in the world, etc. etc. etc.

        8 years of *****, theft, lies, and high crimes and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was done about it.

        And now you're getting another fake election. Because nothing was done about those either. Remember 2000 when hundreds of thousands of people claimed they were denied the right to vote? And Gore still won the general elections by 550,000 votes and Bush became your president?

        How about when the same damn thing happened in 2004?

        How about diebold machines being hacked and the guy hired to do it testifying in court that he was asked to do it and then nothing? Not even mentionned in the news? Here he is:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQBdl-wiKQ

        Why would you be surprised?
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -4/+18If you keep doing what you're doing - you'll keep getting what you're getting.

        • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -28/+7What do you expect? Democrats have zero spine. It's in their nature. So, let me get this straight, the 2000 and 2004 elections were "stolen" by your account, but the 2006 election was ok? That's pretty typical: When you lose, Democrats complain about stolen elections, voter fraud, etc. But when you win, there's not a peep out of you.

          It's called hypocrisy, and you're swimming in it.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -3/+19I'm Canadian you halfwit.
          • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -14/+4I was speaking about Democrats in general. Please pay attention to the conversation. So you're Canadian? I give a ***** because why? We're talking about a subject, and I don't care where you are from.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -17/+3Being Canadian makes you a halfwit as well.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -4/+12"When you lose, Democrats complain about stolen elections, voter fraud, etc. But when you win, there's not a peep out of you."

            Halfwit back pedals into a hole.
          • makkaveli19, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3haha dkpuchino, i used to read your posts just to see and understand the other side. however, now i know what an idiot and a bigot you are.
      • PhildoVT, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5in case you haven't noticed, the drum has been beating for a long time now
      • objectcode, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7and people are falling for it, again
    • DreKor, on 05/06/2008, -4/+17nice use of "gank"
      • floydax, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Yes, it reminded me of Stranglethorn Vale.
        • quesi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1well, i googled it, and apparently its some kind of wow thing - other than that, i dont get the reference
    • cvelusc, on 05/06/2008, -2/+30Attacking Iran is the last thing we need to be doing right now. I've contacted my senators and they don't seem to be interested in my opinion. I don't know what else to do.
      • yodaj007, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11Gank them?
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/06/2008, -7/+0Move to Mexico?
      • MixMastaKooz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Actually, you might have more pull with your House Representative than your Senators. Call him or her.
        • cvelusc, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Thank you for the suggestion. Today I contacted my representative and am optimistic. Take care.
    • geoff1210, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2So you turned off your cable? Then you haven't heard...
    • topgigmedia, on 05/06/2008, -6/+7Fear mongering works, and especially given that most Americans are complacent and the ave IQ is only 100 and dropping, it will continue to work.
      • aigulf, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12umm...the Intelligence Quotient scale was designed so that the average would be 100. It determines how intelligent you are compared to your age (the original formula was 100*(mental age) / (chronological age) ).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Yeah, and the average IQ in America is 98, and declining.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_ ...

          Same for SAT scores, declining:
          http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html
          • aigulf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Okay, I was thinking a comparison of American scores, year to year, which doesn't make sense with the scores being standardized...comparing American scores to global averages is different and (arguably) more relevant.

            On the SAT, comparing scores over more than about a 5 year period is problematic because of the standardization method used each year, variability in what caliber of students choose to take the test (this is affected by requirements at colleges, introduction of the ACT, etc), and changes in the test itself. In 1994, the verbal section was revamped heavily, the test was redone in 2006 with a new section and different scoring system, etc...

            All else being equal, you could attribute the drop in SAT scores simply to more students taking the test, with lower-performing high schools pushing the test on their students in more recent years.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The test was made easier because of the decline of results.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2yeah, if you are white and living in the 20's.
      • topgigmedia, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1point being that it is not going up and comparatively lower than other nations.
    • JosephStalin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2The band Anti-Flag says it very well in their song "Anatomy of Your Enemy". This song was released in 2002.

      http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/antiflag/anatomyofy ...

    • GlassAgate, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2If we do attack, and it ends up to
      be another Iraq, I'm hopping over
      to Canada.
      • HumanCattle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I swear, just ONE more false flag attack and illegal invasion, followed by years of looting our economy and destroying our civil liberties, and I'm moving to Canada.
    • BeyondDGrave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You were ganked to begin with? how sad...
    • sporg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Iran is not a pushover like Iraq and attacking them would be a disaster.
  • Dewhead, on 05/06/2008, -128/+23Do you think it okay for Iran to have a nuclear bomb and hold the world hostage with threats of using it?
    • Apokalyps2547, on 05/06/2008, -8/+141Nope. Fortunately for us:
      Iran does not have the bomb.
      Iran is holding nobody hostage.
      Iran isn't threatening squat.
      Iran has the GDP of Connecticut and the defense budget of Sweden (that pillar of militarism!) We'll be okay.
      • Dewhead, on 05/06/2008, -67/+12Iran does not have the bomb-yet. Good grief, they have stated many times that they intend to wipe Israel of the face of the earth. You must live under a rock if you think Iran hasn't threatened anyone.
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -7/+45Really - get out more. Doesn't it strike you as being slightly odd that the powers that be, the ones that lied to you about Iraq, and the slam dunk that that case was - are telling you pretty much the exact same thing about Iran now as they did with Iraq then?

          ALso, isn't it also slightly concerning that they wrote that this is what they would do in their PNAC?

        • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -7/+67"Iran does not have the bomb-yet."

          And they won't have the bomb because according to US intelligence the Ayatollahs ordered all military nuclear activity stopped, in 2003, and they have the final word in all matters.


          "Good grief, they have stated many times that they intend to wipe Israel of the face of the earth."

          Never has any Iranian leader said such a thing. Show me the text (in Farsi) that says so. The only thing close, that I've seen, is the Iranian leader saying he predicts the regime occupying Jerusalem to go the way of the USSR and the Shah. Not quite genocidal holocaust now is it?


          "You must live under a rock if you think Iran hasn't threatened anyone."

          Why shouldn't Iran threaten others? They've been subjected to war and oppression by the West for over 50 years. I mean, if the US has the right to invade Iraq in the name of security, then Iran has the right to respond similarly doesn't it? Or do you believe that only the US has the right to destroy another nation in the name of 'security'?
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -12/+4Would that be the same US Intelligence that lied to us about Iraq?
            If they say Iran isn't making nukes, I sure as hell am not going to believe them.
            Iraq not developing nukes Is a big lie by the bush administration.

            Also, since I find it very hard to understand, why is it that the Iranians are funding terrorists organisations inside lebanon? When has Lebanon / Lebanon's neighbors ever "oppressed" Iran?
          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7"Would that be the same US Intelligence that lied to us about Iraq?"

            Okay, then believe the IAEA. They say Iran doesn't have a militarized nuclear program and they said the same about Iraq. It's just that this time US intelligence agrees with them.


            "Also, since I find it very hard to understand, why is it that the Iranians are funding terrorists organisations inside lebanon? When has Lebanon / Lebanon's neighbors ever "oppressed" Iran?"

            Oppression is the qualification for funding groups like Hezbollah? Can we question why the US funds terrorist groups inside Iran (or any other nation for that matter)? I mean, when has Iran ever oppressed the United States? Keep in mind that the US has been funding insurgencies in Iran far longer than Iran has been funding Hezbollah.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -9/+0Sorry, I'm afraid I find the IAEA quite irrelevant. What good have they done in stopping countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan from getting nukes? But if US intell tells us they're aren't developing nukes, this has to be some sort of lie by the bush government.

            We definitly can question the US funding terrorist groups. I'd be very angry to find out the US is funding any sort of group that deliberately kills civilians. But how is this about the US? Lebanon isn't the US. Why are Lebanese terrorist groups being funded by Iran? What have the Lebanese ever done to hurt Iran?
          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6"Sorry, I'm afraid I find the IAEA quite irrelevant."

            The IAEA is only permitted to inspect countries that are signatories of the NPT. Blame the UN or the US/USSR for not being more helpful, but at least the IAEA performs inspections and investigations.


            "I'd be very angry to find out the US is funding any sort of group that deliberately kills civilians. But how is this about the US?"

            You _should_ be angry because they _do_. As I wrote in another thread, pick up a history book and you'll learn a lot. But how is this about the US? Well you strayed off-topic with the whole Lebanon thing so I thought I'd get in on the action.
          • stealthalbino, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Agree with your last point, mate. Iran has every right to feel a bit jittery and threaten others right now. They're flanked to the east and west in Iraq and Afghanistan by US and NATO forces, plenty of ships to the south in the gulf, and of course HQ of the Middle East right there in Qatar. I'd be nervous too if I was practically surrounded.
        • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -6/+38The "wipe Israel off the map" comment was a misinterpretation of a much different statement.
        • jbettineski, on 05/06/2008, -14/+2Agreed.

          It's the belief that Israel is an illegal occupation of Palestine.

          "Wiping off the Map" means erasing Israels name and giving Palestine a larger font.
        • jezsik, on 05/06/2008, -1/+25"Iran does not have the bomb-yet." Big deal, neither do the Crips or the Bloods and I'm a damn shade more frightened of them. Pakistan, on the other hand, already HAS the bomb AND a delivery system.
        • iainc, on 05/06/2008, -3/+14Dewhead -- you are what is wrong with America. Take your head out of your ass. Read the comments above, they are all correct.
        • markdall, on 05/06/2008, -9/+1Yes because Iran doesn't take hostages or otherwise act threatening. Oh and we were wrong about Saddam, ***** Kuwait and them being invaded and all, and ***** all those Kurds he killed, and nevermind that his country put him to death for his crimes against them.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Dugg down. Can't you see that America is EVIL??? Taking down a dictatorship responsible of atrocities, torture, deliberate use of chemical warfare against Iran, invading Kuwait and Iran, killing millions, doesn't make American any less EVIL!
          • digitalhair, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7hey dkapuchino,
            take a hike. adults are talking.
          • makkaveli19, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9dkpuchino, you know whats even worst? setting up that dictator, giving him aid and weapons. Oh and give his chemical weapons to use against iran, for free. hmm, i wonder why they don't like you very much over in iran.
        • tim04, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7"and nevermind that his country put him to death for his crimes against them"

          of course....HIS country...because obviously the US had no say in the matter.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Exactly. Saddam Hussein was a ***** angel. The US forced the Iraqis to execute him.
            Any sovereign ruler should have the right to torture his own people, have women raped in front of their children, before both are murdered, assassinate those opposing the government, Invade neighboring countries(Iran, Kuwait), and use chemical weapons on neighboring countries. This is just ***** US policy intervening with the sovereignty of peaceful nations such as Iraq, for OIL. Look at how high the prices of oil have gotten. Bush should have ***** let the Iraqis keep on killing themselves, so OIL could stay cheap.
          • tim04, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1yes, torture his own people...with the weapons that the U.S. GAVE HIM. It's really just a cycle of the U.S. ***** itself by intervening in other nation's businesses. Yes, killing citizens is bad, but an outside nation deals with it by following international law like sanctions, not invading against the wishes of almost EVERY civilized nation, resulting in the deaths of even more of those citizens that the U.S apparently was trying to "protect".

            p.s. guess who wants Iraq to invade Iran. Hint, this country also supplied Saddam with the weapons to do so.

            ...what a douche bag
        • fsweep, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Dewhead: You obviously are clueless when it comes to threat analysis. Does Iran have the means to carry out their threat? No.

          Can we move on yet?
      • init100, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4"the defense budget of Sweden (that pillar of militarism!)"

        It once was, some 400 years ago. :)
        • caferrell, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Charles the Twelth conquered most of northern Europe.
    • quesi, on 05/06/2008, -4/+33Thanks. No kidding. Talk about hook line and sinker...
    • toddcat, on 05/06/2008, -4/+49Dude, quit with the fearmongering. Most of the rest of the world is scared ***** about what the hell the US is going to do next. These neo-cons like to simultaneously paint the US as the pre-eminent superpower but yet also as such a vulnerable country that we have to be armed in order to defend ourselves from evil Eye-raqis, or Eye-ranians, or whoever the hell their villain of the moment is. Dept. of Defense more honestly would be titled Dept. of Offense.
      • quesi, on 05/06/2008, -4/+21The ones we need to fear are the real terrorists - those who try to use fear to oppress the peeps. Those that bad mouth countries that havent attacked anyone (while we attack many) and pretend to be making our "homeland" more secure through crapping on the Constitution and driving us into BK.
        • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2Exactly! Iraq has never attacked anyone (Kuwait, Iran, Israel), and Iran has never sponsored terrorist groups such as hizbollah and hamas. 9/11 was faked as well.
        • makkaveli19, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6us has never backed terrorism( iraq, taliban, ect.)
        • HumanCattle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1John Bolton is terrorising the hell outta me right now.

          Iran? Ehh, they're pretty scary I guess.... but this Bolton guy has a MUCH bigger mustache.
    • Feralvision, on 05/06/2008, -2/+31I think your paranoid delusions are getting the better of you. Time to lay off the crack pipe.
      • caferrell, on 05/06/2008, -3/+14Time to lay off the TV set. It does more damage than the glass pipe.....
        • Feralvision, on 05/06/2008, -1/+20I couldn't agree more. Whereas religion is opiate of the masses, mainstream media is the crystal meth of the masses.
    • Kizilbash, on 05/06/2008, -6/+36Is it okay for the US? UK? France? Russia? China? India? Pakistan? Israel?
      • markgl, on 05/06/2008, -17/+3no but its too late to stop them. but it ain't too late to stop more contries from having them.
        • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -11/+1Quit it. This thread is ruled by "liberalisms", and as liberalists, we all insist that any country has the right to develop weapons of mass destruction.
          • digitalhair, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9this thread is ruled by self-preserving Americans you asshole, quit whining about how you don't understand why people don't agree with you. maybe you should try doing a little research, driven by skepticism for the "official stories" you've been fed.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1Self preserving Americans don't allow terrorist nations to develop nuclear weapons.
            Self preserving Americans don't stand by and allow evil dictatorships to reign.
            Self preserving Americans should ***** do their own research, and stop buying into the Arab and Iranian propganda, only used to keep the passive and calm, as they plot to return to the days of the great muslim empires, while they watch America fall.
          • quesi, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6search YouTube: Rumsfeld Caves.... you bought that story too, didnt you? admit it
            Our government was caught propagandizing the news, your news, and you still believe the lies.
            wake up, they are third world and dont have the capabilities that we do, hence they have an excuse for mildly uncivilized international behavior - yet this administration has made the US a laughing stock with our ridiculous foreign policy. you dont care about the treasonous acts perpetrated by our own government? must not be loyal to the US of A, huh?
    • Chassit, on 05/06/2008, -7/+5You do realize that you asked to completely separate and unique questions don't you?
      • ventralnet, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Yes, that would be what the chaining "and" in his comment tells us
      • toddcat, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Judging by the goal of his rhetorical approach, I think he knows very well he is asking leading questions.
    • skilopr, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8maybe you haven't realize this yet but YOU are precisely what is wrong with the US these days. As far as terrorism goes and it's definition, u r a real terrorist. Creating fear(terror) to gain and keep control of a situation. Yet u consider your self to be a Christian conservative while most people would consider u to be an ignorant hypocrite
      • makeitloud, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Dugg for making a good point. Buried for abbreviating the words "you" and "are."
    • gypsi, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11need i remind you iraq is still a BIG CLUSTERF**K? deployments are pushed to the limits, who exactly do you propose go into iran - the girl scouts?
    • Disregard, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Oh I think there's only one country that would be 'held hostage'.
    • Diran, on 05/06/2008, -9/+3Don't expect to argue with reason or common sense on digg.
    • oldgal, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4No, that's our job. We do, however, get quite upset when some other country wants to do our job.
    • Picaroon, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Normally I agree with you guys on this kind of thing, but not today. They can't hold the world hostage when we could obliterate (to use Clinton's word) them so easily. I think they deserve time to think and act rationally as a nation toward progress away from nutjob idiots like Ahamedinejad.
    • heystoopid, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2You forgot to take your daily Valium and Prozac dose I see !

      The men in white coats will be around shortly for your next injection !
    • diggingaround, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Can someone explain to me please, than why we don't nuke North Korea? They have nukes right?
      • HumanCattle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Well, because Americans can't fill their gas tanks with kymchee.

        Yet.
        • quesi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1i cant believe someone dugg that down... that was friggin awesome
    • 533n, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I'm beginning to think it doesn't matter what any of us think. Seems like the US government will do whatever it wants anyway
      • HumanCattle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0You are starting to wake up. Welcome to reality, Neo.
  • macsen, on 05/06/2008, -27/+138Do you think it would be okay for the U.S. to have a nuclear arsenal and hold the world hostage with threats of using it? Or more to the point, with threats of using it against Iran? Iran hasn't invaded anyone, hasn't broken any laws, and has every right to nuclear power. Of course, I think that all nuke-plants should be banned, but that would have to start with the U.S. not Iran.
    • Dewhead, on 05/06/2008, -50/+15Absolutely. The fact that we have nuclear bombs and an incredible military is the reason that as many people today live in a free society. You are very misguided about who the bad guys are in this world. Thank God, you are in the minority.
      • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -4/+57And in the mid-50's the nuclear US and the nuclear UK toppled the democratically elected Prime Minster of Iran and installed a dictator in his place. So much for your theory on the US being responsible for 'free society'.

        Ignorance is no excuse, go read a history book.
        • Jexie, on 05/06/2008, -1/+26Don't forget about Chile, that Pinochet was a real peace and freedom loving kind of guy!
        • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -26/+4Don't forget their support of Hezbollah and the firing of rockets into Israel, which kill civilians (against the Geneva Conventions), and putting bombs on city buses and restaurants (also against the Geneva Conventions).

          No one seems to be paying attention to the Iranians, and keep looking at America.

          Yet, not one person can seem to explain away the nuclear contamination at Tehran university, the weapons experiments, or the documents that pertain ONLY to nuclear weapons.
          • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -13/+2Funny, I'm being dugg down, and STILL no one can explain away my points. Pretty typical.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2No use. You are being dugg down either by the many muslims that have infiltrated dig, or by the many blind sheep that are fed Idealistic liberal ideas, blind to the fact that no matter how peace loving you are, your enemies never will be. "They aren't my enemies" they respond, while those are planning their demise.
          • alpha19, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2It doesn't fit their agenda.
          • anonydigg, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9-insert US atrocity of choice
            -insert support of regime who kills and suppresses
            -US is the one that actually has nuclear weapons and the only one to have ever used them
            -read the post you are replying to: If the US would have left them alone they would probably still have a peaceful democracy

            Sure, blame Iran; but don't forget yourself. What you're saying is: kill the geek he's upsetting the nice big bully.
          • init100, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10"not one person can seem to explain away the nuclear contamination at Tehran university, the weapons experiments, or the documents that pertain ONLY to nuclear weapons."

            In 1972 (I think), Washington Post reported that Sweden had performed their (our) first nuclear test. This was of course false, but we did have an atomic bomb program until sometime in the 70's. They experimented with plutonium and detonated large amounts of conventional explosives in the almost deserted far north, to simulate nuclear detonations. Since the bomb program was canceled, we only have civilian nuclear power, but we sure have the knowledge to build several nuclear charges in a pretty short time if we would feel the need.

            When is the US going to bomb us?
          • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6"Don't forget their support of Hezbollah and the firing of rockets into Israel, which kill civilians (against the Geneva Conventions), and putting bombs on city buses and restaurants (also against the Geneva Conventions)."

            What's your point? Tthe US does the same things. Granted, they're usually Central American or Middle Eastern civilians that are being killed, but to me at least they're still people.


            "No one seems to be paying attention to the Iranians, and keep looking at America."

            You're right. No one paid attention to them when the US toppled their government. No one paid attention to them when the US installed a dictator. No one paid attention to them when the US helped Saddam invade. No one paid attention to them when they became impoverished through US sanctions. No one paid attention to them when the US helped Saddam use mustard gas on the.

            If we're going to scrutinize Iran's actions then it can't hurt to compare them to the best example of Democracy and freedom this world has ever know, can it? Hmm, I guess it can...


            "Yet, not one person can seem to explain away the nuclear contamination at Tehran university, the weapons experiments, or the documents that pertain ONLY to nuclear weapons."

            Iran had a militarized nuclear program. Had. They gave it up in 2003 when the Ayatollahs realized that Bush was a lunatic and Iran was next on the list. The IAEA has been all over the place in Iran and hasn't come up with any evidence of a militarized nuclear program. This is the same group that gave Iraq a green light (and was proven to be correct).
          • makkaveli19, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3uh, when did an iranian do suicide bombings or bus bombings?
          • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2@makkaveli19

            When they support Hezbollah, and Hezbollah puts bombs on buses, the Iranians are responsible just as much

            @kooft

            You mean the same IAEA that NO idea about the Syrian nuclear installation that the Israeli's bombed in September until AFTER it was destroyed? Yeah, you'll have to forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in them.

      • iainc, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13*****! Are you for real? You, my friend, are in the minority. Not only have you been duped, but you appear to be the kind of braindead, brainwashed peon the media has been trying to churn out all of these years.
        • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2It's funny to see how the brainwashing works both ways. Critical thinking is a good thing. Being led to believe that hating the government and that everyone around you is lying to you, is just allowing yourself to be brainwashed by someone else.
      • zetsurin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8@Dewhead,

        You IDIOT. Free? How free are the people of Iraq right now? Free is only a term you can throw around becuase you are on the side of the weapon holders.
    • Winston84, on 05/06/2008, -5/+43What do you mean, that's what you have been doing since 1945 .
      The problem in the middle-east is that only Israel has nukes, allowing them to do what the hell they please .
      For nukes to have a peace-keeping effect there needs to be " MAD " or "Mutually Assured Destruction"

      And frankly I don't give a flying ***** how many times, if any, Ahmedinejad has "threatened to whipe Israel off the map"
      this happening is about as credible a threat as Manuel Noriega invading the US .
      • pintomp3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7the threat of noriega invading the US is more credible. ahmedinejad has no military authority.
      • webcrumb, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4Possessing nuclear weapons does not make you immune to being attacked, even when the other party does not. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands despite the UK having nuclear capability.
        • webcrumb, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Thanks for digging me down! Please provide feedback to ensure we continue to provide a high quality service!
          Did you dig me down because:
          1) Argentina did not invade the Falkland Islands in 1982
          2) The UK does not have the Trident nuclear delivery system.

          Thanks for your time!
        • HoratioHellpop, on 05/06/2008, -6/+0No, you were dugg down because the libtard freshman poly-sci students that populate Digg "can't handle the truth."
        • kooft, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I think he was buried because he didn't give an example of MAD failing to prevent a conventional conflict between _two_ nuclear powers.
        • webcrumb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Actually, I was contradicting this: "The problem in the middle-east is that only Israel has nukes, allowing them to do what the hell they please."

          Other countries could still invade Israel; the likelihood of them actually using their nuclear capability is so low due to political and environmental fallout that it's barely worth having them - it's like buying an MBT for your driveway: it looks impressive but you're never going to use it to go and buy milk.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2The problem in the middle-east is that only Israel has nukes?
        Then how do you explain all neighboring Arab countries invading Israel in 1948, way before they had nukes?
        Israel has never used weapons of mass destruction, even though they have allegedly have them for years. The Muslim nations however, haven't been as kind. The Egyptians used mustard gas during their war with Yemen, the Iraqi's used chemical weapons when fighting Iran. The syrians have enough chemical and biological weapons to wipe out Israel, a few times.
        Now, Imagine you're surrounded by nations that have attacked you, deny your right to existence, are armed with chemical and biological weapons, and they have already shown they have no problem using them. It's pretty much a no-brainer that you have to find a way to protect yourself. Having a nuclear stockpile, for use only in case you're going to be destroyed yourself, pretty much assures that any neighboring nation with a semi-intelligent leader won't try to get rid of you so easily.

        As for Mutually Assured Destruction, the Arab nations already have the ability to Completely destroy the state of Israel by chemical and biological weapons. The problem with Iran, is that while Israel can be wiped out with just one nuke, Iran is a huge country, that Israel would doubtfully be able to destroy in case of a surprise attack.
        • init100, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4"Israel can be wiped out with just one nuke"

          I think that you are overestimating the power of nuclear weapons. A 20 MT nuclear charge would produce damages up to a radius of about 50 km. But Israel is about 420 km from tip to tip. You would need an enormous charge to be able to wipe out Israel in just one blow.
        • themonkman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6If any of the nations of the Arab League wanted to, they could wipe out Israel. I don't believe the majority of those nations want to see Israel wiped off the map physically. What they are wanting is a political change in Israel. The Muslim nations, by nature, are very territorial. Can you really blame them after all the centuries of bloody wars that they had to go through to secure their land? It's no wonder why they were ***** when suddenly a bunch of people (referring to Jewish settlers) moved into Palestine, prompted cultural conflicts, declared independence leading to war and then cordoned off a huge section of Palestine and the Gaza strip for their own. They did literally push millions of Palestinians out of their homes when they created these settlements.

          So now the land that used to belong to and governed by Palestinians was no longer theirs, it was essentially stolen from them. Do you know what this would feel like if it happened in an American state? Say, hypothetically, that a massive amount of Chinese immigrants in New York City took over neighborhood after neighborhood and then declared their independence from US Law and Government. Lets also say you lived in New York City and were forced out of your home because you weren't Chinese. What? You paid for that home? Oh well. Too bad. It now belongs to the new nation of Chinesreal.

          I do have sympathy for the Jews that suffered as part of WW2. The holocaust was horrific. There's also been other holocausts like the 1857 Indian Holocaust that was brought on by the British. An estimated 10 million Indians died during that 10 years of horror at the hands of the British. That's double of what the estimated maximum losses were for the Jewish Holocaust of WW2. Unfortunately what Israel did was considered a very aggressive and egregious act, based sole on biblical territory lines that they lost long ago in wars past.

          The Jewish people didn't have to go back to Jerusalem. They had a safe sanctuary here. Perhaps it wasn't a sovereign state of their own, but they'd never suffer the enslavement, persecution, and mass murder that they did in Europe and Russia during WW2 inside of our borders. Instead, they decided to go back to their biblical land, shove a bunch of people who had a legitimate right to live there out of their homes, and declare it their own. That sounds like stealing to me. Would you like it if your neighbor annexed your property? I bet not.
      • deadnewton, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2do you think the reason behind all the unrest is because of WMDs?

        the question, you idiot, is that why would anyone want to attack the US? go and read history books a little bit more...!
    • Anonchrist, on 05/06/2008, -6/+26Nuclear weapons should be banned from use, but nuclear materials and power plants should not. We should discourage war without hindering green energy and science.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 05/06/2008, -5/+22The Ironic thing about it is that the US is the only country in the world to drop a nuclear bomb TWICE.
        • caferrell, on 05/06/2008, -12/+21And it was absolutely unnecessary both times.
        • oldhick, on 05/06/2008, -9/+9@caferrell. Really, please explain.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+24They should have detonated the first bomb off the coast, maybe a military installation that would likely have already been bombed, but the Japanese would still have seen the force of the bomb. Actually bombing a civilian center with the first dropping? I cannot in good conscience say it was a righteous thing.
          • Dynamis, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9@ kemp34 -
            So are you actually of the opinion that we dropped the bombs just to create more carniage?? We dropped the first bomb on Japan and THEY DID NOT SURRENDER. They saw the full effect of the bomb and THEY STILL DIDN'T SURRENDER. We dropped a second bomb and the war was over likely saving hundreds of thousands of lives or more.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+17Well, much of my perspective depends on how many valid bombs we actually had. If we had more than 2, what is the point of dropping the FIRST ONE on a civilian population? Shouldn't it at least be tried to drop it on an industrial or military location. Show the enemy the strength of the weapon without killing tens of thousands of people. If they continue to fight, drop another one in a tougher location. Now, if we only had two bombs, maybe I can see justification, but it is hard for me to believe it is ok to nuke tens of thousands of civilians before exhibiting the power of the bomb on a less populated area. BTW I am well aware of the argument in relation to troop casualties if we had had to invade Japan. My grandfather was prepping for the invasion...
          • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7Pick up a history book Oldhick.
          • dyoungdigger, on 05/06/2008, -9/+11The fact of the matter, kemp34, is that dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as vile as it was, was necessary. At the time of WW2, the Japanese were completely fanatical and devoted to their emperor. Don't forget, that the emperor of Japan was a living god to his people. Items stamped with the imperial seal (such as rifles, battleships, exc) were not merely decorations, but were in fact symbols of ownership by the emperor. To suggest that dropping an atomic bomb off the coast would somehow shake the military leadership of Japan is naive. As Dynamis stated, the first bomb dropped had little effect on the military leadership of Japan. In fact, even when the emperor made the choice to surrender their was an attempted military coup. Had they been successful, the second atomic bomb would not have dissuaded them either. Had THAT been the case, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died. The US Government estimated at the time that the initial cost of life from invading mainland Japan would be 500,000 allied soldiers. That's just to invade... that doesn't even take into account how many lives would have been lost in an occupation. As sick as it was and IS... dropping the atomic bombs ended the war quickly and decisively. Sad but true.
          • ulmedas, on 05/06/2008, -3/+14@Dynamis- Actually, If I remember correctly, the Japaneses military didn't really believe that the US had more than one of the ultimate weapon. A second demonstration was needed to prove it. The target committee actually chose Hiroshima because the layout of the city was such that maximum damage (both physical and psychological) could be inflicted. I somehow doubt that that was entirely necessary, and in fact it seems that they were simple exacting a maximum about of revenge for pearl harbor and the other casualties that resulted from the war.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13@dyoung: like I said, my analysis depends on how many functional bombs we had. Why START with a civilian drop if we had multiple weapons? Would it not be easy just to build up to the point of civilian, max-casualty drops? Like I said, I 100% understand the argument about dropping the bombs being necessary to avoid a mass casualty invasion. If we had the ability to create a significant number of bombs, then IMO, starting with a max-casualty civilian population drop was in fact an evil action. Just the way I see things.
          • PigGeneral, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6They DID choose Hiroshima because of its location with the hills focusing the weapon, attempting to instill more terror into the Japanese. We did not bomb that city conventionally because we wanted an example. The city was a military target, that was where the Japanese commanded the southern defense of their country. At that point in the war, it was clear America was going to invade, and they were also training the civilian population to fight in an invasion. We (America) were engaged in total war. If you have an advantage as large as the Atomic bomb in a situation against an enemy with military leadership prepared to fight to the last man, damn right your going to use it to save large numbers of American lives.

            The fire bombing of Tokyo did more in terms of loss of life, however that doesn't get nearly the attention the 2 atomic bombings did. Attacking civilian industry was unfortunately a valid tactic during the Second World War. If the enemy can't build TanksPlanesShips, he cannot hurt you effectively. Without the precision weapons we have today, it would be extremely hard to selectively target those production centers while avoiding civilian casualties.
          • badogg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13Gosh, will all of you read the facts surrounding the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

            Fact: We had only two of them
            Fact: Hiroshima was a secondary target (can't recall the original target) - the original target was scratched due to weather related issues.
            Fact: Japan didn't surrender after the first one because they didn't think we had more than one, so dropping the second one sealed the deal. Thankfully that worked as we only had the two.
            Fact: Every other country was looking to build nuclear bombs (Japan was hoping Germany would build one, but still). So it was really a race on who built it first. Luckily for the WORLD, it was the U.S. Germany was really close, was waiting for the u-238 to arrive then it was only a matter of time.

            Now, I totally agree that nuclear weapons should not have any place in this world. But, they are here and I am a little sick of people criticizing the U.S. for something that they haven't even done (ie. drop nukes on Iran, etc). Everyone acts like they just lob these things around all the time.
          • PigGeneral, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1@badogg: I was unaware we only had 2 made, and did not know the Axis powers were closing that quickly. Granted at the time It prolly was a race to drop a "superweapon" the first, since we only knew other factions were researching it and didn't have the checklist of progress.

            And correct, now that its a standoff, and nuclear blackmail is pretty much impossible. Any country using them overtly and first has the entire international community against them is a pretty big deterrent.
            Kind of unfortunate the biggest advances in technology in the last 100 years was due to having to have a bigger stick than the other guy.
          • badogg, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3@PigGeneral: Another thing to note that a lot of people don't know about that I thought was very interesting when I learned about it. During the nuclear race between the US and USSR, during all of the nuke testing that both sides did, the US set off a nuke that was almost too big - really close to cracking the mantle of the Earth. Well, through their covert spy program they learned that the USSR was about to test a bomb on a larger scale and actually took the initiative to call the Soviets during the middle of the Cold War to beg and plead for them not to do it and gave the reasons why. But you don't hear about that and people don't give the US the credit they deserve for that action. You only hear "You dropped nukes on Japan you evil empire!!". Not saying that the US is doing all good these days, but there is a lot of US bashing going on - some legitimate, and a lot not so much.
          • f54280, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1The point of the civilian bombing was to scare the Russians away.

            The point of having two bombings was to compare the effects of uranium (little boy, hiroshima) vs plutonium (fat man, nagasaki) bombs

            Anyway, it doesn't matter how we look at it. Dropping two nuclear bomb on civilians targets was a war crime, and the US got away with it only because they won the war. Same would go on the Dresen bombing.

            The argument that it "saved american lives" is unadorned *****. Should the US nuke Iraq if it saves American lives ? After WWI, mustard gas was outlawed. Would it ok to use it if is saves American lives ? Was it ok for Japan to use it against China ? Was it ok for Iraw to use it against the Kurds and Iran ?

            For PigGeneral: you said "Kind of unfortunate the biggest advances in technology in the last 100 years was due to having to have a bigger stick than the other guy."

            Well, if you look closely in civilization history, you'll see that most advances were done to have a bigger stick.
          • init100, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5@badogg

            "the US set off a nuke that was almost too big - really close to cracking the mantle of the Earth."

            I've never heard of that, could you please provide some references? Otherwise I'll just write it off as a myth.

            But anyway, if we assume that you are indeed correct, what do you think would happen if someone "cracked the mantle"? Do you realize how big a charge would need to be to accomplish such a thing?

            "people don't give the US the credit they deserve for that action."

            Nobody can give credit for something that they don't know about. So please, enlighten us.
          • PigGeneral, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't get why people keep calling them "war crimes" Mustard gas was outlawed after WWI. We didn't use that in WWII. You can't walk through history backwards. However EVERYONE bombed cities. Just because we did it with a flashy and new weapon you want to call it a a war crime? Germany bombed cities, however they were tried for war crimes on the basis of rounding up civilians (their own and conquered), not on their accepted offensive tactics. We bombed ANY city we were invading to the ground, as did our foes. We used an atomic weapon for the last 2, brandishing the biggest stick and ending the conflict. What, bombing cities is OK when its the accepted practice, as long as your bombs aren't too good? where is the line? I agree PART of it was to scare the Russians. However the direct military application of dropping 2 weapons that Imperial Japan could not counter to end an immediate conflict was the meat of the decision.

            If your drawn into a war, you half-ass it? I'm not advocating nukes everywhere any anywhere, as now, with the alternatives WE have available direct bombing cities is not ok, you have to target military installations. Great. Glad those are now the accepted rules. Lets play by that. Judge history's war crimes by the standards in that time period.

            However if there is another conflict between any two nations that involves impacting one sides ability to maintain war over the long term, you would see a return of direct city bombing.
          • kanabiis, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3It appears most of badogg's 'facts' have been pulled directly from less then credible, and often times pure fantasy 'blogs' on the internet.

            I have been searching for a few minutes regarding the 'crack the mantle' claim, none have returned any credible sources to this story, mostly hyperbole by some crazy guys:

            http://www.google.com/search?q=us+nuclear+test+alm ...

            So I'm going to call troll here, which means anyone who took any of badogg's posts as facts actually walked out of this thread a little dumber then you came in.
          • badogg, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Says the guy that trusts everything google shovels to you. Believe it, don't believe it. I really don't care. I don't get all of my info from the internet.
          • f54280, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0@PigGeneral: I used the Mustard Gas example, as it was one instance were belligerant did not broke the convention.

            You may not be aware of it, but bombing civilian targets was outlawed in La Hague convention, in 1907. Section 4, "Laws and Customs of War on Land" Sub-section II Hostilities, article 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27. You can read them here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04 ... . This was in effect during WWII.

            So, now you may understand why people keep calling civilian bombardment "war crime".

            I don't give a flying ***** about "everyone did it". I do consider the original bombing of Rotterdam by Germany (1000 death) to be a war crime. I do consider the bombing of London by Germany, with 40K victims, to be a war crime. But I also consider the 550K civilian victims (Dresden not counted see below) in the German side by Allied bombers to be war crimes.


            But let's pretend that those bombing were somewhat "necessary". Let's say that the bombings of Tokyo and the 66 others cities were justified (300K civilian death, but well, something had to be done to stop Japaneses).


            All of this can be justified, partially with a "the enemy started breaking the law of war" and with a "it was necessary to get to victory". Not a great moral stance, but hell, war is war.

            But what I, and a lot of other people, cannot grok is the bombing of Dresden and the two use of nuclear weapons on civilian population. Dresden was totally unnecessary, had only civilian population, and was just terror bombing. And the use of nuclear bomb on civilian targets is also beyond any comprehension. But *two* of them in 3 days of interval ? COm on...

            In someone can't read the link I gave on the La Hague convention, here are the key sentences:

            * The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited."

            * In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

            [...]

            To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

            [...]


            To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

            [...]

            To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

            * The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.


            * The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

            * In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

            It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
      • digitalhair, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Anybody notice that there are masses of different people commenting against Bolton's comments using proper logic and rational analysis, while 2 or 3 of the same people are using fear tactics and political divisiveness to spam their propaganda all over this thread?
        • kanabiis, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4Nationalism is the only way you can spin the rationale of systematically wiping out the lives of 110k civilians (yes, you read that right, 110,000 people died) in the blink of an eye, and condemn the 2 hour bombing which killed 3k civilians in the same breath.

          I am as American as apple pie, and a patriot too... but if you cannot see the absolute horror that both of those bombs were, in a single breath 110,000 people were wiped out. Take 9/11 and then imagine not just 2 buildings falling, but an entire town near you being taken out almost instantly, and then some.

          I cant seem to find a straight answer regarding the average size of a city or town is in the US, but i suspect it is smaller then 110,000 people, since I live in Colorado Springs, CO population 345,000 or so, and according to Wikipedia the 48th most populous cities in the Untied States, which means that there are thousands of smaller cities then mine in the US, odds are unless you are in a major metropolitan area in the US, you live in a city smaller then mine.
      • sparsely, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Nuclear =/= green energy
    • Dynamis, on 05/06/2008, -28/+5Iran is responsible for the deaths of our troops. That may be ok with you, but it's not ok with Bolton. He thinks that our country should respond when we are under attack. That is all.
      • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -2/+28So if China took out and occupied Canada and Mexico and threatened the U.S. and some of our people on the borders fought with Chinese troops, it would be ok for China to start bombing us? This is nearly an exact analogy.
        • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -12/+3You're missing the point. It's not "some people" that are killing US troops. It's people being trained by their military and being supplied with military grade explosives and weapons.

          So yeah, China would have the right to bomb us. THAT is the exact analogy.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -1/+15Interesting to note that you can justify it being righteous for China to bomb us if they have taken over Mexico and Canada and are threatening us on a daily basis. No wonder there is significant push for war. Lots of dull minded folks out there who bend over backwards to justify it...
          • aidave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+11"China would have the right to bomb us."

            Wow. I love this logic. A foreign country has the right to bomb another country because it messed with its invasion plans. Meanwhile an individual in America doesn't have the right to eat what they want to. What a world, what a world...
          • Wargalas, on 05/06/2008, -10/+1If we attack their troops WITHOUT PROVOCATION, then yes, they do have that right. You all proclaim to "support the troops, but not the war", and yet, none of you are wanting them to retaliate against those who are attacking them. Please do try to pay attention.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10We invaded and now occupy two of Iran's neighbors and have continuously threatened them and supplied munitions to Sunnis throughout Iraq. WTF do you think they are going to do? You would have no issue with a foreign power invading and occupying Mexico and Canada and posturing towards us? Come on now...

            BTW, I support the troops. I want them HOME defending AMERICA.
        • Dynamis, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1I don't agree that it's a nearly exact analogy, and I think that if the US made the decision (for whatever crazy reason) to stay out of the imaginary conflict then the US would not allow it's people to get involved in cross border battles because that would endanger the rest of the population. It's not really a matter of whether it's ok for China to retaliate when their troops were attacked in your analogy - They would retaliate.
          • kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8How do you think we would respond if a foreign power invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada??
          • Dynamis, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1We would absolutely defend any of our allies if they were attacked.
      • orangefly, on 05/06/2008, -2/+17everyone that voted for bush is responsible....
    • americamatrix, on 05/06/2008, -7/+29Why Should nuclear power plants be banned?

      You sir, are an asshat.
    • Evazan21, on 05/06/2008, -3/+22I think people just digg comments that already have a lot of diggs without reading them. How can someone who says all nuclear power should be banned be getting dugg up?
      • mozert, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1oops, I did not notice. but he meant nuclear weapon.
    • kinerry, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7***** idealist thinking

      If they were banned worldwide, whoever built them in secret could murder billions without a retaliation
      • kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I was hoping I would see a comment with some reason in this sub thread. Thanks.

        Everyone has the right to defend themselves, that includes Iran. What they do have an obligation to do is comply with treaties they signed. Nuclear nonproliferation treaty they signed in 1970 is a contract, and breaking that is within their right, but they should be prepared to endure the consequences of discontinuation of any incentives they received.
    • AmidTheSnow, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Yes.
    • Gemfinder, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3No.
      It starts, multilaterally, with EVERYONE shutting down their nuke programs.
      Nuclear power is irrelevant. Solar, wind, wave generation and geothermal.
      • 533n, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1those forms of power are not even close to being advanced enough to replace nuclear.
    • mohtasham, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1US isthe only country in the world that has ever used nuclear power.
      Then which country is terrorist? Iran or US?
      • 533n, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1You mean nuclear weapon. You are even wrong there as many other countries have used them. And the US did it to stop the Nazis and their allies, potentially savin millions of people.
    • thundacracka, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1OK, so using your theory, why shouldn't everyone get to have a gun. Hey, if Iran gets to have nukes, I get to carry a pistol wherever the fsck I want. Actually, the police shouldn't carry guns either. Let's just let all the bad guys have one and see what happens. But they're just using it for protection, right?

      Seriously, you do know that Iran is providing weapons to known terrorist organizations and has threatened to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, right? Just checking.
      • roflsd, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1And the US isn't selling weapons to organizations that can't be labeled as 'terrorist' by someone?

        You do get to carry a pistol, 2nd amendment.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1@"macsen" -- brilliant!
      You just made me think right there,...
      What if our economy is so bad, and the morons who lead us here really weren't trying to destroy our economy (yeah, that would shock me too) -- and this talk of attacking Iran is really a hostage situation...

      -- that is something I actually haven't thought about. But it definitely is food for thought. Maybe these idiots don't want a war -- but they are getting countries like China and such to buy our money in order to keep us from taking the world with us. This might be the secret shell game behind the scenes and why these guys like to pretend that they are insane.
    • MoClippa, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well, its not that nuclear power should be banned, I don't like it but its not a productive starting point in a dialogue to say everything someone else wants is wrong. Baradei has a simple and elegant solution to the biggest issue with nuclear power (enrichment), which is FISBAN (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/fmct/). There is a massive debate as to how it should be enacted, but Iran has already accepted a preliminary version of it, and the US (alone) has vetoed it consistently. But, to simplify, FISBAN calls for a ban on the enrichment of nuclear material to weapons grade. If Baradei had his way, it would also call for limiting enriching facilities to a few locations around the world, under heavy regulation by the UN. That way, everyone is under regulation and it sets the groundwork for further disarmament.

      There are of course, two major issues to this. A) The US thinks its above having foreign inspectors on their territory, views them as a security risk and in opposition to their own soverignty. B) The US has demonstrated no serious will to decrease its own nuclear, let alone, military arsenal. This is exemplified by the continued production of nuclear weapons in gross violation of NPT, the constant threat of use of force to other countries around the world, the unilateral dismantelment of the UN, and the refusal to sign any treaties whatsoever that stop an arms race in space with China/Russia.

      The country is economically in the gutter, and the adherants of game theory that have been running the place since the cold war realize the only serious card America has to maintain global hegemony is military, and specifically nuclear power. While this is true in the short term, it is not a sustainable policy that has the strong likelihood of leading to global war . Einstein said it best "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    • FearLess77, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Iran's leader only said he wanted to blow up the ***** earth with whatever means possible.
  • DeskFlyer, on 05/06/2008, -6/+148He exaggerated and/or lied about Cuba, Syria, Iraq, and now Iran. Someone get this asshole off tv.
    • cirquo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12I can't wait to see the gas prices when this occurs, the speculators will have a BALL with our money when we have to pay for $5 per gallon gas. One last hurrah for this administration.
      • orangefly, on 05/06/2008, -0/+18i think $5 is a low estimate....
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1Use public transportation or ride a back, fatass.
    • glasnostic, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10somebody get this asshole off the planet.
    • unique172, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5and into a jail cell
    • 533n, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1He wouldn't be on tv if Americans didn't believe him.
  • chicofaraby, on 05/06/2008, -6/+243If by "prudent" he means "***** insane," then yeah, it would be prudent.
    • toddcat, on 05/06/2008, -2/+26I think that is how he intended prudent to be used, yes.
    • Waiting2awake, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14Does it have another meaning? Gee this nespeak is harder to understand than I thought it would....

      Is freedom still slavery?
      • LadyKofNYC, on 05/06/2008, -2/+11Perhaps they should create a Psycho to English dictionary.
        • toddcat, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3After the neo-cons warping of the English language to suit their socio-political ends, a sizable addition to the dictionary might be in order.
      • neognostic, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1pru·dent Audio Help /ˈprudnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prood-nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
        –adjective
        1. wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober.
        2. careful in providing for the future; provident: a prudent decision.
        • Nidy1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Watch that whip lash man, that thing flew over your head FAST.
        • toddcat, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3That's some fan-TASTIC copying and pasting there pal. Can ya teach me how to do it like you?
      • webcrumb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4"careful in providing for the future"

        Well, it's providing /something/. Not sure it's wise, but I suppose prudent could be the word. I hate the use of semantics to get round facts; "Waterboarding is not torture because torture is 'cruel and unusual punishment' and they are not being punished." Sorry? What?
    • acknotSW, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4dug for the use of "***** insane", a term that is not used nearly enough in this age.
  • Bagos1, on 05/06/2008, -18/+126Bolton is a member of JINSA. He works for Israel, not The United States.
    • dondara, on 05/06/2008, -4/+42Good, let Israel invade Iran and leave us out of it. I'm tired of those assholes starting ***** and expecting us to back them up. Virtually all of our problems in the Middle East are due to our support of Israel and their land snatching.
      • solid12345, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Actually if it wasn't for America Israel and Iran would have duked it out long by now.

        Besides, what business is Israel of Iran's? They are 1,000 miles apart yet Iran constantly sabre rattles against them.
    • Nodaki, on 05/06/2008, -3/+25Thank you for that.

      Link to JINSA page and why John Bolton is a Zionist Anti-American.

      http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/functi ...