What is Digg?23 Comments
- inactive, on 02/20/2008, -1/+14Spoken like a true "outsider".
- Insightful, on 02/20/2008, -3/+15Bush calls "outside forces that tend to divide up people insider their country are unbelievably counterproductive" and since the the terrorist attack on 9/11 *united* this country in the aftermath, he must be saying that Al Qaeda is unbelievably productive then?
What an idiot. - laughmore, on 02/21/2008, -1/+11Outside forces meaning the U.S. dividing people up in Afghanistan and Iraq.
- gak001, on 02/20/2008, -1/+9Wow - just, wow. That's impressive. ::slow clap::
- theNazz, on 02/20/2008, -1/+8This just in, Bush is an illiterate puppet who only does exactly what he's told to do... to the best of his chimp ability.
- Twism123, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7He forgot to add, "However setting Iraq back 100 years was totally worth it. Sunnis, Shiites, Muslims.....duel to the death for your land!"
- nirav72, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6I'm speechless.
- backjauer, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5indeed. he has a knack for contradicting himself like no other person i know
- rzxc, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5Wow. I guess in Bush speak the word "museum" is another word for Iraq.
- overt, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds. **
They're all muslim. - purag66, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3*palm on face*
- usingpond, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4What is this, ***** Power Rangers? Why is our commander-in-chief saying things like "the lesson I learned"?
- inactive, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Is that his new secret weapon? To make all our heads explode through the power of self-contradiction?
- digitronix, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3If only he used that same strain of reasoning before going into Iraq!
- EmileVictor, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3If the US did something really beneficial and productive to the world with its forces at least once it'd be changed in my eyes... Even sending troops into Darfur would've helped.
- fractalman, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3Bush is right, but he's not telling the whole truth as usual. He and his subordinates are the outside force, and they are dividing us. They cast suspicion on a multitude of groups, making it difficult to trust anyone. They want us this way to prevent any organizing of decent. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeild, Rice, Rove, Gonzalez, and all the other neocons are the outsiders. They are not part of the people, they seek to control the people.
- inactive, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Say what you will about Dubbya, but for God's sake, leave the chimps out of this. They don't deserve that kind of insult.
- inactive, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3That's easy: cut the funding. The funding is provided by China. Boycott the olympics and so forth, except nobody will do it. You all like to say genocide is a bad thing, but not bad enough for you to go out of your way about anything. You did nothing for East Timor, you did nothing for Rwanada, you did nothing for the Congo and you do nothing for Darfur. Iraq you attack.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39159
The people doing the killing aren't poor. It's the people dying who are poor. The only way to end conflicts as a third party, is to completely isolate and empovrish both parties, forcing them to concentrate on other things. You block all their supplies. No food, no ammo, no fuel: no war.
Peacekeepers are good at protecting civilians, but they suck at ending wars. Rwanda and Bosnia proved this. - AesopSBX, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2hmmmmm....no sir, i dont like it
- inactive, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1There's always JimmySpazza... But then again, come to think of it, no one has ever successfully proven that they're not the same person.
- Pritchard, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Well I wouldn't support sending troops into Darfur and telling them how to live their lives, either. Honest. I hold the right for countries to manage their own affairs to be highly important, especially civil affairs. If someone can tell me how to stop genocide without turning the country into another Iraq, please do so.
1) We couldn't just go around killing the 'bad guys', as there isn't a clear one. The good guys would just end up being the people who had the most US Support aka Money.
2) If we intervene, then it's a US Occupation in the end, and we have another Iraq where we won't let the country progress until we 'democratize' it's process. This is very expensive, and it's not true freedom we'd be giving them - Not like it's our job to hold the world to our standards, anyways.
I hate people getting killed as much as the next person, but the money and power in these situations always goes to the warlords. It's expensive, and it harms our international reputation. The UN's been trying to solve these types of problems for years with little success. Not to say it's impossible, but I enjoy us being a country like any other rather than the parents of the rest of the world, and right now we just don't have a viable strategy for 'saving the world'. - quesi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2he is an outsider, and it don't matter to him, since he set up his Paraguay land deal... shoot he can (has) let this place go to hell, since he's moving to where the war criminals retire... paradise with your own private army, and minimal chances that we'd actually go get him
- NightSky, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2I would say... you get what you vote for.... but I think even that would be debatable lol.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is