What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
110 Comments
- talywackerflash, on 10/11/2007, -9/+78I WISH SOMEONE WOULD TELL THIS ASS THAT 70 PERCENT OF US ARE NOT SCARED.... Has America got the courage to tell this fear monger to shut up? Apparently the 27percent that still believe he's competent are self wetters and like it. The rest of us will take our chances...........
- Wonkanobi, on 10/11/2007, -6/+63It's unfortunate that America created a safe haven for Bush
- mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -5/+36I tried to explain this to my history class at highschool a couple weeks ago.. wow, it didn't go over well to say the least.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+35And after we leave, the Iraqis will slaughter al Qaeda and drive them out. The only reason AQ is tolerated at all is because they're driving US out. As soon as we're gone, Iraqi militants will kick AQ's unwelcome ass.
Don't believe the ***** about AQ taking over Iraq and turning it into a big terrorist camp. Not in a million years. They have totally different views on secularism and religious rule -- even the more religious Iraqis. - talywackerflash, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32 Amnesty Report Decries "Politics of Fear"..........
"Fear thrives in myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear but the approach being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted, promulgating policies and strategies that erode the rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities, feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more conflict," the report says.
I rest my case....... - darkhero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29Story is true. Before the US, I mean Bush sent our troops to Iraq. There were no terrorist in Iraq. Saddam was scared that they might mess up his Government. Like they are doing all over Middle East right now.
- faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+29Classic fear mongering. Read Al Gore's new book ("The Assault on Reason") for a very salient analysis. NOTE: this is not a commercial endorsement: get it from your library!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2776% against the Iraq war now. When it's 100% Bush will still be telling us it's for our own good, for our children, or some other crap like that.
In 6 years he's done absolutely nothing but increase not only the chance of a terror attack, but an actual state attack from a nuclear power like Russia, China, Pakistan. - thexfile, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18I remember when Bush was running for President one of his promises was "No Nation Building" but, here we are watching nation building.
- PixelVision, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20Don't digg down surkh, Gore did get more votes in 2000. That's undeniable, verifiable fact.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19He apparently has a backup plan : 100,000 acre "safe haven" he's purchased in Paraguay. I'd prefer him there to here.
- surkh, on 10/11/2007, -9/+22Actually zarchon, the majority voted for him once. The other time it was Al Gore.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16It's relatively safe for al Qaeda right now, because once we leave, the Iraqis will kill them.
The only reason al Qaeda is tolerated by Iraqi militias is because they're trying to evict us, and Iraqis hate our occupation more than they currently hate al Qaeda. But guess who has the guns? Iraqis militias. And they've already stomped on al Qaeda a few times. Iraqis hate Taliban-style law -- there is zero chance of an Iraqi Al Qaeda Base when we're gone. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Imagine dying for a drunk, coke-snortin', awol cheerleader's pack of lies!
Imagine your only son or daughter dying. I can't! - rhawk301, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19Thank you. If the so called Terrorists want to come over here and disrupt our freedoms then we will have something to fight about. My guess is they really don't like us invading and occupying their country. Iran will really, really not like it and WILL fight back. Pray that the Neo-con's somehow don't pull off a false flag event to start the Iran war.
- PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11did he really purchase land in paraguay?
- gergle, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16Insurgents coming into Iraq? Huh? WTF are you talking about? The Insurgents are Iraqis fighting our invasion and our hand picked Shia Gov't. Yeah there was an election, only problem is few Sunni's could vote. Remember Paul Bremer and Debathicfication? As to your rant about the majority, tyranny of the majority is something our democracy is designed to resist. Actually the majority don't give a ***** about any of this, they just want a job and food on the table and for all you right wing nut jobs to leave us the ***** alone, and do your own ***** crusades. This is why we like Ron Paul.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12I only lie when I'm joking, and this ain't funny. Take your pick of stories:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+paraguay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
He sent Jenna, I think, down to close the deal. It's close to an alleged US (perhaps not official) military base -- for protection. - Enkilis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9If anyone wants to know whats really going on, read this in its entirety. In their sick Machiavellian minds, the ends justify the means. American is the only world superpower left and we have to keep it that way by any means necessary, keeping everyone else that might, in the future pose a threat to our world dominate power down and divided. 80% of Americans want the soldiers home, yet we are on the way into Iran? (their just waiting for some incident to occur so they can sell it to the people) In there minds we are just children and they know best.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf - Enkilis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
“Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.”
A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.
The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a NEW PEARL HARBOR." - PNAC
For those that are to lazy to read the link, this was ESTABLISHED IN 1997!!! ~ Think people THINK!!! - DavidDigg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Well duh---you can't have a war with only one side. War on terror means we have to make terrorists to fight. How else do you think they're going create a state of permanent warfare?
Lets get this empire started! - zeroeffect, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@JimSpaza
I'll bet you still believe they will find WMDs in Iraq?
Classic Republican tactic, when you can't refute the facts you attack a person's character. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10"Bush is Satan. Bush blah, blah, blah."
Why would you dare say such hateful things? It's unpatriotic to criticize our dear leader. Next thing you know, you'll be accusing him of lying his way into a war.
Didn't you learn anything in Conservative Reality Distortion School? - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11@naios, before we arrived, there were a handful of Iraqi-born terrorists, total, and not even aimed at us for the most part. Right now, there are plenty more fighters trying to drive us out. And once trained and indoctrinated against us, that's hard to change.
But the main thing going on is the civil war, which is over land, government, religion, and oil. That conflict might spill over into the region, Sunni vs. Shia, and Kurdistan vs. Turkey if it comes to it. But that part is unlikely to visit US soil -- unless people continue to think that it's all our fault. In other words, if in 10 years, Iraq is poor and devastated, and US companies are still profiting off the oil, that's when we might get hit on our own soil. It's a function of what we did and will do in the region. So we can start acting responsibly any day now. - bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Zachron, did you miss the DOD report that stated long ago, that the overwhelming majority of insurgents are IRAQIS? That only like 10% of the insurgents are foreigners. I know, it wasn't on Faux News, but the report is real, its well over a year old, and is still true today.
- m0tbaillie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Are you...is -- is that guy holding a loaf of bread?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Well, it's not quite "building" over there. But yeah, that was the sales pitch.
- kahlessreborn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8OMG the very first line his says has the 9/11 in it. It doesn't even sound like it belongs in the sentence. It like he said 9/11 just for the heck of it. I cant believe I am saying this but I think Bush watches Family Guy
- gergle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5good job..comment on something you don't read.
- SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Stop CBS’s Censorship"
Top left of the screen. Ironic. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Dude.
Don't get all passive-aggressive on us because you have to spend all your time defending the worst president ever. - gergle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Because they are knucle dragging, flag waving morons. It doesn't matter to them. It's a football game. They can't tell the difference.
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You really should be careful and read you sources before you cite them...
FROM YOUR FIRST WIKIPEDIA LINK:
"Abu Nidal died of between one and four gunshot wounds in Baghdad in August 2002, believed by Palestinian sources to have been killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein"
AND FROM YOUR 2ND WIKIPEDIA LINK:
"the United States government has not publicly tied the Hussein regime explicitly to Yasin's indictment for the 1993 attack....An American citizen of Iraqi heritage, Yasin was born in Bloomington, Indiana, USA, where his father came to study for a PhD. " - Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@BohicaTwentyTwo,
Nice balanced news source.you use there LOL!..... www.frontpagemag.com
If Saddam sponsored the birth of Al-Qaeda it is only in the sense that Saddam was put in power by the CIA, funded by the CIA and Al-Qaeda was made in a Washington courtroom when they needed to demonize the freedom fighters they had funded in the Soviet-Afghan war.
Saddam was a secular dictator. One thing Saddam would not allow in his country would be Islamic jihadists - it could pose a threat to his powerbase. He spent the 80s fighting such a thing in the Iran-Iraq war. It is currently in the news that Tribal leaders in Iraq have had much more success in removing foreign insurgents in 3 months than than the coalition forces have had in 3 years. The same tribal leaders that were in place under Saddam.
I can recommend reading Machiavelli's "The Prince". Written in the 16th century it describes clearly what we are seeing today in Iraq. It even looks like someone in Washington read it but misunderstood it. Machiavelli argues that once a country has been conquered it is easy to maintain if previously it was controlled by a central government or leadership but that maintaining it will be difficult if the country was broken down into being run by tribes or local leaders. The US has fallen for its own hook. Saddam was their dictator but his authority still ran through his control of the tribal leaders. Its like somebody in Washington read the first line and stopped reading.
Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq because Saddam's regime was secular and the people who Saddam empowered and relied upon, the tribal leaders, would no more have allowed Al-Qaeda safe haven than they would have allowed a rival tribe leader to rise up and overpower them.
Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq. That's the reason why you had to sell the invasion of Afghanistan first, remember? - aceg1357, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well since it is a "safe haven" for terrorist CBS, then I guess it is pretty important that the allies stay. Oh that is right you want it both ways. Iraq isn't part of the war on terror.
- ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@zarchon
Sure your first name isn't George?
No wait...a politician would never send their child to fight their war.
As for comparing the Earth to Mars and Venus as a reason for denying global warming...just...come on. Listen to yourself. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think you mean Zarqawi. He's the one who left Iraq in a box.
Al-Zawahiri has never been to Iraq, except for that one time in 1999 when he met personally with Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Sponsored Birth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=18178 - gergle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Vote for Ron Paul....sanity in an insane world.
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This is only "news" to the seriously uninformed.
I read reports on the internets well before the invasion that the CIA had these misgivings.
But no one gave a ***** because we were going in for God and country, and he's a Hitler and hey, look, a fetus!
Whatever you need, let's go! Whatever you, the apathetic, docile masses need to get behind this - here, here's a fetus.
;-) - Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Well, it's not like they could retreat anywhere, not with allies like Pakistan... right?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@miroki, we will leave Iraq when the American people elect a president that represents THEM, and not the interests you describe.
BTW, "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "going to the toilet," but that doesn't mean al Qaeda means "toilet."
If anything, I'd suggest the better comparison is that al Qaeda = the plumbers. - jellygraph, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Dear people who elected Bush:
We were all told you Bush was an idiot, an ***** and a fascist... you didn't listen, but now its all come true. There's no denying it.
We were all told you that the war in Iraq was going to fail and that it was all based on a lie... you didn't listen, but it's turned out exactly as we said it would. There's no denying that either.
We all told you that the neo-cons and this administration were going to do horrible things to america, limit freedoms, spy, justify torture, jail innocent people... you didn't listen, but that's exactly what has happened.
We all told you that this administrations foreign policy was only going to make the world less safe and breed terrorism... you didn't listen...
But it happened.
How can you continue supporting a president, a political party, a policy and/or an ideology which has screwed up so much? Once, ok... thats called a mistake... but if you repeatedly make mistakes, thats the definition of idiocy.
They say we get the government we deserve. I don't know if that's true, but I really wish you would all go find an empty island and take your politicians and war-mongering with you. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2BDS to the max.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6For a safe haven, a lot of terrorists are sure getting dead.
- weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -0/+2If you're really going to bring up sheep, I think it's more appropriately applied to the 24% and their moronic shepherd.
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The thing about the Iraqi invasion is that it is a fantastic recruiting sergeant for extremists to recruit disenfranchised young men into their cause. Its not a muslim issue, its a humanity issue. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland with the IRA. If a soldier shoots your dad when you're seven years old you grow up wanting to kill soldiers. Other than that the IRA gave purpose to a lot of people. Positions of authority when before they were Joe Nobody. Look at the civilian casualites in Iraq, look at the effects of globalistaion on third world countries. US policy, especially regarding Iraq, is making a lot of orphans and impoverishing a lot of people.
A real war on terror would focus on the industrial-military complexes and corporate personhood. Make people in the west accountable for their actions and you take advantage of fewer people (so the third world becomes less dependent and more wealthier making people less resentful). Reducing aggressive foreign policy removes the motivation for people to attack US interests.
America could easily have the finest free national health, free universal college education AND completely remove income tax. It just needs to stop spending half a trillion dollars on defense each year and start using the constitution again. - bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You don't pull out of a War just because of public opinion, but when you find that you were lied from the start, you pull the fuhqing plug. Besides, go reread the authorization for war, does it say anything about authorizing an occupation?
The American people have been waking up to fact that we were lied too at worst, and told only half the story at best, and misled into believing we were under a threat from a harmless nation. What did Bush's whitehouse say about Iraq in 2000, "They are a harmless threat." What changed in 2001? NOTHING. Yes, 9/11 happened, but what was Iraq's role in that? Answer: NOTHING
Where is the justification for war in Iraq? WMD's? Hmmm, they never existed, all the proof for them, was given the government but Iraq ex-pats, that had their own agenda, seize power in Iraq. Bushco used any excuse they had to attack Iraq. Where should our troops be? In Afghanistan, you know, the country that HELPED BIN LADEN! Remember Bin Laden? Bush doesn't like to talk about him much, it's a failure of his, he couldn't capture him. But he was the responsible for 9/11, aided by Afghanistan, not Iraq. What is going on in Afghanistan, hmm, the warlords are slowly regaining ground and control. Why do you think you don't hear much about it in our press. -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is