What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
17 Comments
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -2/+21Iraq has never been about the iraqi peole, it's just one giant *****-up by our foreign policy "experts" and President that we're trying to clean up. Never think for a second that anything the United States does under President Bush's regime is intended to help anyone but the people living within our borders. Even then, the help that they seek to deliver isn't one of safety and security, but profit and world-wide expansion.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -7/+16Yeah, one would rather vote for Clinton or McCain. One voted for the war, intends to attack Iran, and the other not only voted for the war, wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but also wants to bomb Iran!
Obama, on the other hand, appose the war, wants to end it, & doesn’t want war with Iran. - ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -2/+8"But he wants to intervene in Pakistan."
No. He doesn't. He said if there were actionable targets *verified* in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government failed to act on them, he would consider using tactical strikes on them.
"And he won't guarantee an Iraq pull-out before 2013."
Lie. He won't guarantee our troop presence will be *completely gone* by 2013 - because he supports retaining small numbers of soldiers to protect humanitarian aid operations and the US Embassy. In reality, he has had a plan since early 2007 to withdraw 99% of troops from Iraq in ~13 months - as fast as the generals say is strategically advisable.
"And he wants to grow the military by 92,000 troops, which translate to about $50 billion dollars more the military-industrial complex."
This part is just ranting conspiracy-theorist crap. That companies might profit from it is not, in fact, a good reason to oppose expanding voluntary troop reserves.
As for the rest, you're just playing desperate semantic *****. - ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Hahahahaha.
I give you his official policy on Iraq from the horse's mouth, and you tell me it isn't a credible source... because it's from the horse's mouth.
And I'M the one who needs to get a clue.
Wow. - ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -2/+51. From Obama's official campaign site, under 'Iraq':
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
2. Yeah, I never said he didn't want to increase the standing troop levels - only that you're an insane conspiracy theorist to think that A) doing so is a bad thing or that B) he wants to do so in order to benefit the military-industrial complex.
3. Yes - refocus our efforts on Pakistan to expel al Qaeda from the region. Meaning WORKING with the Pakistani government to do so. Failing their action on credible intelligence, he would consider tactical strikes on selected targets. Like I said. - rek2, on 02/08/2008, -2/+5I feel the same way but with ANY democrat! were is the left in the US? I don't see even a social democratic party in this country.. what the hell? democrats may some be more in the left than republicans but this does not make them a pro working class labor party... if not we will had already got real universal health care long long time a go and people will be more social and anti my myself and I than they are now in the US.. and maybe more friendly around the world as well.
http://www.dailyradical.org - americangoy, on 02/09/2008, -4/+6I will shout it until I am hoarse, here, blog, everywhere:
This election is to "put a lipstick on a pig". It is a PR stunt for the world, which will be amazed that USA finally has a "progressive" woman or black man president - and will not notice that in foreign policy nothing has changed, Iraq war (or rather occupation) will go on, we shall attack Iran, etc etc. - morningmatters, on 02/08/2008, -3/+5One thing which Obama does not do well is catering to minority groups, which is ironic since Obama is of a mixed race. This would explain why Clinton was so successful with Latinos. I think Obama is purposely trying to avoid discussions on any specific race or culture so to go along with his "we are all united" message but he may come off to non-black monitories as uncaring.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -3/+4Please take your prisonplanet mentality back to home base...
- onlytruth, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Agreed!
- onlytruth, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I have seen evidence to the contrary regarding Obama being anti- war... He specifically said in abc interview? that he wanted to redistribute troops to other areas of the mid east..
Also look at a paragraph from his article on the CFR web site..
Renewing American Leadership
From Foreign Affairs, Published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
8 pages read the whole thing at the link..
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401 ...
By, Barack Obama
COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY
"At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.
As Roosevelt built the most formidable military the world had ever seen, his Four Freedoms gave purpose to our struggle against fascism."
-------
Lets look at this
Roosevelts praised ideals… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
He endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy that have come to be central tenets of modern American liberalism.
The four freedoms and disarmament
Roosevelt called for "a world-wide reduction of armaments" as a goal for "the future days, which we seek to make secure" but one that was "attainable in our own time and generation." More immediately, though, he called for a massive build-up of U.S. arms production: "Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being' directly assailed in every part of the world… The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily—almost exclusively—to meeting this foreign peril. … [T]he immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production. … I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations. … Let us say to the democracies: '…We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. …” -Franklin D. Roosevelt
Notice the neocon contradiction.. disarm them while increasingly arming ourselves.. - inactive, on 02/08/2008, -3/+3Of course this author is going to be against Barack Obama when Obama supports the Israeli government in regards to Palestinian violence and when it's been proven that Palestine harbors terrorist. Obama wants to focus on that. So take this article with a grain of salt. We ain't sheep. lol.
Info about the author:
'Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian-American poet and writer based in New York City' - Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -3/+2A policy the Democrats will gladly inherit and continue. Both parties are dominated by colonialists.
- Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -4/+2I'm tired of Israel and Palestine thinking the average American gives a ***** about their protracted feud. Palestinians behave like idiot savages and Israelis behave like Nazis. You're both in the wrong.
I feel for your children on both sides. May you all perish before the world does because of you. - Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -5/+3@ncairs
"He won't guarantee our troop presence will be *completely gone* by 2013 - because he supports retaining small numbers of soldiers to protect humanitarian aid operations and the US Embassy."
Lie. Read... And note the words "combat troops".
"HANOVER, New Hampshire (AP) -- The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. [combat troops] from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate ...
---
"This part [92,000 troops] is just ranting conspiracy-theorist crap."
Barack Obama: "That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." http://www.cfr.org/publication/13172/
---
"No. He doesn't [want to intervene in Pakistan]."
Barack Obama: "We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest." http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401 ...
Learn your candidate. Don't be anybody's fool. - Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -5/+2"From Obama's official campaign site"
So you don't believe in independent sources then? He's obviously going to be biased in his own favor on his own website. Get a clue. Seriously. - Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -7/+3But he wants to intervene in Pakistan. And he won't guarantee an Iraq pull-out before 2013. And he wants to grow the military by 92,000 troops, which translate to about $50 billion dollars more the military-industrial complex.
And when they asked him on MTV if there would be a draft. He didn't say there wouldn't be a draft... he said, "I don't think we need a draft". What are Ron Paul's views on a draft? Read...
Ron Paul: "I believe wholeheartedly that an all-volunteer military is not only sufficient for national defense, but also preferable. It is time to abolish the Selective Service System and resign military conscription to the dustbin of American history." http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul353.html
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is