What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
796 Comments
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -11/+187but israel has nuclear weapons. they can launch the retaliation attack themselves.
- macsen, on 04/23/2008, -69/+226Israel is the only one who is going to be nuking anyone in the middle-east, so this is not too worrying for me.
- Beveridge89, on 04/23/2008, -14/+147My God, so if Hilary wins, the USA *isn't* going to tolerate nuclear attacks against its allies? What a controversial and bold change of stance.
- duggtodeath, on 04/23/2008, -18/+135But Iran doesn't have nukes, Israel does.
- thethinktank, on 04/23/2008, -47/+164Wait, she's talking about Israel, West Virginia, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_West_Virginia
If not, that chick is ***** crazy. - OneHandBandito, on 04/23/2008, -77/+171That's a no brainer. If any country is stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack on a US ally, they can expect retaliation.
- anonymiau, on 04/23/2008, -44/+130The fact that Israel is in a postition to nuke anyone is scary as ***** to me.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -23/+104She wouldn't really nuke Israel. She is just trying to popularize the myth of israel having no nuclear weapons so that AIPAC will support her. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons. They don't need us to launch a counterattack for them.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -12/+82Ugh.
Israel has Nukes. If Iran were to ever fire a nuclear weapon at Israel, it would be the last thing they ever did. No need to risk getting us involved in WWIII or some kind of nuclear holocaust... - flossdaily, on 04/23/2008, -38/+103Israel has had the bomb for years, while its been under constant attack by the Palestinians, and when Iraq was lobbing scuds at it. If Israel was going to be playing fast and loose with those nukes, they would have used them by now.
Israel's system of government has a system of checks and balances like out own- its not a theocracy like the surrounding Arab nations.
Iran on the other hand... or Pakistan- those are the ones you need to be afraid of. - inactive, on 04/23/2008, -21/+79Yep, the Senator Clinton would be a real change from the current occupant of the White House.
or not... - IrishJoe, on 04/23/2008, -19/+67Our own intelligence community is in agreement that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program years ago and even if it started it up now, it would take them five to ten years to produce enough weapons grade material (uranium enriched to 90%) for a single nuclear weapon. Currently they've only been able to enrich uranium to reactor grade (about 5% or less). Since they are at least 5 to 10 years away, why threaten them now? Unless she's just pandering to AIPAC.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -11/+49Hillary 2008!
Jeb Bush 2016!
Chelsea 2024! - iamtehwinnerz, on 04/23/2008, -14/+52Some of these replies are ridiculous. I'm and Obama supporter all the way, but If Iran nukes Israel, that means they have nukes, aren't afraid of the US, and probably plan to in the days soon after. I'm pretty sure Obama would do the same.
- Dynamis, on 04/23/2008, -28/+64It's amazing that so many people are stating how scary it is that the US would come to the aid of it's ally and not stating how scary the thought is of Iran obliterating an ally of ours. Is today backwards day?
- GhostyBoy, on 04/23/2008, -12/+44You know when you see a couple of douche-bags at the bar and one is trying to show how tough they are, and they just look ***** completely drunk and stupid in front of everyone? They want to prove they are a tough and everybody is just embarrassed for how silly they look?
That's Hillary, right now. She's that drunken popped collar douche-bag.
Can someone get the bouncer, already? - inactive, on 04/23/2008, -11/+39The problem is the nuke may not have a specific return address, may not come from Iran at all
- AWBoy666, on 04/23/2008, -7/+35The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is what holds the worlds nuclear weapons in check.
If she said she WOULDN'T nuke Iran if they nuked Israel, imagine the outcry over that!
Israel is a US ally and we protect our allies from nuclear attack. That's the end of it. You people who believe we shouldn't retaliate for a nuclear attack against our allies have no understanding of foreign policy. - Chestnutridge, on 04/23/2008, -8/+34 What is so "scary" about what Clinton said? I expect all of the candidates still in the race would say the same thing, as would the current administration. You may not think that protecting Israel is our job but our politicians know they must toe the line on this subject.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -4/+28Sarcasm done right is pretty damn funny...
- Gemfinder, on 04/23/2008, -29/+53Which is why it's so important for Iran to ditch the nuclear power plants, go to solar, wave generation, wind turbine and geothermal to meet its energy needs, and sidestep the whole Nuclear Bullet. (Not to mention putting a dent in their air pollution problem)
Getting Iran (or anyone else) to abandon nuclear power calls for diplomatic talks, not sabre-rattling or threats. Hillary and Barack said that all options are on the table, and that would include diplomacy. Let's sit down and talk. How much would a summit cost? Not nearly as much as nuclear war, full stop. - CollateralDmg, on 04/23/2008, -8/+32I don't see what the problem people have with her saying it. Even IF she is completely unwilling to do this, she sure as hell better SAY she will nuke Iran. It may be a cheap scare tactic, but if it keeps them from using nukes first, it's worth saying.
- ganjadude4391, on 04/23/2008, -6/+28I want to know why we give a rats ass about israel anyway
i mean its not an american territory let it defend itself
why do we have the need to get involved?
* note to the digg down crew, i am not one of those who wish to rid the world of israel or of any country/ place, i simply feel it is not our job to police the world - jjesusfreak01, on 04/23/2008, -4/+25Ruled not by the elected government, but by the religious leaders. If they asked their president to step down, he would have to. Its not a theocracy, its an oligarchy ruled by the religious leaders, with an appearance of democracy.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -53/+74When will Israel allow inspections of their nuke weapons plant at Dimona? When will they sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as have Iran, Iraq, and North Korea? When will they stop threatening to attack their neighbors? The USA has the power to rein in this rogue state, but for obvious reasons, refuses to.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -24/+43Funny, I notice how you conveniently left India and Pakistan off of that list.
I also noticed your other "mistake". North Korea withdrew from the treaty nearly FIVE years ago. Next time you're disseminating propaganda, at least try to get your lies straight. - danconia, on 04/23/2008, -3/+21You mean "Iran" instead of Israel in your first sentence I think. And while I doubt she would use nukes against Iran she would definitely invade. Just about every politician sans Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would push for an invasion. AIPAC is the 2nd most influential lobbying group in the US behind AARP (old people)... that says quite a lot about our foreign policy.
- insllvn, on 04/23/2008, -10/+27Iran has signed a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not signed a nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and there is only circumstantial evidence they are trying to build them. Israel is therefore more of a threat to world peace than Iran. Why do we hear so much about Iran and the nuclear weapons they do not have, and so little about Israel and the nuclear weapons they do have and won't account for or offer up for inspection? In short, why is there a double standard? Care to respond with substance rather than deflection?
- insllvn, on 04/23/2008, -8/+24Would it be possible for us all to agree, right here right now, that neither side in the Palestine/Israel conflict smells like roses? They have both engaged in underhanded, morally dubious tactics. The US shouldn't be involved except perhaps as a mediator. It was a mistake to create the state of Israel, but it is there now, they don't seem inclined to leave, so they are going to have to work this ***** out. Treating them like the rightful owners of the land, and supplying them with weapons is bad. Annexing the west bank and the gaza strip and pretending like they are saints for offering it back is bad. Firing missiles into civilian camps in hopes of catching one terrorist leader is bad. The Palestinians are no better. They have attacked civilians and at various times made it clear they will not be happy unless the Jews are pushed into the ocean. That is also bad. Sometimes there are no heroes.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 04/23/2008, -3/+19Iran is a de-facto theocracy.
- dpazar2, on 04/23/2008, -8/+24Take a nap! Zenn fire ze missiles!!!!!
- samby, on 04/23/2008, -10/+26You need a history check. Israel being there is not because we have nuclear weapons. Israel has its own nuclear weapons and has even threatened to use them.
Israel is there because it has a first rate military (with help from us) and fights like hell, all by itself thank you. We never helped them directly with our military or nuclear weapons, or even offered to. In fact, in 1973 we had to talk them out of using their OWN nuclear weapons to end the Arab-Isreali war. - carpespasm, on 04/23/2008, -3/+18you think they didn't think of that when planning their launch facilities?
- shupy, on 04/23/2008, -19/+34If someone is launching nukes, the time for diplomacy is past. This is alarmist crap. But frankly if Iran starts the bombs flying chances are the US would be hit about the same time as Israel.
There is a time when taking time to call a meeting is too late. - NighthawkBlack, on 04/23/2008, -6/+20Yeah and they ripped off the United States to build thier secret, illegal nuke armory which is still exempt from any oversight to this day.
Mordechai Vanunu revealed this little known fact. Curious the US ignored him and allowed Israel to throw him in the hole for 18 years.
"Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu flashes a victory sign as he is freed from Shikma jail in Ashkelon after serving an 18-year prison term for revealing secrets that exposed Israel as one of the world's top atomic powers April 21, 2004. [Reuters]
British actress Susannah York, among the anti-nuclear campaigners who came to Israel to celebrate Vanunu's release, said: "It's a gross violation of human rights. Eighteen years ago, he told everything he knew."
Among those waiting to greet him were Nick and Mary Eoloff, an American couple who adopted Vanunu in a failed bid to win him U.S. citizenship. Most of Vanunu's family have disowned him."
There's justice for ya eh? - MWeather, on 04/23/2008, -7/+21The Basij is not just children. It's a volunteer force of all ages 12 and up. It's like our national guard. They help police, help in emergencies, provide civil services. and when invaded by a US-backed chemical weapon using neighbor, they clear minefields.
What's worse, letting kids clear minefields in defense of their country, or bankrolling the man who laid those mines and launched chemical weapons at those kids? - brycelb, on 04/23/2008, -21/+35As POTUS you have the obligation to use any and all resources available to act in this countries best interests. Anyone who states otherwise is not fit to be in the White House. That said, Nukes have always been the ultimate trump card and have always been used as a means for negotiation. Does anyone really think Israel would still be here if they didn't have them? In addition Israel (at this moment) is our strongest relationship in the region. Why wouldn't we want to show solidarity.A reality check is in order for about 95% of the Digg community.
- insllvn, on 04/23/2008, -6/+20Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't Iran have the bomb? Israel has the bomb and they haven't attacked Iran. MAD works. it kept the Soviets and the Americans from annihilating each other. I can already hear your objection, that Russia and America were governed by rational men, who desired survival, that the men running the show in Iran are zealots. Is Israel any better? A rational man, surrounded by neighbors who would kill him, and who outnumber him, would seek a more hospitable home. What is it besides zealotry and national pride that roots the Israeli people to that plot of land? The whole situation is madness.
- Dynamis, on 04/23/2008, -4/+18If anybody ever fires a nuke at anybody else you can well bet we're either already fighting WWIII or WWIII just began. There would be no option of not getting involved.
- GiggleStick, on 04/23/2008, -9/+22Remember when the Palestinians were in charge of Palestine? Good Times....
It was right before the British were in charge. No wait, apparently that was the Ottomans. Must've been before them... Oh, the Egyptians. Hmmmmm... Before that the Ottomans again? Before that the Mamluks? Well, I'm sure they're in there somewhere. - TDR25, on 04/23/2008, -4/+17No one lobbying for AIPAC, Israel, or the Zionists wants to hear that though!
- doctorfungi, on 04/23/2008, -0/+13Obama pledged to do the exact same thing as Hilary in this situation. I bet you 99% of the people digging this story don't even know that.
- gossipninja, on 04/23/2008, -6/+18the reason we support israel is because they have the biggest lobbying group in wash DC, and that group gives campaign money to EVERYONE in the house/senate. This is not conspiracy theory nonsense, read "Charlie Wilson's War", the book goes into detail about how the israeli lobby gave him a ton of money to keep their goals in mind.
- SwiftKick34, on 04/23/2008, -2/+13Are you serious? Come on...
- Railz, on 04/23/2008, -0/+11Well for the UK anyway.
- DharmaDog, on 04/23/2008, -2/+13So do the UK and France. We'd do the same for them.
- badqat, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11Iran doesn't have the delivery mechanism to strike the US with a nuclear attack, other than through terrorists bringing a bomb via carrying it.
- inactive, on 04/23/2008, -1/+11#1) I don't care about Israel and a good deal of Americans also don't care. Most are so sick and tired of this back and forth endless fighting that they just don't care anymore. The only ones who care are Jews and zealot Christians who think theres going to be some prophecy that will lead to 'An End of Days' apocalyptic scenario in which millions will die.
#2) Israel has nukes, they dont need our us to send a nuke for them, they've got plenty. While I fully agree that sending a retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea should they nuke Seoul, doing the same to Pakistan should their weapons detonate over over New Delhi? No, why, what would be the point? India has nukes and has no problem using them, just how Israel wouldn't have a problem using them.
#3) Hilary Clinton saying that she would nuke Iran only propels the illusion that Israel has no nuclear weapons (it also helps to win undecided Jewish voters). As you know, having nuclear weapons puts your country under intense scrutiny, both our allies and enemies have to go through alot of checks and balances just to get approved. If not, international isolation (sanctions). - jjesusfreak01, on 04/23/2008, -9/+18If it got to the point where Iran was willing to use nukes, dont you think it might possibly be in our best interests to take them out, or is that completely erroneous and outside the realm of possibility.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 821 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is