digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at npr.org

Closer to war with Iran than anyone knows?

npr.org — The man who broke the My Lai and Abu Ghraib stories says we're closer to war with Iran than anyone knows.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sherrife, on 07/01/2008, -32/+209We're witnessing the death throes of the American Empire...

    Unfortunately corporate capitalism will continue unabated till we fight back.
    • aadyss, on 07/02/2008, -80/+14Yes indeed. I'm for waiting until Iran builds and uses a nuclear weapon before we act. The act then, of course, would be to send President Obama to talk to the Iranians in order to explain to them just where they went wrong. After listening to Obama, the Imam-Mahdi, the astonished and ever reverent Iranians will repent and cease all further hostile acts.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -15/+88Are you ***** stupid?

        Iran isn't a threat. They DON'T HAVE nuclear weapons. WE DO.


      • Wargalas, on 07/02/2008, -23/+12Well if you admit that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, then they need to be dealt with severely on that front. You're talking about supporting the murder of US troops. Everyone talks a good game around here about supporting them but not the war, but not one of you has suggested we hit back at people who are supporting their direct attacks and murder.
      • crazy0, on 07/02/2008, -8/+28"the murder of US troop" is being carried out by the assholes who make this xenophobic foreign policy...you're frustration is misplaced...i dont blame them for supporting whatever insurgency, i dont support either the troops or the war..... yea i said it
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/02/2008, -9/+21Yay!
        Rightard "we have enemies, REAL enemies, be afraid, be AFRAID" *****.
        Hey loser, if you want to scare yourself with the boogeyman under the bed, be my guest.
        Don't go trying to drag the rest of the world into your baseless idiocy.
      • Delphium226, on 07/02/2008, -5/+12scared pussy much?
      • vinod1978, on 07/02/2008, -2/+23@aadyss - You have to learn not to believe everything the President or Fox News tells you. It's imperative to get your news from multiple sources. I'm not saying Iran is not a problem - they are. They are funding Shiite "insurgents" in Iraq. But there is also evidence that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni "insurgents" in Iraq in order to prevent the Iranian's from gaining too much control over Iraq, but the Bush Administration singles out Iran and tells us 1/2 truths just like they did before we invaded Iraq.

        In regards to your "war on talking to our enemies", I hope you realize that President Bush announced that TALKING to North Korea is actually working. Why would you not use the same strategy with a country posing a similar threat?
      • tkstock, on 07/02/2008, -5/+4vinod, Bush never talked to North Korea.
      • JointVenture, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Well OK, Obama said that Iran is the greatest threat to Iraq, Israel and peace in the middle east. He said he would do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from getting the bomb.
      • vinod1978, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9@tkstockt - "Bush called the move, which comes six months late, an important breakthrough in the 5-year-old negotiations, but cautioned it was only the first step in a series of commitments North Korea must fulfill."

        In order to have "negotiations" someone from this Administration must be talking to someone from North Korea. I never said it was Bush himself.

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-26-nort ...
      • ndseifi, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1They should just get out of the ME. Nobody wants the Americans there. Nobody wants them anywhere. They should just stay in their country and shoot the ***** out of each other.
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2HAHAHAHAHA

        http://bp1.blogger.com/_d6_EcU0AKOg/R2kG9r70cSI/AA ...
    • aadyss, on 07/02/2008, -37/+3@sherrife
      Are you and fallingempire married....to each other. Oh geez, now I have that image in my head. Bye the bye, what's the opposite of corporate capitalism? Communistic capitalism?
      I just have this nagging need to know.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 07/02/2008, -3/+20Real capitalism, which does NOT involve government collusion. Corporate Capitalism is not a good term to use... I think sherrife means Corporatism.
      • PeppermintPig, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7Well, trashing capitalism is en vogue, AbsurdParadox. Better to articulate what one means than just say the words...

        Corporatism: people using government influence to gain privileged monopoly and destroy their competition.

        Mercantilism: Pretty much the same thing, but with government taking a more active role to defend the actions of the corporation, often intermeshing their activities, or heavy collusion between the two. Think Blackwater, or subsidized medicine.

        Capitalism: So much as two people agree to the exchange of goods or services on a voluntary basis, they are engaging in Capitalism. Taxes from third parties on exchanges diminishes this.

      • Hangly, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3The opposite of corporate capitalism is sometimes called the "free market," or "laissez-faire capitalism."

        Read some Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill.
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1ahhh... capitalism would function MARVELOUSLY without incorporation
    • borez, on 07/02/2008, -4/+26IMO sherrife that's the designed outcome of the Bankers who are causing all of this *****. Smash it down, then build it all back up, albeit with a whole load of new restrictions and then call it their " One World Order"

      /just my own theory.
    • jsavage58, on 07/02/2008, -14/+5Yeah??? Who's fighting back..
      That's what I thought. Back to the keyboard war
    • Lionhart, on 07/02/2008, -32/+4*tinfoil*
    • rz8472, on 07/02/2008, -0/+24Halliburton's CEO is a member of this "Iran Liberation Society" that is actively lobbying the government to attack.
      • dfeifer, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8So, I would think that if a war to take place, with the current soldier strengths the US has I can see a draft coming. Hopefully Bush doesn't decide to institute martial law, basicly making him a dictator and turning congress in to an advisory function. Thinking I might want to re-enlist before I get drafted in to the infantry.
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6the draftees will be Mexican and be told that with service they can have citizenship
      • Kanten, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Starship Troopers?
    • tidu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+21Nobody forget this resolution. In 5 years when we're entangled even deeper in the Middle East, or worse, recall back to that July 4th weekend back in '08 when over 200 congressmen co-sponsored a bill allowing the entanglement. The bill passed "like a knife through butter." All our representatives will be saying "This is a mess! How did the President do this without authority?! He should have consulted us first! I've been against this all along!!!" And we'll regard those liars as heroes for "stepping up" against the administration.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Sort of .. like ... 2004-2008.
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/02/2008, -8/+1What other system is more successful? I would like to know. not a troll post please give me the name of the country and what system other than capitalism is better and the average living condition of their poor people.
      • tkstock, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Well, the United Federation of Planets, of course. Of course, the concept of money doesn't exist then...
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Try the Scandinavian countries, higher standard of living, better safety net less work hours, better quality of life for more people.

        All economic systems work fine as long as people are on board with it. The natives in British Columbia operated on a gift economy (potlatch) which worked fine for them. The Peruvian empire had no money at all and was the largest country in the world in the 1500's. There are plenty of alternatives to the modern economy.

      • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Canada is a country. Is that system capitalism? My understanding is that their poor have a better standard of living.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9All the commonwealth countries are socialist-capitalist hybrid economies. Most of Europe is socialist-capitalist. All those countries have reasonable standards of living for all levels of society.

        The United States is not really capitalist anymore and hasn't been since 1933. We have a Corporatist economy, there is plenty of socialism in the United States a good example being the military.

        The fortune 500 companies being another example of socialism.
      • tkstock, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Don't forget San Angeles - until Simon Phoenix showed up, of course.
      • gandhii, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Capitalism is not a political system. It is an economic one. Many, it appears, do not understand that.
      • Hangly, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Capitalism IS successful. The United States, however, is not capitalist. Just because it says it is doesn't make it so. Words have meanings, and the US economy just doesn't fit the definition.

        Capitalism as Adam Smith defined it means competition and free trade. Competition meaning that companies survive or die on their own merits with no intervention from the government.

        The US government is heavily involved in promoting specific large industries by granting them legal immunity from liability (incorporation,) and by bailing out companies that fail. When the state is that involved in the economy you don't have capitalism, you have either a form of socialized mercantilism or fascism. It's the very thing that Adam Smith was attacking when he wrote The Wealth of Nations.
    • victimofkratina, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6*click click click click* Im under heavy fire here!!! *click click click*
    • jabberwolf, on 07/02/2008, -12/+3Death throws of America?

      Sorry, and will get buried for this, but we do keep the peace in the world.
      And yes keeping peace is profitable more so than war.

      But it's ok, have conspiracies all you wish, still doesn't make them true.

      And why not look at what IRAN is doing rather than what the USA is doing. That is the first step to get your head out of your ass!
      • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Keep the peace by starting wars?

        Jabberwolf then proceeded to prove black was white and was run over at the next zebra crossing.
      • Slick37c, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Fine, what is Iran doing that justifies a conventional war? Beheading people publically? Treating it's people badly? So ***** what. And don't even start with WMD's the CIA has told the administration they're not pursuing WMD's just like they did with Iraq. But will anyone listen to the professionals? Of course not. Gotta keep your eye on the green son!
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2"we do keep the peace in the world."
        ahhh... yeah... and how's that going. Are you broke yet?
    • flink405, on 07/02/2008, -8/+1@sherriffe - Australian, eh?
      Socialist, too?

      "We're witnessing the death throes of the American Empire..."
      Where? How? What is your proof? You live in Australia.
      And what American Empire is there?
      How many countries does the U.S. control their government ala your favorites the former USSR?
      Silly.

      "Unfortunately corporate capitalism will continue unabated till we fight back."
      Go meet some people that used to be a part of Soviet communist empire and ask them if they want to go back to the oppressive, poor, pathetic, dark life of USSR Communism you so love. They will not only say no, but hell no.
      • hamdogger, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3@flink405

        "They will not only say no, but hell no."

        Wrong. I have met several people who lived during the former Soviet regime and many of them, albeit older, would love to go back to the communist government.

        I'm not saying it's good or anything, I'm just saying you're wrong. ;)
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2"They will not only say no, but hell no."
        LOL!!!!!
        the exact opposite is true; no matter how horrible they still had bread and not criminal gangs abducting their daughters to sell into Dubai prostitution
    • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Sit by the river long enough and the body of your enemy will float by.

      Corporate capitalism is doing a great job of destroying itself.
    • Jib3, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Yes, Thanks to all of you Obama supporters, we can finally get war with Iran. Thank you so much for getting him the nomination.

      "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," -Barack Obama http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61626§ion ...

      Dont think he means force? Read the next paragraph.
    • diggrnumber1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2so you're saying you want to get rid of capitalism?
      • siszam, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Wonderful idea. Capitalism benefits a top few. Socialism benefits all levels of society.
    • principle, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The U.S. patsy-government has to defend the Fed’s (i.e., owner’s) petrodollar form threats by Iran’s oil bourse.

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

      Russia is next. They sell natural gas in euros.
    • nickbertovich, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Man, if only Ron Paul were president....the world would be perfect.
  • sogeshirts, on 07/01/2008, -19/+148Sweet lets win two wars at once. We have an unlimited number of troops. Weeeeee!
    • Inthenameofmine, on 07/01/2008, -15/+11/sarcasm...?
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/02/2008, -0/+90Three wars.*

      • palpacino, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11Four wars?*

        The War On Drugs? The one we spend billions on yearly as well. But are still the most drugged nation in the world.
      • jbassfretless, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1@palpacina
        I'm mostly ignorant to the issue but are there actually facts to support your claim that we're the "most drugged nation in the world"?
      • literider, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=0807011607 ...

        Yea it's kinda messed up. This war on drugs is a massive failure.
      • palpacino, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Thanks literider.
    • ozymandias2012, on 07/02/2008, -13/+2You're sick.
    • DreKor, on 07/02/2008, -1/+19/food for thought
      /show me the money
      /power overwhelming

      Oh wait, that doesn't work out here, does it?
      • victimofkratina, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3idkfa
        iddqd

        yep, ive got nothing.
      • antiorblkflag9, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4/operation cwal
        /something for nothing x3

        aw, ***** it

        /there is no cow level
    • overkil6, on 07/02/2008, -1/+18The US is going to start to need using cheat codes soon I think...
    • muzy, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3rent animals... humans from other countrys like Mexico
    • ScottMitchell, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4Bring on the draft!
    • olsonea, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Sherrife don't like it! Rock the kasbah! Rock the kasbah!
    • DangerCollie, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6We'll have plenty of troops when they reinstate the draft...although I don't think Obama would do that. McCain would, he's a Nam vet. No problems with the draft.

      Don't you Bush voters feel good now? You got exactly what you voted for.
  • CoffeeJoost, on 07/01/2008, -32/+11We'll let Israel attack and then invoke the Carter Doctrine.
    • aadyss, on 07/02/2008, -14/+7mmm, the Carter Doctrine.
    • vinod1978, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7The Carter Doctrine was put in place because the Soviet Union was making it hard for the US to get oil from the middle east. I think we've accomplished that ourselves by occupying Iraq.
  • stignordas, on 07/01/2008, -18/+253What happened to the US? I want my country back!
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/02/2008, -0/+64You'll have to fight for it.
    • suckanucka, on 07/02/2008, -7/+29The US is becoming the new English Empire from the 1700's. If you want your country back, you better not be a brown person or practice Islam.
      • glucoseboy, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6Vote then!
      • Uaedaien, on 07/02/2008, -0/+17It was the British Empire anyway
      • CrazedLeper, on 07/02/2008, -3/+5An informed person speaks the truth. You should expect to get dugg down for it.
      • muzy, on 07/02/2008, -5/+4The Jews are the key players in all this.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4"If you want your country back, you better not be a brown person or practice Islam."

        Done and done. Whew, now I can celebrate.
      • reastydirtstar, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2damn right you better not be a brown person. What happened to the US? Brown people came and infected the once pure white population. Infected them with crime, rape, drugs, racism, and AIDS. What a bunch of diseased criminals.
    • STPZ, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8Your goddamn right, i do too
    • ruddy, on 07/02/2008, -11/+3its a ***** story! until we're shooting rag heads in iran, don't believe it!
      • jazzguitar18, on 07/02/2008, -4/+7A very short one at that, This is a stupid article. It just talks about how he wrote about what we want to read in a completely different article and then shows his credentials. I'm gonna dig this down since it doesn't talk about what his evidence is.

        College Professor Dr. Dave Davidson believes that the United States may be closer to armed conflict with {Insert random country here} than previously imagined. He writes about Congress' funding of covert military operations in the upcoming issue of The New Yorker.

        {insert irrelevant article that has been written by you before}

        During the Vietnam War, Davidson was the first to report on the My Lai massacre. He has been the recipient of the {random award here}, {A lot of crappy awards here}, {the rest will be made up from here} He is also the author of eight books, including How to write a ***** article that has nothing to do with bombing ***** iran.
    • JointVenture, on 07/02/2008, -1/+10 Obama said that Iran is the greatest threat to Iraq, Israel and peace in the middle east. He said he would do whatever is necessary to keep Iran from getting the bomb.
      • toetagger, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3And of course he said that to AIPAC so they wouldn't bar him from service. SCOUNDRELS!
    • monkeysurf, on 07/02/2008, -4/+1which country do you want back. you need a history lesson as it could easily be argued that we were WAY more aggessive than we are now in the face of constant media scrutiny. Per earlier trends of major powers invading smaller countries in those days we would have just killed until the natives submitted.
    • evilgourmet, on 07/02/2008, -0/+15I want the country back that I was told about when I was little.
      • monkeysurf, on 07/02/2008, -6/+0revisionism based on idealism is VERY scary whether it's from the left or right.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Yeah that would be nice if the dream that is America, matched up with the reality of America.
    • muzy, on 07/02/2008, -8/+2your country is rules by Jews, as long as they in power, your country is a bye bye
      • neko6, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Yeah, damn jooz! They have too much power, we must get rid of them somehow. I have an idea! Lets take all their assets and put them all in their own neighborhoods. They'll have a nice fence and some guard dogs around it, and occasionally we'll burn a few of them and use the remains to make soap. Wouldn't that just solve all our problems?
    • BeyondDGrave, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2CHAAAAAANNGGEEE
    • fr3ddie, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Isolationism FTW!
  • humanerror, on 07/01/2008, -24/+365A US / Israel invasion of Iran at this point will almost certainly trigger World War 3.

    Iran is a democratic country with a capable military. They have attacked not a single country in hundreds of years, and if they find themselves suddenly having to defend themselves against an unprovoked attack from the world's strongest superpower and most violent military aggressor, then they WILL have the sympathy--and quite possibly the support--of other nations in the region and elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, the US has already cut ties with allies all over the world and greatly diminished its favored status in the eyes of even our closest partners, Japan and the UK. Not only that, but NO ONE supports US aggression towards Iran. On the contrary, regions that will be openly hostile to another US invasion--this time without even the pretext of consulting the UN or claiming self defense--will include probably all of South and Central America, most of Europe, China, Russia, and all of the Middle East excluding Israel.

    Do we believe that Bush's generals can command the USA to another World War victory at this point?

    Maybe they can. But what are the odds that, as before, the war will end with only the US using nuclear weapons? Will Pakistan not take the opportunity to use its weapons? What about Israel? Russia? China? Japan? (After all, does anyone really believe that Japan, threatened by North Korea and consistently hostile to Russia and China, doesn't have nuclear capabilities?)

    What's clear is that if this happens, then we are all in serious trouble. More than a million people have already died in Bush's war. So far they've been mostly foreigners on foreign land, and CNN and MSNBC and the rest have been able to create the impression that it's not happening at all. But if Bush is allowed to extend his war to Iran, then there's every reason to believe that the next million deaths--and the million after that and the million after that--will be much closer to home. And it's also clear that, one way or another, a war against Iran will not last for a hundred years.

    Americans. This is real. If you're not terrified, if you're not furious, if you're not *interested*, then my God, what will it take?

    Are we going to sit around and just hope it doesn't happen?
    • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -6/+152You create an angry American by taking away their new car, ipod or 8 pound burger king meal. The sleepers will simply flick TV channels between Pampers ads and Dancing With the Stars, have another beer and belch 'till the feeling goes away. War, who cares as long as it doesn't directly affect their Internet access and bank account. After all, government has their best interests at heart and will take care of everything! George Bush says we were attacked on 9/11 by "evildoers who hate our freedoms and way of life." (sure..) And you can believe what he says since he never lies..Just ask "Dick Cheney." Meanwhile, sit back and do nothing, watch your freedoms and hard won civil liberties and Constitution become dismantled piece by piece, eviscerated and extinguished. Trust 'your' government, they are here to help you. Is Keeping Up with the Kardashians on yet?

      It's going to take a full scale revolution in this country to change anything for the better. The USA has been hi-jacked. "Our" government has sold out to greater masters. They will do whatever they please with no accountability, with no respect for the Constitution-which is the law of the land. The Constitution=AMERICA, yet they spit on it, rape it profusely and laugh. They don't give a ***** what we cannon fodder for taxes serfs think. They shut us out, and instead bow to AIPAC overlords, grovel to their feet to pledge unconditional, "unshakable support" as they gleefully give away another 10 million dollars of our taxmoney to Pakistan's president in untraceable cash transfers.

      America is being destroyed from within. We are under a domestic, fascist assault. America needs a full-on revolution. We the people need to rise up and take our country back. Get off the ***** blogs and take to the streets in the millions. It's time.
      • aadyss, on 07/02/2008, -29/+5'The sleepers..... unlike the very pro-active diggers. Ha, Ha!
      • kidathinnes, on 07/02/2008, -1/+35"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson
      • omnis, on 07/02/2008, -8/+19The people on this site are all talk and no action. You're screaming into an empty abyss people. You all agree and whine and complain, but no one thinks or does anything until their next visit to digg.
      • OliveStreet, on 07/02/2008, -6/+7Where do I sign up?

        Gimme a chance and I'll take care of bush's ***** ... Once and for all!

        ***** hate him
      • Snuff99, on 07/02/2008, -15/+10It's entertaining to see them flail about tho'.

        America does evil things, OMG!

        Every nation with any power, every Empire in the history of mankind has done evil to achieve and maintain dominance, this is not new. America is not special. Can we change things, yes. Will we? Not by bitchin on the interwebs, this I can promise.
      • kidathinnes, on 07/02/2008, -3/+20"The people on this site are all talk and no action. You're screaming into an empty abyss people. You all agree and whine and complain, but no one thinks or does anything until their next visit to digg."

        You have people who bitch and do nothing about it sure. Then you have people like you, who lump all the members of Digg into one group, I believe its called generalizing. What makes you so smart? Do you know every Digg member and if they actually do something or not. No, you don't, so shut the ***** up. Sure, the vast majority of people on here won't do *****. But to those who actually go out and physically demand change, I salute you.

        "Every nation with any power, every Empire in the history of mankind has done evil to achieve and maintain dominance, this is not new. America is not special. Can we change things, yes. Will we? Not by bitchin on the interwebs, this I can promise."

        What does this have to do with anything? Who cares if every Empire has done evil? I live in this country and want to make it better. Who said America is special? I think we all are talking about making OUR nation better and not really concerned about the history of empires being evil. So are we just to accept this corruption because it's happened before? Please tell me your point because I'm trying to understand where the ***** you are coming from.
      • GliTCH82, on 07/02/2008, -3/+5What can anyone do, really? Besides talking. This is 2008, not 1776. Our government runs autonomously without answering to the people it represents. We're really close to a presidential election, I think the outcome of that will determine a lot of things.
      • kidathinnes, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8Glitch, sadly this is the mindset that allows our government to walk all over us. And most of the nation thinks this way. Things need to change. Eventually they will, but will it be too late. The election will rid us of King George, but that is only a slight relief. Corruption that has plagued this country for a very long time, not just the last 7 1/2 years. The people are getting less and less power in this government ran by big money.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+13We're just moving from King George to King Obama. There's a slight possibility we'll have King McCain, but I doubt it. We're obviously being groomed for King Obama.

        Wait, "what king"?, you say?

        This country was intended to be a constitutional republic. That's what the paperwork that the government derives its legitimate authority describes, anyway. But you know, out of the entire bill of rights, only amendment three hasn't been directly over-ridden, not to mention the inversion of the commerce clause, the bland creation and acceptance of ex post facto laws, and similar violations of other parts of the constitution outside the bill of rights.

        Now, I put it to you: As the fact is that our country is being run in a "we'll do what we want" manner, as opposed to a manner that is authorized and delimited by the constitution, and our "supreme leader" gets to issue proclamations (excuse me, "signing statements") that state he is above this law or that, declares this or that to be illegal, can ignore the amendments (the 4th, the 5th) etc...

        How, other than in name and vastly increased power, is this different than any medieval kingship? Of what use is a constitution if it is toothless? Of what use are impeachment/conviction powers if the congress will not act?

        HOWEVER: I will bet you money that you will not see any kind of revolution in this country. The general population is too comfortable, too poorly educated, and neither understand the concept of liberty nor yearn to experience the reality of it.

        The public and private discussions and pamphlet-distribution between citizens that took place in the 1700's have been replaced by drooling sessions absorbing what Cable Newz Nitwits and Faux Newz instruct people to be concerned with, which, if it isn't Britney's latest panty-free escapade or some kid stuck down a well, is a lecture on how great the economy is combined with some self-serving, ass-licking, pseudo-patriotic drivel about the "threat" of terrorism, followed by news that more rights are sundered, more surveillance is planned, and hey, isn't GREAT that more than 1% of our citizens are now in prison?

        All hail King George. Or join the 1%.
      • kidathinnes, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Fyngyrz, well said sir.
      • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11Letter-writing doesn't work, protests don't work, voting doesn't work. The whole system is rigged against us. The only thing left to do, I'm afraid, is to take direct action.

        "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
        -- John F. Kennedy

        I abhor violence as much as the next person, but if a few guilty people have to die to protect the lives and freedom of millions of innocents I think that's completely justifiable morally.
      • Kormiku, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Dont be so sure we are exchanging King Bush for King Obama (or mccain) just yet. Bush passed a bunch of new laws about martial law in the past two years saying that he can start and stop martial law whenever he pleases without the support of the other branches of the government. Once he starts martial law he doesnt have to answer to the senate for anything ever again. It will be a dictatorship once and for all. Also when the country is in martial law, all elections are put on pause until martial law is over, which will be never if we are at war with Iran. Think about it.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Well... we'll know soon enough. I kind of imagined it going like this: Bush declares martial law, Cheney has him assassinated, and we get perma-King-Cheney. Shotgun fire to the face for everyone. For which we have to thank him. Publicly.

        ...But as you see, I'm a pessimist.

    • dtele, on 07/02/2008, -29/+7Im not too sure about your logic stating that "A US / Israel invasion of Iran at this point will almost certainly trigger World War 3."

      For a world war to occur there must be MANY countries who are prepared to fight the US on ALL continents.

      Somehow, I do not see that happening.
      • BowieX, on 07/02/2008, -3/+12I see you read past the first sentence of his comment.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 07/02/2008, -2/+10If you think the US is capable of defeating half the world at the same time, then I feel that you are sorely mistaken.
      • Stormwern, on 07/02/2008, -5/+2No western country would declare war on the US, we're not reatarded. War is not the first option in ANY sitiation over here.
      • tobindrake, on 07/02/2008, -15/+0Q: Let's see, what country could militarily fight the US successfully win? A: None.
        Q: Which group of countries could militarily fight the US and win? A: None.

        The US has nuclear weapons (not just atomic weapons - fusion weapons). Enough to wipe out every man, woman and child on the planet several times over. Militarily speaking the US has nothing to fear from any country on the planet other than mutually assured destruction. And Russia is the only country on the planet able to do that. China would be able to destroy most of the cities on the American west coast, but that's about it. All other nations don't have sufficient numbers of nuclear weapons to worry about and since most of those are European the chances of a nuclear exchange are very low to nil.

        So basically, unless Russia is involved in a conflict, the US can successfully defeat any group of nations including China. It might cost alot, but it can be done.
      • jacobgduncan, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5We must invade ourselves.
      • Recidivus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Nowadays, there's more ways to wage and win a war than just using the military.
      • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Oil is important to everyone. All countries have a stake in what happens in the Middle East.

        @ tobindrake
        Win a war against Russia and China? In their own backyards? Are you completely and totally ***** insane??
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4There is no winning a nuclear war. Russia and China are the biggest customers of Iran, and Iran is quite capable of shutting down our middle east oil supply. Imagine how much food will cost in the US then. We'd have to go to WW II style rationing, or there'd be riots in the streets.
      • tobindrake, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4@Hangly

        The US could not win an all-out war with Russia. It would be the end of human civilization and a pointless conflict no matter what was at stake. Please read my post.

        The US at this point in time could defeat China. A first strike on China would eliminate most of their nuclear arsenal and the US would suffer around 50 million casualties from the few nukes that would hit the west coast. Chinese losses would be horrific. Probably on the scale of 800million+ dead and Japan and other US allies would have significant fallout effects killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens as well. So, if a war with China were necessary, it would be possible to in effect win a war with China (in the sense that the Chinese civilization would effectively cease to exist).

        So, I really don't understand your comment about attacking China in its backyard. Any conflict of any significance involving China would by definition be nuclear. A conventional war with China is pointless since they would most certainly use nuclear weapons on American conventional forces almost immediately when hostilities started. I have no doubt they would target American bases and carriers with nuclear weapons and the US would have to respond in kind. It would be in the US best interest to annhilate China first with a nuclear strike using stealth bombers and submarines so they wouldn't be able to react effectively.
      • Hangly, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3@tobindrake:
        You're assuming any conflict with Russia would involve nuclear weapons. That simply isn't the case. We fought several proxy wars against both Russia and China after the advent of nuclear weapons and those weapons were not used. As insane as Cheney&Co. are, I don't think they want to wipe out the planet. (They would stand to lose a lot of money if they did that.)

        So lets assume a conventional war on the Asian continent. I think you will agree that for logistical reasons and a lack of allies the US would snuff it pretty quickly.
      • acliffhang3r, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@tobindrake
        "...and the US would suffer around 50 million casualties from the few nukes that would hit the west coast....So, if a war with China were necessary, it would be possible to in effect win a war with China."

        Really tobindrake? You would use the term 'win' to describe the aftermath of a nuclear exchange between the US and China?

        It's a war. The only people who win in a war are the people financing it. Everyone else loses. What is of concern though is your cavalier attitude towards millions of people dying.
      • tobindrake, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0@Hangly

        Proxy wars with Russia at this point is unlikely. The Cold War is over and the only place of real interest to Russia and the US now is the Middle East, but let's leave that to the side for now.

        Let's first consider likely places of conflict and how it would develop with the only other real power in the world - China.

        1) Tiawan. China decides to annex Tiawan and launches a massive invasion. The US responds since it doesn't want its ally being snuffed out by sending in its fleet and readying its bases in Asia. The Chinese would undoubtedly nuke any fleets approaching and the American aircraft bases to send a message to the Americans to back off. Due to an unfortunate mistaken belief the US is weak and a common misconception that if you hit America hard first - they'll run. Unfortunately, most foreigners fail to understand the American psychology and that we would most likely strike back with a full set of nuclear strikes of our own. Depending on how long it takes of the Americans to come around to the final decision to respond - casualties on the American side could be as low as the 10's of million to as high as 100 million. Chinese casualties will be massive. The US is likely to escalate quickly and wipe out most of China as a result.

        2) North Korea invades South Korea. Seoul is completely destroyed. American responds with a massive air campaign. North Korea responds with a few nuclear attacks on Japan. The US begins to eliminate virtually all of North Korea's troops and equipment. China not wanting to see its ally utterly defeated intervenes. In this case, they are likely to again strike US conventional forces with nuclear weapons to deliver the same message to the Americans - back off or this is going to get really bad. Same psychology and same result. The US will responds with an overwhelming nuclear strike on China in response to China's first use of nuclear weapons.

        I really don't see a scenario involving China right now that won't either result in them using nuclear weapons or the US responding with an overwhelming nuclear attack in response. The US President will have no choice but to respond no matter who it is.

        Ok, back to Russia and the Middle East. A proxy war is not likely. The US is directly involved in Iraq and soon will bomb Iran in concert with Israel (most likely with in the next few months) to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. I really don't see how Russia will be involved signicantly in this since Iran will only be bombed by the US and Israel and after sufficient damage has been done the US and Israel will suspend operations.
    • Lawofnations, on 07/02/2008, -39/+5"They have attacked not a single country in hundreds of years.." I stopped reading the rest when I saw that statement. Humanerror somehow missed the seven years of the U.S. funded war between Iraq and Iran.
      • gummih, on 07/02/2008, -1/+41You stopped reading? How wise of you. You most do that a lot.
        The Iran-Iraq war started when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980. Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, even so, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians.
      • mcquitty, on 07/02/2008, -9/+5"On September 17, in a statement addressed to the Iraqi parliament, Saddam Hussein stated that "The frequent and blatant Iranian violations of Iraqi sovereignty" dealing with border confrontation.
      • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Minor correction:
        Iraq, funded and supported by the US, invaded Iran on 22 September 1980, hoping to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran as punishment for revolutionary Iran's nationalizing of all British Petroleum assets inside their borders.
    • cashman57, on 07/02/2008, -28/+7The number of errors in your post is laughable. The Iranian military cannot detect our stealth aircraft, cannot build their own aircraft, cannot keep the aircraft they have in the air and cannot even use the Navy they have if we want to sink it.
      Their army base in the northern region was nearly wiped out by Kurdish rebels with simple weapons leading to their army leader being transferreed and replaced by a commander with experience in the Iran-Iraq war.Iran attacked us by killing our Marines and taking our diplomats hostage and if we had a real president back then they would not be an islamic republic . They planned and carried out the attack on our Marine barracks in Beirut.They have logistically supported terrorists who have been wreaking havoc in the middle east for decades. They supplied the shape charged weapons which proved deadly to Israeli tanks when the hezbollah wimps attacked Israel.
      So, apparently you get your info about the Iranians from comic books because what you wrote and reality are worlds apart.
      • ThomasPaine23, on 07/02/2008, -2/+21And the CIA overthrew the first elected democratic government in Iran in 1953. (Which they promptly replaced with a dictatorship under the Shah).

        There is no surpise in why Iran is hostile to the US. The US is currently attempting to destabilize the government there again.
        Congress just authorized 400 million to do so.

        This has been going on since 1953. Support for democracy around the world is a sham.

        Iran - 1953 cia coup replaced with dictactorship
        Iraq - 1980s US supplied biological and chemical weapons and intelligence to saddam hussein for Iran-Iraq war
        Pakistan - diplomatic and monetary support and for Musharrif's dictatorship.
        Panama - longstanding support and payment from the CIA for manuel Noriega (until he crossed them)
        Numerous other South American dictatorships from the 50's onward.

        The list goes on.....

      • fyngyrz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Whatever else you may say, I don't think I'd be calling anyone who was willing to attack Israel a "wimp." Stupid perhaps, fanatical, even crazy -- but not a wimp. Don't underestimate people. It simply leads to errors.
      • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4Serbia managed to down one of our F-117s in 1999. Since then the pieces were shipped off to Moscow and Beijing where they've been researched for the past 9 years. If you think our stealth aircraft are invincible at this point you're fooling yourself.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Hangly, stealth radar visibility isn't a matter of examining the hardware. It's a matter of a low radar profile; if you turn up a radar far enough to see an f117, your scope would also show every lark, robin, and bluejay - any bird, in fact - in the air. Stealth technology doesn't make aircraft invisible; it just reduces the radar cross section until it is lost in the clutter. Detecting one requires extreme computer assistance, specifically discriminating one type of Doppler track from another, and not only *they* not have that, neither do we. As for infrared, there is no profile, and visually detecting one in the dark on a cloudy night is basically near-impossible. Also, F117's aren't the last word in stealth; we don't even make them any longer.
      • cashman57, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Thomas Paine 23 I don't see how that has anything to do with what I wrote.You are historically correct but it doesn't make a difference in whether we could attack Iran, or their capability of repelling such an attack,
        fyngyrz- I call them wimps because they did nothing but run away after attacking Israel. They won no firefights, held no ground, and ran away so fast that they left their arms caches behind.What I wrote earlier is true, they do not have the capability of detecting our stealth craft.
        Hangly- that was done with visual, not radar and if we had a real president back then the pieces of that craft would have been useless because we would have bombed the crap out of them. None of this alters the fact that their military could be easily defeated, probably as easy as the defeat of the "great" saddam army.
        I am not advocating an attack, quite the opposite, I am just showing you that it would be a defeat for the Iranians if we chose to go forward with an attack.
        Hopefully it will not happen while "W" is in office and we elect a third party candidate to prevent it for the next four years.
    • Navicerts, on 07/02/2008, -10/+8OK, im pissed - now what exactly are you suggesting?

      I'm sad to say that regardless of how accurate you are you sound like a cliche (believe me, i wish you didn't)
    • ThomasPaine23, on 07/02/2008, -1/+29IMO

      China will get sucked in and at least fight a proxy war via Iran.
      They have billions of dollars in oil/natural gas agreements with
      Iran. They have built a deep water naval port in Pakistan (right outside the gulf) and are supplying arms to both Iran and Pakistan.
      They have pipeline agreements with Iran and Pakistan (to ship oil to the above mentioned port) In addition they have the Taiwan issue.

      They have been building a blue water fleet for awhile, and if nothing else
      I think they will take the opportunity to grab Taiwan while the US is otherwise engaged.
      • darkstar949, on 07/02/2008, -0/+13Eh, I don't know if they need to make a military grab for Taiwan anyway. Currently the relations between the two countries - while cool - has been warming put a bit and China is enough of an economic power now that Taiwan want's to be on their good side if only for economic reasons.
      • oldgal, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7All China has to do is put US Treasury notes on the market.
      • nickvdk, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0You guys are wrong. Believe it or not China is scared of USA and they need them otherwise the Chinese economy will collapse. China is like a big bully that is all talk but no action.

        Chinese people generally have a positive attitude towards America because they are starting to enjoy consumerism e.g. McDonalds, Nike shoes, American cars etc. The Chinese government is also slowly letting the people voice their opinions.

        I have traveled to China over 20 occasions and have a Chinese fiance, so I have experienced first hand their propaganda machine in action.

        Remember, the Chinese Government like to talk a lot of *****. They are not going to war over some country far away and risk sinking their whole economy at the same time. A similar country would be Russia. Come on guys the cold war is over!
    • Nightfall, on 07/02/2008, -5/+49Americans as a whole are not concerned. 95% of them believe that God is on their side.
      • GliTCH82, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8Right, but what happens when God decides to "test" our faith?
      • HoratioHellpop, on 07/02/2008, -6/+2And you pulled that statistic from ... your considerable ass.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/02/2008, -3/+9Horatio is correct.

        Only about 85% of Americans believe in God, according to recent surveys. So the total number of gullible, superstitious idiots that could believe God is on America's side is only 85%. One of whom is our president, who in addition to being a superstitious jackass, is also a warmongering douchenozzle.

        So there's nothing to worry about.

        Oh, wait.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Just because you don't believe doesn't make other people gullible. Although they might be sheep. The President is a member of a pagan secret society I doubt he's entirely christian.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1No, what makes them gullible is believing in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. What makes them gullible is the evidence coming from endless repetitions of failed prayer; from the incredibly poor "design" of the human body, reproductive system, and inability to learn; what makes them gullible is an inability to realize that some questions might not have accessible answers.

        It isn't my lack of belief that makes them gullible. They're responsible for it, not me.

        Any questions, Jlaugh?
      • bobbi21, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Just had to mention that prayer isn't to get stuff and any actual christian nowendays knows that. Christians in general pray to 1) feel closer to god (just a feeling so not something that can really be studied or proven or whatever) 2) to sort out their own priorities and deal with their own problems. It's like psychiatry except you're talking to God/yourself (depending on what you believe) instead of some guy sitting in a chair.

        And as a med student I'd just like to say the design of the human body is pretty good depending on how you look at it. You look at it in a fundamentalist christian way then yeah it sucks. You look at it in a "make the perfect creature" way then yeah it sucks. You look at it in an evolutionary way then it makes pretty much total sense. As much as the lay person wants to just say evolution is all random, the act of natural selection is just..well awesome. Sure you get a couple things that started off 1 way and couldn't be redone but the number of those things shrinks everyday as we figure out "hey this thing actually IS/was useful". I'm not saying we're perfect even in an evolutionary sense but we're not that bad. Humans weren't designed to live forever or even that healthily and they didn't need to be.

        I'm pretty sure your attack was purely on those fundamentalist christians who believe the human body is perfect and all that so I don't mean to attack your point. I just felt like it should be noted the actual complexity in our "design".

        Oh and another note. people who believe in string theory and pretty much all theoretical physics right now are in that group of believing in things with no evidence whatsoever. People want things to make sense and they cling to whatever they can which they don't see as obviously wrong. The whole field of science is dedicated to trying to find answers to questions that were previously thought were unknowable. And it's not that fundamental christians don't believe things are unknowable, they say like everyday "you can't know god's will" or something like that. They just believe this ONE thing IS knowable. Scientists used to believe you could find out the position and momentum of any object. Are they all gullible for believing this one thing is knowable? It was an assumption based on what they saw in the world. And many of these religious types see around them ppl who are effected by god and whatnot. They see those healing ppl guys and are just ignorant of placebo effects and all that.

        In believing things, obviously some people do more research than others but that's a matter of laziness/ignorance more than gullibility. You don't question a lot of the basic science you know (elements, earth is round etc) since you trust the ppl around you to tell you the truth (scientists, parents, teachers). Most of these ppl do the same. Of course most people try to verify the more controversial stuff by trying to find unbiased reports but when was the last time you checked for evidence that the earth revolves around the sun? You trust the scientific experts, and they trust the religious 'experts". And to them religion isn't a controversy. They think not believing in a god is ridiculous just as you probably think believing in their version of God is ridiculous. Maybe you did your research on it but maybe you didn't. The general athiest/agnostic just as the general gnostic hasn't (probably more in the later group but still a majority either way). People are massively ignorant about the world. Lets not confuse that with gullibility.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1"I''m pretty sure your attack was purely on those fundamentalist christians who believe the human body is perfect and all that so I don't mean to attack your point."

        My remark was made in light of the facts. Such as human mothers died in, or because of, childbirth very often until we learned to wash our hands before touching them, and a few other little tricks. This imaginary god could just have easily said "wash your hands before you ever touch a wound or putting them inside a cut and USE SOAP", but instead, the Christians want you to believe that he said "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy", not to mention a whole raft of other primitive inanities. The idea that the human body is divinely designed is ridiculous in light of its numerous and extreme failure modes; the idea that "God" is a caring god and Jesus was his son is ridiculous in light of the ***** and repetitive advice dispensed in their silly books. The whole thing is pitiful, really.

        As an evolutionary product, sure, the human body is fascinating and complex and a wonder. But at the same time, it stands as very good evidence that the Christian stories are purest garbage.

        But people are gullible -- not at all the same thing as stupid -- and it is very hard for many (about 85%, apparently) to recognize that the world is only as pleasant as we make it, and that we are biological machines that go out like a candle when our machinery quits. They need an imaginary sky daddy, and an imaginary "afterlife", and I have no idea how to fix that. But it is *still* pitiful.

    • tehcommodore, on 07/02/2008, -9/+4To say that all of south america would is a gross overstatement. We have 4 allies in south america named Chile, Peru, Columbia, and Bolivia. You may not have heard about the "partnership of americas" our government started 2 years ago but believe it or not we do have friends. But your right it would add to your statement about WW3 if you said the whole of the south american continent hates us. Bravo.
      • zeabu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Perú WAS a partnership. There's now a leftish native president rulin the country.
    • jsavage58, on 07/02/2008, -6/+1Sit around? Yeah, pretty much. Everybody will. Just keep typing, that helps/
    • TaintBrush, on 07/02/2008, -4/+4Is there some way to tell all the countries everywhere that no one (well, almost no one) in the US is for this? And it's just a handful of powerful ***** playing "games" with our lives? I would like them to know, so they won't bomb us in retaliation. :(
      • sodade, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8You have no idea how many foolish people there are in the US.
      • auranfyrbringer, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Yeah and maybe they will also come and liberate America from its oppressive government. :).

        Next time lets make smarter choices when voting.
    • paulmer2003, on 07/02/2008, -3/+5Democratic? lol. Sure, the president is elected democratically, but what about the "surpreme leader"?
      • EarlOfLade, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5You mean like how the Supreme Court "elected" George W. Bush? Yeah, it's a democracy in USA all right, unlike anything the rest of the world understands as a democracy.
      • cJw314, on 07/02/2008, -2/+8"Sure, the president is elected democratically..."

        Al Gore would disagree.
      • paulmer2003, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2I was speaking about Iran, you epic ***** troll.
    • Stormwern, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3It will not "almost certainly" happen. If the middle east rallies to iran, which is unlikely since sunnis don't like shia very much, america may loose the war. That doesn't make it a world war, because they can't invade back. China and Russia may supply iran with weapons if they think they can do so covertly, but they don't want the world to end more than anyone else.
    • kosser, on 07/02/2008, -3/+24Look how ***** crooked our government is. We are literally controlling groups through our CIA to provoke Iran into attacking us back. They are shooting mosques *sp, schools, amongst other places just waiting for Iran to retaliate. But Iran wont because they know the minute they do, American Media will gasp in horror saying something to the lines of, "UNPROVOKED Iran attacks US troops." Our government is literally bullying them into a fight. how ***** sad is this administration. and even worse how ***** sad is the American public who will fall for it and believe this.
      • sodade, on 07/02/2008, -1/+14We've been doing this crap since WW2. The only difference is that the American people can actually learn about our imperialistic foreign policies while they are happening. Interestingly, us knowing about them doesn't seem to be changing the behavior of our insane leaders - if anything, our inaction has only emboldened them.
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3We've been doing this crap since long before WW II look what we did to the Indian nations. Mexico-American war, Spanish-American war, etc etc.

        Look up Knights of the Golden Circle sometime.
    • cJw314, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6That's the plan; that way, Bush can postpone the election indefinitely.
      • simplyskeptic, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1War has never postponed a presidential election, and it won't happen now. Besides, we are already conducting 2 wars, why do you think number 3 will make any difference in this regard?
      • Kormiku, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Check out the new rules for martial law that were passed last year.
      • cJw314, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@ simplyskeptic:

        A nuclear attack would certainly both postpone the election AND give "good reason" to "make the world safer" by declaring global martial law.

        Number 3 will have much more appropriate timing... say, september, november-ish?
    • PatrickDW, on 07/02/2008, -5/+2I sure hope we don't attack that peace loving country. They have been so nice and peaceful. They've done nothing to provoke anything. I hope we stop driving all our big cars - or driving at all as even the small electric cars still produce so many pollutants and electricity is still mostly generated from nasty, dirty coal. We need to stop using oil so we don't have such an interest in the region. Then we can live in peace and relative prosperity - even though China and India will pick up with production where we left off. The USA has had it's glory days, let's let those up and coming countries take the reins now!
      • humanerror, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4The US could easily come out on top again if we'd just stop funneling 90% of everything we earn up to the richest 1% of the population.
      • PatrickDW, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0Is it not a fact that the top 1% of wealthiest pay the majority of taxes into the public coffer? Or are you suggesting we not buy things from rich people?
      • itchyfeet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@patrickDW : It's NOT YOUR ***** OIL.
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/02/2008, -3/+13Alas, as long as American Idol, Dancing With The Stars and Desperate Housewifes is on TV, Americans will not know or do anything.

      Americans in general is the most uninterested people I have ever come across, the collective knowledge about the world is so lacking that it would take decades with an extensive education reform to get them to a European level.
      • popfrogs, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9I'm American, and I have to tell you, I don't know about your media sources, but the ones in the US are wholly corporate owned-and-controlled. We're constantly misinformed through a dozen different sources, the most common one being the television set.

        A few decades ago, corporations started buying up media outlets like television and radio stations. The focus, then, began shifting from reporting the news, to some sensationalistic ***** to gain ratings. The higher the ratings, the higher the viewership, the higher the advertising rates, the happier the shareholders ad nauseum.

        Corporate media lords collude with government agents to release edited and half true stories regarding US policy, military movement, etc. The true horrors of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will never be known to the public. You won't see gruesome videos of civilians getting blown to smithereens or children getting arms blown off from unexploded cluster munitions. You won't ever read about it either, at least not from the "trusted sources".

        The Internet has changed this somewhat, but only for that 5% actually interested in learning the truth and seeing a well-rounded view from the outside.
      • sat0shi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Japan is worse.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3@popfrogs

        Corporate control of the media has been around a lot longer than a few decades.

        Oddly enough, discussing this on a website that is owned by a corporation.
      • source1984, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2European?? Please....they're sheep also. they're just lucky sheep in that they have decent governments. overall though, they could care less. they're isolationists. they can barely see past their wine and cheese.
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 07/02/2008, -3/+6You seem to have forgotten the Iran/Iraq war, which was fought to a draw over 8 years. That would indicate that Iran's military is about on par with what Iraq's was. From a military point of view, they would not be a big problem for either the US or Israel. The problem the US would have winning a war with Iran is the same thing its having with Iraq and Afghanistan: figuring out what the hell to do AFTER defeating the other army.
      • slstsang, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2So why are we still fighting right now? cause we didn't win?
      • PolishLogic, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5"The problem the US would have winning a war with Iran is the same thing its having with Iraq and Afghanistan: figuring out what the hell to do AFTER defeating the other army."

        Read it again slstsang. I think your train of thought got derailed by one little word.
      • Hangly, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5That was Iraq before it was crippled by sanctions and the Gulf War, with the full backing of the US, fighting an Iran that was still in the throes of revolution. If that doesn't prove Iran is pretty ***** tough I don't know what does.
      • nickrollout, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1@ Hangly

        The Iraq/Iran war was fought like WW1 with trench warfare and human wave charges. In a conventional war, Iran would not stand a chance against the US.

        They may be "pretty ***** tough", but it does you no good when a cruise missile lands on your forehead.
      • source1984, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The thing about Iran many people don't understand is that to get Iran, you can't just knock their nuke sites. you have to also target there UNDERGROUND anti aircraft guns or they will shoot us down. u can't just fire missiles at them. so you need some level of ground support. iranian troops have MUCH BETTER morale than iraqi troops. Iraq was relatively poor, soldiers were poorly equipped and was under sanctions for many years. IRAN has very devoted people who will fight literally to the death. thats the sad part. Secondly, Iran has mountainous terrain -- which as you can tell, is always advantageous to guerillas.
      • dk75eclipse, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0You do know that the war was more like Iran vs. Iraq, America, Britain, and a s**t load of other countries.
    • tnoy, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7At this point, the only two options we really have are to:
      a) overthrow the government.
      b) wait until 2009.

      Bush has a very low approval rating, the war has a very low approval rating, congress as a whole has an even lower approval rating, the people we elected to put a stop to this are doing nothing, we have a VP that just said "So?" when presented with the low approval ratings, the two people with a chance of winning the election are not likely going to do anything until after 2012.

      The only people in congress that try to do anything are laughed at, and told not to even try. The government as a whole isn't going to do anything, and the general population isn't going to elect the people that will because they only sheepishly vote for the people in the party they're registered with.
      • TruthLies, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Unless you've got access to a whole bunch of weaponry and a surefire way to suddenly get popular support, I think you've got one too many options on that list there, buddy.
      • Hangly, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Why should anyone assume Obama will not attack Iran?
      • cJw314, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I don't think Bush will let Obama have the decision; I think he'll pull some "shock and awe" just in time to prevent it.

        Either that, or a false flag nuke. -.-
    • monkeysurf, on 07/02/2008, -4/+2Why does everyone here have to be either extreme left or extreme right. both sides scare me. WW3!? are you kidding me? That is soooooo over the top of a prediction that I'm not sure how you could have come to this conclusion. Where is the objective analysis. The only guarantee is that oil will go up and a lot of countries will be pissed but won't even think about interfering. The time it would take to topple Iran would probably be no longer than twice the time it took for Iraq. Everyone was predicting a huge potentially years-long battle with Iraq in the first gulf war and they had one of the biggest militaries in the world and our technology wasn't even close to what it is today. They predicted 90 days to take Baghdad once we got there in the second gulf war and it was a matter of hours. While I'm not defending attacking Iran I also hate to see misleading information whether its from the left or the right. Are there any of us in the middle anymore that use reasoning to arrive at our conclusions? If there is one trend I have noticed in the last five years is that the left is getting a bit sloppy and dumb which has been the right's MO for years.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/02/2008, -4/+11I was gonna say

      What the ***** do you call the IRAN/IRAQ war ?
      What do you call the Basij?
      What do you call funding Hezbollah and Hamas?

      Ok here is another list:
      1908-1909 Persian Civil War
      1909 Russian Occupation of Tabriz
      1911 War with Russia; Russian temporary occupation of Tehran
      1914-1918 World War I; Russia supplied through Persia.
      1920 Soviet occupation of Gilan, establishmnt of Soviet Republic of Gilan
      1920-1922 Separatist entities (Soviet Republic of Gilan 1921; Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Khorasan) suppressed
      1921 Coup d'Etat
      1924 Arab rebellion in Khuzistan
      1932 Kurdish rebellion
      1941-1946 During World War II Anglo-Soviet occupation
      1945 Revolt in Azerbaijan
      1946 Brief Kurdish secession
      1953 Coup d'Etat
      1963 Anti-Reform Riots
      1969-1970 Clashes on Iraqi border
      1971 Iran occupied islands n Persian Gulf, claimed by UAE
      1973-1975 Iran supported Sultan of Oman against Dhofar Rebels
      1979 Islamic Revolution.


    • flink405, on 07/02/2008, -8/+7Iran is a religious dictatorship that pretends to have elections.
      Only candidates approved my the Iranian religious dictators are allowed in the "elections".
      The people of Iran have few rights and are tightly controlled by the Iranian religious police.

      Iran is building nuclear weapons with the sole purpose of attacking Israel. The govt. of Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel.

      Iran is providing weapons and training an personnel to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.
      Iran is providing weapons and training an personnel in Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian areas to attack Israel.
      Perhaps Iran should mind its own business, fix the problems in its own country and free its people and quit using Proxies to instigate violence in the Middle East.
      • muzy, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3they have all the rigt to do what the ***** they want to do as long as they don't attack other nations.

        America e.g.
    • diggrnumber1, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1it won't start wwIII because the us and israel are the only countries stupid enough to want to go to war with iran. that will only make it worse for us because we wouldnt be getting any outside help.
      • dk75eclipse, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Kinda off topic but for those who say: relgion has nothing to do with wars and violence. Here we have Jews & Christians vs. Muslims. In none of these countries is atheism very socially acceptable. (sorry if that was grammatically incorrect) Please prove me wrong, I would like to see you try.
        Note: I'm not saying that atheists don't have conflicts, I'm just saying that religion and violence have a connection.
    • ChristophyBrown, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Get angry, America! Get pissed! If you guys start a rebellion I will cross the border and join.
      As for now, I'm gonna watch some highlights of the NHL.
  • Silvbird, on 07/02/2008, -21/+107Antiwar.com Action Alert
    Iran War Resolution May Be Passed This Week

    Quick Links
    H. Con. Res. 362 S. Res. 580Newsletter Take ActionDonate

    Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

    The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Iran's Nuclear Program" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

    The bill's key section "demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

    "Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

    Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, "According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to 'pass like a hot knife through butter' before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial."

    Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.

    http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/? ...


    An Emergency Call to Action:

    An Attack could be Imminent

    We Can’t Afford to Wait

    Take It to the Streets This Summer

    U.S. out Of Iraq , Money for human needs, not war!
    Endorse the call

    List your local action

    Donate to help with organizing expenses

    Sign the online petiton

    MASS MARCH IN NYC

    SATURDAY, AUGUST 2
    Assemble 12 p.m. at Times Square

    43rd St. & Broadway

    AN APPEAL TO ORGANIZERS AND ACTIVISTS
    ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD:

    Consider as soon as possible if you can organize a STOP WAR ON IRAN protest in your locality during the weekend of August 2 – 3. Let us know so that your protest can be listed.

    YET ANOTHER U.S. WAR?

    The U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is hated by the people there. These wars have no support at home and are ruining the domestic economy. Instead of pulling out, the Bush administration is preparing for still another war—this time against Iran . This must be stopped!

    AGRESSION TOWARDS IRAN IS ESCALATING

    On June 4, George Bush, with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at his side, called Iran a “threat to peace.” Two days before, acting as a proxy for the Pentagon, Israel used advanced U.S. fighter planes to conduct massive air maneuvers, which the media called a “dress rehearsal” for an attack on Iran ’s nuclear facility. Under pressure from the U.S. , the European Union announced sanctions against Iran on June 23; a bill is before Congress for further U.S. sanctions on Iran and even a blockade of Iran .

    IRAN “THREATS” A HOAX

    Iran as a “nuclear threat” is as much a hoax as Bush’s claim of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq used to justify the war there. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspects Iran ’s nuclear facilities, says it has no weapons program and is developing nuclear power for the days when its oil runs out. Even Washington ’s 16 top spy agencies issued a joint statement that said Iran does not have nuclear weapons technology!

    U.S. and Israel are the real nuclear danger. The Pentagon has a huge, nuclear-capable naval armada in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, with guns aimed at Iran . Israel , the Pentagon’s proxy force in the Middle East , has up to 200 nuclear warheads and has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did sign it.

    WAR HURTS U.S. ECONOMY

    While billions of dollars go to war, at home the unemployment rate had the biggest spike in 23 years. Home foreclosures and evictions are increasing; fuel and food prices are through the roof. While the situation is growing dire for many, Washington ’s cuts to domestic programs continue. A new U.S. war will bring only more suffering.

    WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

    While the summer is a difficult time to call protests, the August recess of Congress gives the White House an opportunity for unopposed aggression against Iran . We must not let this happen! From the anti-war movement and all movements for social change, to religious and grassroots organizations, unions and schools, let us join forces to demand “No war on Iran, U.S. out of Iraq, Money for human needs not war! “

    This call to action is issued by StopWarOnIran.org, a network of thousands of concerned activists and organizations fighting to stop a new war against Iran since March 2006.

    http://www.stopwaroniran.org/aug2.shtml
    • tehcommodore, on 07/02/2008, -20/+0WW2 pulled us out of the great depression
      • nunquamsecutus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4We were manufacturing and selling weapons to other countries, in WW2. Now we are just manufacturing weapons.
      • tidu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Thanks for that fact you learned in history class today.
    • tomasII, on 07/02/2008, -11/+2Excellent Iranian propaganda piece.
      • sodade, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Gee it sounded more like a bunch of facts. I guess it is that liberal bias that reality has?
    • PhoneJack, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I'll be at the march in NYC
    • thedogfatherx, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2We the people of the United States don't support our troops in Afghanistan? What ***** donky ***** crack pipe you smokin? Why the ***** should we get out of Afghanistan?
    • jpop, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Aren't these the same guys that said that Libya had nothing?
    • diggrnumber1, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1i still think it will be israel that first provokes war with iran. we'll probably follow suit.
  • Conspiracy20, on 07/02/2008, -12/+77repeat:
    U.S. and Israel are the real nuclear danger. The Pentagon has a huge, nuclear-capable naval armada in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, with guns aimed at Iran . Israel , the Pentagon’s proxy force in the Middle East , has up to 200 nuclear warheads and has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did sign it.
    • cashman57, on 07/02/2008, -23/+9Then promptly ignored it because as an islamic republic they are permitted to deceive unbelievers.
      • Hrodrik, on 07/02/2008, -2/+15And your government is allowed to deceive you.
      • jabberwolf, on 07/02/2008, -4/+2"And your government is allowed to deceive you."

        And we put our government under a microscope and have freedom of press.
        Iran controls the press...

        And the dude is right about permitting to deceive unbelievers, its practiced!

        NEXT!!!
      • AydenV2, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Jabberwolf, have you bothered to look into ANY of the spoon-fed information the mainstream media gives you? Day after day stories regarding foreign policy or politics is mixed with false information.
      • cashman57, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Hrodrick-"It is inherent in government's right, if necessary, to lie... that seems to me basic - basic".

        -Arthur Sylvester, former Assistant Secretary of Defense
    • jabberwolf, on 07/02/2008, -10/+6And neither USA or Israel have threatened to use them.

      And neither the USA or Israel have threaned to make another country "dissapear"
      And neither the USA or Israel begin and end each speech with a prayer hoping for the end of days.

      Iran can sign anything it wants, if it's not going to keep it, WTF does it matter!!??
      • muzy, on 07/02/2008, -8/+3Israel is not even a country, its A land which got taken by force from the native Arabs.

      • neko6, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3You mean land bought in cash?
        And last time I checked, the Arabs are natives of Saudi Arabia, not ancient Judea and Israel, land of the Jews... And don't get me started about the illegal Islamic occupation of Persia and the horrors unleashed on the native Zoroastrian population!
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Give me a break, most Jews aren't even related to the Hebrews, their Khazarians from the Russian steppes. The Arabs have more of a lineage to the ancient Hebrews than non-Sephardic Jews. Besides the Palestinians are a semitic people related to the Canaanites, Phoenicians, etc.
  • rzxc, on 07/02/2008, -14/+65President Bush wanted this story to be made public. If he wanted to keep this story secret, he would not have gone to Congress for the money. He knew they would leak the story. But he went to Congress anyways. Why? He did not need to. He could have simply diverted some of the money allocated to Iraq. If you read the GAO report on Iraq, you will notice that much of the money that the Iraqi government is authorized to spend, does not get spent. He could have used that money. And, as other news articles have pointed out, we have no idea what happened to much of the money that went to Iraq. Hmmm... I wonder where that money went. I think I have an idea. I seem to remember that President Bush made a signing statement proclaiming that he did not have to follow a law requiring him to notify Congress when he diverted money from a government program to the Colombian government. And its not like he needs to follow the law anyways. He can just ignore the law (FISA and the Geneva Conventions), and then get Congress to pardon him and his cronies. So why does President Bush want this story to become public knowledge?

    I believe he wants to drive up oil prices. He covertly lets the public know that we will soon bomb Iran, while publicly, he maintains that oil prices are not due to speculation, they are due to demand. Of course, that's ridiculous. Oil prices have risen because of speculation -- the speculation that we will bomb Iran. So why is he doing this? Yesterday, there was a video on Digg made by the oil companies. This video tried to persuade us that we need to drill for oil in ANWAR because of the high oil prices. It seems clear to me that President Bush is trying to raise oil prices so he can convince the public to support off shore drilling, which would fatten the wallets of his oil company buddies. The oil companies say it would lower oil prices. I say *****. Stopping the useless rhetoric against Iran will lower oil prices.

    Of course, the mainstream media is in on all this. Yesterday, CNN plastered the story on its homepage, and today NPR gives a 45 minute interview to Hersh. They obviously want this story to become public knowledge. If the media wanted to keep this story secret, they would not have given the story all this air time. They would have done the same thing they did to the story that our government was trying to blackmail the Iraqi government into signing over its sovereignty. That story died a quick death. It didn't even make the front page of Digg.

    So what about Hersh? Why is he running this story? I believe Hersh is in on this conspiracy. This story was made to be plastered all over the blogosphere. He trashes both Cheney and Bush (which, with only 6 months left in their administration, doesn't really matter). But of course, trashing President Bush will likely get the story more attention on websites like Digg. He also trashes the Democrats in Congress for not standing up to Bush. That's great for the neocons. Not only does bashing the Congressional Democrats help the neocons, but it has the approval of much of the blogosphere, making it likely that his words will be splattered all over the Internet. In fact, he almost spends more time trashing Congress than President Bush. He also makes a bunch of ridiculous arguments. He claims that President Bush's use of covert forces is an unprecedented expansion of executive power. *****. We have conducted covert operations in foreign countries since...well, fovever. Afghanistan in the 80's. Vietnam. We overthrew a democratic government in Iran a half century ago. The list goes on. Either he's an idiot for making that claim, or he just wants to say something that would appeal to the blogosphere and make it publicize his story more. Hey, guys! Here's another huge, unprecedented abuse of power committed by the Bush Administration. Look here! At the end of the interview, he shows his true colors when he says he does not want to remove our troops from Iraq. That is the one, true sign of a neocon.

    By the way, this isn't the first time Hirsh claimed our government was about to bomb Iran. He claimed we were going to bomb Iran in 2006. He was wrong then, and I believe he is wrong now.

    Nevertheless, he says Iran's media has reported incidents of instability, and he offers that as evidence that his story is true. I have a few theories as to what's going on here. He could have just waited for a few incidents in Iran to publish this story. Or, since we don't know how violent Iran normally is, the recent violence may not be anything out of the ordinary. Or...the Bush Administration could be cooperating with the Iranian government to drive up oil prices. Of course, the Iranian government loves the idea of higher oil prices. I imagine most of its money comes from the sale of oil. All it needs to do is have its news agencies report a couple of instances of violence. Simple.

    Obviously, I've done a lot of speculation here. There are many possibilities for what's going on. But I have a feeling that we will not bomb Iran. The military is completely opposed to the idea. I think President Bush is just trying to fatten the wallet of his buddies in the oil industry. But not just them. I have a feeling he's trying to bail out his buddies on Wall Street. They need money, and fast. But don't be fooled. Oil prices will crash. And soon. Wall Street will only be saved if some fool comes along and buys their oil futures contracts at ridiculous prices. Wall Street fooled the world during the stock market bubble. Wall Street tried to fool the world with the housing bubble. But in the end, Wall Street was unable to get the world to play along a second time. They are poised to absorb huge loses from the housing bubble because they were unable to find enough people to buy their garbage this time. Now they're trying the same crap, this time with commodities prices. Don't be fooled. Oil prices and commodities prices will crash. Don't be the one to bail out Wall Street.
    • ouzome, on 07/02/2008, -20/+5So Bush wants to start a war on Iran so his oil buddies will get rich . . . oh yeah, and Bush started 9/11, and we never landed on the moon.
      • TaintBrush, on 07/02/2008, -2/+10Buried because we landed on the moon.
    • TomT223, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8Sorry. Way to logical of a post for the Digg Community to grasp.
      • tkstock, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2You mean too "long" of a post. Someone has way too much time on their hands, no offense.
      • robflm256, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1digg needs more postings like this rather than "LOL!! OWNED!! etc."
      • AydenV2, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Yes, thats why he has been dugg up over 30 times, right?
    • Lazydriver, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2Hmm, makes sense, you're absolutely right, and I think if there -was- a war on Iran, that would cause a civil war in America itself.
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2WHAT!?

        What the ***** are you talking about? A Civil War?

        Do you even understand what that means?

        ***** ***** please stop spreading your 5th grade ignorance.
    • hoogie, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9From the website:

      "Hersh exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in a series of articles published in the magazine early in 2005.

      During the Vietnam War, Hersh was the first to report on the My Lai massacre. He has been the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, five George Polk Awards, two National Magazine Awards, and a dozen other prizes."

      I know this doesn't make him right, but it does make me more likely to believe him, as he has proved himself in the past. At least it makes me less likely to write him off.

      I hope that he is wrong. But the stakes are too high to sit back and hope.
    • cJw314, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1In before "tl;dr".
    • monkeysurf, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1The comment you made about oil's prices increasing due to speculation about Iran is uninformed. Have you ever traded oil futures? There are so many other variables it's not even funny. Sorry, but Iran adds at most about $5 dollars to the price of oil. Supply/demand, shelter from a falling dollar, and high leverage ratios play WAY more of a role in the price of oil.
    • diggcheck, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2Collin Cowherd from ESPN says that, in his experience, conspiracy theory folks tend to be loser guys who use the conspiracy theories to explain away why they are losers.

      If you previously worked in the telecom industry and became President would you recklessly use fraud and War for the sole purpose of helping out the telecom industry? Would your friends? Would anybody reading this?

      However, it seems the masses can EASILY believe George W. Bush has such a motivation. This yarn rings about as true as an elaborate "Santa Really Exists" story.
      • ouzome, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2well said, even though the diggloonies won't get it.
    • MaximusD, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1You lost me at "Hersh is in on the conspiracy." Rhetoric against Iran is profitable for his buddies, but so would action against Iran. Even more so. And as you admit you do a lot of speculation. Too much speculation to be presented as a sound argument.
    • CHANNELOCK, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0 Fear mongering by Bush and his buddies to open up more Oil fields in Alaska,they have been yakking about drilling more for oil and time is running out for them to pull another scam.... so the drumbeat for war is a smoke screen .
      Brilliant...just follow the money
  • THETEH, on 07/02/2008, -6/+82It's a terrifying thing to watch your country head towards disaster. I've had a rough time with the last 8 years.
  • thecoin, on 07/02/2008, -3/+27If you made it this far...no....there is no pot of gold at the end of this rant rainbow,
    on a lighter note,
    I suppose moving to New Zealand has never sounded better
    • Kenzan, on 07/02/2008, -2/+14New Zealand Just called and...
      They said that since you ***** up your own country, you now have to live in it.
    • Smills, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5My dad is from New Zealand, and I have been there a few times. Sure, it is a fantastic holiday destination, but not the best place to live. Their economy is failing as well. Australia is much nicer in my opinion.
      • Kormiku, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Australia and new zealand are pretty much the same country except one is run by a parliament and one is run by aboriginal people. /end ignorance
      • dojonz, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Granted, our economy is not as strong as Australia's - they have vast natural resources like uranium for instance. That said, they're also much more inclined to follow US policy and US calls to enter a war. So there is not really much to be had from moving there (if the intention is to get as far away from war as possible). As for New Zealand, the moment we declared we were going to be 100% nuclear free, the US cut us out of the ANZUS treaty - not very likely that we'll be willing to fight America's wars anytime soon.
      • Smills, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@ dojonz
        True, Australia is much more like the US than New Zealand is, but It does have a better over-all standard of living. That said, if you simply want to get as far away from the US as possible whilst remaining in a 1st world country, you can't go wrong with NZ.
  • EnvisionImage, on 07/02/2008, -5/+20Funny i just heard on the radio a commercial for the Selective service application - http://www.sss.gov/ now I know that by law everyone has to sign up for this but since when did they have commercials for it??? Maybe a draft will be in our near future?
    • cashman57, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7This is kind of amuzing. The selective service was mothballed by President Ford.It was reconstituted by Carter as a show to the Iranians we were serious about going to war with them if they didn't release the hostages and has been funded every single year since then. Yes they have an advertising budget and it is big enough to sponsor NASCAR teams if they wanted to.
      • EnvisionImage, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Thanks cash very amusing indeed... I didn't know that, I guess it's still relevent today?
      • tkstock, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Just curious, why do they call it "Selective Service" if they use it to draft you?

        Is this like the "Park on a driveway and drive on a parkway" thing?
      • Jlaugh, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4If you want to go to college you have no choice but to sign up for selective service. We should just be thankful we don't have a draft.
      • defwheezer, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5A draft will be the only thing that will prevent more wars. You, your brother, or son (daughter, etc) of "age" to be cannon fodder for the corporations- my guess is that will get folks off their asses on the streets in protest.
      • vinod1978, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Any politician that would vote for the reinstatement of the draft would commit political suicide - democrat OR republican. I'm not worried about that. What I am worried about is our all volunteer army not being big enough to be in 2 major wars and 144 countries. We will have to continue to have a separate "private army" which does provide us with actual bodies willing to fight but they have no accountability to either our government, any foreign government, or our Army. Companies like Aegis Defence Services, ArmorGroup International, Blackwater Worldwide, DynCorp International, Fluor, GardaWorld & KBR (Haliburton), are treating civilians like animals, and in my opinion actually give people a reason to hate Americans. Bottom line is if we can't get support from our allies by utilizing their troops then it's a war we shouldn't fight.
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@ defwheezer

        The draft will be from people South of the US and they will be promised citizenship after service.
      • Kormiku, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@ nycmac247

        A call for volunteers from mexico/south america to fight in our wars with promise of citizenship after service sounds like an awesome deal for everyone involved. Those people would give almost anything to be an american citizen (or if they die, at least their family can be). And we need soldiers who will fight hard with an actual reward staring at them from the end. It sounds like a very good idea.
    • chiplambert, o