What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
205 Comments
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -49/+177Rather then preventing 3,000+ Americans from needlessly dying again, the president spent $315B insuring it happened within 5 years, as a plus he lied to congress and illegally spied on Americans. Meanwhile we still don't have adequate security and the entire world hates us.
IMPEACH HIM FOR CHRISTS SAKES - themarq, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46Just so we're clear:
Iraq and 9/11 are NOT RELATED. - bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -35/+69Words escape me. It is just mind-numbing how people can still support Bush.
- djbruker, on 10/12/2007, -33/+66That's 2,973 counts of murder for bin Laden.
And 3,015 counts of gross criminal negligence resulting in death (manslaughter) for Bush. - Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38This article makes an excellent point that tens of thousands of Americans have been wounded in the Iraq occupation. How many of these people are going to be seriously impacted by this for the rest of their life? How many of these people have had their lives completely ruined?
- mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40The soldiers also had an expectation to be deployed only when NECESSARY, and to serve their country under competent leadership that will only put them in harm's way when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Signing up for the army does not constitute a deathwish... it constitutes a desire to defend this country when NECESSARY.
The Iraq war is at best frivilous, and at worst, damaging to US foreign policy.
In an effot to stay away from ad hominem attacks, I'll just say that believing an expectation that they could be killed somehow makes their deaths acceptable is just logically incorrect.
As far as my comment being seen as a bashing of America rather than the president, I'll say this (to quote Quasi-Political rapper Immortal Technique): "I love the place I live, I hate the people in charge" - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Just as our solders have a duty to be loyal to the orders of their leaders, their leaders have a duty not to abuse the loyalty of the solders under their command.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -38/+62Don't forget about the secret prisons, or all the money that was MADE on the war, not spent. Oh yea, the faulty intelligence, the missing 9/11 = Iraq link, Katrina, I could go on...
- Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -17/+41Socialism does not exclude democracy.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Yeah but the Japanese were the ones responsible for Pearl Harbour. Why are we in Iraq again?
- cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26it seems like the policy of poor education is finally paying off. Stupid people eat the ***** their government gives them. just look at all the idiots repeating "Islamic fascism" like parrots after Bush said it.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19You're missing the point. No soldier _expects_ to be cannon fodder. They expect that people promoted to leadership positions won't needlessly endanger them. A dead soldier is not a good use of resources.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22The Japanese attacked us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
- Mabu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I feel safer already. Don't you? Thanks George. Thanks Clear Channel. Thanks Halliburton. Thanks Exxon. Thanks CNN & FOX. Thank you for spinning this whole political mess in a way to keep the populace from really trying to effect change. Thank you democrats, for having your testicles removed and acting like a bunch of cowardly sheep.
- Dested, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Well that all depends on which speech your referencing.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18@ dahat
Why can't we simply call them "terrorists?" There are many people who kill in the name of a grossly misguided version of their religion. Anyone who kills in the name of their God is a terrorist -- why do we have to break it down any more than that?
If you kill in the name of Islam, you are no different than any other terrorist. Your motives aren't special. Your motives aren't righteous. You are no different than the guy that guns down a kid on a bike because you felt like it. The United States, your people, and the rest of the world looks at you with disdain.
So why should we assign their religion to the term? They are no different than any other uneducated, mindless thug, regardless of what they want to believe. Assigning their religion to it only plays into their hands AND hurts the true believers. - Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Rights for women? Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was being fashioned into a secular state. There was a very high degree of gender parity prior to US involvement. In fact, bin Laden and his Talibani associates cited Hussein's government as one corrupted by secularism and western ideas. Hussein considered them a very tangible threat (and they probably were until the US got involved).
Now that Iraq has implemented a democratic theocracy and made Islamic Sharia law the law of the land, the women now have far fewer rights than they did before.
You might also consider asking an actual Iraqi how "liberated" they feel. You'll find that they acknowledge being free of Hussein, but now they are more fearful for their lives than they were before and generally worse off. There's more lawlessness, more violence, sectarianism.
I'm not saying Hussein wasn't an evil dictator -- he was. I'm just saying that for the average Iraqi, we've made the situation much worse instead of better. Even if you buy that there was some sort of non-mercenary rationale behind going into Iraq, you have to admit that better planning and leadership could have yielded a better result.
Nobody seems to press the issue, but as far as anyone can tell, there never was a concrete plan outside of "end the Hussein regime by force" for Iraq. Even today, there's no checklist of goals that we can measure our performance by. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Why was it again that the US State Department, who has an entire group devoted to post-ware reconstruction and building fledgling democracies, was explicitly told to stand down and stay out of Iraq? - happyperson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18not necessarily, they were told they'd be treated as liberators and that this is what the Iraqi people wanted
- VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Political dissent only hurts our political system as a whole."
*****, it strengthens it. The founding fathers would slap you for saying that. - robertl30, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Of course we're forgetting the ~45,000 Iraqi dead. But whose counting? Oh, this guy is: http://iraqbodycount.org
- AndrewLake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Women had rights in Iraq, I think you mean Afghanistan. It was also a secular country, now it's being divided up into mini religious states. I'll give you the chemical weapons, but I don't think the ecological damage was used as an issue when Bush/Blair ordered the invasion
- randf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@ nocountries
our michael moore is about as useful and/or believable as your george galloway. both are attention starved and will say anything as long as a news camera is pointed their direction. the difference is that michael moore is obviously in it for the money, while george galloway pretends to be a politician but is really in it for the money.
the biggest difference between these two clowns is that george galloway dresses better than micheal moore. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The Purpose of the "War on Terror"(officially) - Avenge the deaths of those that died on 9/11
The Result of the "War on terror" - More Death and destruction than on 9/11
Was it worth it? - tingham, on 10/12/2007, -23/+31I love this country. Err, I mean... uh...
Seriously, sometimes I wonder how I would explain American morality to someone from another country. I wonder if Bush could do it. - hoosierplew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"You've got to admit... the names we call them today are pretty benign compared to what the US called it's enemies in past such as 'gooks,' 'krauts', 'japs,' and 'gerries', etc."
No, I don't. Soldiers don't call out "Islamo-fascist at nine o'clock!" in the heat of battle. As in every instance before, the locals have been given unflattering nicknames by the American soldiers (not that it doesn't happen with other Nations, I'm just going on the American perspective): Towlie, Terrorist, Towelhead, Jihad Jerry, Dirka, Camel Jockey, etc. Some existed prior to this conflict, some are fairly new. This is an unfortunate reality.
We call the Iraqi resistance fighters "terrorists" because it fits our generalized view of the conflict, not because each and every fighter is a true terrorist. Many fighters are fundamentalists bent on enforcing the rules of their worldview on the general population (Islamic Fascists in the true sense). Some fighters join the conflict for personal reasons - the "murder" of family members, the destruction of their homes, etc (revenge fighters, neither Islamic Fascists nor terrorists).
What exactly is a terrorist, anyway? Its a label too easily applied by politicians and pundits to explain away who is killing our soldiers without getting to the root cause. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not a nationality or a belief. It is driven by belief, but the beliefs are the core issue, not the tactics.
I think of Iraq's fighters as part of a resistance coalition. Members of this resistance have their own agendas, but are fighting with at least one goal in mind. Our job is to deal with the resistance, not to just "defeat the terrorists" or "crush Islamic fascism". I think this change of language and outlook could really help our situation.
But what do I know? I'm just another digger.
/rambling - MrCobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@portwojc
>Yes impeach him. Oh wait can't. He hasn't broken any laws.
Lying to Congress is a crime. - jeffreym, on 10/12/2007, -19/+27I know that the current administration has long since given up on finding Osama Bin Laden. But what are we doing to bring George Bush, the world's biggest terrorist to justice?
I'm surprised that the news media has not made more noise about this man's reign of terror. As of 9/13/06, he has murdered a minimum of 44,532 people. Some sources estimate the total to be as high as 49,209.
That's 17 times more deaths than Osama Bin Laden is responsible for.
We don't know where Bin Laden is but we know where this scumbag is at all times. And it won't cost lives or money to find him. Let's send him to Iraq for trial today.
"I'm never wrong. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken"
http://celestial-reasoning.blogspot.com/ - bryclark21, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Japan attacked us. Why did we invade Germany?
- riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7more people die from medical malpractice or lack of treatment than terrorism.. where's our War on Medical Profiteering or Big Pharmaceutical?
- catfish182, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16what we as americans need to do is make sure Bush does not get rid of the war crimes act. He must be responsible for actions he has done. He is making Saddam be responsible for what he did in iraq so he should do the same. Its a dark day when this stat was released. George W Bush is no better then Bin Laden.
TheBarge- but what right does Bush have to send these troops to iraq when there is NO proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Bush wanted to finish what his dad did. Plan and simple. Bush has used america for his own toy and to further his own goals. - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Beheaded in a stadium? Are you thinking of the Taliban in Afghanistan?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"Yes impeach him. Oh wait can't. He hasn't broken any laws."
Because he uses his powers and contacts to make his actions legal post-action.
I don't beleive Impeachment will solve anything, the ruling party has been established with members on both sides of the political system, the Corporate Oligarchy has been put in place and writen in stone, the only way to overthrow that is to smash to stone...
The only solution, is Revolution - the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow a lot of Mike Moore hate here. I read the "Fifty-nine deceits.." article - a lot of the points seem to agree with Mike Moore but descend to nick picking here and there. But the funniest thing is to see how right Moore was with respect to Iraq and why we invaded it and how wrong the people who wrote this piece were.
Though it's nice to see debate, even when it's wrapped up in the flag.
Ciao - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@jakebarnes
You mean like saying that homosexuality is a disease? - cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Right... because when you sign up for the National Guard you know you were likely to be sent to Iraq
- angelp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@TheBarge - I love the flippant way you dismiss those deaths just because those people are in the military. You may not have meant it that way, but it's the way it came off. Almost as if it's ok that they died since they expected that they could.
- tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@bryclark21
you are obviously refering to the hundreds of innocent US civilians on boats that were killed from UBoat attacks. - repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7More troops died on the beaches of Normandy than at Perl Harbour, what's the point of this story?
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18@ nocountries
I definitely agree with your sentiments about Bush, but be wary of anything put out by Michael Moore. He makes the Democrats look like much less than we are and his facts are very poorly researched/edited.
I thought Fahrenheit was a decent movie, but like anything with Moore you need to take it with a grain of salt. Check out http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm for what actually happened in many of those scenes before Moore had them edited. - Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Moore is not a Democrat, he is a Green.
- Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11So, why in the world did we decide to start policing the world there, in Iraq? If we're going to be the mighty cursaders of democracy and justice, spreading our ideas, values and rights across the world, why start there? Seriously?
Would have been better to start somewhere else, like Africa where murder, genocide and famine and oppression are much more prevalent there.
People always make that justification for the Iraq war, because the original justifications laid before the American people now ring hollow.. "Gee, Saddam was a bad guy, and look at the freedom and rights the Iraqi people have now!". Why didn't we give a ***** how bad Saddam was 15 years ago in Gulf War I, or in the 80s, or before that. Great time to start caring about the fate of a people we didn't give a damn about at the end of the Gulf War.
There were at the time, and are now more pressing world problems to take care of than an old grudge against Saddam Hussein. Yeah, he really was a bad guy, I won't argue that. I will argue the timing and justification for this war, now. - angelp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@CHAIN - Rights for women? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
- gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Dude you cannot put a price tag on putting the social fabric of the US back pre 'the new deal'. That just doesn't have a dollar figure or a value in human lives or misery. Its just priceless and every Bush supporter should be proud of what they accomplished.
Oh Canada, Oh Canada ... how does the rest of that song go? - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Political dissent only hurts our political system as a whole. "
Are you f'ing kidding me. Political dissent is our system. That whole freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc... You think those were put in the Constitution to create jobs? - Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Let's say that the war in Iraq is legitimate.
Then this wouldn't have been posted. - halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12@CHAIN
"Namely rights for women"
You might want to do a little research before you spout off nonsense. Women actually had MORE rights under Saddam than they do now. Saddam was moving Iraq in a more secular direction. The new government has written suppression of women into their constitution, as it's controlled largely by religious fundamentalists. - asurroca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Damn straight Mabu. The Democrats disgust me as much as the Republicans. I love the USA, I hate the people running it (both parties).
- nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -22/+27Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown on UK TV screens for (I believe) the first time last night, although it has been on at the movies.
What is unbelieveable is how a man can sacrifice so many lives just to make himself, his family and their cronies even richer than they already were.
If you believe there is any higher motive involved here, I'm afraid you're being duped.
I just don't see George Bush as a moral man, not for a moment. What he has got away with should make people angry, upset and yes, even ashamed, because it has been done in the name of every American.
Young American men and women are being sent to their deaths to line the Bushes' pockets, and it's time all patriotic Americans who genuinely care about protecting American lives to stand up against this slaughter. - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@bryclarke - When did Iraq invade most of western Europe and open a front in Russia? I must have missed that.
- robertl30, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11That's not true. I listened carefully to Bush's speech on 9/11/06. He clearly stated though Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack our war with them is related to the global war on terror. Load of crap of course, but he's still insisting on making a linkage.
What's up with "war on terror" anyway? How do you fight an emotion? Shouldn't it be a "war on terrorism". What's next? "war on apathy", "war on fear", "war on shame"? -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is