What is Digg?207 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+102"Well, I’d certainly like to bring Sen. McCain up to speed if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now Wolf, that’s because of the helicopters circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing away just a few blocks down the road."
Holy *****. That's some serious beat-down right there. This reporter just made McCain look like the biggest moron on Earth. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+92Maybe McCain thought he was being interviewed on FOX and no one would question his assertions.
- asif5th, on 10/12/2007, -8/+89Well, he's just a regular politician..always speaking out of his ass
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+79Damn McCain, what happened to you? You used to be the guy, man.. the guy I wanted in the White House. I really dug that campaign finance reform you tried to push through. Between idiotic statements like this and your opposition to Network Neutrality, though, you've revealed yourself to be just another slimy politician.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+84It is idiots like this (McCain) that cause a true conservative (me) to hope that Obama wins over these morons. If I can't have a true conservative, I will take the young guy who seems to be honest, actually has some common f'n sense, and is not yet corrupt to the core. McCain is a career politician (how long has he been in office!?) that has aides tell him what to say about everything. He probably thinks the Internet is a series of tubes also.
- rprouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+78How about the Senator puts his money where his mouth is? I'd like to see him go for a stroll in Baghdad without a battalion surrounding him for protection. I bet he would make it a block...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69Back in 2000 I had respect ....and hope.....for McCain. He was a maverick, and he spoke by what he believed, instead of what would get him a job. Those days are long gone. He sold out to Bush and the republican party for a chance at the presidency. Compromise is part of politics, but like embellishing a resume or a job description it can pass a limit into selling out. McCanin sold out and had his political balls cut off.
Who wants a washed up, stuffed shirt beltway insider for president after 6 years of the diminished expectations in America we have had? - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -7/+50Let me see if I have this straight: The people that want to keep American troops on the firing line, to be shot, bombed, rocketed, mortared and generally blown to pieces, these are the people that 'support the troops', while the people that want to bring them home are the people that 'hate the troops'. What an Alice-In-Wonderland world Bush has turned this country into.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44McCain should go back to working on his MySpace.
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45Hi, you must be new here.
- ericatdigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42Iraq was tied to 911 how exactly?
- SavageBlackCat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36I'm sure he thought downtown Hanoi was safe to walk through - and look how well that turned out for him.
- synapticcleft, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30We shouldn't be surprised by McCain's rhetoric, we have been hearing it from this administration for years..."Everything is great", "We are winning the war", "Mission accomplished". It is all BS to disguise the fact that the US is in an unwinnable war and there under false pretenses. All these old guard republicans have to go, we need new blood running the show...
- pesh2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23@ OddCarom
>> Let me get this straight, the people who burn the american flag and soldiers in effigy
Is there some rash of "American flag"* or "soldiers in effigy" I am unaware of? The Flag Burning issue is pure *****. If someone burning the flag is protest upsets you so much, you either need a better understanding of the First Amendment or a greater pride in your nation. Burn a million flags tomorrow, and the country will be just fine.
>>> ...The ones who called for Saddam to remain in power, while demanding Bush be removed from power...
I'm not a supporter of Saddam, but explain exactly why over 3,000 soldiers had to die for this stupid cause? The bringing "democracy" argument is crap, since we can't even leave for fear of a civil war. Plenty of brutal dictators out there, why was Saddam the one to go after?
>>> The ones who depict troops as torturers and gulag-enablers
No jackass, we stated facts about the small amount of soldiers, the large amount of psycho contractors, and the completely incompetent civilian leadership that thinks torture is a good idea. People who seem to think that America should torture just like the great nations of China and Iran. People like me have this crazy belief that America is better than the Saudi Arabia and should act like it.
>>> Who think our soldiers are no match for the big bad mighty ragtag jihadist scum
Wow. Yeah we all figured out that the greatest military force in the world could defeat the Iraqi army. How's the aftermath working out for us? Good think the "support the troops" side couldn't come up with money to increase military salaries, provide them sufficient armor, and give them appropriate time at home with their families.
>>> they support the troops, while those of use who recognize their incredible accomplishments and want
>>> them to return with honor, having completing their mission 'hate the troops'?
So if the soldier come home after Bush and the Moron Neo-Con brigade lose a war, the soldiers will not "return with honor"? The soldier honor is intact, its the idiot administration and the people who vote for them that bear the dishonor. The troops didn't pick the stupid domino theory and go off to lose in Vietnam, LBJ did. The troops didn't pick the stupid reverse domino theory and go off to lose in Iraq, Bush did.
>>> What an idiotic Michael Moronized world leftists and their cohorts in the mainstream media
>>> have turned this country into.
And people like you are why I left the Republican party and registered Democrat.
* We patriots generally capitalize "American". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27mosati:
>Jane Fonda will rot in hell.
Why? Because she disagreed with you, or because she was right as it turned out? - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24McCain is a decent guy? He gets tortured in Vietnam, and he is against it until...it is a problem for the GOP in the current "war". McCain is a politician. He will lie and manipulate to get votes. He is no more decent than any other politician - Hillary, GW, Cheney, Pelosi, etc.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19McCain is a whore. He doesn't deserve any more air time. He's looking as desperate as Dennis Miller these days.
- MahWah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23You could say Orwellian. Go on, you know you want to.
(diggs for you) - ericatdigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21'new blood'...i think we need a third party, but really things won't change until people start to participate in their government. republicans blame democrats and then it goes the other way. I love to listen to people talk about how much better job one party will do over the other....it's easy to believe that of these two parties one is 'good' and the other is 'bad'. I wish the world was that simple.
But let me illustrate a point beautifully.
TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD WHO ARE BITCHING REGARDLESS OF YOUR POSITION ON THE MATTER:
How many of you have written to your elected representatives? *crickets chirping*
Just go to google, do a search for 'write your congressman' and invest the fifteen minutes to express your concerns. In some countries you'd be shot for doing such...not here....not yet, though. :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Duh, they're all brown people.
- MacGyver2210, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"quit wasting America's time and put Ron Paul on TV"
I prefer Ron Popiel.
Give me mellon ballers, Ginsu knives, and food processors over war and beauracracy any day. - nighttrain2007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21"I am sure there are places that are not safe, but there are also a lot of places in the US that are dangerous."
I so love the party 'faithful'. This is nothing to do with whether Ware is a liberal or conservative. It's what he's observing. What are Republicans going to do when everything is 'under control'? Hang another banner? Will that still apply when it all falls apart (which it will)? What will be your excuse then? And before you start slandering me with your labels, I'm of the Old Right. Intervention into the internal affairs of other nations in that region simply does not work over the long term
Just go ahead and throw up the stat of murders in a major US city vs. murders in Baghdad as that's about the only supposed argument you have left. Although comparison of deaths by criminal activity vs. deaths by political unrest are not the same thing - dangerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15and by passionate females you mean 45 year old males?
- mbaguy4000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Unless you are living and breathing in that environment, you have no clue what is going on.
- Tracon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15No that was Christopher Hitchens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Blah blah liberal this and blah blah liberal that. Waaaah Clinton Waaaah Clinton.
STFU please, or at least get some new material. - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15that's a good idea. his approval rating among passionate females would sky rocket.
- FryedGuy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Oh so you watched both planes fly into the towers? That's nice, too bad they had nothing to do with the Iraq war huh? Bring your BS to some other forum, asshat.
- Societas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Maybe McCain believes that Iraq is "safer" than before the troop increase. In some areas he is probably right. I have no good way of knowing becuase I'm not in Iraq. However, I do feel that in a broad sense Iraq remains very hostile to all American troops and the political situation there is worsening daily. I feel that any security progreess that is made due to an increased force on the ground is temporary only. The underlying problems of America's negative image and the heating civil war will not be fixed with more troops. We're basically out there pounding the sand.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15mccraig:
>Advocate communism and encourage rebellion and anarchy against the United States Government?
If she did, it didn't matter since if you check the historical record neither of these happened in the last 40 years. - Tawni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14McCain is clueless. I am so glad that everyday he is letting the whole country see what Arizona has known for too many years. McCain only gets elected because of big business funding and his votes to protect them. He is fed everything he says by his staff and if they do not prepare it he fumbles and bumbles inacurately through what he is saying.
- brister, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I doutbt the streets of Bagdad will ever be safe for Americans to stroll down, at least not in our lifetime.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15No, it was as soon as McCain started pandering to the religious freaks and Lieberman started throwing his lot in with the Bush administration and this war. As noted above political unrest Vs violence in bad neighborhoods in American cities is very different - think of this:
Walking down the street in NYC. Get mugged. A shopkeeper sees what's happening, calls the cops, they come and help.
Walking down the street in Baghdad. Get attacked. A shopkeeper sees what's happening. The shopkeeper doesn't care, because he agrees with the guys kicking your ass. Now your head is being chopped off and broadcast over the internet.
Now, I'm not saying it's likely some good samaritan shopkeeper will see you, but chances are if someone does in the USA they will call the authorities and get you help. Not quite the same thing will happen with the civil war in Iraq. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27Typical Republican ass talk... I bet he'll keep saying the same thing, even though he's been proven wrong. Just like last week when all of the presidents comments were butched becuase he was flat wrong, but then Tony Snow had a press conference and re-itereated the mindless crap Bush had already said. Its really a rediculous circle that goes on in Washington, I swear, if I got as little done at my job as they do at theirs i'd get fired.
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Yeah its safer alright..
03/28/07 AP: Chlorine bombs wound 15 in Iraq
03/28/07 Reuters: Roadside bombs wound 1 policeman, five civilian in Mosul
03/28/07 Reuters: British soldier wounded in Basra
03/28/07 Reuters: Five bodies found floating in the Tigris
03/28/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kill 1, wounds 2 in Kirkuk
03/28/07 Reuters: Suicide car bomb kills 1 civilian, wounds 7 in Ramadi
03/28/07 Reuters: Car bomb kills 2 In Baghdad's Bayaa district
03/28/07 Reuters: Iraqi and U.S. soldiers kill more than 25 insurgents
03/28/07 MSNBC: Off-duty Iraqi police slay dozens, at least 45 killed v
03/28/07 Xinhua: 2 car bomb hit U.S. base in Baghdad, 8 policemen killed
Thats just one day in iraq... Does the media really cover this? nope.. they cover some general saying they're not in "civil war" and they cover some politician willing to walk through those streets.
Getting better? they're making make-shift chemical bombs now!!! - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13tkstock
You do realize that the only goal we started with was the WMD part, right? The part we found out was a blatant lie. The rest of those were added on after the fact.
Really, the only thing that can be checked off your list is killing Saddam. We managed to do that. As far as democracy goes, it's not really there is it? There seems to be this problem with elected officials either being assassinated or being in bed with warlords and militias. - kurttrail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10McCain said "walk."
And a temporary surge will work temporarily. But once this surge turns inevitably into a long term escalation, what is to force the Iraqis into coming up with a political solution of their own? Not even the top US General in Iraq believes that there is a military solution to ending the violence in Iraq.
How long do you think that the Shia militias will lie low for? - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18What the hell? This story is already on the front page!
- manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13If it's so safe, maybe he should move his family over there just to prove it.
- Qwiggalo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13There goes McCain's Presidency down the drain, if he even had a chance in the first place.
- annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Reporting like this belongs in the toilet."
Reporting out of Baghdad belongs in the toilet?!? And we should just trust the Fox News journalists reporting out of New York? - NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Pulling out would have major consquences such as:
A) Iraq collapses to what it was before we came.
---> No, what it was was a country with a dispiciable dictator, but it was stable and not a terrorist haven.
B) Worse, Iran can occupy.
---> Uh, yeah. America can leave Iraq or it can stay. Either way the Iranians are going to be too busy defending themselves from the Americans to occupy Iraq if Bush has his way about Iran.
C) As soon as we leave, the amount of attacks would increase drastically in order for the terrorists to show that we have lost and they will mock us.
---> Well, lets be realistic. Win or lose, we will leave at some point. Even if we "win", I doubt we will suppress the insurgency 100%. Does anyone realisticaly expect that outcome? And as soon as we leave, whatever is left of the insurgency will do exactly as you say. So it really makes no difference if we "win" or "lose". Unless Bush plans on winning and never bringing the troops home, which would certainly make his past comments about wanting to win and get out disingenous.
D) Allows the terrorists to settle down and plan an attack.
---> That's ridiculous. First, 9/11 was not planned in Iraq. 2nd, do you honestly think that Iraq is the only country from which an attack could be planned? Get real.
E) Nations lose respect for the US and won't rely on us because we don't finish what we start.
---> Nations have already lost respect for the US and won't rely on us, not because we won't finished what we started, but precisely because of what we have started. - Myko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I honestly have no idea what you meant by that - could you elaborate?
- pesh2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@dehnomac
"You can't walk down the street in some parts of just about any major American city and there isn't even a war going on."
This is a truly silly argument.
Please cite an example of a U.S. city where bombs explode in shopping malls and outside police departments on a regular basis. Every major city in the world has a high crime area where you might get robbed, murdered or raped. There is no comparison to bombs going off in areas where average citizens, going to school or work, face car bombs and insurgent forces. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I doubt you find many that deny that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. But, the link to Iraq was iffy at best and criminal at worst. Maybe if we had controlled Afghanistan and caught bin Laden, then we would have been better off and able to remove Hussein now with a real coalition.
- jrstinkfish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@OddCarom:
I think the fundamental difference here is that people like you see our troops as nothing but numbers, as in, "Oh 3,200 dead is really not a huge number compared to WW II or Vietnam."
People who want to troops to come home see these a people with families who miss them, and will miss them even more if they're killed over there. Yeah yeah, I know, soldiers signed up knowing that they might be used in battle. The problem is that this particular battle isn't worth fighting, and it's not worth another American or Iraqi life. If Saddam still being in power meant 3200 of our soldiers would still be alive, I'd take that trade -- would you? - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@randf and @OddCarom and @tkstock
Why the hell aren't you over in Iraq, either in the army or as security contractors, if this is so important to you? Is it because you are cowards without the courage of your so-called convictions? Not one American should die for your stupidity, but idiots like you will make sure the killing of Americans goes on, when it is you that should be over there getting killed. - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I'm glad you admit that the reasons this war started were not the ones that were presented. Now, if the goal was regime change, as you so eloquently parroted, why did we want to do that? Clearly, the reason you give is that Saddam had some weapons of mass destruction. That's been shown to be patently untrue. So, the fall back reason is that he was a bad guy and should have been deposed anyway. These are the reasons that we have been given, but how can we know what the real reason was?
You now say that we wanted to start a democracy. I'm going to stop using "we" now since "I" never wanted to. The American government set up completely new government structure in Iraq. This governing body has been woefully incapable of action because of the elected and installed officials ties to either the old Saddam regime or their own paramilitary interests.
If elections are enough to prove democracy, then there was democracy under Saddam as well. Never mind that Iraq's elections were done under martial law and watched over by an incredible show of American military force. Were it not for the unprecedented security, the elections could not have happened, nor could they happen again without it. - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11In another thread the subject was pretty much "We need to send more troops over to die to ensure that all those deaths weren't for nothing"!
Sounds like The Onion doesn't it? It's not. Sad. - knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11No, I want to be known as a country that will tuck it's tail and run after 4 years of ***** useless fighting in Iraq.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is