What is Digg?120 Comments
- marabout40, on 07/23/2008, -15/+60We are not at war with the Iraqis. We never were. They never attacked or threatened us. This is not a war. It's an illegal invasion and occupation of a country that was unable to defend itself against a super power. John McCain has been the biggest cheerleader and proponent of this war. MSM shills are now complaining that Senator Obama has never admitted that the surge has worked and given McCain credit for the surge. Has McCain admitted that he was wrong to take this country into an illegal war? Has he admitted that he's caused the deaths of thousands of American boys and girls? Has he admitted that he's caused the now more than 30,000 boys and girls who will forever be maimed and disfigured? Has he ever admitted that he's caused the continuing and ever increasing suicides of thousands more? Has John McCain ever admitted that he's caused the deaths of by some estimates - one million Iraqis and the displacement of millions more? Has John McCain ever admitted that he has contributed - by way of looting America of it's treasure - the destruction of our economy? Hmmm? Has he?
You know what, Americans are beyond looking for an admission of guilt. We're ready to hold these criminals accountable. McCain, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice...Impeach the lot! - inactive, on 07/23/2008, -8/+16Now that we all know that there were no WMD, McINSANE said he's still invade Iraq if he had to redo it. This man MUST be stopped!
- zelig, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12A McCain hit piece on the huffpost? It must be [insert time of day].
- Luvlacie, on 07/23/2008, -8/+14John McCain - is Phil Gramm still advising you or not?
- IslandDog, on 07/23/2008, -6/+12Huffington Post BS. Lets see some stories on Digg criticizing the Obamessiah instead of the instant access that the HP gets.
- OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6You can't accuse someone of being crazy for compiling video evidence of a warhawk spouting war rhetoric that ended up being very wrong. Crazy people just go on about how crazy everyone is without evidence to back it up.
- Luvlacie, on 07/23/2008, -10/+14Maraabout40 - I like what you're saying because it's true. Let's talk about an admission from John McCain. Was the war needed?
- thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6They're having to step up the rhetoric against McCain cause of the love-fest trip to Iraq with all the major anchors and Obama. Everyone is finally starting to see just how coddled Obama is by the media and he's getting worried.
- qXdc, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6 Buried due to source being Huffinton Post.
- reesespc, on 07/23/2008, -6/+10go to jedreport.com
Jed's got all the goodies! - OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Did the Iraqi equivalent of Benjamin Franklin come to our country and ask us if we would help support an Iraqi revolution? Did we not find that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Queda, and wasn't he very harsh on terrorists in his country? When did Bush say this was a long war? I recall them saying that this would be a quick war, that we would shock and awe them and they would be so grateful to us and that they would train their military and set up their government in an efficient manner. Even in the video, McCain said it was a good chance we would be done quickly and easily. I also remember many of the people in support of this war anxious to oust Saddam before he could use WMDs that (what turned out to be somewhat doctored) intelligence reports said that he maybe had? Shouldn't intelligence agencies be damned sure that their intelligence is correct before launching a war of aggression against a country?
It seems I've forgotten about Saddam Hussein much less than you have. - diggit83, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8McCain is a liar, he has his own agenda and cares NOTHING for the American people or our country as a whole.
- vrbanabanana, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4You know the funny thing is that everyone thinks a WMD is a nuke. Yes, a nuke is one form of WMD, but some of the most devastating weapons are germ and chemical weapons. If you really want to know the truth behind some of this stuff you should go to: http://www.foia.cia.gov/ There you can find thousands of documents that have been released under the freedom of information act. This stuff isn't media hoopla or campaign crap. Most of the documents are internal memos or reports.
If you start reading some of them, you can find out why we went into Iraq back in 1991. To get a better idea what Saddam was like and what was about to do. Page 56 of one of the documents is a transcript of a high-level meeting that Saddam held with his senior personal that took place early Jan. 1991. His men informed him that they they already had germ and chemical weapons. Saddam also orders that the bombs to be ready by the 15th of Jan. He even outlines the targets to be the two largest Saudi cities (Riyadh and Jeddah) and all of the Israeli cities; focusing on Tel Aviv. For those too young to remember, we launched our attack on Iraq on the 17th of Jan.
Saddam was about to launch attacks that would have killed millions the first time around. That is the kind of man he was. We know before we when into Iraq in 2003 that he was trying to get WMDs (Germ, Chemical, and Nuke) again. What makes y'all think he wouldn't use them the moment he got them?
You know these documents were only declassified a few years ago. I would guarantee a good percent of Americans have no clue what Saddam was about to do in 1991. This is partly due to media bias, but also partly because people don't really want to know the truth. While I'm not a fan of some of the things that Bush has done, I also know that we won't know the real picture for another 10 or so years when some of the documents are declassified.
So here is the important question, would I've ordered the attack on Iraq? Even there was even a little evidence that he was trying to obtain WMDs again... Absolutely, I would rather look like a fool to the world than risk millions dying because of I failed to act. Would you?
- flink405, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan either, but Obama wants to shift the U.S. troops out of Iraq and move them to war in Afghanistan and expand it into Pakistan.
You think the war in Iraq would take a long time to win, you have not seen anything yet when Obama leads us deeper and deeper into the "good war" in Afghanistan.
The Democrats have been the majority in Congress since 2004 (when Obama became a Senator), they could have cut off funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan at any time, but they did not. - quandrum, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5I'm not familiar with this quote. Could you please point me to where it was reported?
- christor, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3"Obama is the better liar between the two."
Name one. (FISA reversal is a reversal to be sure, and sorely disappointing, but not a lie.) - stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4First, you need to stop watching fox and get some real facts.
Second, there is no connection between Saddam and Al Queda.
Third, Saddam was never a threat to the USA and that is why we went to war - based on a lie. Not because we thought he was a bad guy - that talking point came years later.
Forth, Bin Laden is still around, so look over your shoulder, he's coming to get you.
I could go on-and-on. But I guess facts really suck for you. - bobangitanov2, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5great argument!
not. And if you think you're a moderate independent, then you have no idea what you're talking about. I checked your diggs, and you're basically a republican. - rewinn, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Confusing nukes and chemical weapons is rather foolish. Any industrial nation can make chemical weapons, using technology from 1908. Germ warfare is even older. The term "WMD" was coined in part to confuse people, and it succeeded.
- Judasmac, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2 ...
"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."
This isn't "Iraq" being unable to defend itself. "Iraq" was the brutal suppression by Sunni Arabs (15% of the population) of the Shia and Kurds, who were unable to defend themselves against Saddam. Can you only think simplistically in black and white? - CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -7/+9Half of this is BS taken out of context. Besides you fools think Obama is better? "We need to get out of Iraq, I will get us out of iraq," even though i've never been there and have no idea what i'm talking about.
Then he visits
"we need more troops in iraq, pulling out would be inadvisable."
Brilliant. - bitbytebit, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2right on - mandatory spanish on every ***** package has been bad enough, but focusing education on spanish is stupid. I'm not bashing mexicans either, its just a useless language as far as future is concerned.
- christor, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Babazoz - I think the reason people are so motivated is because of how deeply they dislike what has occurred in the US over the past eight years. Many were optimistic that we would not *possibly* elect Bush for *another* four years back in 2004. And yet, that's exactly what happened. We can't afford to make that same mistake yet again. I'm not willing to let up on (honest and relevant) politicking until the votes are counted. Many others feel the same way.
(Also, the manner in which a candidate is elected, and the tone of the electoral environment matters a lot in terms of setting policy immediately after an election.) - bbqsalad, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3WE are the terrorist's. Who has killed more? Who has hurt the world more?
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2@john: You're a tool. For more info digg the ties between the Bush family and Bin Laden.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -6/+8Did they move the November election to tomorrow? The propaganda seems pretty thick.
- johnhummel, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan either"
Sure - right until they allowed safe haven for Osama bin Laden, who's activities kill 3,000 people. And, when asked to extradite him, the Afghanistan government at the time basically said "Well, he's a guest, so you can't have him. And if you want him, then come get him."
So - the US went after him. Now, there are plenty of pockets of those who supported bin Laden left, and sadly by dropping the focus on the real battle - Afghanistan and where bin Laden was, resources were squandered in Iraq on false philosophies and to make companies very, very rich.
But don't delude yourself that "we're not at war with the people of Afghanistan." Guess what - we're at war against the former leaders of Afghanistan (aka the Taliban) and bin Laden, wherever he goes. So if Pakistan wants to give him safe haven there, I guess that's a legitimate target as well.
I'm no fan of the "war on terror" nonsense, but I do believe in the "war on bin Laden, his followers, and any government that offers them safe haven." - m3th0dm4n, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2The oh-so-witty 'Bill Clinton' retort, ladies and gentlemen.
- OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2How does that conclusion tie together? By the way, parties are allowed to evolve their opinions over time. One of the problems facing republicans is that they have absolutely no adaptability. There was one major shift around the Reagan time (maybe earlier) that turned conservatism from a fiscal, state's rights ideal, to a heavy defense, heavy spending war machine supporting big government and corporate interests. There's been no effort on the republican side to bend to the will of the people who in theory own the government. Instead they just spout their rhetoric for people who don't have enough common sense to at least look at the issues.
Oh, and democrats may have voted for the war, but they have every right to be pissed about being mislead with faulty intelligence. - CodeCobalt, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Keeping troops in Iraq is good diplomacy. We have trained iraqi's in the past to overthrow their government, supplied them with weapons, then got the hell out of there and let them do it on their own. It was the kind of ***** that made several iraqi's HATE america, we left them out to dry.
I agree that we should just mind our own business, but unfortunately we made the mistake of getting our noses where they don't belong over 20 years ago. Now that we're in it, theres no getting out of it without several Iraqi's hating us again.
We need a permenant base in Iraq, and are now obliged to help them whenever they see fit. Its the best we can do. If we completely pull out and leave them in the middle of a war that we instigated they'll hate us. If we keep policing/trying to control them, they'll hate us. Best we can do is set up a base or a few, and only help when we are specifically asked to do so.
Either way, there will be a long conflict in Iraq and we are not going to be out of there anytime soon.
I feel that keeping some forces there will be the best option we have. Train the iraqi's to take care of themselves, but let them know if they're ever in deep *****, we'll have their backs. - Babazoz, on 07/23/2008, -7/+9Is it becoming clear to anyone else that blogs like HuffPo, thinkprogress and the like are going out of their minds to discredit McCain? Are they that scared?
- christor, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I'll second that request. I'm surprised by it, to say the least. But given the fact that even actual elected representatives (like an idiot state senator from S.C.) have been spreading the meme that Obama is in league with Osama Bin Laden, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of random quotes attributed to Obama but which seem out of character for him.
- kplo, on 04/01/2009, -0/+2why not link to the original on jed report?
- kephas, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I remember being told it was all about "weapons of mass destruction" as well as ties to Al-Qaeda. Both of these turned out to be untrue. Whether or not they were lies is debatable, but the fact remains that this war began on false pretenses.
- stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a true republican: A person that doesn't like facts and lives in a world of lies and fear.
- SexyFarts, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5Besides that, another disturbing admission he's made several times is that given the hindsight of everything we found out to be false after invading Iraq, he said he'd do it all again. He still thinks invading Iraq was the right choice even after the false allegations of WMDs and all the other lies they (the Bush Administration) mislead us into believing.
Voting for McCain is voting for a neverending "war" that never should have taken place. - stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Ahhh...welll I 100% agree with that, they do lay it on very thick and really need to back off and just stick to the facts. It cheapens their point with their low-blows. So agreed.
- diggenerate, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Um? video redacted?
- thedogfatherx, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1@Charlie
I'm talking about it being more ***** from the huffington post. The article starts with "One of the key components of the McCain hagiography, besides the downed planes and the wife-swapping" just ***** erks me. Thats what i'm talking about. As towards the whole article, a politician changes his stance. Whats new. - textrant, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Guys, read GOPWARRIOR's comment history, it hilarious. Either he is deliberately getting kicks out of winding up diggers, or he is a moron with his caps lock stuck.
- OldJesser, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Actually, quite a few people in international business and interested in doing international business do not speak English.
The company I work for has an office in Japan, and one of our consultants has to spend extra time on every project doubling as our translator because he's the only one who can speak Japanese to our customers in Japan. Clearly everyone who is involved in international business does not speak English.
I'm guessing that you think all Spanish speaking people are inherently poor, illegal immigrants, but that simply is not true. While the economies of the Spanish speaking countries are not as large as ours, they still have a good potential dollar value in international business opportunities, particularly in Europe.
On to education: Studies show that children who learn languages tend to fair better in the logical reasoning skills; they learn math and science more easily than other children (much like students who practice music). The problem has nothing to do with a heavy workload, even though some parents like to whine about it. I barely did any of my school work (maybe 1 hour a week during high school) and I still passed with a high GPA.
In the university system, same story. This time, I didn't even go to class and still pulled a C or (almost always) better through two semesters of Calculus, 3 years of Computer Science, 3 years of Japanese and all the liberal arts crap that I was expected to take. Without going to class. I'm not trying to brag, my point is that our education system sucks because a retarded child could pass it.
I can also 100% guarantee that we aren't losing in education due to immigrants. I live in Montana, and for anyone who's ever been to Montana, there aren't a whole lot of non-white people. We're like the Norway of the US. How can you explain my success (assume that I am not a gifted individual), if you are so sure immigration causes poor education?
I would assert that a large reason why the US is falling behind in education is because Republicans have a war on intellectualism and would rather teach us that god magically created us on this tiny speck of rock in an infinite cosmos than teach about the possibilities that are truly out there. I assert that students attack one another over their intelligence. 'Nerdy' kids lose confidence and ambition because dum-dum jocko insists they are inferior and school administration turns a blind eye. The glorification of athleticism and the defamation of intelligence needs to end immediately for a noticeable change in the US education to occur (That said, nerdy kids do need to stop whining and go exercise a bit). I insist that schools are not difficult enough to cause a real development in critical thinking. The education system is broken for a lot more reasons (and a lot more *true* reasons) than "oh noes, immigrants!11!!1".
But you keep on being a bigot and grasping at justification. - stinkymonkey, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Prove it. Prove that the video you watched of McCain was in any was inaccurate.
Why am i wrong? Give me facts!!!!!
I'm waiting...... - quandrum, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4Wow, you are just making things up now. Source?
- thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2He doesn't expect it to work. Basically hes betting things will go into the ***** and then hen can pull them all out at once, take credit for the withdrawal and hang the fallout on bush.
- thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2False dichotomy Myko. There are MANY more issues than just foreign policy. Not only do I disagree with Obama's "Lets all be friends" diplomacy, but I also disagree with his domestic policies. In essence, I'm not going to be voting FOR McCain, but rather AGAINST Obama.
Just a quick history lesson about the "lets just be friends" diplomacy. Kennedy did that at a summit with the USSR over Nulcear Weapons. Khrushchev saw him as weak, and this precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. Therefore, being seen as weak is a lot worse than being seen as arrogant. - thcobbs, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, but if your argument against someone saying you're doing something wrong is pointing at someone else who has done wrong..... you have no argument to refute the accusation.
- christor, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3I just don't see how Obama is not fit to be president. How is he less "fit" than Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or W? Disagree with him on some things, fine. But I just don't get why he's not "fit" for the job.
- Judasmac, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Did I say anything about Bush's rationale? Or even if I supported the war? No. I happen to have mixed feelings about it, because it's actually a morally complicated question. I was simply responding to a very stupid comment with 44 diggs. Why do you want me to go away to another thread? Does facing Saddam's inhuman cruelty disrupt the moral clarity you desperately want about this war? Not looking at those mass graves won't make them go away.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is