What is Digg?77 Comments
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -12/+47"Kondracke is a liberal"
If I say I'm a pink elephant ballerina, it doesn't mean I really am. He's as liberal as Joe Lieberman, which is to say he's not.
Also, "ethnic cleansing" sounds like you're giving a nation a bath. It's ***** genocide. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21What a wonderful twist of words....
They aren't saying that we will use "ethnic cleansing" to win. They stated that when the government fully comes to power... there will likely be ethnic cleansing.
This is still a bad thing, but NO ONE is advocating the use of ethnic cleansing to win in Iraq.
Thank you Nico Pitney for showing how you shamelessly plug your own articles on digg... and how much you twist the facts and selectively quote people to inspire hatred against your own country. - DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30Oh, what's a little ethnic cleansing after everyting we've done so far? Pretty soon radical Christians in America will be trying to do the same to the "hateful liberal scourge."
As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between a conservative Christian and a conservative Muslim is the country that they're trying to oppress with their fundamentalist regime. I'm still waiting for the day that Christians start becoming radicalized after their most recent hope (the Republican/Evangelical coalition) fades, and they start strapping bombs to their backs like their Islamic counterparts. - SecondGuesser, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15You dumbasses. RTFA. Plan B, which happens after the surge fails, is that we leave them to commit ethnic cleansing amongst themselves.
So I'll ask the question. Would you rather stay in Iraq and try to prevent the ethnic cleansing or would you rather leave Iraq and just let the ethnic cleansing proceed? - funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25Unity between Christian and Conservative Islam! Crusade v 2.0!
Seriously, is this the best Republicans can do? How about stopping the war escalation? - samk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Here's the original article. Not quite as offensive as ThinkProgress suggests.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/plan_b_for_iraq_winning_dirty.html
"Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing - but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge." - digg5, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Are you guys aware that Mort Kondracke is a democrat?
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22So much for Compassionate Conservatism. Apparently Kondracke has no conscience whatsoever. Scary.
- kryogenix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yep, buried as inaccurate.
- Veritate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@wageslaven,
"250 years of international war"???
I think you're overstating the case. The US has not been at war many of those 250 years. And as for WWI and WWII, I don't think you can exactly blame the US for those. - JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Kondracke's article goes something like this: The Sunnis are making it difficult to form a true representative democracy in Iraq. So we should just side with the Shiites and help them eradicate the Sunnis. They'd probably do it sooner or later anyway, so it's all-right.
read it yourself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/plan_b_for_iraq_winning_dirty.html - ViperDaimao, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Read that last part, he's saying the democratic plan of withdrawal would lead to ethnic cleansing. Better to try to make sure the winner is a govt we can work with.
I, however disagree with his realist approach, but this is what the democrats are advocating now, realism. This is realism at it's core. you can't have it both ways. - JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@sailor: Lieberman is a social moderate, but is rather infamous for pushing for heavy restrictions on videogames. Also of note is that he is no longer a Democrat.
- dracken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 And this would be the perfect way of bringing democracy to iraq and "liberating" the poor iraqis from saddam
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14I wish Plan B were around when his mother was pregnant with him...
- froggy57, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2((My question is, Has the USA _FINALLY_ learned its lesson about its 250 years of international war? Cool it before you start WWIII -- you'll be playing the bad guys this time.))
***Huh?
Read a book, idiot. - wageslaven, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9What is happening in Iraq was a _well_known_ consequence of the invasion. No one in their right mind bought what PNAC was selling -- hidden by jingoism and xenophobia, the US public only mildly understood what the consequnces would be.
Cheney and Bush are international warcriminals for starting this catastrophe.
My question is, Has the USA _FINALLY_ learned its lesson about its 250 years of international war? Cool it before you start WWIII -- you'll be playing the bad guys this time. - BrutusCato, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Apparently, I need to read articles this is the most slanted nonsense from a bunch of libtards, I though Kondrake was advocating US military doing these atrocities. But all he said was that the US needs to stop restraining the Shiite and Kurds so they can address the Sunni Partisans in their own way.
Certainly, I stand by my view that mass extermination is not the way to break a partisan movement. But the fact that Shiites and Kurds commit atrocities on Sunnis is inevitable, whether we stay there and stop playing governor or exit Iraq. I wonder how many people who advocate exiting Iraq realize when the last US soldier leaves there will be a massive civil war that will be as brutal, if not more so, than the war in Bosnia and Kosovo. I have realized this was the fact for some time, but I also don't care. No more Americans should die trying to prop up a government for which the Iraqi people seem indifferent and for a people that blame us for their miseries. If the Iraqi people do not appreciate the effort we have made to introduce them to liberty and they have no desire to establish a society based in liberty, WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE FIGHT AND DIE FOR THEM.
This isn't WWII, when we suffered to liberate the liberty loving (I use the term loosely) people from the evils of authoritarianism. This isn't even like Korea when we fought to blunt unjustified aggression of one tyrant against another. This war is about trying to help people who don't want our help, this is like the stupid ass laws cities like NYC and Chicago are passing to ban Trans Fat, it's statism for your own good. It never never works and only pisses off the people affected. - sailor, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7"liberal as Joe Lieberman"
so you have dumped on Joe Lieberman just becasue he stands by his vote to got to war in Iraq?
Everyone of your liberal/demo leaders did so too...when the polls show that Americans didn't like the war, they flip flopped.
I am a conservative, but I got to tell you Lieberman would probably have been the best choice to run in 2008.
But instead (hateful/vindictive) democrats have put extreme liberals in power. - mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3> Are you suggesting that the self-proclaimed "Free World" use the same tactics that it so reviles in the face of the opposition's barbarity?
Absolutely, yes. If you're not prepared to engage in total war against those who don't follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules, then don't start the war to begin with.
Where are Sherman and Patton when we really need them? - cbmd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7DavidYeah,
I thought there was lots of christian terrorism already going on in the US and some other countries. No suicide bombings perhaps, but blowing up abortion clinics for example - elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3YAY more paid submissions from pitviper! Plus it's inaccurate to boot.
- hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8You people who have no problem with what Kondracke said are friggin' scary. Grow a conscience before you actually hurt someone.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5leave iraq and give it to the UN.
not the best choice. but ultimately,
it has to be an UN effort. - withincontext, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2And where is the accountability in our government for putting us in that position!?
- harshalx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1MisterFlaut
You are right ! - AirRaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Are you suggesting that the self-proclaimed "Free World" use the same tactics that it so reviles in the face of the opposition's barbarity?
Idiocy. - whiplash76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"If I say I'm a pink elephant ballerina, it doesn't mean I really am."
That's true. But if you are a former New Republic editor and member of Nixon's enemies list, like Mort Kondracke is, it does mean you're a liberal. You don't get to make the guy a Republican just because he said something disgusting. - tehbored, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why does this sound so familiar? Is it because that's what Saddam was doing before we intervened?
- Swift2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The majority of the Iraq parliament just signed on to a draft bill to ask us to get the hell out. This happened two days ago, and it just made the Washington Post.
They want us to go. We should go. None of this neo-colonialist bullcrap. It's their country.
Will there be a civil war? There is now. As long as we're there, it gets worse. When we're gone, there's some hope of improvement. - mos6507, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That conflicts with this:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1116233826 - BrutusCato, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is exactly what I have feared for so long, in a war against partisans, the logical conclusion is to conduct mass exterminations in order to win. The Germans did it in Russia, the French did it in Algeria, etc., etc., but it always fails because the system is inefficient and it just makes more neutral people side with the Partisans. The Phillipine war against the Huk rebels and the Malaya war against communism in the late 1950s are exemplars of the proper way to defeat partisans. Use propaganda, train military forces in guerrilla (irregular) warfare, use double agents to infiltrate the partisan groups and alienate the partisans from the general population. Few partisan groups can cope with this plan and they generally break within a few years.
- JusticeAK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1sick
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1dang, every comment I have made today has been buried. And here I was trying to make insightful comments. I guess I should just stick to lame jokes like most users.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So you people still think there are no similarities to Hitler now?
Now you realize what we were talking about all those years back :) - froggy57, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, we must not withdraw our troops now, because otherwise there will be bloodshed in our wake. lol. Get a clue. Those people are irretrievably insane, and have been killing each other throughout written history and will continue to do so forever, as long as their religion remains intact. They kill each other for religion. Whether we are there or not will not make a frigging bit of difference. The only thing that will change is that we will not be spending two billion a WEEK on a totally stupid and wortheless war that serves NO purpose on the Gods Earth, except to make munitions makers rich!
Is there anyone on the planet who is so dense that they don't understand that the ONLY reason we are at war is to make munitions makers rich?
When will we ever learn? - harshalx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Americans, agree to it now that America has lost the war again. The first was Vietnam.
- mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1>@mwayne
"don't start the war to begin with"
>What a radically novel idea.
Hey, if you're gonna quote me, at least have the courtesy to quote the whole statement in context - withincontext, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@sailor:
"you probably don't even know why we invaded do you...look it up, you will find it was because the UN would not do it's duty..."
Team America, World Police! - gormly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1every time I read another "story" on Digg I realize how bad off we are as a country (USA).
Things taken out of context, political affiliations and contributing gigs shifting to meet the story.
No one RTFA's, no one ever really comprehends TFA's and time after time we have ***** misleading headlines that prompt an army of one side or the other loonjobs to jump in and proclaim the end to the human race...
I am retiring from the Internet (except for the porn)
Good Day! - epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@wageslaven
"Has the USA _FINALLY_ learned its lesson about its 250 years of international war?"
We were pretty much isolationists until the mid-19th century, and even after that, the American public has always been unwilling to go to war. It took some massive propaganda and panic to get us into WWI, and we didn't enter WWII until late 1941, after we were militarily attacked. The last fifty years are...a bit different, but still, stupid point. Massively stupid point on your part. - kungfoolou, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Yes, it is the "libs" who made this war a political stage... Yes, the good old GOP never wanted to make this War on Freedom^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTerror all about political gain.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1My bet that Congressman is Ron Paul!
- mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1>"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side." ~Mahatma Gandhi
This is the same Mahatma Gandhi who said Jews should have not resisted the Germans and march peacefully to their deaths in the gas chambers.
Nice role model - LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1FOX News: Your source for Evil since 1996.
I sincerely hope he was being sarcastic. When was the last time an administration sponsored ethnic cleansing? Eisenhower? jk. - AirRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."
~Mahatma Gandhi - akf2000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Am I supporting this by digging it? I'm new here, his views are obscene.
- shieldwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@epgyd
"We were pretty much isolationists until the mid-19th century, and even after that, the American public has always been unwilling to go to war."
As a Canadian I take some exception to your statement; the invasion of Canada occurred in 1812. I also think one of the reasons the US did have many INTERNATIONAL wars between 1812 and 1846 was because they were a little preoccupied with fighting INDIAN wars.
In addition historically the American public has also been rather easily persuaded/manipulated to support going to war:
1) Mexican-American War (USA wanted to get the Southwest, which belonged to Mexico - they even offered cash - Polk used Mexico's 'invasion' of USA to get er done - meanwhile the Mexican's were only trying to take back Texas which the Americans had previously agreed to not annex)
2) Spanish-American War - USA used the 'attack' on the USS Maine as a pretext to start war with Spain in a bid to get most of Spain's North American and Caribbean assets. The 'attack' was most likely a boiler accident.
3) Gulf of Tonkin - USA AGAIN uses a fake attack as a reason to start or escalate war.
4) Iraq War - I think we know how the pretext of THAT war turned out. - philgar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The text posted on that site does show that he advocates this. As a leftist website criticizing FNC they need to show the whole clip if they are going to make a claim like that. That post has no credibility.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@mwayne
"don't start the war to begin with"
What a radically novel idea. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is