What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
70 Comments
- MarkCiccone, on 10/11/2007, -10/+39Lieberman needs to own up to the fact that he's a neo-con republican.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Hey Joe, neat idea. Call me back when at least one member of your own family enlists for ground combat.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+24The neo-cons are in both parties. They are one and the same Parties now.
To argue the differences is to argue semantics. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16@jmpeagle: You mean the recently edited to be misleading Wikipedia entry on neoconservatism, which is flagged as having disputed factual accuracy and neutrality, doesn't reach the quality standards of Wikipedia, and which lacks citations for its laughable claims?
The article basically states that Bush, Cheney and Rove are leftist liberals. Revisionism at its finest.
The wikipedia article on neocons is presently a showcase of the inherent risks of a medium such as wikipedia. Were you involved in the editing of the article, I wonder? - NRX22, on 07/23/2008, -7/+17Great job Connecticut, really super.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12I'll quote Encyclopedia Britannica instead:
"neoconservatism
U.S. political movement. It originated in the 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were repelled by or disillusioned with what they viewed as the political and cultural trends of the time, including leftist political radicalism, lack of respect for authority and tradition, and hedonistic and immoral lifestyles. Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Court, whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country's freedom to act in its own interests."
In other words, Neoconservatism isn't Liberalism (any form of), it is a _reaction to_ Liberalism, and differ from more classical conservatism mainly by being more aggressive in foreign policy. It's in fact pretty much the opposite of liberalism. This is why Bush/Cheney et al use "liberal" as a dirty word: liberalism is the furthest one can get from the views of Bush/Cheney et al. - dn11, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15blame the republicans in Connecticut - they're the ones that voted for him
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@mike
he's not required to observe it as his job requires him to work on Saturday, the same pardon all those in the Israeli military get. Israel doesn't just go undefended one day every week. The Sabbath isn't as Iron Clad as you make it sound. - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Israel has already sold American technology to the Chinese and bombed the USS Liberty. God knows why we still give them 8 billion a year in aid despite the fact they are a developed country...oh that's right...the aid is for military defense against aggressive neighbors and that aid conveniently gets used to buy American technology from American defense contractors...corporate subsidies anyone?
- kooft, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6"So any of you people have another alternative to allowing Iran to acquire nukes?"
First off, before any action is taken, let's verify that they're actually making nuclear weapons. The IAEA and UN weapons inspectors were right about Iraq, so let them do their job in Iran. If the IAEA determines that Iran has a militarized nuclear program, then and only then should action be considered.
"I would hate to have another war but this is going to be a serious problem down the road."
What's the big problem with Iran having nukes? Everyone thinks Middle Easterners are in love with suicide and as soon as a Muslim gets his hands on a nuclear device that Israel and the US will be attacked. The ayatollahs aren't suicidal and they happen to like having power. It's because of this that they will not use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario. Nuclear weapons will only deter foreign intervention into Iran's internal affairs. So, the only people that need to fear Iran's nukes are those who wish to attack Iran.
"I know that many of you dislike Israel but I would hope that you wouldn't approve of Iran nuking them."
Not only do I not approve of Iran nuking Israel, but I don't honestly believe they ever would. It's common knowledge that Israel has nukes and would quickly retaliate and as I've stated before, Iran isn't suicidal. The nature of their relationship would change though. Israel would no longer be able to plan strikes against Iran without taking into account a nuclear response. Israel will still fund Kurdish rebels in Iran's north and Iran will still fund Hezbollah in Lebanon, that much will stay the same.
"So seriously, anyone who is against this war have a feasible alternative (I don't)."
Diplomacy. That's a feasible alternative. Iran's behavior isn't because they're all crazy and want to blow up the world. Take a look at the past 50-100 years of Iranian history and tell me they were treated fairly by the West. I'm sure they're damn tired of foreign-led coups, wars and unjustified sanctions. Iran has valid security concerns that need to be addressed.
The US knows darn well that most Iranians would rejoice if they could embrace western culture again. The ayatollahs can only keep the people oppressed for so long. Every time the US labels Iran as 'evil', threatens to invade or imposes sanctions, it only reinforces the hard line positions of the ayatollahs. Let the Iranian people see the ayatollahs preventing an embrace with an open-armed America and you'll quickly see major cracks in Iran's Islamic power base. - MeanYogurt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."
"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," she added. Clinton excoriated the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."
"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.
Lieberman is not the only figure on the left talking tough about Iran. - aceg1357, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6People are fooling themselves if they think Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions through dialog. That means the world has to either accept a nuclear Iran- scary....very scary considering they are the world's biggest state sponsor of terror with an apocalyptic madman leading them. Or it can act with force. Always a last resort but sometimes needed. Is there anything wrong with "preparing" for one of only 2 options?
Also, the U.S. has many options when it comes to using force. They do not have to have some full scale war. Bombing the heck out of nuclear sites (most are not in heavy civilian areas) with special forces flying in and out of a few spots would put Iran back 10 years. Heck, most Dems and the media were all for the bombing action in Kosovo since it was Clinton in office. Iran is much more important to the world's security than Kosovo ever was. - smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@jcm
Irony... - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6No kidding. They got it right in the primary!
- hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Ummm...where is Joe planning to get the troops for this new war he wants?? Our troops are already grossly overextended and abused by this Administration of fools. Joe's trying to get some political advantage in a very dangerous way, but we all know that the only thing that matters to Joe is Joe. The man cares more about his future in Washington than the future of our country and our military.
- badtiki, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7I live in CT and its turning into a real *****! That ***** Lieberman couldn't even run in his own party so he had to run as independent. Ever since they let the casino's in - there has been more and more corruption and crime - murders are up and small towns where you think nothing could happen are now home to idiots shooting people over a Playstation 3 ?!? just crazy.....
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2He's been a VP candidate in the past, and you know that no Dem candidate would take him due to his stance on the war -
- kooft, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"People are fooling themselves if they think Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions through dialog."
What's your reasoning behind this assertion? Or is it just a statement intended to goad people into buying into the rest of your argument?
"That means the world has to either accept a nuclear Iran- scary....very scary considering they are the world's biggest state sponsor of terror with an apocalyptic madman leading them."
Biggest state sponsor of terror? Apocalyptic madman? These are strong assertions, but this sword can cut both ways. The US supports groups that are involved with terrorism, but they don't bother to list themselves as state sponsors of terror. Bush classifies nations of people as 'Evil', not necessarily apocalyptic but certainly in the madman realm.
"Or it can act with force. Always a last resort but sometimes needed. Is there anything wrong with "preparing" for one of only 2 options?"
Always as a last resort? Just like how force was used as a last resort against Saddam? I mean, Iraq disarmed and had the IAEA verify, but the US still invaded. So, what choices does Iran have? Comply and be invaded or, not comply and be invaded? The only thing that might stop a US invasion, at this point, IS a nuclear weapon. When your policy is "invade non-nuclear capable states whether they comply or not" it doesn't take a leap of logic to figure out why nations want nuclear weapons.
"Also, the U.S. has many options when it comes to using force. They do not have to have some full scale war. Bombing the heck out of nuclear sites (most are not in heavy civilian areas) with special forces flying in and out of a few spots would put Iran back 10 years."
Bombing civilian facilities (killing hundreds of innocent people in the process) is not only an act of war, but an act of terrorism, and would certainly elicit an Iranian response. What would the US reaction be if Iran blew up a nuclear reactor in New York? - kooft, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"You can't be that naive can you? If you can't agree with such an obvious thing, there isn't much hope for you."
Agree with you or my beliefs are invalid? Nice response. I could certainly use that argument about everything you posted.
"Why did the U.S. attack Germany in WWII when Japan was the one attacking us? I guess we were no better than the Japs or Nazi's eh."
Didn't Japan have a pact with Germany and Italy targeted specifically at the US? If one member of the Axis was attacked, the US would have to face all three. So, when one member did attack the US, all members were now fair game. This still doesn't explain why it's justified for the US to destroy a civilian facility killing hundreds of innocent people. A facility being monitored by the IAEA and operating under an agreement signed by both the US and Iran.
"Doesn't change the fact about Iran sponsoring terrorism and being led by a madman."
Perhaps not, but it does beg the question, "why is it okay for some nations to support terrorism but not others?".
"Again off subject. The IAEA did not verify that Iraq was disarmed. You need to go back and learn your history instead of trying to rewrite it."
The subject is war as a last resort, so bringing the Iraq conflict into it is most definitely not off subject. I can certainly see why you don't want it brought up, as it puts some serious holes in your argument, but it's still valid.
El Baradei said that he didn't see any evidence that Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear program after the IAEA disassembled it in 97. UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of Iraq producing WMD's. Scott Ritter seemed to think that Iraq was disarmed. I think he said there was enough WMD discrepancy to constitute a technical violation, but not enough to constitute any kind of threat. As for the nuclear program, he also clearly believed it was completely eliminated.
I think it's you who needs a history refresher. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6"I live in CT and its turning into a real *****! That ***** Lieberman couldn't even run in his own party so he had to run as independent. Ever since they let the casino's in - there has been more and more corruption and crime - murders are up and small towns where you think nothing could happen are now home to idiots shooting people over a Playstation 3 ?!? just crazy..... "
That's got a lot more to do with the likes of Lowell Weicker, John Rowland, and the Democratically controlled legislature than any federal representatives. I live right in casinoland, and yeah that's a bitch and legitimizing that fraudulent tribe in Ledyard is something that Dodd had a lot to do with..
This state is in the luckiest location, right in between 2 world financial capitals, with some of the world's best schools and it was rich. CT has ***** itself and become a left wing wasteland. The New Haven-Hartford-Springfield metro should've doubled in size in the past 25 years instead of splintering and shrinking. Our state is dying because of overtaxation, lack of investment in infrastructure (Rell at least seems to take it seriously), and corruption (among other reasons).
On a note even more unrelated to the topic, I got this note from a foxwoods employee's myspace bulletin today. I don't get why people seem to think that casinos are any good. When I walk around the casino floor I think of how pathetic all those people who gamble so much of their money away are. I've seen much worse happen, but this is funny:
I feel like pointing out
That we have to share the world with people like this:
I'm sitting on the employ bus when two slot attendants strike up a conversation
Slot attendant 1: Hey were you in the G section tonight?
Slot attendant 2: Yeah.
Slot attendant 1: Did you hear about the drunk guy that pissed all
over the slot machine?
Slot attendant 2: Yeah, I saw it happen.
Slot attendant 1: Man, that's gross. I can't believe he actually
pissed on the machine.
Slot attendant 2: Yeah, well... he was pretty drunk.
Random card dealer: In the high roller's lounge we had to kick out
this lady who always went the bathroom in her seat. She just kept
doing it.
I wish the casino would just vanish into thin air along with the
***** up ***** who go there. I need a new job. Something with more
substance, I'm gonna go crazy working full time in that ***** hole. I
had a really ***** night.
Okay, I'm done venting. Good night. - LeadOffMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4hwakeye17
"Our troops are already grossly overextended and abused by this Administration of fools. "
Who do you think they're fighting in Iraq? Iraqi's? No, that was over years ago. The war with Iran has been going on for a while now, just not being fought in Iran...
"Joe's trying to get some political advantage"
How? It's pretty hard to win any points talking about fighting a war - mrharvey518, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Thanks for the intelligent response kooft, it was better than israeldid911 blaming the joooooos!
I think that we are going to agree to disagree on this one, but I don't see diplomacy working well with Ahmadinejad. I think that we can both agree that he is completely insane, and I have a problem with crazy people having nuclear warheads. After having Ahmadinejad openly declaring his wishes for the destruction of Israel, I do believe that he would do it if he got the chance. And as for diplomacy with Iran, I would compare this to Europe's appeasement of Hitler before WWII. Ahmadinejad will keep taking what the UN gives him and doing whatever he wants to do until war is the only option.
My wish for the best possible outcome in Iran would be a coup by the Iranian people, Ahmadinejad is not incredibly popular with his people (obviously especially women and moderate Muslims). I will agree that any US or Israeli strikes on their nuclear sites will only help him gain more popularity and power. Now, I must take one of your comments out of context because I think it is hilarious:
"Everyone thinks Middle Easterners are in love with suicide..."
Why on earth would we think something like that? Seriously thought thanks for the intelligent response.
Edit: The digg team just removed Isrealdid911's comments. Good. - MeanYogurt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Mr Sadr also insisted he opposed Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs, referring to tentative talks between the US and Iran. "We reject such interference," he said. "Iraq is a matter for the Iraqis."
If he didn't want Iranian influence why does he accept their support?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501 - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think Lieberman is gearing up for a VP spot on Fred Thompson's presidential campaign.
- dshPls, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Them damn democratic conservatives.
- compucomp2, on 10/11/2007, -11/+12This guy is Jewish. He represents Israel's interests, not American interests. Unfortunately for the American people those have been inextricably linked. America would be doing a lot better in the Middle East if Israel weren't in the way.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3 Shouldn't the US finish their losing war before starting their next losing war?
- aceg1357, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2El Baradei said his job is to stop a war between the U.S. and Iran. That is not his job. His job is to stop weapons proliferation. With such a bias, how can anybody believe what is coming out of the IAEA? Anyways, Iran is not allowing total and free access any longer. They have admitted to enriching high grade weapons uranium or plutonium- whichever. There isn't any use for that except for weapons. Don't you get it?
Yes they did have a pact targeting the US. So if a country has a pact to strike another countries, it is OK to go to war with them? What do you think Iran has been doing with their pacts with terrorists? What do you think they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, picking flowers? Iran has been targeting us in a low grade hush hush conflict for years. Don't you get it? You can continue to put your head in the ground, but that will only serve to dull your ability to acquire information. - MeanYogurt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Please bury above. I posted to the wrong article.
(tried to edit, but the update comment button wouldn't show up) - kooft, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"El Baradei said his job is to stop a war between the U.S. and Iran. That is not his job. His job is to stop weapons proliferation. With such a bias, how can anybody believe what is coming out of the IAEA?"
Yeah, preventing war does seem to introduce bias into his duties, but if it's bias we're concerned about then doesn't the US have considerable bias against Iran (e.g., the whole 'Evil' statement)? Doesn't the US have a history of operating on bad intelligence, some of which is know to be fake (e.g., aluminum tubes, yellow cake)? So, if I had to choose who to believe, I'd believe the guy that has a good track record over the guy that doesn't.
"Anyways, Iran is not allowing total and free access any longer."
Iran is allowing inspections to the letter of the NPT, perhaps even more. The whole row over Iran refusing to let inspectors in was valid under the NPT. The IAEA has to submit a big list of inspectors to Iran for their approval, and Iran can select those it will or won't allow. They've historically allowed pretty much anyone, but with the ratcheting up of threats from the West, they've selected inspectors that are less likely to be spying. I could be wrong, so I expect you to provide me a link to a site showing that Iran is violating the NPT to back up your point.
"They have admitted to enriching high grade weapons uranium or plutonium- whichever. There isn't any use for that except for weapons. Don't you get it?"
I've never heard of Iran admitting to any such thing. There was some question as to the origins of some HEU that was found in a centrifuge, but it was verified to have been imported with the equipment from Pakistan. I think that Iran's using some small quantities of plutonium for medical research, but it's all being monitored by the IAEA. I could be wrong, so I expect you to provide me a link to a site showing that Iran is violating the NPT to back up your point.
"Yes they did have a pact targeting the US. So if a country has a pact to strike another countries, it is OK to go to war with them? What do you think Iran has been doing with their pacts with terrorists? What do you think they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, picking flowers? Iran has been targeting us in a low grade hush hush conflict for years."
The US has been targeting Iran for decades and only in the past year or two have we seen _any_ indication that Iran is taking any actions against the US. The actions that are being taken aren't even specifically against the US, they're aimed and ensuring the stability of non-hostile governments (towards Iran) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, the US just admitted to arming the same Sunni groups that Iran is 'supposedly' arming, so now the US has pacts with terrorists too. Not to mention the fact that the US armed and trained a group know to perform terror operations inside Iran.
So, I'll ask again, why is it acceptable for the US to arm and train terrorist groups that are hostile towards Iran and not acceptable for Iran to do the same with groups hostile towards the US? - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@israel: No, it isn't. See my quote from Encyclopedia Britannica above on what "neoconservatism" really is.
- saigumi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Liebermann isn't in the GOP.
He's a Democrat, not a Republican. - smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Woodrow Wilson wasn't a neocon! They didn't originate until the late 60s, early 80s some say. Woodrow Wilson's policy of spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun is Gun Boat Diplomacy and is an imperialist foreign policy. Before that is was Manifest Destiny. That is the American way. Neoconservatism is something entirely different. Gun Boat Diplomacy has always been our foreign policy.
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1No plan = bashing
Form a plan = bashing
Talk about having your cake and eating it too. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4@jmpeagle: While I agree that "Marxism" and "Liberalism" isn't _at all_ the same thing, I do not agree that neoconservatism arose as a communist/marxist belief. It is an aggressive conservative belief; it is true that some of the original neocons had previously been liberals, but their beliefs as neocons are clearly conservative through and through. As the EB qoute says, the main difference between a neocon and a paleocon is how aggressive they are wrt foreign policy.
Also I would say that in the US "left" is more accurately considered to refer to liberalism than to marxism. If you equate left to marxism, there basically exist no left in the US - at least I don't know of any major players who want to concentrate all ownership in the hands of an enlitened elite, in order to prepare the people for the anarchic utopia of communism. - InfamousAtheist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3He doesn't want to use troops. He and his neocon friends are all about using nuclear weapons against Iran, although it's not likely you'll hear them admit that publicly.
/shudder - mrharvey518, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6So any of you people have another alternative to allowing Iran to acquire nukes? I would hate to have another war but this is going to be a serious problem down the road. I know that many of you dislike Israel but I would hope that you wouldn't approve of Iran nuking them. So seriously, anyone who is against this war have a feasible alternative (I don't).
- unitedstatians, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I ask myself, at whose request is Junior Senator Joe Lieberman polarizing his misguided totalitarian predictions. Who is hypnotizing his common sense and objecthood?
- chaesar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3"I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."
-Ron Paul
Can I get a "Ron Paul in '08"?? - LeadOffMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Can I get a "Ron Paul in '08"?? "
No - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@rostmore: Gods... I could actually see that happen.
- crank001, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3You were obviously miseducated in government schools. Nuking Iran has nothing to do with bombing Tehran or anything of the sort. The talk has been of using tactical nukes on the hardened bunkers where Iran is developing nuclear weapons. This is the only sensible course of action since allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons would mean that they would use them within minutes of having them.
Besides if you RTFA you will see that Joe is not talking about nuking Iran for their nuke program, but using conventional air strikes within Iran to destroy terrorist training camps within their borders. Now please go back to putting your head in the sand and shut the ***** up. - JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The proportion of scientific literacy in the U.S. is roughly the proportion of scientists in the U.S.. The U.S. has lots of good scientists, but the population isn't very scientifically minded. The average American doesn't know how long it takes for the Earth to travel around the Sun.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think you might be surprised when you learn that neoconservativism has a lot in common with globalism. It seems as if you are speaking from a platform of complete ignorance, or maybe you are deliberately spreading disinformation. The American people are closer to controlling congress than any time in the last 6 years, the solution is not to remove the people we just elected. The solution is to elect MORE congressmen that are willing to enact the will of the people.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4It baffles me why we should trust a nation that already arms terrorists to not arm them with nuclear weapons...
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7Herr Doctor Ron Paul is opposed to ALL preemptive wars. He'd oppose attacking North Korea if there was evidence that North Korea was getting ready for a nuclear strike on the US. He'd be opposed to the US entering World War I, he'd be opposed to the US fighting Hitler in world war 2. He only reluctantly voted for an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they had killed some 3000 americans in the 9/11 attack.
So, although Herr Doctor Ron Paul did vote against attacking Iraq, he didn't do so because he unlike most other congressmen realized that Iraq didn't have WMD's. No, he voted against it because Iraq hadn't USED their WMD's against the US yet - and once they had, he'd, like in the case of the Taliban, have preferred to pay bounty hunters to try to capture the guilty rather than go to war. - kooft, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"I think that we can both agree that he is completely insane, and I have a problem with crazy people having nuclear warheads."
I don't think he's irrational and even if he were, he's got little actionable power in Iran. The real power lies with the ayatollahs and they are most certainly not insane (despite their ideologies). They want to remain in power and taking actions that result in their destruction is counter-productive to their desires.
"After having Ahmadinejad openly declaring his wishes for the destruction of Israel"
Again, the only phrase I've heard Ahmadinejad use in this context has the word 'regime' in it. The Farsi word 'regime' is the same as the English word 'regime' . Please provide me with a link to a speech where he mentions killing all Israeli's or of initiating another holocaust against Jews. Regime change is not genocide and comparing modern Iran to Hitler's Germany is far-fetched at best.
"My wish for the best possible outcome in Iran would be a coup by the Iranian people, Ahmadinejad is not incredibly popular with his people (obviously especially women and moderate Muslims). I will agree that any US or Israeli strikes on their nuclear sites will only help him gain more popularity and power."
That we agree on. I'd love a modern west leaning Iran, but that will emphatically not happen if the US launches a strike.
"Why on earth would we think something like that?"
Well, you get my point. There are those that believe everyone over there wears turbans and has an RPG leaned up against a cactus in the behind their nomadic tents. In fact, Iran was very European at one point and the potential is there for them to become so again. - Stevethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6American fundamentalists never cease to amaze me. In actuality US is the only developed country with such gung ho politicians with bronze-age mentality("The opposing tribe disregard my power let's go teach them a lesson") wielding some kind of power . I can't understand how the land of innovation and scientific excellence left such goons to climb the stair of power, their logic is obviously deficient and immature. I think the time is ripe for the true patriotic Americans to strike those incompetent "representatives" down to where they truly belong, watching a Nascar race at best. I mean -seriously now- if anything it's only such people who are able to make the American empire fall, or as great historians put it "Each great empire fell from the inside", those people's obvious incompetence can serve that role pretty well.
- aceg1357, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2"People are fooling themselves if they think Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions through dialog."
"What's your reasoning behind this assertion? Or is it just a statement intended to goad people into buying into the rest of your argument?"
You can't be that naive can you? If you can't agree with such an obvious thing, there isn't much hope for you.
"Also, the U.S. has many options when it comes to using force. They do not have to have some full scale war. Bombing the heck out of nuclear sites (most are not in heavy civilian areas) with special forces flying in and out of a few spots would put Iran back 10 years."
Bombing civilian facilities (killing hundreds of innocent people in the process) is not only an act of war, but an act of terrorism, and would certainly elicit an Iranian response. What would the US reaction be if Iran blew up a nuclear reactor in New York?
Why did the U.S. attack Germany in WWII when Japan was the one attacking us? I guess we were no better than the Japs or Nazi's eh.
Moral relativism is a very weak argument and just plain wrong.
"That means the world has to either accept a nuclear Iran- scary....very scary considering they are the world's biggest state sponsor of terror with an apocalyptic madman leading them."
"Biggest state sponsor of terror? Apocalyptic madman? These are strong assertions, but this sword can cut both ways. The US supports groups that are involved with terrorism, but they don't bother to list themselves as state sponsors of terror. Bush classifies nations of people as 'Evil', not necessarily apocalyptic but certainly in the madman realm."
You can say all you want to about Bush. You can say anything you want about Mickey Mouse. Doesn't change the fact about Iran sponsoring terrorism and being led by a madman.
"Or it can act with force. Always a last resort but sometimes needed. Is there anything wrong with "preparing" for one of only 2 options?"
"Always as a last resort? Just like how force was used as a last resort against Saddam? I mean, Iraq disarmed and had the IAEA verify, but the US still invaded. So, what choices does Iran have? Comply and be invaded or, not comply and be invaded? The only thing that might stop a US invasion, at this point, IS a nuclear weapon. When your policy is "invade non-nuclear capable states whether they comply or not" it doesn't take a leap of logic to figure out why nations want nuclear weapons."
Again off subject. The IAEA did not verify that Iraq was disarmed. You need to go back and learn your history instead of trying to rewrite it. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7WTF is Lieberman doing in the Democratic party?
He's considerably more conservative than moderates in the Republican party ffs! -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is