What is Digg?100 Comments
- Godel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58I remember a time when if a story wasn't picked up by the big media then nobody would here about it. You youngsters better appreciate what you have here with digg.
- shootdashit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48now the Iraqi's can get a taste of real American democracy, when the people vote and the government does whatever the ***** it wants.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30there was also a time when we didn't have big media, instead real journalists.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29time to pack up, if we stay and they dont want us there, that makes us aggressors not peacekeepers
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Good. Let them vote and let us leave. You can't possibly pretend you are helping a government when the government votes for you to leave. It's the perfect out for everyone involved.
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Well, not exactly. It was their government who voted. I am sure a vote of the general population would have asked us to leave long ago.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19maybe our troops can pack up in the night and just disappear back to america, unannounced.
- JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20If Iraq is a true democracy and by democratic means they decide we should leave, then it is a crime for us to stay and we deserve whatever resistance we meet there. It doesn't matter if it's the right thing for us to do or not. The initial invasion could be justified on the grounds that Saddam's regime was not legitimate. This cannot be justified.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18you can BARELY justify the initial invasion but you are right there is ZERO justification for this
- dstew74, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Read about it on reddit, this morning. If my news sources are reddit and digg, among others. Does the mainstream press coverage really matter anymore?
- ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16this idea gets my vote
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22If we stay and they don't want us that means A) either we're stupid, or B) Bush is too thick headed to admit he's wrong. I'm going to go with B, and actually i'll say he's stupid while I'm at it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18U.S. Media = 1930s Nazi propaganda
- torched, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16But if theres no panic or fear, how will they ever generate ad revenue?
- therealrico, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14[Sarcasm]
We can't leave Iraq, if we leave Iraq, they win, we LOSE!!!!
[Sarcasm] - NOgiuliani, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@ Godel
They should be thankful for the Internet, not just Digg. Without the internet, Governments & Mass Media would still be able to completely control our minds. Which is why we should not ever let the Government implement Internet 2. The current Internet is our only hope. - Racerx52, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Its awesome that no media is picking up on this.
- pongjinn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Yeah sure a nuclear strike killing hundreds of thousands of civilians(at least) seems like something a civilized nation would do.
Oh, wait, no it doesn't. It would also be many times the casualties of ALL past terrorist attacks combined. I don't care if you were joking or not, that is one of the most retarded statements I have ever read. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@network
"Explain how the invasion of Iraq was "illegal"."
Any war that is not in self-defense is a war of aggression. The UN Charter makes wars of aggression illegal. The US Senate ratified the UN Charter, which makes it US law.
It's that simple. - bsmang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree the current situation has zero justification, but I don't agree with the invasion itself being justified either. The "justification" was pretty much 100% just some BS about WMD... All of the evidence for which was either fake or unreliable or otherwise dubious. And the main points and evidence were stressed and stressed again well after Commander Guy would have known they were total BS. Unless maybe he threatened Tenet that anyone telling him any different would have a horrible accident, which I wouldn't put past him. And CG's commander, Cheney, STILL insists out loud that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and his gang to wipe America off the map. (And so I suppose the remaining Bush and Cheney brown-nosers might think that too.)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Iraq invaded Kuwait."
After getting permission from George Bush The Elected. Google "April Glasspie."
Be that as it may, the UN settled with Iraq in 1992 in resolution 687. The UN never authorized an action in 2003.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal. - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Yeah sure a nuclear strike killing hundreds of thousands of civilians(at least) seems like something a civilized nation would do." -- pongjinn
Didn't anyone tell you pong? According to the "America, ***** Yeah!" wing, "glassing" civilian populations is **perfectly** acceptable. - Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7FTA - Al-Shammari said this week: "We're afraid the U.S. will make us pass this new oil law through intimidation and threatening. We don't want it to pass, and we know it'll make things worse, but we're afraid to rise up and block it, because we don't want to be bombed and arrested the next day."
--
And there's the heart of the matter ... most of them don't want *their* oil resources handed out to BushCo's oil buddies to be exploited, while the US-backed Maliki et. al. are trying to fork it all over (that's why they were put in power, after all...)
The real question is whether the nascent democratic government that is now in place over there will be allowed to make this decision on its own, or if it'll simply be replaced (or ignored) because it's not going along with the exploitative desires of their Imperial masters. Sadly, given the history of the U.S. in such situations, the latter seems a lot more likely... - Calann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Imagine that, people in other countries don't like their country being occupied by a foreign military. I wonder if Americans would mind if say the Chinese military occupied the U.S.?
- DarthMalcontent, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7They don't want us to be there. Most of us don't want us to be there. Maybe we shouldn't be there.
I agree that staying when the Iraqi government has said they don't want us there is an aggressive act. But, if you think about it, this is the perfect opportunity. Congress has been pushing for a timetable for withdrawal, but Bush and his gang say it would be a timetable for surrender. If the Iraqi government asks us to leave (as they have now), Bush can say that Iraq has stood up and taken responsibility for its own protection and requested that we allow them that freedom. Then if (when) things collapse, Bush (or whoever is in power at the time) can say "Hey, that happened after we left. It's not our fault the Iraqis couldn't defend themselves." The American people get the withdrawal we've been asking for under terms that don't hurt Bush's fragile ego. - pimpdown, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yeah, that would be a measured response. Does that mean since we have launched countless terrorist attacks (shock and awe, Falluja, Haditha- where our baby killers executed women and children) on them they are already justified in nuking us?
- pimpdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What were the Iraqi's doing to threaten my freedom? Just because your family member is subjugating complete strangers does not mean they are doing it for my "freedom".
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A nuclear strike, heck, even a conventional bomb *anywhere* in response to a terrorist attack would be considered collective punishment, which is expressly forbidden in the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Also, advocating killing innocent civilians because somebody else killed innocent civilians has to be the most brilliant logic I've seen all day, congratulations... - dftpnkezln, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're going to have to pull out eventually, and its going to erupt into civil war whether you withdraw now or in 12 months or in 5 years. The only difference is how many new jihadists you create by giving the Islamist propagandists a perfect recruiting tool - "They're occupying one of the centres of our civilization" - and how many coalition troops die in the meantime. The possible hundreds of thousands of deaths that a withdrawal will lead to are a foregone conclusion and will be on the conscience of everyone who supported this war to begin with without checking his or her facts.
- jlhoben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Who in their right mind ever thought the invasion was about freeing the Iraqi people? America has supported MANY dictatorships when it was in its strategic interests to do so (including, most notably, Hussein). This war isn't profiting anyone except for corporate America. The American people are losing billions of tax dollars through war profiteering and countless young lives. Is it even lowering gas prices? No. Look at Haliburton's decision to move its corporate headquarters overseas. This war will never benefit you. It is not even making you safer - only creating more hatred. The only mystery here is why the public has been lulled into such complacency. Wake up.
- pongjinn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@network: artificial casus belli
- pongjinn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5'Moqtada al-Sadr guys' are elected officials of a democratic, sovereign nation. Refusing to obey the laws of the parliament of a sovereign nation is a blatant violation of international laws and exposes the hypocrisy of claiming we are fighting for 'democracy'
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You can't just start ignoring the *democratically elected* government simply because you don't like who got elected, or what they're trying to vote for. That there is called hypocrisy. "Oh yay we're bringing democracy to the iraqis, but only if they vote for the stuff *we* want them to vote for..." GTFO.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6So what? If the Bush junta was willing to invade illegally in the first place, they aren't going to stop killing Iraqis simply because Iraqis ask them to stop.
Besides the "surge" is working. See here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7250116/ - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You guys lawyers?
Debating whether or not a war instituted by a Repugnicant compulsive liar acting as the "Commander Guy" who got where he is by lying, cheating, and hiding truth from the eyes of the American public is not a crime, you're right.
If it were however, the world would be a happier place, there would be a large amount of young American boys and women still alive or able to walk and play basketball, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis still breathing, and a world that maybe, just maybe, would have hope for the future in terms of working Government environmental policies.
Stop ***** debating whether what Bush did on his own along with his *****-sucking buddies getting rich off of your asses while the world weeps is "legal" or not. The man deserves to be pulled behind a SUV at maximum velocity. - Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"A nuclear strike, heck, even a conventional bomb *anywhere* in response to a terrorist attack would be considered collective punishment, which is expressly forbidden in the Fourth Geneva Convention." -- Valarauka
According to "Abu" Gonzales and "Torture" Yoo, those Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete" remember?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/ - pongjinn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And considering that those on the right who still support this war openly advocate ignoring the will of the Iraqi people, they apparently aren't fighting for anyones freedom(again, according to our lovely resident neocons).
- Sendss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5We need to stop letting media get away with calling Iraq a 'war' and have them start calling it what it is.... an occupation.
This story makes it official as this was the argument the right-wingers use to stand up to the 'occupying force' argument.
It's not a War.... it's an Occupation. - CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, if there's one place that will promote al Sadr's personal political agenda, it would be CNN.
- mre5765, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5RTFA: It is a nonbinding resolution.
It is possible, perhaps likely, that many who voted for the nonbinding resolution are tired of
this coming up repeatably, and want it put to a binding vote to settle it (and presumably vote it down for
good).
That is probably why it isn't news. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Many of those who are currently in power in Iraq also happen to be friendly with the Shia-surged al-Sadr militia - a long time funded (under Clinton's era) anti-Saddam cleric who hates the United States and it's Christianity.
Their lives are in danger. Don't think this accurately reflects their feelings on anything other than self-preservation. Who can blame them? - CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You didn't answer the question. How surprising.
Regurgitating debunked ***** strained from a dimly nitpicked transcript merely avoids the issue with your previous fantasy. - jrsims, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Is this the Iraqi lawmakers saying they're confident their country wont collapse if we leave?
I'm very interested in an answer to that question. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"a family member fights abroad for your freedom"
No one is fighting for my freedom in Iraq. - kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4haha, we don't follow the Geneva Convention.
silly
(goes off to cry about the state of our country) - CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bullseye.
This is nothing more than a petition at this point.
Yeah, those always have major impact on reality, don't they?
Wake me up when the official Iraqi stance on American aid actually changes. - Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@nreynolds - better now than under Saddam? What are you smoking? and can I have some? Proof, please.
- jll3sonex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Of course it is. Whatever 'news' source that tells you what your ideology is yearning for is automatically accurate.
The trick comes in actually paying attention to the details, and verifying them as best you can. - CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, did China repel an internationally condemned US invasion of Canada ten years prior to removing a rogue government in this little fantasy of yours?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is