What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
504 Comments
- KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -18/+160This sums it up nicely:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/56147511_f7ad2a129b_b.jpg - ubuntuedgy, on 10/11/2007, -42/+182I used to call myself republican. I apologize... Now, they scare the hell out of me.
If Gravel or Paul are not elected, we're *****. Seriously, I don't know if this country can handle another 8 years of retards running it. - Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -27/+160We should nuke Iran... and Iraq... and Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, East Timor, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, The Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
That'll get them Terr'rists.
Vote Giuliani / Satan '08! - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -29/+153Israel has the ability to wipe Iran off the map, even if Iran succeeded in hitting Israel first.
The leaders might recruit suicide bombers from time to time, but the leaders are not themselves suicidal, and neither are the Iranian people. - BasharTeg, on 10/11/2007, -33/+157@ubuntuedgy
I feel the same way. I used to be a member of the Republican Party, and I did vote for Bush (I'm really sorry everyone). But I feel like of the principles that made me want to vote Republican, they're now considered outdated and discarded. These neo-con ***** have taken over our Republican Party, used that to take over our government and then run the whole thing into the ground. I recently switched parties when I saw that even people I had hopes for like McCain where falling in line on the neo-con principles. What pisses me off about the whole thing is that they really should be their own party, but because we essentially live in a two party country they know that their only chance is to internally subvert and take over one of the two standing parties. And that's what they did.
My hope was always that I could vote Republican for the fiscal conservatism, and then their attempts at social conservatism would be struck down by the Federal and Supreme Courts. It worked for a while, we always had the court as our last line of defense against the Christians taking over the nation and forcing their morality and beliefs on everyone, but now that the court is stuffed with people who believe the US is a Christian nation, there's no hope from that corner. All we can do now is vote Democrat to try to undo some of the damage, and apologize to the world and our children for letting these ***** into power. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -17/+134$500 billion, 3200 dead soldiers, and no end in sight in Iraq.
To preempt WMDs. That weren't there.
To fight terrism. That had no connection to Iraq.
Anyone who wants to go to war with Iran preemptively is dangerously insane. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+77As long as you keep falling for their fear campaigns you'll always be swayed to approve of unconstitutional "wars".
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -17/+75@jmc267
Would you please explain why we are at war with the Taliban? Could it have anything to do with an oil pipeline?
Afghanistan & Pipeline Politics:
September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline Deal
August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline
September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force
Late 1998: Taliban Stall Pipeline Negotiations to Keep Western Powers at Bay
June 27, 2001: India and Pakistan Discuss Building Pipeline Project through Iran
July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued
August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal
October 9, 2001: Afghan Pipeline Idea Is Revived
http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics - Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+64How about NOT going to war for once... is it really that hard?
If Iran declared war on the US, go and fight. As a supposed civilized first-world nation, the US should be a peaceful role model for the world, defending itself against attack, but not actively attacking other sovereign nations. By constantly threatening to invade and attack other nations (as well as actively doing it), they're no better than terrorists.
The US honestly sticks its nose where it doesn't belong. Always has. - smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+55Well U.S. companies are supplying Iran in the first place.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0419/041_print.html
^
That's not infowars, rawstory, kos. Nope that's Forbes a legitimate, credible source. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+59Hey, you're the one that seems to want to kill people!
The onus is on YOU to prove they are a threat! - redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -7/+51http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat - The CIA overthrew a beloved leader by the Iranian people and replaced him with a hated dictator, the Iranians never forgot about that.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=STE20060603&articleId=2567 - Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to destroy the U.S., Israel and Britain. Those were just misquotes by the media for war propaganda.
P.S. - You shouldn't believe everything people try to sell you. Always seek information out on your own, as the people feeding you the information usually have an agenda. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -21/+65It's funny he brings up Dennis The Menace!
It was always Dennis that taught the "grown ups" a thing or two about morals. - redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -8/+47This is why Iran seeks nuclear weapons, because they are scared of us. Leave the Iranians alone, we already screwed them up as it is.
- DiggyBank, on 10/11/2007, -7/+45I modded you down for ignoring my nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis - KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -22/+58Its amazing that the Christian groups can justify such violence even though one of the main aspects of Christianity was, treat others as you wish to be treated, and the ever popular however often ignored "Thou shalt not kill".
- atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -12/+47"Are you serious? I did in my first post. NATO caught the Iranians were caught supplying the Taliban with weapons"
That's not a reason to nuke anybody, besides of supplying weapons to enemies would be a valid argument then US has provided weapons for a long time to Israel (which as we know is not the best friend of Arabs and Iranians) - strafefire, on 10/11/2007, -9/+43@ therightside
The US has always stood by and let countries be run by dictators when it helped US interest.
FACT: We installed the Shah into IRAN, and now they hate us for it.
FACT: We support Batista in Cuba, which eventually led to Castro "liberating" Cuba.
FACT: We tried to destabilize Nicaragua
FACT: We GAVE Saddam insane Weapons AND money to try to invade IRAN for us. And when we abandoned Him when he lost, and was facing financial ruin, he then invaded Kuwait.
FACT: We helped starve Iraqis with the sanctions we placed on IRAQ
FACT: We have SOLD weapons to IRAN (Iran-Contra)
The sins of the fathers are coming back to haunt the children, who are commiting even more sins... - BasharTeg, on 10/11/2007, -14/+46@Salgat
Yes, because Christians don't stereotype Muslims and Athiests. - SirGunslinger, on 10/11/2007, -8/+40@linkedlist
Actually, Israel built nukes using the Jewish scientists from Germany (Imported by America for the Manhattan Project) that moved to Israel shortly after the war, and Uranium from South Africa in exchange for the technology to build nukes. They had no help from the American Government in devloping nuclear technology.
They don't want to admit they have them because they didn't want to get embroiled into nuclear politics (didn't work to well). - brokekneck, on 10/11/2007, -7/+38 Nukes or WMD's should be the last option. The fact we talk publicly about using a nuke other than a last resort to counter attack a nuclear weapon is absurd. To use a act of aggression such as detonating a nuke w/o the just cause of a counter attack is something that will get everyone in trouble. As a posible president I don't want to hear " The option is on the table". I want to hear " In the case a nuclear strike was needed. Another country would have already used one." How could you consider a nuclear strike as a offensive option? You've got to be crazy. This is where Ron Paul and Rudy set them selves apart. Lets think logical here. Nuclear weaponds are not tunka trucks. You dont play with them when you want to.
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36Use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible.
If it truly is a battle of "good vs. evil", use of nuclear weapons should tell you which column we go in! - Stonedonkey, on 10/11/2007, -6/+34How does the Iranians providing arms to the Taliban relate to national security, and how does that constitute a direct attack on the United States?
- vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -6/+34@kibibytebrain
What part of "Though shalt not eat pig or touch the skin of pigs" did you not understand?
What part of "Put those to death those who work on the Sabbath" did you not understand?
Seems like to me that when people read the Bible, they cherry pick what servers them at the moment.
Watch this West Wing video (it really starts at 2:00) for such a debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI
Edit here's the text if you don't want to watch:
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?" - Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -4/+30You left out Switzerland, full of dangerous people who keep rifles in their homes.
- funkyjunk3, on 10/11/2007, -21/+47http://youtube.com/watch?v=70LbdQw6cxo
The Nuclear option does not reside in this day and age anymore, ESPECIALLY even ANY hint of a preemptive Nuclear bombing.
If there could be, even for just one day, where American leaders went to (insert "axis of evil" country here) and saw what the citizen's lives were like, I think they would be surprised at what kind of humility there is. Sure the cultures/dogmas/propaganda is different than here, but underneath it all is humanity. Its just the leadership and a few radical cults (including are own Fundamentalists here in America) that are annoying. The Civilians are okay.
Nuclear bombs, no matter where they're dropped always kill untold thousands of civilians indiscriminately. And they also poison the area for years afterward not to mention. And wherever a nuclear bomb is used in war, the entire world will rise up like you've never seen. They are NOT an option. Period.
(Note, not to say "non-nuclear war" is by any means justified or necessary. But for humanity's sake, Nuclear is far worse!) - Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -21/+46*Sighs* Please don't bring up religion, please. Its like bringing up terrorist leaders who use Islam as their crutch, most Muslims are against that, just like most Christians. I'm starting to think people feel stereotyping Christians, a form of discrimination, is OK, especially when they base those stereotypes on Politicians of all people.
- Groovemaster, on 10/11/2007, -17/+41I wouldn't be surprised if the real agenda was to nuke a US city and blame it on Iran.
- kooft, on 10/11/2007, -9/+32@malagent
"Have you watched or heard what Ahmadinejad says about destroying the United States, Israel & Britain? Search the internet, youtube etc and watch some of his speeches. then come back & tell me that."
I've heard Ahmadinejad speak of regime change in Israel, but I haven't heard of him wanting to destroy Israel, let alone the US or Britain. You're the one making the allegations, so the onus of proof is on you. Link us up to some articles where he says these things or quit spreading intentionally misleading propaganda (i.e., lies). - rderveloy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+26@salgat
"Sighs* Please don't bring up religion, please. Its like bringing up terrorist leaders who use Islam as their crutch, most Muslims are against that, just like most Christians. I'm starting to think people feel stereotyping Christians, a form of discrimination, is OK, especially when they base those stereotypes on Politicians of all people."
How can you bring up the middle east and not talk about religion? Middle eastern politics have always been about resources and religion. It has always been this way, ever since the crusades. The players are the same (religious extremists), and the thing we're fighting over has just shifted from religious relics and spices to oil. It's the same old conflict with a different name. - shadus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24Personally, I'm thinking Scandinavia somewhere... or maybe Mexico, I hear you can live there on the cheap.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22Let's say Iran gets nukes. So what?
Then they can waste away their budget on defense needs like we do. They won't use them, but it will keep them from being bossed around like they have been in the past. We destroyed a "normal" Iran in the 50's. We did, the United States. Today we see what it got us.
Until we get everyone to get rid of their nukes (which I wish we could do) we have NO RIGHT to tell anyone they cannot have nukes. None. Yeah, the Iranian leader is crazy. But he hasn't invaded any countries while in office. Bush has. Bush is a threat to world stability, not the Iranian leader. - digger28, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Then that basically justifies other countries to use nukes against us...........just great. I thought the treat of Nuclear war died with the USSR
- Rosco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Hey, leave Croatia alone dammit, they're working on a new Serious Sam game. And I want that game.
- illegalamigo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23If anyone nukes anyone I'm moving to Canada.
- superfusion, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24i think "nuking" any civilization would immediately rank the U.S. as the most evil empire in the history of humanity.
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20The USSR had thousands of nuclear weapon s and we didn't nuke them.
In fact, the U.S. only respects countries with nuclear weapons. - dictum, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22You forgot the East Coast.
And probably California.
In fact I've been hearing anti-Bush murmurs from people all over America.
I think it is time we face the fact, we are a threat to our own national security.
Considering we have supplied more weapons to more terrorist organizations in the middle east, and pumped more money into more terrorist countries than any of those on your list. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18@BohicaTwentyTwo
I got news for you. If another country invaded Canada, I would be telling our government to ship arms to the Canadians. What is Iran supposed to do? They have US forces on either side of them and the American admin telling them (not asking) what they have to do. I'd be pissed too and trying to get them out of my neighborhood. - skaface69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17If we preemptively strike iran with nuclear weapons, we would lose every friend that we have left in the world except for isreal. I don't think that these neo-cons have any idea what using our nukes would do to the world. It would basically give the go ahead for every other country with nukes to start using them. India would nuke Pakistan, who would nuke India, and if that happened, where would be get our tech support?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23@floorman: name a leader of any nation that was suicidal. Even Hitler only became suicidal at the end, when it was clear he'd lost. If failure and death is assured from the beginning, no leader is going to send his country to the ash heap of history. The exploitive crap about martyrdom is propaganda for the foot soldiers, not the leaders. In the US, the propaganda is that it's better to die defending liberty, when that's not always what our solders are sent by our leaders to do (in Iraq, it's oil).
@tubba: NO ONE wants Iran to have nukes. But they're going to get them because it's been made to clear to them by our actions that they need them to defend themselves from a US invasion. We invaded Iraq, with no WMD, but not NK, who had nukes. It's pretty clear. There's also the issue that Iran currently imports (yes imports) most of its refined fuel. They may actually need/want nuclear energy for economic reasons.
And the thing most people don't understand about Iranian nukes is that it's not Iran having one nuclear missile that we have to worry about. Two or more countries with first-strike capability will never use them, but may resort to conventional weapons backed by the threat of nukes. It's the SECOND strike capability -- the ability to his back after one is attacked with nukes -- that determines whether a country would ever push it beyond conventional forces. Israel has second strike. Iran is decades from having that capability, even after the get nukes. - unknownpoltroon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19Correction, 3504 solders. 3700+ if you include non us.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16You forgot Canada. Pesky canadians.
- nuclearpenguins, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17I'm happy to read that you didn't forget Poland.
- massgolfer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Btw, Iran is not a threat to American national security. However, America is a threat to Iranian national security.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Iran is not a threat.
Iraq was never a threat.
Islam is not a threat.
Can they kill some US citizens? Yes.
Does that threaten our way of life? No.
Grow up, people. - 0crabby0, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Why there's no way we'd use a nuke.
How would like to be known as the Worst US President, an election stealer, and the only one to nuke a country since WW2?
nevermind... - ShorXrorE, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21norman619...you should probably actually talk to some iranians before claiming to know what they're about. every country, regardless of how insane their leaders are, has much more similiarities than differences...people just trying to get by day to day and eat and hang out. iran is not that crazy...at all. no more crazy than the US. who has killed more people because of religious beliefs? who has starved more children? tortured more enemies? the US has. i've spoken to people from iran...simply put, if we leave them alone they'll leave us alone. but because of people spouting prejudiced and ignorant beliefs like yourself, every country out there that isnt part of america's free market is scared to ***** they're gonna get invaded (like iraq did, like you want to invade iran - and yes, you do want to in a specific philosophical way) so they want to be able to defend themselves.
and to the people who regret being republicans, look, you may not value my opinion much because i'm an anarchist, but don't feel bad about being republican. there are lots of good ideas in traditional republican values just as there are good in traditional democratic values. the problem is that politicians are politicians in these two parties, neither party at the top really cares what happens to americans. i mean REALLY cares, they may think oh this or that is bad, but if anyone really cared what was going on, we would have had universal healthcare a long time ago, we would have raised the minimum wage, we would have created a comprehensive drug rehabilitation program instead of a war, we would have completely overhauled the prison system and made it a re-integration into society system, etc. there has been no big change because democrats and republicans today do whatever little they can to slither by so they can retain their base support. - eddeh, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Didn't USA supply the Talibans with weapons in their war against Russia? The worst part is that the Talibans are using many of those USA supplied weapons to fight USA and NATO forces.
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14We'll cross that river when we get there. You just don't nuke a country for petty bickerings.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 506 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 