What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
133 Comments
- littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -7/+70"... revealing that the Pentagon had no plans to fully withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if legislation passes Congress mandating troop redeployment."
So The Pentagon will do whatever the hell it wants regardless of what Congress says?
How is this not a Rouge Government? - jackelsmack, on 10/11/2007, -14/+49This is why we need not just a Democratic president in 2009, but a populist one that will reverse establishment policy. Any of the centrist/DLC/Third Way/elitist candidates that got into office would immediately start stroking their chins, saying "Hm, American interests in the region, continuation of policy, price of gas, policing the world, sage advice from the Pentagon, $500 billion embassy, 50 years of American hegemony... can't let all this go down the tubes on my watch. Permanent air-supplied bases are essential, indubitably!"
You know the Clintons would endorse this exact plan: Pretend to withdraw while maintaining huge permanent bases. Then act surprised/offended when disaffected Iraqis commit violence on American interests. - irvman21, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33This seems extremely obvious to me, given that we still have troops in Germany, Japan & Korea.
- iomegaboy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+34Even as a Republican, after the ***** up mess GB has made of things, I don't think there's a chance in hell the next president will be Republican.
- 2k3john, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31This administration is utterly disconnected from the will of the American people and it has been from day 1 of Bush's second term, if not earlier - but from that point, all bets were off. I don't know that the true ramifications of what this administration has done in terms of foreign policy and the socioeconomics of this country will ever be known, and the arrogance of offering up lies as justification for continued gross misdeeds is unmitigated.
This "lilly pad" is supposed to allow the military to "protect U.S. interests in the region" in the event of a congressional redeployment order? This is like Monty Python... "so, as long as you're in these hermetically sealed bases and not running around the country patrolling and whatnot, then you're not really in the country?" "Right. Won't even notice us. Quiet as a peep." I don't know what's more preposterous - the thought of the whole thing, or the actual fact that people in incredibly important positions are actually thinking something this moronic. If some other force came onto our shores, we wouldn't be happy until they were the ***** OFF our soil. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Yeah. The plan is, and has been for some time, to slowly retreat into the three megabases, and let the iraqis sort out the mess outside as best they can.
The US is *not* going to abandon those three megabases, they're even more strategically important than Guantanamo! - MadOgre, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18We are still in Germany and have big bases there too.
- littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21... while what were the Towers remains a pit.
- AzDraon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18@jackelsmack
Unless the republican candidate is Ron Paul, of course. - tryangles, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Concerning The Way To Govern Cities Or Principalities Which Lived Under Their Own Laws Before They Were Annexed
WHENEVER those states which have been acquired as stated have been accustomed to live under their own laws and in freedom, there are three courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them, the next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live under their own laws, drawing a tribute (payment for protection), and establishing within it an oligarchy (small government) which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without his friendship and interest, and does its utmost to support him; and therefore he who would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it more easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.
But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in making one from amongst themselves, and they do not know how to govern themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily.
excerpts from THE PRINCE
Chapter V
by Nicolo Machiavelli
Written c. 1505 - dracflamloc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Um, he may be a 'fringe' candidate (and even that is debatable), but explain to me how he's a loony, especially when compared to the nutjobs they have going against him? Hes the sanest one of the bunch! At least he wants to follow the law established by the men who originally fought for this country.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth -- rocks."
- Einstein when asked about efforts to control nuclear weapons, late 1940s - zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Do any of you really believe that Hillary, or any other real dem candidate, won't do this exact same thing ? Don't be foolish...of course they will.......
- The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Why is this so surprising to the American people?!? for the past 3 years the military has been busy building a base larger than the Vatican. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=141587
- caution, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11The Pentagon has a "plan" for just about everything you could imagine -- to include staying in Iraq for 15-20 years.
What do you think all those people do in the Pentagon anyway? (Well, the half that aren't just looking busy.)
Forget it. It's far easier to just make up conspiracies. - YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Please don't connect Ron Paul with sounding like a nutjob.
- zoomie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Agreed. The folks in the Pentagon are always making contingency plans....its what they do. They try to anticipate what the military might be used for.
For all of you who see a conspiracy around every corner, you are delusional if you think that the Pentagon will stop preparing for wars around the world when a democrat is in office. You can damned well be sure the Pentagon had plans for invading Iraq and Iran when Clinton was in office. - YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Virtually all the DNC candidates want to stay in Iraq, or get our troops killed in Darfur, not to mention their blindingly retarded domestic policies. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9“I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting … we don't plan to function as an occupier, we don't plan to prescribe to any new government how we ought to be arranged in their country… We have no desire to be there for long periods, we simply don't. And that's just a cold, hard fact."
Donald Rumsfeld, April 21st 2003
"We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”
Donald Rumsfeld, reporting to the Senate Armed Services Committee, February 2005
“I would think that people would tell you, we’re not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days.”
Condoleezza Rice, responding to a question about permanent bases in Iraq, to House Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee April 4 2006 - interval, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Hey, we still have troops/bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. Why would Iraq be any different from other countries? Especially since it's of strategic importance in the middle east.
- M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15Sadly because of party politics I'm almost thinking the same. Which makes it a sad state we live in; when people care more about a label, than what's actually in the box.
I would mention someone, but it might be taken as spam. :P
....Ron Paul. Sorry, I couldn't help but be a smart-ass, it's my nature. Clenches butt-cheeks in preparation of the down horde. - Rahyl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans give a rat's-ass about how long we keep troops in foreign countries. It's election time and they're grabbing at straws to enrage the largest number of people they can in order to get votes, plain and simple.
If they DID care so much about how long our troops stayed in other countries, why do we still have troops in Kosovo? Why do we still have bases scattered all through Europe? What about Japan and Korea? All of these places and more have had a strong U.S. troop presence through many administrations. To think that the Democrats have suddenly had a change of heart concerning our use of military force is laughable.
The United States, through EVERY administration since WWII, has had a bad habit of coming up with "noble" reasons to invade other countries and simply stay there. We've NEVER had an exit strategy for an armed engagement. The Democrats aren't going to change that.
It's time for these countries to take responsibility for their own defense. The Cold War is over. Germany has reunited. Even Japan wants to build up its armed forces again. If these countries continue to depend on us for defense, they'll never learn to defend themselves. If we dare pull out of Iraq, we'd be complete hypocrites if we didn't pull out of every other country we're currently maintaining bases in. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7First we beat up the Military(Bush specifically) for not having a plan... Now we beat them up for putting together a plan....
Besides... Congress can't legislate troop movement. It's not in their power. They can, however, cut funding for military. But no, the people who got elected don't want to make a tough decision that will make it hard on them to get re-elected.
Freaking pansy ass congressmen. - Lister169, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"I do not believe that civilization will be wiped out in a war fought with the atomic bomb. Perhaps two-thirds of the people of the earth will be killed." -Albert Einstein
Einstein's sense of humor is often overlooked. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8no one did. both parties are bought and paid for pretty much the same corporations, lobbyists, special interest groups, and political action committees. they only disagree on peripheral issues like gay marriage and evolution so they can maintain the illusion of having distinct parties. they have a united strategy of divide and conquer. we have been involved in conflict at all times around the world for the past 50 years regardless of which party is in power.
- MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Un-*****-believable! This whole administration needs to resign and all military leaders need to resign.
- JE255J, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"after the ***** up mess GB has made of things, I don't think there's a chance in hell the next president will be Republican."
...ya know, some of us were saying the same thing 3 years ago. - codemonkeysteve, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Has no one in the Bush Administration (or Congress) actually read the Constitution?! The president commands the Army, but he only gets one for TWO YEARS at a time, and only if Congress votes for it:
"The Congress shall have power ...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Article 1, Section 8
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America - ruminate, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8I guess people are surprised because the media has not really talked about the huge embassy we have built and our plans to stay long term. If you do not go outside the mainstream media you do not get the whole picture.
- irvman21, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Does it undermine Germany or Japan's?
- bg785, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4wow what does this say about america? our policies are crafted and decided on by unelected neo-cons whose purpose is perpetual war? are we being governed by the unelected pentagon or the elected body of the people, Congress? are we a republic or an empire?
- trghpy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10The trip from Iraq to Iran is shorter than Saudi to Iran.
- o2o2o2o2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Pentagon: Deploy the 52nd platoon.
Army: But sir, they served 3 duties in iraq most of them are dead, and the others have no legs.
Pentagon: Send them anyway, and lets re-visit this draft thing. We need more men.
Bush: Lets give immediate VISA's to all mexicans who want to stay in this country on one condition, they join the army. We will just send them all to iraq.
Pentagon: Excellent, that will give us millions of men.
Army: Umm....uggg... ok - my4boyz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Would you consider 30,000 - 40,000 Chinese troops in Texas an occupation?
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11The embassy and the three mega-bases have been in the "mainstream media" for months. It's not "mainstream medias" fault if you only watch Fox and listen to Ron Paul.
- m3th0dm4n, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@zippy:
Some references of that? - vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Mostly because they haven't asked us to leave.
The reason we were welcome in Japan, Korea, and Germany of course for so long is the threat of Soviet invasion. However, after the cold war it was more or less because we pay nice rent and the US troopers help the local economies.
However, in Japan and Korea there is a growing sentiment that the US should leave. - cczaphod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Germany and Japan bases may have questionable value at this point, but what about Korea? Ever seen pictures of Korea from orbit or air at night? Do you think South Korea would have running water and electricity if we had allowed them to be overrun by the North? How many troops are in Korea? 50K or so? Why is this a big deal? If by staying in Iraq, the country becomes more like South Korea than the mess it is now, how is that a bad thing.
- ckedge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@Junkyarddawg - Oh jeeze, I just had a thought. As long as those megabases are there with 10,000 troops each, as soon as Iran gets the bomb... they don't even need an intercontinental missile.
- THE4IRON, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Because the American people would rather vote for the next "American Idol" than vote for a president. (Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter)
- geekee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"Buried as Stupid. How could 30,000-40,000 troops in a country of millions be considered an occupation?"
I guess the US is occupying Germany and S. Korea then too. - bguthro, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10Re: littlebylittle
How is this not a Rouge Government?
Let me preface this with the fact that I don't agree with the action...but your statement shows that you have no idea how the government is set up. The executive branch controls the military powers via the Commander in Chief (president.) The Congress makes the laws - so they could pass a budget to restrict funds going to troop operation - but the miliitary does not operate under the command of the Congress. - ptrr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3And people still believe in this whole left, right *****. Isn't it blatantly obvious that something is going on here when they're trying to smear the only candidate who has a spine and stands for the constitution? One thing that can not be denied is the fact that we've been under the same 2 families control for the past 20 years and there looks to be no change in that seeing as how the news outlets are pushing Hillary, all while phony conservatives like Limbaugh are saying there's a 80% chance that Hillary will be our next president. They're both on the same team f'ing us over.
Bush Sr.(89-93) Bill Clinton(93-01) Bush(01-08) Hillary?(08-16)
Reagen(81-89) For those ignorant ones out there Bush Sr. was the VP and Reagen just so happened to be shot 69 days into his first term. - danarama, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Forget your stupid ***** polls americans your country is not a democracy. 60% oppose a presence in Iraq and 100% don't understand why your selfish government invaded to begin with. it was over as soon as you let corporate oil mogals rule your country. it is officially your fault.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4no, see, the officers get to hang out in our shiny new, fragproof permanent bases. Also today's army is a lot more disciplined than it was in the 60's. 347 civilians were killed at My Lai, and only 24 were killed at Haditha. Thats what I call progress!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5When you already have a base with a giant car dealership on it, you "a'int goin nowhere"...
- zippy757, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Most soldiers (75%) are white....not sure what you're talking about.....in Iraq, it's even higher...not sure why, but front line troupes tend to be >85% white......
- Qenton, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The Pentagon will do whatever the president says. Not the Congress. There are a lot of checks and balances but basically if you want to get out of Iraq completely convince the nation to vote for a president that will do just that. The other way is get a constitutional amendment passed that says all foreign operations that are not a result of a declaration of war are subject to yearly reviews by congress or something mushy like that.
- zombiedepot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5They're never going to leave.
- chiricahua, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3And that is why we need RON PAUL for President!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 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