digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Podhoretz: Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler'

thinkprogress.org — On the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer last night, Commentary Magazine editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz, repeated his claim that there is “only one terrible choice” left with Iran, which is to “bomb” them. Podhoretz repeatedly accused Fareed Zackaria of “an irresponsible complacency” that “is comparable to the denial" of "the intentions of Hitler."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bagos1, on 11/05/2007, -31/+94A Zionist piece of garbage....let's bomb his house and see how he fells about it.
    • CannedMango, on 11/02/2007, -43/+16Dugg down for resorting to ridiculous threats.
      • CannedMango, on 11/02/2007, -31/+18And apparently I'm getting dugg down because people would rather resort to knee jerk violence than learn to think rationally.
        • norman619, on 10/31/2007, -6/+6Welcome to Digg. Try the fish it's great!
        • pintomp3, on 10/31/2007, -4/+7you mean like the threats podhoretz is advocating?
          • Matthew720, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Pod is a fascist pig.
          • card51short, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2so lets not stoop to his level of threats...
        • n8glenn, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Nah, you're getting dugg down probably because everyone knows the guy's only joking.
          • CannedMango, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1It's hard to tell anymore. For every person who can think for themselves and throws out something like that in pure ironic comedy, there's a counterpart idiot who thinks the best way to punish someone is to do the same things to them that they advocate, which of course is so hypocritical that it's sad. Digg has its fair share of both.
      • spucky, on 10/31/2007, -3/+11Perhaps Zionist was a little out of line, Podhoretz is talking about killing real people, just like you and me. Just because you may not like their leaders does not mean than people, who's only crime was being born in the wrong country, should die.
    • teherga, on 11/01/2007, -7/+14The term Zionist would refer to those who believe in Israel belonging to the Jews and the whole idea of a Jewish motherland. In reality a Zionist is no different from the Muslim Theocracies. http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Meetings/20070924A ... Some members of the Jewish community who are not Zionist actually hold lots of respect for him. At any rate I've seen more Jewish liberals than conservatives to so ***** you've made a fool of yourself.
      • source1984, on 11/01/2007, -2/+8Sure, both are based on religion being involved in a state. The difference is that one (zionism) involves displacing millions of people from their land based on an ANCIENT text that "promises" them the land. It also involves oppression, settling on territory of others, etc. A true Islamic state wouldn't kick out people from their homes due to religious reasons. On the contrary, when Salahuddin entered Jersualem he didn't harm a Jew or Christian and let whoever wanted to stay, stay. Also, Ottomans (as wrong as some of their acts may have been) took in Jews when the Spanish were persecuting and kicking them out.
        • solid12345, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Oh please the Muslim Jihadists displaced hundreds of thousands of christian Byzantines who had lived there for centuries. Tired of this politically correct BS that paints europe as the aggressors and Muslims as the innocent victims who only defended themselves, it was the opposite they started the conflicts.
          • card51short, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2all countries and empires at one point have been evil.
    • allan17, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Your right, I think he might fell down and hurt himself if they bombed his house.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4he probably has 100 secret service guarding his house, so go ahead and try.
      • williamdyer, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Probably not, and I would not be surprised if prominent neocons started having a run of bad luck because people are tired of the world-threatenng warmongering.
    • jabberwolf, on 11/01/2007, -12/+3I agree Bagos1 doesnt realize that over 140 countries recognize Israel's right to exist thus the WORLD IS ZIONIST! So why not get back to the facts and do some reasearch that IRAN is readying itself for the end of the world and the return of the 12th imam. Remember this is a country that sent kids running over landmines with plastic keys to heaven - And still lead by the same people!
      • source1984, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Nuclear weapons would be forbidden in Islam as it causes MASSIVE destruction of innocent life and earth. So no "Imam" should authorize it -- UNLESS its defensive (i.e. someone launched a NUCLEAR weapon at them first) then its possible they would authorize using it.
        • solid12345, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Where are the Imams who are forbidding jihadists from blowing up 100 Iraqis a day?
    • Lindane, on 11/05/2007, -1/+13Ziocon: conflation of Zionist and Neocon. Many of these individuals are responsible pushing the US & Britain to invade Iraq. They do the bidding of AIPAC and hence Israel.

      A partial list of Ziocons includes: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Doulas Feith, David Wurmser, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristoll, Midge Decter, Dov Zakheim, Robert B. Zoellick, Eliot Cohen, William Kristoll, Robert Kagan, Joshua Muravchik, Meyrav Wurmser, Irwin Stelzer, Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes, Lawrence Kaplan, Marty Peretz, David Brooks, John Podhoretz, Neal Kozodoy, Jonah Goldberg
    • Aggaman, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8Yeah, someone needs to kick his ass. If I saw him in person, I'd want to do it myself. I'm tired of these lying assholes who want to send other people to die for a load of *****, and yet they expect to be treated with "respect", and have their arguments responded to with other arguments, despite the fact that they have no interest in rational discussion unless it supports their POV. Someone throw a pie at this asswipe.
    • phineusfog1, on 10/31/2007, -4/+1all the girls are having hissy fits. stick head in toilet. flush.
    • n0gnuz, on 11/03/2007, -2/+1I want to bomb his house and then eat a ***** sandwich and then maybe listen to some Crystal Gayle records.

      Sorry.
  • Dumbledorito, on 11/02/2007, -10/+100And like Saddam before him, the neocons have labeled Ahmadinejad as "The New Hitler."

    How many times are they going to try to pull this crap? It's just slightly more ridiculous than when apocalyptic Christian sects put out predictions over who's the Antichrist.
    • Innova69, on 11/02/2007, -6/+34As many more times as needed, there are still a lot of sheep out there.
      "So, if you're not with us,.. you're with the terrorists"- a Quote from a bumbling idiot.
    • kingraoul3, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7Lets go win WWII again!
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -8/+3The sheer ignorance. Here you are talking about some theoretical apocalyptic Christian sect (there are NONE out there with any real influence that actually WANT to bring about the end of the world through violence or whatever) and yet AHMADINEJAD IS A MEMBER OF AN APOCALYPTIC MUSLIM SECT that literally - no exaggeration at all - preaches that not only WILL the seas be red like blood before the Messiah comes, it is your DUTY to MAKE the seas red with blood! Even the Saudis call his sect dangerous for its members' insane beliefs. But your ignorance comes as no surprise - it is in fact quite typical of your kind. This isn't Left/Right - it's right/wrong - and sooner or later you'll understand just how much of a hinderance those with your attitude are to the people fighting on the right side here.

      But you'll just tell me I'm a bigot, won't you? Yeah. Never mind that many a Muslim with open eyes stands beside me. Not enough, true, but many do. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
      • quaxon, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7If not a bigot then a misinformed, ignorant fool. First of all the current president of iran and Bush are on the same level when it comes to ***** insane religious beliefs and the desire to bring about the end times. Also i am curious whether you know who drove iran to install a muslim theocracy? Further more who was it, post 9/11, to make iran elect a president who was not gonna back down to american threats and have a strong stance against american imperialism? You guessed it, your very own government. After 9/11 and the ramp up to war with Iraq iran had a reformist government that was very sympathetic to america, helped with afghanastan and forcing saddam to flee and on a number of occasions held their hand out to america saying they want peace between the two nations and are ready to help stabilize Iraq. Of course being the arrogant pricks we are (or who knows, maybe they always planned to go into Iran once iraq failed), we told them to ***** off and labeled them a part of the axis of evil. The people didnt take too kindly to that and elected ahmadenejad because he promised to stand up to the big bullies. Every american death in the middle east is justified and i am glad to see them fighting the american imperialists who are only fighting for corporate interests with no regard for civilian life.
        • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2NO death in the middle east is justified...other than that...dugg for realpolitik analysis
    • sgtpppr, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8The neocons haven't found out about Godwin's Law yet and still think they're being original.
      • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Here's my addition to Godwin's Law: as the length of a war against Israel's enemies increases, the chance of new Hitlers being proclaimed approaches 1.
  • Napoleone, on 11/02/2007, -14/+83For all intents and purposes, the man most comparable to Hitler, in this situation, is George W. Bush. Only his motivations are different, yet, they're not at all altruistic.

    Israel has the army necessary to take on Iran's. It has 200 nuclear bombs. It's their war, let them sacrifice their own citizens and not ours.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/31/2007, -16/+7That's quite a stretch. Every guy you hate is now comparable to Hitler? I don't see any federal agents raiding Digg's servers to censor or better yet- a nationalistic fervor.
      • spyd3rweb, on 10/31/2007, -4/+8oh because its not exactly the same means its not comparable.
      • 2bsbc, on 11/02/2007, -2/+14You are right on the money with that comment x; however, we didn't see those Feds when they made the deal with AT&T either, did we? And as far as a nationalistic fervor; look at what is going on with the immigration issue. Note that Germany's economy was in the ***** when he rose to power. People will start to lose their jobs, homes, fuel prices will rise to obscene levels; then my friend you have:
        A) Server Raiding
        B) Nationalistic Fervor

        Good Luck
    • norman619, on 10/31/2007, -11/+6You have some odd wishes. And please point us to where the number of nuks held by Israel has been confirmed. As far as I knew tehre have never been any confirmation of that.
      • Napoleone, on 11/02/2007, -1/+15You're in the dark, my friend. The fact that Israel has hundreds of nukes is an open international secret.

        They assisted the French with their own nuclear program and in turn got a few hundred bombs out of it. Do the research.
      • JonForTheWin, on 11/02/2007, -2/+13It'd be awesome if they didn't, if you trust a nuclear armed Isreal, you're a true *****.
        • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -9/+2Your hatred clouds your eyes. Let me guess, you think Israel purposefully targets civilians? All those times in the news where Israel warns people that they're going to bomb such-and-such where weapons are held - those things didn't really happen. And acquiring smart bombs for better targeting - no, they don't do that - they just want to hit civilians! Duh. And the terrorists - oh, pardon me, "freedom fighters" - just accidentally hit all those civilians all those times when they launched rockets into urban and suburban areas, sent suicide bombers into buses, etc etc.

          Here's a hint: Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work with those driven by insane ideology. Which of these two groups has that? Iran, led by an apocalyptic "we must make the seas flow with blood so the 12th imam can come back" and the suicidal terrorists, or Israel? It's an easy question, but I'm sure you'll get it wrong.
        • Wargalas, on 10/31/2007, -4/+1And yet, you trust Iran with nuclear weapons?
    • Wargalas, on 10/31/2007, -11/+6Well to most digg users Bush is comparable to Hitler. Even though he's never tried to exterminate a race of people, personally watched someone being executed with piano wire, or rounded up top military commanders and had them executed, Bush = Hitler.
      • Napoleone, on 10/31/2007, -2/+9Iran's president has done none of those things either. Yet, I'm sure you'd agree the man is scum?
        • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -9/+2Iran's president is regularly quoted by his own news agency saying anti-Semitic things, saying he's going to destroy Israel, etc etc. And he's driven by an ideology that calls for chaos so he can bring back the 12th imam. If you can't tell the difference, there's something wrong with you.
      • Myonosken, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2Hitler attacked Jews, scapegoating them for the nation's problems

        Gee, Bush never did ANYTHING like that, right?
      • Observant1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4"Well to most digg users Bush is comparable to Hitler. Even though he's never tried to exterminate a race of people, personally watched someone being executed with piano wire, or rounded up top military commanders and had them executed, Bush = Hitler."
        got news for ya, when he was governor of texas he LOVED watching executions of death row inmates. 800,000+ Iraqi are dead. Depleted Uranium munitions.. we wont begin to see the full effects of that scorched earth genocide for another 10-15 years. bush makes hitler look like mary friggin poppins.
        • Wargalas, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Ok, so let me get this straight. Bush has personally seen executions in Texas, (where's your source)? 800k Iraqi's dead (Completely untrue, do the math), DU is used because it works. Any other false comparisons that you'd like to make?
  • jennifer4peace, on 11/02/2007, -15/+60the only "new hitler" is bush.
    • TradaPIB, on 10/31/2007, -2/+16Hitler was charismatic and loved by his people.
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -7/+1Cuz you say so.
    • davewashere, on 10/31/2007, -1/+9But let's face it, the Americans who continue to support the war in Iraq and the future bombing of Iran, along with just about everyone in Congress, are acting the part of the "good Germans". Podhoretz has it completely wrong here. He is supporting a regime with world-dominating dreams under the guise of security from terrorism.
    • Andysan, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5The 'new' Hitlers are all the little thought police who want to control everyone's speech and shout down anyone they disagree with. Hitler and his brownshirts managed to intimidate a small portion of the German population, namely the Jews. All you little Hitlers out there should recognize that now you are trying to intimidate a large portion of the American population that has money, guns, and will not go quietly onto your virtual relocation trains. So long as you stick to stupid bumper stickers, loony yard signs, and hiding behind hidden (maybe) IPs you are just annoying. Don't push your luck!
    • Corrosionx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2It's less about the person, it's more the position of power, and anyone in the chair of president is scary with the new dictatorial powers Clinton and Bush voted for themselves.
  • Vinadetta, on 11/02/2007, -10/+35IMO Podhortez is total scum!!! He is only part of the evil controlling the Elite!!! If you elect Ghouliani it will be this scumbag who is controlling the presidency!!!!
    • xenotek, on 10/31/2007, -5/+6Please don't say "Ghouliani" anymore. Yes, I understand your allusion and aren't you clever. But, just stop. Please. I think we're in agreement that both Giuliani and Podhortez would be astonishingly bad policy makers, but if your wit doesn't span beyond replacing an "i" with an "ho", then perhaps you should just leave it at that. This message also applies to those of you who felt smugly confident after saying the phrases "General Betrayus," "Democraps," or the like.
      • Observant1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3HITLERY HITLERY HITLERY !! lol
      • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Yeah, if you don't stop it, he'll call you a libtard, or a moonbat or something.
        • xenotek, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Those terms are equally stupid. My point is if you can't discuss policy issues without resorting to inane quips you regurgitated from Fox News or MoveOn, you should probably shouldn't be discussing policy.
      • card51short, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1what if you made it up yourself...can you then use it?
    • IADTatami, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I'm confident that Clinton's foreign policy will be indistinguishable from Bush's.
  • ClosedCaption, on 11/02/2007, -6/+38http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos/out.pdf

    "The hatred I still feel for Negroes is the hardest of all the old feelings to face or admit, and it is the most hidden and the most overlarded by the conscious attitudes into which I have succeeded in willing myself. It no longer has, as for me it once did, any cause or justification (except, perhaps that I am constantly being denied my right to an honest expression of the things I earned the right as a child to feel). How, then, do I know that this hatred has never entirely disappeared? I know it from the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism; I know it from the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; and I know it from the violence that can stir in my whenever I encounter that special brand of paranoid touchiness to which many Negroes are prone. . . .

    There were plenty of bad boys among the whites -- this was, after all, a neighborhood with a long tradition of crime as a career open to aspiring talents -- but the Negroes were really bad, bad in a way that beckoned to one, and made one feel inadequate."

    No wonder he advocates for war so badly...He's a pussy who's trying to relive his childhood through the troops. Wishing he was "bad" instead getting the holy ***** beat out of him.
    • Napoleone, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Who is it you're talking about? I'd like to know.
      • kernel16, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6Have you clicked the article? It's apparently written by Norman Podhoretz. If thats real, then someone needs to ask Giuliani what he thinks of all of this.
        • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Giuliani grew up in those neighborhoods. He probably agrees. Interesting article, though.
        • Napoleone, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Thanks. I didn't read it cos' I don't like opening pdf's.
        • LadyKofNYC, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Ask Amadou Diallo
  • Stardigg, on 11/02/2007, -4/+60Obviously, a vote for Giuliani is a vote for World War III.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/02/2007, -2/+14A vote for romney is a vote for double the torture and double guantanimo and world war III.
    • Chassit, on 10/31/2007, -5/+10A Vote for Ron Paul could save the world
      • RoyLuhza, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0"...Ron Paul's Candidacy for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organized by party staff."

        If that is how Rupert Murdoch's people see it, suppose that there is no smoke without fire …says deadbeats on Israel’s payroll are put in front of computers endlessly download RP video's, and endlessly post Ron Paul drivel anywhere they can, hell the Watson Boys post drivel, and we know Alex rescued them out of the gutter in Manchester England when they needed a job …Maybe these are the kind of men they mean, the RP vid at Digg has over fourteen thousand diggs. Well Rupert’s people in Australia say it's a black op... And we know of the close relationship between RP and Alex Jones, we know the 725 material can sink Alex's ship at any time... All seems to fit in.
    • kernel16, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2WW IV apparently, lol.
      • Observant1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3yes, were under attack now with undeclared moral and financial warfare, have been for decades.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Don't worry, a vote for Clinton means the same thing.
  • Shigglyboo, on 10/31/2007, -7/+17can we all just keep our dicks in our pants here? most of us just wanna have a half-decent life without getting spooged on by greedy power hungry emperors.
  • Klak, on 11/02/2007, -4/+25do they think if they bring about the Apocalypse then Jesus will appear?
    • Ub3rg33k, on 10/31/2007, -4/+19You laugh, but the answer in many cases is "yes". Why do you think the evangelical neo-con base don't give two camel turds what they do in the Middle East?
    • AnotherBrian, on 10/31/2007, -3/+11Yes!
    • Zeonix, on 10/31/2007, -2/+10Which is kinda weird, because their bible clearly states the Apocalypse won't happen if people are anticipating or expecting it's arrival. They're ***** everything up because of a belief that doesn't even appear in their holy book.
    • Chassit, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4An aside to that is this: bringing about the apocalypse is murder.
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -9/+1Let me repeat myself for the arrogant anti-Christian crowd which appears to dominate Digg, or at least this thread.

      The sheer ignorance. Here you are talking about some theoretical apocalyptic Christian sect (there are NONE out there with any real influence that actually WANT to bring about the end of the world through violence or whatever) and yet AHMADINEJAD IS A MEMBER OF AN APOCALYPTIC MUSLIM SECT that literally - no exaggeration at all - preaches that not only WILL the seas be red like blood before the Messiah comes, it is your DUTY to MAKE the seas red with blood! Even the Saudis call his sect dangerous for its members' insane beliefs. But your ignorance comes as no surprise - it is in fact quite typical of your kind. This isn't Left/Right - it's right/wrong - and sooner or later you'll understand just how much of a hinderance those with your attitude are to the people fighting on the right side here.

      But you'll just tell me I'm a bigot, won't you? Yeah. Never mind that many a Muslim with open eyes stands beside me. Not enough, true, but many do. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
    • mtiffany71, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0That is their only purpose: Jesus isn't getting here fast enough for their liking. They're just trying to help him along the way.
  • krnldmp, on 11/02/2007, -4/+21Apparently some people just can't stop yanking it to thoughts of bombing Iran.
  • staffa, on 10/31/2007, -12/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    • Jexie, on 11/02/2007, -2/+15To paraphrase a another article that was around here recently: ***** Godwin's law, if it talks like Hitler and acts like Hitler the comparison is fair. Godwin's law might be some witty little logical truism but it has no real qualitative value.
      • 2bsbc, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Logical truism indeed Jexie, +1.
      • vermax, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8EXACTLY, trotting out this "law" in this case is just stupid, it's like since someone declared it it invalidates the possibility of great evil ever again. and it's not Bush who's Hitler, it's Cheney. Bush is the ***** hood ornament on the bulldozer.
        • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Here's ZenMojo's law: Any article about someone with Hitler-like qualities on the internet will eventually end up comparing someone in that article to the Nazi's. Go ahead and try to violate THAT.
        • staffa, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2You are confused about who the 'Hitler' is in this case.

          The article to which I replied to is comparing the leadership of Iran with Hitler and is encouraging Bush to Bomb them into submission before they achieve nuclear weapons.
        • Observant1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2and cheney moving his ol buddy bush seniors agenda forward, watching over the idiot son.. grandson of a known nazi supporter/financer. 2 presidents, direct descendants of a nazi.
      • staffa, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2If it does, that's the point isn't it? Godwin's law is not about invalidating all comparisons.

        Does the leadership of Iran talk/walk like Hitler, is the comparison valid?

        I think what is going on in Dar-fur would warrant a comparison to Hitler, what is going on in Iran, not even close. Obviously you do, might I suggest you read up on some of the WW2 era history, you are in sore need of some education.

    • JonForTheWin, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Nor does it invalidate *****
      • staffa, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Not of itself no, but it is valid in this case. The leadership of Iran is in no way near the evil that was Hitler.
  • dupswapdrop, on 11/02/2007, -3/+24"The New Hitler." what is Bush giving up his title so easily?
    • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3That brand's about to be recalled and replaced with 'Hitler Classic'
  • Danial, on 11/02/2007, -1/+19Funny he has no problem with the U.S. supporting ex-Nazis in power. Greek junta anyone?
  • hagingtree, on 10/31/2007, -12/+2the appeasement of Hitler bought the Allies a year to prepare for war, without that year all of Europe may be speaking German right now. Appeasement is not such a bad thing.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/31/2007, -4/+9Are you kidding? Appeasement is what allowed Hitler to invade France so ***** fast. We appeased Hitler hoping that he would stop at Czechoslovakia (which he promised to do). What happened? He ignores Chamberlain and invades all of Europe anyway. The Allies did not even get a chance to mobilize.
      • kingraoul3, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7?
        War was declared after the invasion of Poland, But France wasn't invaded till months later.
        You just spouting off, or you got some facts?
    • GMorgan, on 10/31/2007, -0/+8Actually it bought the Nazis a year to build their armies. At the time we would have trounced them, even when they invaded France they were still comfortably outnumbered and a it took a farcical mistake by the French general allowing them free passage over the Ardennes. If there was a point where there was a serious ***** up it was leaving a Frenchman in charge of defending France ;).

      In any case, declaring war when Hitler moved troops into the Rhineland would have stopped WW2, declaring it at any point after that towards the last moment would have stopped it. Putting even a token force in the Ardennes would have ended it quickly. The only thing we could do to turn it into a total mess was wait until the last moment and put an incompetent in charge who leaves a huge hole for the Germans to charge through.
      • blackjack75, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5"It the time we would have trounced them,"
        I recommend you watch the recent TV series called "The War", by Ken Burns. It does show how difficult it was for the allies to progress in Europe against the german troops at the end of war even though *most* of the nazi army had already been destroyed on the eastern front and the remains were still fighting to slow down the unstoppable advance of the russians troops.

        As for the usual "blah blah blah.. alll be speaking german now", once again that's completely underestimating Russia. Just have a look at the numbers of troops involved on the eastern front and you'll understand how small "D-Day" was comparatively. By 1943 the war was already over: the soviets won against the nazis in Stalingrad. The only thing the allied landings in Northern Africa, Italy and France did were prevent communism to reign over western Europe. So if anything, we'd all be speaking Russian.




  • tom500k, on 11/02/2007, -1/+25Can this war-monger plead senility? Weren't Podhoretz and his son in law, Eliot Abrams, the war criminals who lied us into invading Iraq? Why does the New Hour give these dangerous fools air time while keeping real scholars like Chomsky off the air?
    • Narcowski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Because only crazy people support war with Iran.
    • RoyLuhza, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Talkin' about Chomsky... He says he, "...can only be sceptical," in the face of massive 911 evidence implicating Israel and US traitors.

      Just confirms Chomsky as another hair on the ass of treasonous political and academic collusion, by foisting this BS on the public, …'twould normally be but a matter of mirth …the detonation of a thermonuclear device, and the alleged hijacking if four airplanes yet only wreckage from two, there being none in Pennsylvania nor at the Pentagon, where images show the very real vapor trail from a cruise missile streaking toward impact. OBL did not have one at his disposal, for all his wickedness. The President saw the first strike live on telly in Florida… no one else admits they did, and the networks never broadcast it live, so his own people must have established the link. This old fuddy duddy over educated wanker, says he can't see any reason to be anything but sceptical. …Give me a break.
      • card51short, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1that was when he first was introduced into 9/11 truth. I spoke to him for about 2 weeks daily trying to convince him to look at the evidence. He came around a bit, but wasn't ready to say 911 was an inside job. A week or two later, he signs the petition for a new investigation.
        I'm sure others were pushing him as well , though.
  • shoulderjesus, on 10/31/2007, -12/+0dugg for most quotation marks in a description ever.
  • praveens, on 10/31/2007, -7/+22this jew does not care about the US..only israel
    • krnldmp, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3And he differs how?
      • praveens, on 10/31/2007, -5/+5from tony judt say...anyway the point is the jews are hijacking the foreign policy of the US
        • pintomp3, on 11/02/2007, -0/+11not jews. zionists, both jewish and christian, and neo-cons. not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews.
        • n8glenn, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Yes, let's not be racist against Jews just because we don't like the policies of Israel.
    • jabberwolf, on 10/31/2007, -8/+2And praven does not support the US only his retarded racism.
    • Observant1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+5start replacing "jew" with "nazi posing as jew", and "Isreal" with "modern nazi Isreal" and youre comment would make more sense and probably more accepted. thers lots of good jewish people who hate the "ZIONAZI's" just as much as anyone else. they hate nazi's posing as jews that scream "anti-semitism" at anything opposition. the nazi's are running the US and Isreal's govt's both. no anger at ya at all praveens, call a spade a spade, or a nazi a nazi. there are a lot of nazi-catholics too.
  • URnotheonly1, on 10/31/2007, -27/+3Lame!
    Every day the left wingers get to preach the virtues of the grand Marxist Islamic states and their right to self determination and defense, while we get nada, nil-ch, no mas. We get accused building to many star bucks/ McDonald's in the world with our corporate fascism, yet we ain't the ones "goose stepping threw Tehran town square.

    Ahh, anyway, good times!

    • erkokite, on 11/02/2007, -1/+12I've never preached the virtues of the "grand islamic Marxist state," or whatever the hell you're referring to. Most liberals are ardent secularists and staunch opponents of Islamic states. You seem to think that liberals support Iran solely because we don't want to bomb them. Must we bomb everyone we don't agree with? Because sometimes I swear that's how you neo-con warmongering asshats think. Must make for a pretty ***** foreign policy.
    • barandon0D9, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5Buried for saying "ain't" . Oh, and for being a complete moron.
    • saqer, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6What the ***** is grand Marxist Islamic states?
      • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Looks like desperate pass from the old school 'commie domino theory fear' play book...is digg attracting a demo of retarded male hillbillies (ages 55-70) now??
  • Stryder81, on 10/31/2007, -10/+8If I'm Hitler you neo-con ***** sucker, You'll be the first I throw into the oven.
    • asskey, on 10/31/2007, -5/+2Welcome to my block list. It's kinda like an oven, except everyone in there is a moron. Like you.
      • card51short, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1i'm pretty sure it's exactly like an oven then: anyone who would enter an oven is a moron.
  • NeoTheta, on 10/31/2007, -12/+21This certainly reinforces my support for Ron Paul.
  • gerrylazlo, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6We have time before their capabilites even approach nuclear weapons. Sanctions and negotiations are still on the table until they start building weapons. Just look at North Korea. Things can change from seemingly inexorable courses.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0What are you going to sanction?
      What are you going to negotiate?
      Or are these just magic word you use to avoid the nuclear Iran problem?
    • Qeveren, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2This doesn't have anything to do with nuclear weapons, you do realize that don't you?
  • ButterBuddha, on 11/02/2007, -3/+18Fareed Zackaria: "Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Not ***** Crazy"
  • 2bsbc, on 11/02/2007, -3/+26These war mongering lunatics will be the end of this country.
  • shivaman, on 10/31/2007, -30/+4You all don't really understand what Islam is really going to do to the people of the free world. Islam is a cancer and eventually will make what Hitler did look like a walk in the park. But you all keep your heads buried in the sand on this issue and you and your children will see a living hell made out of the world because of the fact that we won't see this cancer Islam for what it really is.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/31/2007, -3/+9Shut up.
    • boxybrzown, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8/sarcasm?...I really can't tell.
      If not: Islam is just a religion. People do what they want with it, as always
      • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Islam could be but sadly is NOT just a religion. It is also a political ideology. Not all Muslims are part of political Islam, AKA Islamism. This is why it's not bigoted to be opposed to Islamists - many Muslims who want to end terrorism, etc., are very much against Islamism, the Islamists, and (gasp!) Islamofascism. Surprise, it's not a dirty word. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
    • erkokite, on 11/02/2007, -1/+14The free world will never bow to Islamic law. We don't need to bomb Islamic states to prove it.
      • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -5/+2And allowing Iran to have nukes helps us avoid bowing to Islamic law how? Oh wait, I for some reason thought some simple logic wuold get through to you, but I'm sure you've already decided to ignore the GIGANTIC pile of evidence that Iran is the enemy whether we officially declare war with them or not. Let me guess - Iran isn't really going for nukes? They'd never attack Israel or the U.S.? I didn't say we necessarily *should* bomb them at this time, but you've gotta be crazy to tell the enemy "We're not going to bomb you no matter what" as certain Democratic presidential candidates have. Hint: When the chief nuclear official in a country brags about how diplomatic talks allowed them to continue doing what they want to do, talking isn't enough. (But you were ignorant of that little widely-reported and confirmed interview, weren't you? Or chose to pretend it didn't happen.) We've offered enough carrots. Where are the big sticks?
    • asskey, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7If that does turn out to be true the Catholics will stop them. Or the Mormans. Ah, global religious warfare!
    • Zarathustra19, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8Fixed:

      "You all don't really understand what Religion is really going to do to the people of the free world. Religion is a cancer and has already made what Hitler did look like a walk in the park. But you all keep your heads buried in the sand on this issue and you and your children will see a living hell made out of the world because of the fact that we won't see the cancer of religion for what it really is."
    • zeitgueist, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Wow...just wow.
    • n8glenn, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5One more bigot. Congratulations, you have fallen for the same line that hitler gave the germans about the Jews. How many times can I point out to people like you that you only know what you've seen on your television screen, and it is a very twisted, shallow version of reality. Islam is a religion, and just because some people who call themselves muslims happen to be crazy or violent, does not mean that the entire religion is bad. If you had the intellectual curiosity or the intestinal fortitude to actually talk to a real muslim or learn about their religion then you would realize how sadly misguided you are, but of course you would never do such a thing. You will continue to believe what your television tells you and you will advocate hatred, bigotry, and violence based on religion, just like Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are so wont to do. Perhaps instead of meeting the 99.9% of muslims who are sane and peaceful and tolerant, you should just meet Osama, I bet you guys would get on just great.
      • shivaman, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2You really don't know what your talking about. I have read the koran twice and the is the main reason I say what I say. Now see who is talking through their ass!!!
        • source1984, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4You've read the Qur'an twice... let me guess WITHOUT scholarly commentary and WITH interpretation from jihadwatch nuts? lol. Listen buddy, some extremists wish what you say was true... about a huge Islamic global conspiracy to take over the earth and enslave you. Sadly, its not the case. Ask any major Islamic scholar.. YOU KNOW.. the one that MOST PEOPLE follow. Put down your conservative book on Islam and pick up a book on Islam written by.... you guessed it, a MUSLIM! I know i know.. the Qur'an says "kill, kill...". The Qur'an also says don't kill and to follow rules in war, etc. Learn the WHOLE truth. start of at a basic site, like whyislam.org.
          • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1You're asking far too much of these morons.
          • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1(damn double posts)

            Where's our "delete post" function, Kevin?
    • barandon0D9, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8It is so depressing to be reminded that people like this actually exist, and they actually believe the moronic things they say. The notion that the world will be taken over by Islam if the US doesn't bomb Iran is just mind-bogglingly stupid.
    • Klak, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2YOU sound more like hitler than Ahmadinejad
    • card51short, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1AL K-DER IS GONNA GIT US!!!!
  • colonelbuckshot, on 11/02/2007, -3/+19PODHORETZ: "Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest."

    The neo-con Zionists at AIPAC and PNAC must be laughing at the ordinary Americans doing all their work for them.
    • maz2331, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3And exactly how is THAT a good thing for the USA? I'd really like to know how royally pissing off the rest of the world and being hated and lothed is somehow a positive.
  • maybeinoregon, on 10/31/2007, -5/+13That guy is a nut job and should be put away - he is a living example of why frontal lobotomies should not be outlawed.
  • Genady, on 11/02/2007, -1/+19What is deeply disturbing to me is how much the drumbeats of war against Iran sound like the drumbeats of war against Iraq. I read 'The Threatening Storm' in late 2002, early 2003 and found it persuasive. I've sense changed my mind, but it does disturb me how similar current argument are against Iran. I fear that to stop the madness of King George this time around there will have to be civil unrest not seen since the 60's, and the current generation seems ill prepared for the task.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Ha! Never! the Neo-con plot to addict young would-be-protesters to their game boxes has worked perfectly.
  • hawkeye17, on 11/02/2007, -2/+22Norman is ***** crazy. How do we grow these kind of people in America anyway?
    • phineusfog1, on 10/31/2007, -4/+0Ask your mother.
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2And how do so many of these psycho killers not only find each other, but come together and gain such enormous power????
  • AnotherBrian, on 10/31/2007, -1/+11I must admit that, like most of us, I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons; but just who the ***** are we to say they are not allowed to develop them? We really have no right to be ordering other nations around like that. Imagine if the leaders China said the we where not allowed to develop nuclear bombs and where threating to take out out reactors and refining facilities. My very first instinct would be to start making some nuclear weapons.
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -7/+1Yes, who are we to tell people that say democracy is an evil, the America is evil, the Jews (yes, Iran's own news service shows their president calling JEWS, not just ISRAEL) are evil, and literally preaches (not "I say he preaches, so he does!" like the Far Left says those oh-so-scary Christians are doing) that not only is the end of the world coming, but that it's their duty to bring it to pass by spreading chaos and making the seas "red as blood" (this is Ahmedinejad's and his sect's official position, not some bigoted anti-Muslim thing - other Muslims, even the Saudis, are afraid of these guys!) - who are we to tell such people that they shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction? Who are we? I'll tell you who - people who 1) don't have a death wish, and 2) aren't as ignorant as you are on this topic.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/31/2007, -2/+0"We really have no right"?! WTF. We have the bombs. 'nough said.
      • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2So you'll meekly follow and kiss butt to anyone who has a bigger gun than you and decides to occupy your government, country or house?

        They have the guns. 'nuff said.
  • MegaJimmy8, on 11/02/2007, -4/+25CORRECTION: Anyone Who Wants To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler'
  • natural_smurf, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3is someone (maybe me?) confusing norman podhoretz with john podhoretz? aren't these two different people?
  • Icebath, on 11/02/2007, -3/+15Fear is a tool that the lazy use to shepherd the dull. We need leaders who will heave the easy, empty rhetoric of fear into the dustbin of history. I doubt this will ever happen though.
  • x083, on 11/02/2007, -4/+17this man is a compulsive liar, who is senile, and doesn't deserve the dignity to consume the flesh that other living creatures have given. without prayer or worship, taking for granted everything he has today... he is a zionist p.o.s. who is trying to impose world government from the top down.. with 1 centralized leader.. so they can reduce the human population to levels that are controllable, then implant us with RFID chips... so we can be tracked as slaves and serfs... this man has no god, this man is not a man at all.... he worships lucifer the devil, and will end up in hell with satan, stalin, and adolf hitler himself

    read the project for a new american century if you disagree....

    obama, clinton, and edwards are all council on foreign relations members.... and bilderbergers........
    the council on foreign relations was started by the rockefeller family...

    educate yourself....
    www.themoneymasters.com = watch it for free on google video
    www.freedomtofascism.com = watch it for free on google video
    www.globalresearch.ca = get educated from real news.. not propaghanda
    wake up your neighbors.. america is asleep at the wheel and we are driving straight ahead into tyranny at 90mph... if you cannot donate, pass out dvds, write articles in your local news paper, school news paper, give speeches, presentations to family members..
    RON PAUL or SLAVERY 2008
    • saqer, on 10/31/2007, -3/+4Excellently stated. Ron Paul or Slavery 2008. Just you all watch and see when we go to Iran and the draft is soon reinstated shortly after.
      Ron Paul '08!
  • cranium, on 10/31/2007, -2/+8This is *****. Bush is the new Hitler invading countries on flimsy excuses, etc. If Iran ignores Bush's invasion of Iraq, now THAT would be appeasement.
  • dkern, on 11/02/2007, -3/+18This is mind boggling. Yes, lets bomb a country who has not invaded another country or declared war for over 100 years. That's right Iran deserves to die just because they have managed to wait for a century to plot their evil nature. Does anyone else get how ***** ridiculous this is?
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -8/+2Ridiculous indeed, that you omit every pertinent fact and avoid learning any of them (and it's truly avoiding facts, as at least a few must have penetrated your skull at some point) in order to support your pre-determined pro-Iran conclusions.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6Enlighten us?

        And before you start, NO, Ahmedinejad never said he would wipe Israel off the earth, he said that someone in the past predicted that "the regime," and he actually uses the word rezhime-e [sp?] "that lives in Jerusalem would be gone from the pages of history." He also said the same about Soviet Russia and Iraq in the same paragraph. Last I checked, he was friends with Russia and Iraq so they seem cool with it.
        • Anntink, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1and what if he DID say he'd wipe Israel off the fact of the earth? That's not the same as saying he'd wipe the US off the face of the earth. I personally don't want my sons dying for Israel. Dying for your own country is bad enough...
  • bsmang, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8I do believe that supporting the bombing of Iran is much more comparable to 'ignoring the intentions of Hitler'.
    • bonhoeffer, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0Stopping Hitler is equal to ignoring him? Please explain.
  • clearzen, on 10/31/2007, -3/+12These warmongering fools are destroying us all. Call me a dirty hippie or whatever you want but what business do we have bombing anyone who hasn't attacked us. Why do these people desire blood so much? These types of statements make me feel like crying. I fear for the stability of the world if we step into Iran.
    • horatiolust, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2"Dirty Hippie"
    • phineusfog1, on 10/31/2007, -2/+0Zen? I don't think so. Clear? I don't think so. Stick head in toilet, grasshopper. Flush.
      • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1What is it with you and your fixation of heads in toilets?

        Is that one of the things you learned from Larry Craig?
  • toasty168, on 11/02/2007, -2/+13what the *****? hitler was taking over countries. why can't iran do what it wants in it's own country? why do we have to bomb them because we think they MIGHT build a nuclear weapon which even if they did, what gives us the right to say they can't? who made us the rulers of the world? i understand we all want to feel safe by making all other countries ***** but feeling safe all the time is overrated and nullifies cultural natural selection.
    • drjborg, on 10/31/2007, -12/+3Here is the problem. Iran openly intends to destroy Israel. I am not talking about a bombing and a change in leadership, I am talking about "wiping Israel from the map".
      • horatiolust, on 10/31/2007, -11/+2Of course Digg-nuts don't care about that
      • toasty168, on 10/31/2007, -2/+11of course it's been thoroughly proven that not only was what he said taken out of context but also mis-translated. he really said time would wipe israel away. also, amedinijhad is not numero uno in iran. he's mainly just a figure head. why does anybody care what he says? in addition, why do we even give a flying ***** about israel besides the fact they own half of congress?
        • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -9/+1NEWS FLASH: Iran's own news service translated it as "wipe off the map." The "proof" that that's not true comes from a Far Leftist professor. When are you people going to learn to take tyrants at their word for once instead of clambering all over them, smothering them with praise, and shouting down any who point out their daily atrocities?

          Your flippant "why should we care about THEM" attitude shows you for what you are, a despicable hate-filled wretch.

          "If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender." -Ahmedinejad
        • source1984, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3so what, the news agency misinterpreted it and WE jumped all over it cuz it served our interest .. they dont want to destroy israel the state. they hate the oppressive government. big difference.
        • Observant1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2same nazi's in our govt as the nazi's in isreals govt -operation paperclip, look into it for sure.
          germany controlled that area of the world since before WW2, and operation paperclip brought a ton of nazi's to the US to "guide": NASA, the media, CIA, etc.. this is why the US jumps whenever Isreal says "frog". Prescott Bush was a nazi, so howbout GHWB and GWB ?
          then we got Ahnuld in California....
    • phineusfog1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0Here's an idea. Go to Iran and ask them why do what they do. Think of it, you'll be the only gay over there.
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Hey, but Hitler wasn't taking over countries that hadn't been part of the greater German empire prior to WW1 or that didn't even exist before WW1 (having been part of greater Germany). Even the part of Poland he invaded that "started" WW2 had been German, the Danzig corridor. German people living German culture, suddenly found themselves being subject to Poland.
  • Weather, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeo0_3gN190
  • clarewhitz, on 10/31/2007, -2/+11"Podhoretz would like nothing better than to bomb Iran, even though he believes it may 'unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world. Furthermore, he is 'certain' President Bush will do it before he leaves office, to which he says 'thank God.'"

    C'mon America, Let's Impeach Bush BEFORE He Can Do It Again!!!
  • Chassit, on 10/31/2007, -1/+8Considering the number of Soviet warheads that are...MIA and the amount of money that Iran has, I would say that if Iran wants nukes that they already have them!
    • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1And if they were so hell-bent on using them, they already would have.
  • MadHarvey, on 11/02/2007, -2/+16The terms Democrat, Liberal, Neocon, republican, etc. just confuse the issues. They give people a predefined argument when they can't think for themselves. We are all just people, and there are some universal, undebatable truths that should govern all foreign policy:

    1. Killing people is bad
    2. Imposing any particular way of life on a group of people is bad
    3. War is pure failure of humanity. Everything humans stand for is thrown away when they decide to go to war. Every day that a war continues should be mourned as we have slipped thousands of years back on the evolutionary latter and can't start over again until the war ends. Sometimes, it is unavoidable, but it should be looked on as the worst thing humanity can take part in, and not a precautionary measure to take against a country.
    4. Open/fair trade and open communication with other countries is good
    5. Oppressive/single-sided trade and lack of communication is bad

    You could write a computer program to do this *****...
    • horatiolust, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1"Sometimes, it is unavoidable, but it should be looked on as the worst thing humanity can take part in, and not a precautionary measure to take against a country."

      "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."

      --John Stuart Mill - "The Contest in America," Fraser’s Magazine (February 1862); later published in Dissertations and Discussions (1868), vol.1 p. 26
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1Peace at any cost, eh? What planet are you living on?
    • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2That algorithm would be amusing. Then we could vote to reevaluate the algorithm every two years!
      • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1No, once SkyNet becomes active, it'll debug and recode itself.

        And eliminate the greatest threat on earth.

        People.
  • n8glenn, on 11/02/2007, -1/+16Did anyone notice that when Fareed mentioned how wrong Podhoretz was about the soviets, the old windbag continued to argue his old position, even though we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was wrong?
  • declawedpaw, on 10/31/2007, -13/+3Highly Enriched Uranium Found at Iranian Plant
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/middleeast ...
    Highly enriched uranium is only used for bombs.
    • saqer, on 10/31/2007, -2/+10u were there and u know? People trust intelligence and the media way too much. This is Iraq ALL over again.
      • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -6/+1And YOUR sources are SOO much better, eh?
        • LadyKofNYC, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4The CIA says there's no proof if an Iranian nuclear weapons program
    • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3How enriched is "highly-enriched." You need 95%, or, "EXTREMELY ENRICHED" to make a nuclear bomb. You need at least 15% to run a low-functioning, inefficient power plant. And some of that material is from contaminated equipment, as the article said more than a year ago.
    • phineusfog1, on 10/31/2007, -5/+1Notice how the turds respond to simple statement they can't refute? Thing about turds......flush.
      • bjornski, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2I really think you spend too much time in the bathroom stalls.
  • jabberwolf, on 10/31/2007, -17/+4So does anyone want to look at FACTS? That IRAN is presently run by nuts that gave BASIJ ( kids) plastic keys and told them to run over landmined so that they may go to heaven?

    Oh and president is hoping, wishing, no actively trying to prepare for the return of the 12th imam, that includes a wolrd war against unbelievers?

    If you think that is rhetoric, please listen to every beginning of every speech the iranian president makes... where he welcomes his return and bad mouths all unbeleivers. Oops small facts like this kinda make leftist retards seem...well.. even more retarded!
    • phineusfog1, on 10/31/2007, -4/+0The turds are too busy selling condoms to eleven year olds to get your point.
  • horatiolust, on 10/31/2007, -18/+2In 1979 the Iranians declared war on the US, and for almost 30 years, we've done nothing as they continue to attack us directly (in Iraq) and through surrogates (Hezbollah). It's time to change the game

    “No Substitute for Victory” - The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, by John D. Lewis, Ph.D.
    www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp
    • Danial, on 11/02/2007, -2/+13And we overthrew their democratically-elected government in '53 to install a brutal tyrant in the process. If anything, the U.S. declared war on Iran then as a result.
      • horatiolust, on 10/31/2007, -10/+1Yes, we overthrew the Marxist government of Mohammed Mosaddeq
  • horatiolust, on 10/31/2007, -15/+1oneminute.rationalmind.net/iran-nukes/

    The One Minute Case Against Iran's "Right" to Uranium Enrichment Technology

    June 4th, 2007

    Iran is the global leader of Islamic Totalitarianism

    During the Iranian Revolution in 1979 a group of militant university students stormed a United States embassy, taking 52 United States citizens hostage for 444 days. These students were not a violent, autonomous faction but a group that received the whole-hearted support of the post-revolution Islamic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Ever since, Iran's financial, ideological and political sanctions of terrorism have been numerous. Iran supports Hezbollah who, amongst many other attacks, have been responsible for the bombing of the U. S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in October 1983, the detonating of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Saudia Arabia and the 1994 blasting of a seven-story building in Buenos Aires.1 Furthermore, Iran offers passionate ideological, political and in many cases economic support of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Islamic militant organizations whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

    Does the current Iranian President distance his administration from this recent history of fanatical bloodshed? Quite the opposite; President Ahmadinejad proudly identifies himself as a child of the (Iranian) revolution and has publicly rejoiced "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." 2 Moreover, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the largest branch of the Iranian military, has been providing deadly weapons to radical Shiite insurgents in Iraq. 3

    Iran's motives are not peaceful

    After taking office, President Ahmadinejad immediately transferred Iran's nuclear program under military control and his administration has continued the clandestine relocation of nuclear technologies to fortified underground complexes. Furthermore, there are numerous, recently unearthed top-secret nuclear weapons components in Iran that are all simultaneously progressing. This includes a beryllium program, a metal commonly used in missiles and other aerospace products, an acquiring of a series of hot isostatic presses, which are commonly used to shape atomic weapons and a CMC production program, a graphite material commonly used in heat shields for nuclear weapons. 1 In addition, Iran has recently purchased 18 smuggled nuclear-capable cruise missiles on the Ukrainian black market. 4 Lastly, Iran has sought to bolster its defensive capability after agreeing to purchase 29 anti-missile defense systems from Russia. 5

    Iran has also uniformly rejected all diplomatic approaches that involved any significant delay in their accelerated pursuit, including proposals to have their uranium enriched in Russia, which would have given the Islamic state access to a nuclear fuel cycle while the Russians would ensure the program is peaceful. 6

    Power to weapons is just a matter of enrichment

    Low-enriched uranium (LEU) is the fuel that is needed to run nuclear power reactors and high-enriched uranium (HEU) is what is needed for nuclear weapons. It is important to recognize that it takes significantly more resources to enrich uranium to LEU levels than it does to subsequently proceed to enrich uranium to HEU levels. By the time Iran can successfully mass produce LEU, it will have done 80 percent of the work in producing HEU for use in nuclear weapons. 1

    Rights are forfeited after threatening to initiate force

    A nation who protects, finances or endorses terrorists is a nation that encourages the violation of the inalienable rights of others. Such a nation has absolutely no right to any technology that will enhance its offensive capability.

    The evidence that the Iranian Government has no respect for individual rights is undeniable. President Ahmadinejad has issued repeated unabashed threats to eradicate Israel and has insinuated that Iran will take appropriate military action if their pursuit of uranium enrichment technology is blocked. Iranian schoolchildren are taught to chant "Death to America" and are indoctrinated with anti-Western propaganda. Tehran is decorated with murals encouraging the destruction of the United States. Apostates are still threatened with the death penalty from the state.

    If the Iranian government wishes to receive the right to uranium enrichment technology, it must issue a total renunciation of Islamic Totalitarianism, including a political condemnation of the activities of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In addition, Iran must impose a strict separation of mosque and state and it must embrace a constitution that protects individual rights. Until such overhauls are honestly completed, Iran has no rights to uranium enrichment technology.

    References:

    1. The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis by Alireza Jafarzadeh

    2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens Israel with destruction. CNN, October 27, 2005

    3. Bush: Iran Involved in Sending Weapons to Iraq. ABC news, February 14, 2007.

    4. Cruise missile row rocks Ukraine. BBC News, March 18, 2005

    5. Russia Fills Iran's Air Defense Missile Contract. Fox News, January 23, 2007

    6. Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan. BBC News, January 1, 2006

    Further Reading:

    "Iran attack debate raises nuclear prospect" BBC News, April 10, 2006.

    "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by Dr. John Lewis, The Objective Standard, Volume 1, Number 4.

    In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power by Daniel Pipes
    • Glynth, on 10/31/2007, -9/+1What is this?? Thought? Reasoning? Logic? Actual confirmable facts? No "Bush is Hitler" comments? You don't belong here!! BURY BURY BURY!!
    • ZenMojo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3So Hezbollah, a group that only 4 countries label as a terrorist organization, is supported by Iran? Meanwhile, a terrorist organization supported by the United States, the PKAJ, is attacking the Iranians. And considering that Hezbollah was not linked to any of those attacks you just listed by any reliable source, even the United States will not link them to the Khobar Towers or Buenos Aires bombings, I'm calling *****.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4You might want to take a look at a group of terrorists that live closer to home:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

      These guys have nuclear weapons and have used them against innocent civilians in the past.
  • Stevanoski, on 10/31/2007, -7/+2Podhoritz makes a great point.
    • Sabrestryk, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1You're joking... right? Please tell me you're joking.
  • skews13, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2i'm appeasing hitler
  • jlhoben, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1By appeasing Bush or by appeasing Ahmadinejad?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.