Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Poll: Only 7% Support Taking Military Action Against Iran
thinkprogress.org — According to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of those who follow the situation in Iran say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.” Only five percent favor threatening military action, down from nine percent in fall 2007. Seven percent support taking military action.
MakiMaki- 1180 diggs
- digg it
- magicjohnson, on 06/05/2008, -19/+49I'm glad we don't have Bush in for another four years; he'd completely disregard poll data and go guns blazing into Iran
- covertress, on 06/05/2008, -21/+14Poll data, schmoll data. Good policy is not always based on public opinion.
- Halbermunken, on 06/06/2008, -5/+14No of course not. But it doesn't help when the entire imperialistic PNAC neocon agenda is based on Machivellian/Straussian deception.
They lied about Iraq and their lying about Iran. Too bad since it doesn't really help US interests, not even safety. Operation Ajax one blowbacked miserable and so would a more major plan setup by the neocons. - Hangly, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8Good policy is based on hubris and delusions of grandeur.
- Spudster, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Good policy factors in both the pragmatic reality of the situation and the political reality of decision. Any policy expert will tell you that.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4It *should* be, since those in government are *public servants*.
Your asinine attitude is what has allowed arrogant assholes to usurp the democratic process.
They serve *us* and do what we *tell them*. That's the way it is supposed to work.- CFFL23, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1If you haven't noticed, most of 'us' are idiots.
Between reality shows and lawsuits for hot coffee I don't want most of this country deciding what we are going to do.
But maybe that's just me, I hate American Idol. - JigoroKano, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4Name one instance where the Bush administration took a principled stance against the will of the people and they turned out to be correct.
You live in a fairy tale with your benevolent dictators who keep the ignorant masses in check.
- CFFL23, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1If you haven't noticed, most of 'us' are idiots.
- Halbermunken, on 06/06/2008, -5/+14No of course not. But it doesn't help when the entire imperialistic PNAC neocon agenda is based on Machivellian/Straussian deception.
- josereyes0, on 06/06/2008, -4/+11Check again Magic, both of the presumptive nominees are ready to take action against Iran if necessary.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -2/+14*if need be*. That's ok, as long as it is not based on imaginary WMDs and lies.
- josereyes0, on 06/06/2008, -6/+4Yeah, why I said 'if necessary'. Let's just not be foolish here and simply assume Iran would be a pointless war simply because we know Iraq was. We need to look at them as separate issues, if Iran truly is a threat then try reason, if reason doesn't work then try something that does, regardless of what was or wasn't done in Iraq.
- notoneofus, on 06/06/2008, -3/+6The key is *if necessary* which it clearly is not the case.
- Spudster, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2I think it's more pandering to look strong on national defense than a true willingness to go to war. It's like Clinton back in the 90's, he put on a show to make the war junkies proud but started no major military conflicts himself. They pushed him hard to invade Iraq and he refused. Kosovo and Somalia were peacekeeping missions, not aggressive actions like Bushes actions against Afghanistan and Iraq.
- diggrnumber1, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2which is absolutely the stance they should take. the only major difference between the two candidates is that mccain is willing to attack iran if they engage in petty name-calling with israel, whereas obama wouldn't attack iran unless they started posing a real threat.
- swordedge, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3They should consider what Ron Paul said about Iran... "The idea of Iran attacking the United States is Ludicrous." Because of that, just leave them alone. Let Europe deal with them.
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3"Check again Magic, both of the presumptive nominees are ready to take action against Iran if necessary"
I'd think that the US and any nominee for President would be ready to take military action against, for example, England (or Palau, or Brazil, or any other country), "if necessary" - with the caveat that "necessary" has a very, VERY strict and imposing definition.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -2/+14*if need be*. That's ok, as long as it is not based on imaginary WMDs and lies.
- DalamarArgent, on 06/06/2008, -2/+15Vote McCain for 4 more years of Bush idiocy imo. Another pointless war!
- Bodieslikesheep, on 06/06/2008, -9/+18Obama is heavily backed by the CFR - which supports the Neo-con philisophy of divide and conquer. They believe western ideals should be shared down the barrel of a gun.
McCain is nothing but a CFR military-industrial complex puppet.
Don't kid yourself for a second that there are other "average-American" supporter candidates other than Ron Paul in this election. - And Yes, he is on the ballent.....and NO, he has not dropped out. - brokencrystal, on 06/06/2008, -2/+12"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAT0095 ...- sauron256, on 06/06/2008, -8/+2He continued, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
So as long as they don't try to obtain a nuclear weapon all will be OK. Sounds good to me.- TonyLocNE, on 06/06/2008, -1/+10So... We're going to war with Iran?
- Terr01, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1So... They're obtaining a nuclear *weapon*?
Funny, that's not what the UN inspectors nor the CIA thinks.
- sauron256, on 06/06/2008, -8/+2He continued, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7I think this explains a lot. In the novel of the same name, the "seven percent solution" referred to the 7 percent cocaine, 93 percent saline solution that Sherlock Holmes injected himself with that induced delusions about the evilness Dr. Moriarty.
I guess Bush and Cheney's drug of choice is different, but they still lead to paranoid delusions of evil masterminds. - FishThePirate, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8Iran is not a threat. To some of it's neighbors maybe. To us, no. They won't use nuclear weapons, even if they had them. The country is a theocracy, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the one who's really calling the shots and he has said on numerous occasions that nuclear weapons are incompatible with the Islamic faith. He blames the United States for many economic problems in Iran, but he does not want a war. Ahmadinejad is the elected figurehead of the government, but that doesn't mean he has total control. I suggest that everyone read for themselves about the policies of the Ayatollah. You may actually start to understand more about Iran, and (dare I say it) realize that Islam is not the big scary enemy of the "free world" that the media wants you to think it is. Go, READ for yourselves, YOU ask the questions, don't wait for others to feed you the question AND answer.
Additionally: Have any of you even considered what would happen if Iran used nuclear force against another country? Do you really think they're that stupid? They would be wiped off the face of the planet. The international community wouldn't even debate it.- Spudster, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5You've got to be kidding me! Peace and understanding is the right answer to Iran? Towelheads are real human beings like us and are not hellbent on destroying us? Stop indoctrinating us with your lies, it's clear that you hate America and want us to lose the war on terror. I bet you don't even wear a flagpin...
- CalmYourself, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Until I got to the last sentence, I almost dugg you down. Bravo on exactly the right touch of sarcasm :)
- Spudster, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5You've got to be kidding me! Peace and understanding is the right answer to Iran? Towelheads are real human beings like us and are not hellbent on destroying us? Stop indoctrinating us with your lies, it's clear that you hate America and want us to lose the war on terror. I bet you don't even wear a flagpin...
- JaNkz, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTE5ZTQyNzM2M ...
- Macrophallus, on 06/06/2008, -7/+2In other news, only 7% of Americans are patriots.
/s - diggrnumber1, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2you're confusing bush with mccain. mccain is even more into war than bush. bush is just a businessman (a horrible one at that), whereas mccain is a ruthless warmonger.
- regression, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1There is still time left in his presidency. I wouldn't be surprised if he and the good ol' Dick set up an invasion...
- ninjadeathcult, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3dont speak so soon..., remember that if a national emergency was declared (another 911 -esk staged attack for example) Bush would be responsible for continuity of government under presidential directive 51 you can read it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
you will notice that congress is not mentioned only the president...- PigGeneral, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Well, your conspiracy theories aside, that is the POINT of having a single unified ruler in a state of emergency. This is one of the primary purposes of having an executive branch to our government. Calling in a session of Congress with 535 members during a state of emergency would be nearly impossible, having them come to a unified decision quickly would be even more so. Something productive immediately does more good than coming to the best decision after the opportunity has passed.
The defense of the nation does depend on the fact the President has the ability to respond immediately to a threat to the nation. Anything else exposes this nation to paralysis during a large scale emergency.
This directive, in some fashion, has been around for oh... about a hundred years in some form.- ninjadeathcult, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I can see your point but. But as they say democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others..This act does give bush dictorial powers you can justify this anyway you want to, but Bush or any one person having dictorial powers in the us is a very scary thought, I will take the inconvience of Congress reaching a decision in a time of emergency rather than Give Bush Dictorial power any day of the week
- PigGeneral, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I'll bite. Hypothetical situation. Legitimate military emergency is declared. Who takes charge?
- PigGeneral, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Well, your conspiracy theories aside, that is the POINT of having a single unified ruler in a state of emergency. This is one of the primary purposes of having an executive branch to our government. Calling in a session of Congress with 535 members during a state of emergency would be nearly impossible, having them come to a unified decision quickly would be even more so. Something productive immediately does more good than coming to the best decision after the opportunity has passed.
- covertress, on 06/05/2008, -21/+14Poll data, schmoll data. Good policy is not always based on public opinion.
- thepeacemaker, on 06/05/2008, -17/+34In the last few days we had all three candidates kowtowing to the Israeli lobby and trying to outzion even the Zionists ...really bizarre and shameful behavior. With the Zionist leash around their necks, candidates of either party will wag their tails and attack Iran, regardless of the American public's interests.
- thirdcoastborn, on 06/06/2008, -13/+4you call yourself a peacemaker?
- cheezintern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+7It's part of the job. The candidate that is the biggest friend of Israel wins mega political contributions for themselves and the party. You'd be kowtowing too if you were a candidate.
- itsthemechanic, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3Dugg for the use of the word "kowtowing". Look it up.
- brokencrystal, on 06/06/2008, -3/+5http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAT0095 ...
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.- sodade, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1MIC FUD
- theelectricafro, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Now let the mainstream media "translate" that into "Obama said he is going to wipe Iran off the map"
- brokencrystal, on 06/06/2008, -5/+7"In the last few days we had all three candidates..."
Good thing we have an option... There is a fourth candidate named Ron Paul who will not wag his tail and attack Iran. Some call him Dr. No, first because he is a medical doctor, and second because he is always telling the lobbyists no and he will stand alone with a no vote if it is not constitutional or lawful.- afruff23, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2I never agreed to the Constitution or laws. Would you use violence against me if I broke a law?
- GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Not sure what kind of a question is, but the general response is that if you break the law, you get a fine or get arrested. If you resist, you up the stakes. Obviously. And yes, the Constitution is STILL the law, much as Bush thinks it's just a piece of paper.
- afruff23, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2Okay, so you agree that that "upping the stakes" means shooting me if I attempt escape from prison?
I never agreed to the law and yet you would use violence against me if I broke the law? - GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Shooting can enter the equation. It doesn't have to, there's no point in wasting lives, but you have to take that into consideration when you try =breaking out of prison.=
It doesn't matter if you agree with the law. The law is the law. The most you can do when laws get out of hand is fight back against them in the way you see fit, but upholders of that law certainly won't leave you alone when you say, "No, I don't like your dumb rules. You can't arrest me!" - afruff23, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2If I have to follow the dumb rules of someone else, why can't they follow my dumb rules and let me shoot them if they disobey?
- GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0Because you're in their country? You don't go into someone's house and say, THIS IS MY HOUSE NOW GET OUT. Your rules don't work in the lair of THEIR rules.
Is that really so hard to understand? - afruff23, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2@Grubfisher
What makes this geographic boundary their land? You can't just call it yours and expect others to follow your commands. You have to have some legitimate claim to it (e.g. homesteading). - userperson, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2@whoeverthehell
Debate is about what should be, not what is.
"the law is the law" mere acknowledges what is. It's the law because the government says so, that doesn't make it right or just.
What would one shoot a person over?
It's illegal to cut hair without a license.
They violate even these minor laws they can fine you. Do not pay the fine, and continue to ignore the law they can take you to court? jail? but if you do not recognize their authority they can shoot you? You are breaking the law. Should be shot over illegal haircuts? Illegal manicures? pedicures? What law is worth shooting a person over?
- afruff23, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2I never agreed to the Constitution or laws. Would you use violence against me if I broke a law?
- pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4you cannot win office in this country without the blessing of the israel lobby. some are more in their pocket than others though:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:18wxck31aU8J: ...
(google cache, haaretz seems to be down) - shitforbrains, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1My guess is that we won't attack Iran directly. Remember in order for the neo-con evangelicals to hasten the Rapture, Israel has to fight its neighbors. It might be time for a few Israeli F-15s to attack a few Iranian nuclear facilities. They would of course be given flyover permission by the Iraqi government. This of course has to happen before January (that is unless there's a coup so Bush can keep power).
Just because Big Brown is going to win the Belmont and the triple crown, it doesn't guarantee that Big Brown is going to win in November or take the reins of power in January.
- jlfb, on 06/05/2008, -4/+42unfortunately, I fear you are correct THEPEACEMAKER as an American-born person of Jewish descent I am sad to see zionist warmongering in perpetuity. Surely there are peaceful alternatives to these problems. Let's seperate "Zionism" from "being Jewish." They are not the same thing. I am guessing that the vast majority of civilian populations the world over share similar concerns and opposition to the corporate war-for-profit we currently see more often than not.
- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+13Haaretz had a poll showing that 67% of Israelis favored diplomacy with Hamas. Meanwhile you've got hardliner assholes in the US and Israel making all of us look like idiots.
- pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4that's because the press is more free in israel than it is here. you can find more opposition to israel's policies in israel than you can find in the states. groups like AIPAC represent neither the jews in america nor the jews in israel. they make america, israel, and the entire middle east less safe. they also create misplaced animosity towards jews, the same way islamic terrorists create animosity towards muslims.
- benecere, on 06/06/2008, -0/+9You ARE aware that Iran made every concession that we are asking -- plus some, and they did it before we ever even asked, You know that, RIGHT?
Chaney turned 'em down flat. The only reason I can fathom for his doing that is because war is a profit-maker for Halliburton, damn fun for Dick, and any lives lost are of the common kind, thus expendable. Dick is evil! Those who elected him are suspect as far as I'm concerned, since he's always been evil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - diggrnumber1, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3i'm also of mostly Jewish descent (i'm not religious, but there are many people in my family who are, a few of which are ridiculously religious) and I am opposed to how Israel is treating the Palestinians. the problem, i think, is that a minority of Jews are so engulfed in the Judaism and Jewish tradition that they essentially are living in Israel even though they live in the US, so they feel a sort of allegiance to the "Jewish" (although technically secular) state of Israel. My aunt, for example, sends her kids to a Jewish school and addresses her kids using their hebrew names. My uncle-in-law grew up in a Jewish ghetto in NYC, and his parents still live there even though he lives in a much more normal environment. My cousins are nice and all but, since they were brought up in such a Jewish environment, they don't really know anything about the rest of the world. I once pointed out to my grandma some ridiculous fundie bumper sticker on some guy's car. my cousin (who was about 8 or 9 at the time) overheard, and she wanted an explanation. I tried to explain to her as well as i could to a 9 year old, but I had trouble getting her to believe that the Jews are actually a minority and that Christianity is the majority religion in this country. She was under the impression that most Americans are Jewish because all of her friends are.
- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+13Haaretz had a poll showing that 67% of Israelis favored diplomacy with Hamas. Meanwhile you've got hardliner assholes in the US and Israel making all of us look like idiots.
- Halbermunken, on 06/06/2008, -7/+27All it takes is another fake gulf of tonkin type of event and people will sheepishly ask to spill blood.
- OffPiste, on 06/06/2008, -15/+4Well with a Democrat potentially in the Whitehouse a repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin is certainly possible. Don't forget it was a Democrat that got us into Vietnam and it was a Republican that got us out.
- Murdats, on 06/06/2008, -3/+14Your point? its a republican who got us into Iraq
- Hangly, on 06/06/2008, -1/+9I don't think so, not this time. That boy has cried wolf one too many times.
- kemp34, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8I agree. That trick needs to die a death that should have happened long ago.
NO MORE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED BS TO ENTER WARS.
I mean, damn... - GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0The boy crying wolf works if people actually die(regardless if it's the wolf the boy is talking about.)
- kemp34, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8I agree. That trick needs to die a death that should have happened long ago.
- ninjadeathcult, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Agree...I was gonna to make that very same comment another tonkin/911 and The americans will be singing a different tune....
- OffPiste, on 06/06/2008, -15/+4Well with a Democrat potentially in the Whitehouse a repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin is certainly possible. Don't forget it was a Democrat that got us into Vietnam and it was a Republican that got us out.
- Rabbittt, on 06/06/2008, -11/+18In case anyone doesn't already know, America and Iran are already engaged in warfare, though it is economic and political, rather than military.. And Iran is kicking the ***** out of America right now: they drove out the CIA, they got their oil trading in Euro's, they are making billion dollar deals with China and Russia..
America is flinching and twitching it's trigger finger in response to this black eye it's received.. America has no economic, political, or moral power any more, so the only option for control of an adversary is TOTAL DESTRUCTION.. Pretty simple..
Our ship is going down and the Captain is throwing a temper tantrum on deck.. How quaint a picture..- Hangly, on 06/06/2008, -1/+21Ah I see. Iran blacked our eye because it controls its own resources, sets its own prices, makes its own deals and won't let the US spy on them.
Give me a ***** break. I hope you were being sarcastic.- Rabbittt, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8Well, it was sorta sarcasm, but mostly it was mockery..
- Nevarius, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3In a sense they did. A large factor that strengthens an economy/dollar is movement of large amounts of money. For the longest time the standard currency to buy and sell oil is/was the US dollar.
Since Iran moved to the Euro it may weaken our dollar/economy some.
Oddly enough every country that has switched to the Euro magically appeared on America's ***** list shortly after. (Iraq,Iran,Venezuela)
One of the oldest reasons for war ... economics.
- prahareturns, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Yeah, with over 11% unemployment (official government estimate) and the government spending over 100 billion to artificially holding down petrol prices. Iran now has to import billions of dollars of petrol annually to meet demand. Based on your logic they are really sticking it to America.
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Sometimes, you gotta listen for the *whoosh*.
- pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -0/+20wrong, we have been at war with iran. we overthrew their democratically elected government. we shot down one of their passenger airliners. we paid saddam to go to war with them and gave him weapons to use on them. we invaded the countries to the east and west of them and when they offered us a truce, we put them on the "axis of evil". we are the bully, not them.
- sodade, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3OMG! Someone who actually looks at history! Iran is a shining example of blowback for our ***** up imperialism.
- Hangly, on 06/06/2008, -1/+21Ah I see. Iran blacked our eye because it controls its own resources, sets its own prices, makes its own deals and won't let the US spy on them.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -24/+51) The leftist Ford Foundation helped support this poll. Potential bias.
2) I took a look at the actual PDF document referenced by Thinkprogress. The poll doesn't seem to list the actual # of votes, just the percentages. Maybe someone doesn't want you to know how small the sample was. Did I miss the part where they tell you how many people took part in this poll?
3) The implication and agenda is clear in this poll: do not attack Iran. Well, no duh! Currently, very few people seem to want to attack Iran (7%). You and I both know that this number can change overnight to 70% if things change.
Will Thinkprogress report on polls showing support for military action if public opinion changes? Doubt it. Thinkprogress has an agenda too.- nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -4/+15Of course if the poll was taken by a right-wing org and someone called them on it, you'd be the first to defend the results wouldn't you Spaz 'ol shoe?
- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -5/+2No, but then again I don't determine the right thing to do by taking polls. Different from you, I suppose, huh sweetie?
- nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3The point that you very obviously missed is that the source does not necessarily invalidate the data.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -5/+2No, but then again I don't determine the right thing to do by taking polls. Different from you, I suppose, huh sweetie?
- rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -3/+13The thing I like most about Spaza is his predictability - he never deviates from making lists of statements that are 100% wrong. Must take an admirable degree of effort to be so consistent.
Forget the fact that the survey, which was funded by several organizations including the conservative publication Foreign Affairs, was conducted by famous, respected, veteran pollster Daniel Yankelovich.
The accuracy of a poll does not depend upon its sample size but rather on both the representativeness and randomness of the sample (and, no, those aren't contradictory). If sample size were the only measure of accuracy, then Digger's collective opinions would be more representative of the entire US population than any poll you'd read. Surely you aren't saying we are all right and you are wrong, Spaza? No, you are simply ignorant of how polls work.
But, wait, what is this on page 21 of the actual PDF of the survey, which was linked right at the top of the article you obviously didn't even read, much less click through to?
"This sixth edition of the study was based on telephone interviews conducted between March 18, 2008 and April 1, 2008 among a nationally representative sample of 1,006 adults, 18 years and older. It covered over 25 different issues in more than 110 different survey questions. The margin of error for this study is ±3%. "
I'd say "pwned", but that is too mild a word to describe the depth of your foolishness. Instead, I'll just say that you make McCain seem positively brilliant by comparison- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -5/+1"But, wait, what is this on page 21 of the actual PDF of the survey, which was linked right at the top of the article you obviously didn't even read, much less click through to?"
So, they sampled 1,006 adults and are going to extrapolate what millions of Americans think, huh?
No wonder they put the 1,006 figure deep within the article.
And, yes, I looked for the sample number. Foolish me for thinking this sampling number would be more pronounced and not buried deep within the article.
Anyone who thinks they can ascertain what millions think based on a sample of %0.0001 is an idiot.- nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5Someone didn't take statistics in college...if he made it that far.
- Terr01, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Spaza, showing off you don't understand math isn't a point in your favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
Or better yet:
http://www.publicagenda.org/polling/polling_error. ...
- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -5/+1"But, wait, what is this on page 21 of the actual PDF of the survey, which was linked right at the top of the article you obviously didn't even read, much less click through to?"
- benecere, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3The number can change? Why? Because it's going so well in Iraq? Or maybe it's that surplus of funds piling up in our coffers. No ***** body with a lick of sense wants to start another war in the Middle East! Grow the hell up, GI Joe!
- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -4/+1You've never been to Iraq, have you? Have you even been to the Middle East?
Have you even been out of the country once? How about even on vacation?
If not, then I suggest you may not have the experience and wisdom to know what you're talking about.- benecere, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Why would you assume I haven't been out of the country? What possible relevance would it have anyway. Do you propose that only those who've been to Iraq can make an informed decision on whether we ought to go to war with Iraq? Strange criteria, I think.
One not need leave one's living room to know the war is going WORSE than poorly, was stupidly waged without either planning or support, that we do not -- I repeat -- WE DO NOT have a hair of bin Laden's head to show for it, and we've spent an atrocious amount of money that might have better ensured our safety had it been spent more wisely.
Warring with Iran is also not going to get us bin Laden, will cost us another fortune and will further fatten the Halliburton machine. .
So if GWB proposes we go to war with Uzbekistan, your rules demand you have nothing to say about it unless you've been. Is that correct? Communist China?
- benecere, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Why would you assume I haven't been out of the country? What possible relevance would it have anyway. Do you propose that only those who've been to Iraq can make an informed decision on whether we ought to go to war with Iraq? Strange criteria, I think.
- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -4/+1You've never been to Iraq, have you? Have you even been to the Middle East?
- drakethegreat, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1^
|
|
Part of that 7% - monoa, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6lol. Does Spaza *ever* not get buried, except on posts with 3 Diggs where the only other commenters are right wing, neocon, fascist half-wits?
JimmySpaza - The Digg Village Idiot- JimmySpaza, on 06/06/2008, -4/+1Ad hominem attack by a typical liberal who feels his way through arguments.
- eatkitten, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3From his profile-
Stats
* 332 Dugg
* 2,522 Comments
Wow, an average of almost 10 comments per digg. No wonder "spaz" is part of his name.- Terr01, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Hey, it pisses me off to be defending Spaza in any way shape or form, but I don't think that's a meaningful measurement or criteria.
- Terr01, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Hey, it pisses me off to be defending Spaza in any way shape or form, but I don't think that's a meaningful measurement or criteria.
- akamurph, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2No, he's not a 13 year old ultra liberal which is about 85% or more of the digg community, of course he's going to get dugg down..
- Terr01, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Nah, it's because he makes mathematically and factually incorrect claims all the time.
Such as making claims like that anybody in the USA who isn't a citizen doesn't have any Constitutional rights.
- Terr01, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Nah, it's because he makes mathematically and factually incorrect claims all the time.
- nblsavage, on 06/06/2008, -4/+15Of course if the poll was taken by a right-wing org and someone called them on it, you'd be the first to defend the results wouldn't you Spaz 'ol shoe?
- xwfilm, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2621 million people want us to bomb Iran?
- D3koy, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4You forget babies and really old people weren't included in this poll...so figure out part of our population that reflects that...but still, that is a lot of people...
- topace3000, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Less than I'd have guessed, honestly.
- cheezintern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5They probably didn't poll males of draft age either. As one, I'd tend to think a large majority of this particular group may not want to attack Iran.
- akamurph, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Pussy. Good thing you don't live in a country where you are forced to serve time in the military.
- rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1425% of the population still support Bush, and 30% still believe Iraq was behind 9/11. You find the survey surprising? The most surprising thing about is is how low the number of loonies is. Perhaps there is hope after all.
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I don't find it surprising; 25% also don't believe evolution, 27% are creationists of one form or another, 17% believe the world will end in 2012.
There's a certain correlation of baseless ideas around that, while they do not indicate a necessary relationship, it would be interesting to investigate the possibility of such a relationship, adding something like SAT scores or GPA as a control metric.
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I don't find it surprising; 25% also don't believe evolution, 27% are creationists of one form or another, 17% believe the world will end in 2012.
- OffPiste, on 06/06/2008, -5/+8Wait didn't ALL the polls tell us this time last year that Clinton would be the presumptive nominee?
- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3No, the media told us that Clinton would be the presumptive nominee. And then there was a campaign. You know, that thing that has people actually explaining their political positions?
- Hangly, on 06/06/2008, -15/+10What % of the US is Jewish again?
In other news, a large percentage of Greek-Americans want the US to re-invade Cyprus.- Hefelumpman, on 06/06/2008, -1/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#By_ ...
2.1%
I think it's reasonable to assume that just because someone is Jewish, it doesn't necessarily mean they want Iran to be bombed.- kemp34, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Very true.
- Jareth86, on 06/06/2008, -1/+15***** you buddy. I'm Jewish and I do not support military action in Iran of any kind, nor does anyone else I know.
And you know what else; I voted for Obama. Suck it.- sodade, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Being Jewish, isn't it your responsibility to shout down the Zionists?
- Jareth86, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Who says I don't?
- sodade, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Being Jewish, isn't it your responsibility to shout down the Zionists?
- pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -0/+9please don't confuse zionists with jews. there are more christian zionists in the US than jewish zionists. there are also plain old chickenhawk war mongers who watch fox news.
- theducks, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4I was channel hopping and stopped one the trainwreck that is "Jerusalem Vistas", aka "Israel View", one of the Christian Zionist shows. It was totally bizarre. They were complaining about how they only get 30 letters of support per month. Poor nut jobs.
- Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Actually that's a good point.
- digitronix, on 06/06/2008, -0/+11More appropriate question: What % of the US population is Zionist?
- Kizilbash, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4Actually US Jews more than any other religious group (even if you count atheists as a religious group) opposed the war in Iraq.
Don't confuse AIPAC with the US Jewish community.
- Hefelumpman, on 06/06/2008, -1/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#By_ ...
- LowROI, on 06/06/2008, -9/+28In other news; at least 7% of the US population have no idea what the ***** is going on with the middle east, but will blindly follow the President into another war.
- spike216, on 06/06/2008, -4/+8Hello,
Until the public gets off their lazy asses to do something about it, their opinion will mean nothing. - mjones77, on 06/06/2008, -10/+5If we did go to war with iran it would be quite easy. It would be like the fist iraq war. almost 100% air strikes, if not 100%
There is no need to put boots on the ground because we would not be looking for anyone or trying to rebuild there country.- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -2/+14You're an idiot. Iran is many times stronger than Iraq. They have Moskit/Sunburn missiles which are the most powerful cruise missiles on the planet, and mountains overlooking the Gulf from which to launch them from mobile carriers. Kiss goodbye to the 5th fleet if Iran is attacked. Even Israeli military experts are talking about this, in fact have been talking about it for several years. Iran is many orders of magnitude stronger than Iraq was in the first Gulf War.
In addition, they have something like a million man army. All they have to do is roll across the border and block the overland supply routes to our troops in Iraq (the military planners - thanks Rummy! - decided in their wisdom to have most of the equipage an materiel come overland from Kuwait rather than by air into Iraq). If that happens, then our troops will be pinned, it will be Stalingrad II.
Stop swallowing the propaganda that America will always crush an opponent. You swallowed that going into Iraq against a broken army and a bunch of raghead insurgents - and 4000 dead soldiers later we still haven't won. The Iranian army is significantly more powerful and well equipped. If we go against Iran, whatever the idiots in power say, there will HAVE to be 'boots on ground', unless we nuke the whole of Iran, which won't happen (not good for Israeli children to be playing in fallout).- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Coincidentally, the first three words in my head in response to mjones's post was "You're an idiot." Weird.
- Disgod, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Seconded
- richiewrt, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1I hate to disagree with you, but the Iranian armed forces couldn't hold a candle to the US forces. I'm not saying that we should go to war, simply due to the fact that it would be a political disaster, but if we did we could destroy them much like the first Iraq war as mjones said.
Just to clarify, I do not support going to war with Iran, I just think we could win if we did.- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Actually, Iran could probably withstand the 10% of the US forces we have to spare on yet another war.
- PigGeneral, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Well, I am not a huge fan of direct military confrontation with Iran, however the United States would wreck them. Might take a little longer, with a more cautious approach to them. Their anti ship missiles would suck, however they don't have the range to seriously threaten a US carrier group. They do not have a navy to go to sea with the United States and push us back out of that part of the sea to make air operations difficult. An army marching out of Iran by foot would have a very difficult time advancing when they cannot hold air superiority. That is the end of the matter in a modern conventional war. I'm not saying the US military would roll forward, dominating all in their path, however Iran would not win the encounter.
If you do not control the skies, your troops have a very difficult time of things. Russia understood they would have a difficult time with us, and they had an air force that could compete. Iran is using Russian and US technology from a generation ago at the newest.
I would put a little bit of faith in the US military to be able to plan an offensive against an opponent who's capabilities are fully known. The fact that there are people on Digg even making an argument quoting Iran's trump cards, which are "rumored" to have purchased, solidifies this point.
- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Coincidentally, the first three words in my head in response to mjones's post was "You're an idiot." Weird.
- rationalist, on 06/06/2008, -1/+41) look at a map.
2) read some country stats.
3) read some history.
4) read current events.
Ah, ***** it, I know you are too lazy. Here are the pages on the CIA World Factbook site for Iraq and Iran, respectively.
Compare and contrast.
Then explain to the class why what you said before was so utterly, painfully wrong.
Iraq:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
Iran:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ... - rewinn, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Iraq is allied to Iran.
You didn't know that? Of course you don't; "sovereign" Iraq does a LOT of things you don't know.
If we bomb Iran, do you really think it will be that hard for the Iranian missles to locate the Green Zone ... or the militias friendly to Iran?
Don't expect the Iraqi Army to help us. After all, they're mostly militia themselves.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -2/+14You're an idiot. Iran is many times stronger than Iraq. They have Moskit/Sunburn missiles which are the most powerful cruise missiles on the planet, and mountains overlooking the Gulf from which to launch them from mobile carriers. Kiss goodbye to the 5th fleet if Iran is attacked. Even Israeli military experts are talking about this, in fact have been talking about it for several years. Iran is many orders of magnitude stronger than Iraq was in the first Gulf War.
- bluechips23, on 06/06/2008, -6/+6I bet those 7% are just Bush's little minions living in self denial.
- siszam, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3You can bet those 7% have excuses why they can't fight in these wars they support.
- miket, on 06/06/2008, -4/+4in other news: Bush wants to attack Iran before his term is out
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b6gZiWeek4w- cheezintern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't be surprised. It'd be a great way to extend his presidency a little longer and ensure that old man McCain gets elected.
Awesome video(not related to the topic) - Disgod, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2At this point I think the generals would rebel and tell Bush to go ***** himself if he tried to get them to invade Iran. Unless they are true Bush drones they know we can't attack Iran, our military is at its limit and we have no ability to run a third prolonged occupation of a combative country.
- cheezintern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't be surprised. It'd be a great way to extend his presidency a little longer and ensure that old man McCain gets elected.
- thelastwarrior, on 06/06/2008, -7/+47% = http://www.supernegro.com/admin/wysiwyg/images/Gui ...
- btschul, on 06/06/2008, -12/+7Wow, I guess Obama really will "change" things and provide "hope" and start making the government do what the majority of americans want, Like a government created BY the people For the people should. Oh wait, http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_to_elimina ...
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Don't be stupid, really.
This fictional example makes as much sense:
Obama: "The US owes $600 million to the United Nations, and if elected I will do everything in my power to eliminate that debt."
Diggtard: "Obama to eliminate United Nations!"
Don't be stupid. Really.- digitronix, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1If Obama ever says something like "I will do everything in my power to eliminate the UN", I would applaud him for it.
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2McCain: If I am elected President of the United States, I would take MILITARY ACTION against the UN.
(comment spliced together from fragments of the above and below comments for the lulz)
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2McCain: If I am elected President of the United States, I would take MILITARY ACTION against the UN.
- btschul, on 06/06/2008, -2/+0Actually, you are being pretty stupid. He wants to TAKE MILITARY ACTION against Iran to eliminate the imagined threat. 93 percent of Americans don't want the govt to TAKE MILITARY ACTION against Iran. I guess he really does have his finger on the pulse of america.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Do you honestly believe that you can rephrase anything you want, and just because it comes out of your golden mouth we'll believe it's the truth?
You said:
"He wants to TAKE MILITARY ACTION against Iran to eliminate the imagined threat."
He said:
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything."
Do you see a difference between "ultimately willing to take military action if absolutely necessary and all else fails to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" and "He *wants* to TAKE MILITARY ACTION against Iran to eliminate the *imagined* threat?"
Of course you don't, because you think that even mis-representing the truth still helps whoever you're trying to help, whether it's another candidate or yourself.
But just for fun, ask the poll question in a way that is aligned with Barack Obama's actual statement.
"If Iran has continued to make threatening statements towards the United States and other Middle Eastern States including Israel, and an independent monitoring authority confirms the presence of an active nuclear weapons program that would give them a functioning missile-based nuclear armament in ten years, do you feel that President Obama should take whatever actions are necessary, including military, to stop that program?"
You'll end up with a different answer than 7 percent. Not from you, of course, but you have some flexibility since you're making up your own reality.
I guess I should be a little encouraged, when all you have are snarky little lies about his quotes and it's only June. What's on the calendar for October, that he's been quoted repeatedly as being a size 10+1/2 shoe, but in some styles he's an 11?
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Do you honestly believe that you can rephrase anything you want, and just because it comes out of your golden mouth we'll believe it's the truth?
- digitronix, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1If Obama ever says something like "I will do everything in my power to eliminate the UN", I would applaud him for it.
- r3vmixman, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Obama said he will eliminate the threat, not Iran idiot.
- btschul, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1how will he eliminate the threat? Talk nice to them? no, he will use military action, which is what 93% of people don't want. idiot
- Fordi, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I would think that his comment about *direct diplomacy* would enter the field way before military action would be considered. You know, if the media wasn't as hungry for blood as they seem to be lately.
- btschul, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1how will he eliminate the threat? Talk nice to them? no, he will use military action, which is what 93% of people don't want. idiot
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Don't be stupid, really.
- D3koy, on 06/06/2008, -5/+5That is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 16 million people.... Scary we let them reproduce, ain't it?
- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4If we didn't, we'd be Nazis. Or Americans or Brits in the 1920's....
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Eugenics is alive and well, dude.
- MacBigot, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1…still a smaller number than the 10% of the Muslim world (roughly 70 million people) that think the West should be converted to Islam by the sword.
- ZenMojo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4If we didn't, we'd be Nazis. Or Americans or Brits in the 1920's....
- ExRe, on 06/06/2008, -4/+15I am actually surprised that this number is so low. I know a lot of crazies who think we need to bomb Iran and a few who want to nuke the entire middle east.
- JlmAWP, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"According to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of ***THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE SITUATION IN IRAN*** say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.”"
Meaning smart people. Your average Joe may have something else to say. - ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I had a debate with my friend over this. He finished the debate claiming that Iran should be wiped off the map...
eejit...
- JlmAWP, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"According to a new poll from Public Agenda, nearly 50 percent of ***THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE SITUATION IN IRAN*** say “the one” best way to deal with Iran is through using diplomacy “to establish better relations.”"
- topace3000, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Better relations won't really achieve anything. One might even say that goal is unachievable at this juncture. Of course, invading Iran is still by far the stupidest action.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I really wouldn't assume that. I'manuttyjob aside, Iran is actually a fairly moderate state in the region.
- topace3000, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Relations between nations are ultimately relations between governments, though.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I really wouldn't assume that. I'manuttyjob aside, Iran is actually a fairly moderate state in the region.
- HumanRecall, on 06/06/2008, -5/+8The only reason the United States people are saying that now is because of the consequences that have come out of this ***** War on Terror !
If the United States people never had their privacy invaded , Policy's changed to do more harm than good , watch the economy go down the toilet, lose the more money to the war and less funded for education and the welfare of the people living in the U.S, lose many Soldiers/loved ones etc , and the Gas prices sky rocketing along with retarded President making stupid decision that make the rest of the world hate the U.S
If it wasn't for consequences United states wouldn't give a flying rats ass !! Now that there is to the actions of most and your president you sing a very different tune when talk of War approaches again !!
i think that most of the U.S would favored the war until consequences leered it's ugly head - now most are all crying over your own very actions !! To late now Bush has already deeply rooted his beliefs in going against Iran !
YOu can digg me down but you know dam skippy i'm not lying !!!
- DANIELGOLE, on 06/06/2008, -8/+2i CANT DO JACK, YOU CANT DO JACK. TAKE ALL THE POLLS YOU WANT, SLANT THEM, TWIST THEM,GIVE THEM TO US STRAIGHT.THE POWERS THAT BE DO WHAT THEY WANT. ITS SO SAD
- RickyBarnes1960, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5That would be an encouraging survey result if it, in fact, represents genuine truths of opinion among the entire population. That is one for debate. Those who advocate preemptive action forget that, to be consistent, one ought to advocate such action in all occasions of perceived threat. Unfortunately, there are perceived threats among radical reactionaries right here at home. That would seem a rather more pressing problem and, in any event, would leave few among us safe from reprisals. At any rate, those who pressure for preemptive military action are usually the same among us who have little understanding of authentic and effective reasoning skills.
Let us not descend to punishing crimes before they have been committed. That's a road few but the thoroughly insane will survive. - l800LEMMINGS, on 06/06/2008, -2/+11probably the same 7% that swears by fox news and think it's manifest destiny for world domination
- MacBigot, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Current Cable News Ratings:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_sc ...
- MacBigot, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Current Cable News Ratings:
- timmertdf, on 06/06/2008, -8/+1WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
"My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.
Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.
The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.
Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .
In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.
Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China .
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , Germany , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.
I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York !
A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.
Mexico is also on List 2. Its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.
Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.
We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.
It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.
To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America .. Thank you and good night."- Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8Except its for all the wrong reasons. The countries on list #2 ? those were the SMART countries who realized we had NO GOD DAMNED BUSINESS BEING THERE !!!
NOW if the decision was to invade Saudi Arabia (the source of 11 of the 17 terrorists on 9.11) Then MAYBE I would not be so pissed about all this.
Oil? ***** OIL. Bring ALL the troops home. Not just from iraq but from ALL COUNTRIES
THAT will save us what a trillion a year?
NOW MANDATE and FORCE all auto makers to make Electric Cars or CEASE doing business in my god damned country.
There thats another TRILLION dollars saved PER YEAR and massive amounts of pollution ELIMINATED.
Just thin for a moment. Just think for one single moment what would happen if we INFUSED 2 TRILLION dollars a year BACK into our economy Not into the economy of the top 2% of the wealthy but into the economy of the bottom 90% of us drones working our asses off.
The EV alone would save me $3500+ dollars a year and would cost me NOTHING since the payments would be lower than what I pay now in gasoline per month. and this is just the DIRECT savings on my own gasoline spending. NOT the millions and millions of secondary expenses since EVERYTHING from products to shipping to YOU NAME IT would get cheaper. There is NOT ONE THING you can think of that you have to pay for that is not in one way or another affected by having to pay for gasoline. Just you try and name one thing.
Next eliminate the income tax. Eliminate half the laws and departments in our government. Eliminate paid lobbying. Make it a felony of the highest degree to "pass" or "vote" a law without being FULLY aware of what it is your voting or passing.
Make ALL laws absolutely accountable to the EXACT NO interpretation wording of the constitution AS IS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
If its unclear the process is in place to make it clear its called an amendment. USE IT. Stop ignoring it and doing whatever the hell they want to do.
Repeal the patriot act. Repeal the mill come act. Repeal the Telecom act.
Put bush in prison as a lesson to future politicians and repeal ALL of his signing letters and ALTER how that process works in the future.
ELIMINATE "Fee Simple" title and Eliminate the "same" format of title for vehicles. RETURN US to allodial title where we ACTUALLY OWN out land and actually OWN our cars.
THATS how you will fix this damned country. - Trublmakr, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5"A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change."
We already moved you to list 3. - Laminarcissus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7I do love it when two bipolars meet on an upswing.
(or one schizophrenic talks to himself)
- Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8Except its for all the wrong reasons. The countries on list #2 ? those were the SMART countries who realized we had NO GOD DAMNED BUSINESS BEING THERE !!!
- pidgas, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3As the study itself says, "Over the course of the Foreign Policy Index, we’ve found a clear preference for non-military solutions to international problems. If anything, that has strengthened in this edition."
Shocking.- Nevarius, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2And to think, most of us are actually taught this by our parents and/or kindergarten/1st grade teachers.
- overtoke, on 06/06/2008, -3/+6Examine those numbers. Now compare those numbers to the polls between Obama/McCain.
The mass media would like us to believe it is 50/50. Does that make any sense?
It's part of the plan (just like in 2000 and 2004). Tell everyone it's 50/50. It lets 'them' get away with manipulating the outcome of the election.
We all know Bush's approval rating, and we all know McCain sold his soul to the Bush Administration. - Nerys, on 06/06/2008, -3/+15I have a simple solution for Iran. LEAVE THEM THE ***** ALONE. Its NONE of our god damned business. Is that so hard ? but then w could not continue to siphon all this money into private organizations raping the american people.
When we have not one single NUKE left then and ONLY then will we have even the SLIGHTEST bit of place to discuss others posessing nukes. Period.- ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Ever thought about getting involved in politics?
Fantastic comment.
- ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Ever thought about getting involved in politics?
- Bodieslikesheep, on 06/06/2008, -3/+17"So what?" - Dick Cheney
Read the quote from the Nazi general from the Nuremburg trials...
It never is the will of the people to go to war, always the leaders...
Ron Paul says that it wasn't the American people who invented this war on terror, only a select few, namely the Neo-cons, but the American people shouldn't be punished....but the leadership in Washington.
"Not since WW2 has there been a war to that of the benefit of the American people." - Ron Paul
It is time for the American people to start voting in people who accept and support pro-freedom, pro-liberty values and lead by action, not by words.- DANIELGOLE, on 06/06/2008, -2/+0YEA BUDDY!!
- pajeff2, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1Ron Paul's message has been soundly rejected by the voters..get over it
- diggjcarp, on 06/06/2008, -3/+6It's probably the same 7% that still think Bush is doing a "heck of a job". Holy crap still over 200 days until it's over and Obama can begin cleanup operations on the most horrific administration in history.
- ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Obama's not going to be of any help.
- HumanRecall, on 06/06/2008, -4/+3just too add!- With Bush already mind set deeply rooted in his beliefs in going against Iran, your all ***** far as i'm concerned, and no doubt we Canadians included !@ ! Considering!! most of the worlds powers in the United Nations refuse to back you , we as Canadians will get sucked in like we did in Afghanistan !
You can digg me down all you want but you know dam skippy i'm not lying !!!
- krnldmp, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Bush should just invite top government from Iran and Israel to a backyard Texas BBQ and tell them both he's not gonna help or hinder either side unless they ***** with us, and then it wouldn't be help either. The whole thing already cost us more than its worth, every day of over 50 spanking years some kind of *****'s going on over there and Israel wants us to make it our problem as well. Pffft. If it wasn't for the incestuous money/military hardware arrangements we've had with Israel our "relationship" probably would have gotten a lot less popular quicker.
- ThunderPigs, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2Neville Chamberlain.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3learn history, not talking points.
- Trixrox, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3We should just become isolationists. Become self sufficient so we do not have to worry about a rogue iran or north korea...etc.
- DudeInAustin, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3How does one become so self-sufficient that nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people that don't like you doesn't pose a threat?
- GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3The natural law of self-preservation. Even most crazy people in power abide by that law.
Nuclear war is a primary example. You nuke us, we nuke you, EVERYONE loses.
And you can't just say they're crazy and therefore we can't rely on that, so we must attack before they go nutters and kill us all. You can not, MUST not let crazy people dictate your terms. Especially when the threat is just that - a threat. From third-rate tyrants, no less. - ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Hold on a minute! America has nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Iran DOES NOT have nuclear weapons. Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.
Who are the real crazy people?
- GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3The natural law of self-preservation. Even most crazy people in power abide by that law.
- Disgod, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4You have no clue how impossible that would be. Almost every single product you buy either is manufactured in another country, or has parts which were made in another country. This includes, all computers, cars, TVs, aircraft, a lot of food, and basically everything you have in your house. We have a lot of resources but lack a lot of critical ones, I know at least titanium is one resource that the US nearly completely lacks which is important for at least a few major fields. Our financial industry would collapse, huge amounts of businesses would collapse. Our country would implode if we tried to become isolationist, we're talking MUCH worse than the Great Depression.
- ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1It's possible all right, just not wanted.
China's more or less one big toy factory - slaves working all day and night and getting paid next to nothing for the benefit of countries like America...- Disgod, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2If you want a massive revolution on your hands it'd be a great idea.
- ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1It's possible all right, just not wanted.
- DudeInAustin, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3How does one become so self-sufficient that nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people that don't like you doesn't pose a threat?
- davidhallstrom, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Polls can be made to come out any way the pollsters want depending on how the poll is worded and who is asked. I would not have taken that poll as there was a forced conclusion. Of course I don't want a war with Iran, who would, but if that is what it takes to stop them then I would back the war. Of course I would like to use diplomacy, but in this case diplomacy won't work. My answers would have been the same as the majority because no explanations were allowed.
- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2"I would not have taken that poll as there was a forced conclusion" - Assumption, it would appear more than polls can start with their conclusions.
"I don't want a war with Iran, who would, but if that is what it takes to stop them then I would back the war." - Stop them from what? They are allowed to have Nukes for power, they are not doing anything more - even if they have somehow snowed the inspectors, they are decades away from being a threat and would have to show their hand long before they were an actual threat.. This is just more of IRAQ V2.0..
"Of course I would like to use diplomacy, but in this case diplomacy won't work." - Seems to work for everyone else except for the US - why is that?
- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2"I would not have taken that poll as there was a forced conclusion" - Assumption, it would appear more than polls can start with their conclusions.
- Misinformant, on 06/06/2008, -3/+5Makes ya wonder what those 7% are like.
EDIT: just kidding. it's easy to guess - PizzaPops, on 06/06/2008, -3/+7Poll: 7% of the population is insane.
- ShellShock11, on 06/06/2008, -3/+4Apparently Mr. Bomb-Bomb Iran (Your favorite Republican!) has a different opinion on this poll data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg - perfecticon, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Could we cross reference these people with those who think we should drop another atomic bomb on Japan? There might be a correlation, but I'm not sure.
- diggingaround, on 06/06/2008, -3/+3I don't know... That missing one (of 6) recently "accidentally" relocated US nukes, may soon fix that minor statistical glitch of 7% and boost some support for another staged war...
- blacktriangle, on 06/06/2008, -3/+6Poll: 7% of the US still watches and trusts FOX.
- uddyB3, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0LOL
- MacBigot, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1If only being clever were the same as being right, you might have a point...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_sc ...
- quickgold192, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2so... how many of those people have a serious background in international relations or diplomacy? all because the general public supports something doesn't mean it's the "best way to deal with Iran".
(btw, i'm trying to make a point here, not disagree with the results)- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Maybe so - but isn't that the very definition of a dictatorship?
Mob rule can be very wrong, but ignoring the mob is also exceptionally dangerous.
- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Maybe so - but isn't that the very definition of a dictatorship?
- DudeInAustin, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4Lets see, the world recently got a lesson in the limits of diplomacy in dealing with rogue regimes when we couldn't get relief supplies into a nation where hundreds of thousands were DYING after a typhoon. The regime in charge didn't give a hoot about world opinion. After all, they were willing to machine-gun monks a few months earlier.
The folks who lead Iran are part of the "crazy club" of nations that includes North Korea and a handful of others. They openly say they want to destroy another nation in their region (and us, if you pay attention) and they are defying the rest of the world as they acquire the means to do so.
I daresay these poll results will change a bit when one of those nukes they say they are not trying to make goes off somewhere. Then the question for the polls will be: Why wasn't the threat of Iran stopped prior to this?- GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1I think the world will be too busy running for their lives as nuclear armageddon begins when we launch 30 nuclear missiles at North Korea or Iran. You know, that same doomsday scenario from the Cold War where we lived in fear of "those ***** crazy communists."
That by the way, NEVER CAME TO PASS. Maybe we should look at why Russia never launched.- krnldmp, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1They're saving them for Iran like everybody else.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Hey, guess what? the only country that has *ever* used a nuke in anger is the USA. There are multiple 'crazy' countries around the world with nukes, including our 'ally' Pakistan, who are a hair's breadth away from being run by Moslem fundamentalists. And you're worried about Iran, which is over a decade away from even being able to produce the warheads, let alone the missile tech to deliver them?
Israel, too, has nukes, but has never allowed IAEA inspectors in.
There is no logical reason to fear Iran having nuke capability. As a nation, it has shown itself to be far less warlike than any of the other countries currently in possession of a nuclear arsenal. The only people they've gone to war with in the last 40 years are the Iraqis, when they were lead by Saddam Hussein. You know, our enemy.- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Well said.
- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Well said.
- GrubFisher, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1I think the world will be too busy running for their lives as nuclear armageddon begins when we launch 30 nuclear missiles at North Korea or Iran. You know, that same doomsday scenario from the Cold War where we lived in fear of "those ***** crazy communists."
- pintomp3, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2thankfully people aren't singing mccain's tune of bomb bomb bomb iran.
- PhilThePhenom, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Digg to the top, please.
- cbodall, on 06/06/2008, -6/+0Poll: Only 7% of stories on Digg not liberally biased
nuke the *****- Wartyboskfapped, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3When are you signing up?
- Waiting2awake, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2You mean realities well known liberal bias?
Seriously, how many philosophies have to fail before you start to question what you've been told?
- Jordan117, on 06/06/2008, -3/+7Dear America:
So?
Sincerely,
Vice President Cheney - WoollyMittens, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5Why would they ask the slaves of their military industrial complex for their opinion?
- TheTruthHurts, on 06/06/2008, -4/+5are the 7% Zionist?
- btschul, on 06/06/2008, -4/+0Actually, you are being pretty stupid. He wants to TAKE MILITARY ACTION against Iran to eliminate the imagined threat. 93 percent of Americans don't want the govt to TAKE MILITARY ACTION against Iran. I guess he really does have his finger on the pulse of america.
- djlosch, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2and only 15% of americans refuse to acknowledge existence of an invisible undetectable being.
just because the media says a lot of people think something is true does not mean they're correct. - brownrecluse888, on 06/06/2008, -6/+1Uhh....yet More blatant ignorant Obama spam...Obama said this: " "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,"
Sounds like that could of came from McCain or Bush.
What's the worst part about spamming Obama non stop on Digg? Telling your parents your gay.....
Amazing, I've never seen so many closet gays in one place. I have gay friends and they are great, but at least they have the will to come out in public, unlike the Obama-gays that converge on digg.com every night to swap various obama fluids....its fine, your infatuated with Obama, no worries...just come out and say it......- ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1How many times do I need to say this - Iran poses NO THREAT. They do not have nuclear weapons. They are not even developing any. They don't even have any intention of developing any!!! Iran has not threatened to attack anyone else but the US has threatened to attack Iran based on this false knowledge... and still despite the insanity of this fact - people applaud and cheer these people like they are Gods...
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
