What is Digg?84 Comments
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I watched it on TV. He claimed the evidence is overwhelming, but failed to provide any ... and the guy that followed his interview said he has no idea what he's talking about. So we're right back where we started.
- elpayo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33Three dunce caps.
- lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Bush is shooting for the hat trick.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Dear digg user,
Please refrain from SPAMMING our message boards. Thank you.
Sincerely, chicken101. - eliomar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16the prez can send troops and wage war for 180 days, after that congress takes hold and decides to go in. Same thing happened in the Iraq war, thing is the army was done in a matter of days.
- webgeek2point0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16The Congress does not matter. It really only matters as a political thing and for money and support, but the President can do whatever he wants with the troops. He is the Commander in Chief. BTW, the Vietnam War was never declared a war in Congress, but 50,000 Americans died, the draft was reinstated, and it lasted for more than 10 years. But it wasn't a "war". What Congress does doesn't mean jack.
- BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16I hope congress doesn't vote to invade Iran, if they do then we're *****. BTW only congress can declare war, the president can not.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I think the operative word here is "retired".......who knows how long this guy has been out of the loop
- floppypond, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Other way around.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13You now what Ret. means in the military? Retarded. (inside military joke)
Do you think our active leaders pass plans to him. When I see these "experts" they always seem to conveniently have a book coming out soon. - jeffgtr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I watched the interview on CNN as well. It seems to me all he did was speculate. I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but I'm even less of a fan of the current Iranian regime. Claiming the holocaust never happened, what kind of nonsense is that? Sure there has been planning and "what if" scenarios, thats only common sense. I highly doubt, after our experience in Iraq we'd jump right into another war. But then again, we do have troops on either side of Iran and maybe in the grand scheme of things that is by design. I just don't think this guy was as far in the loop as he claimed. One things for sure, the thought of Iran with a nuke bothers me alot. I have a feeling their president wouldn't hesitate to push the button, all he'd need was a lame excuse, like say the Popes recent comments. We don't want that now do we?
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I'm very much against war. But don't think for a moment it won't be completely lopsided.
For one, it will be the most destructive (of military targets) bombing campaign ever. More than 20,000 bombs, and 19,000 hits. Maybe twice that. That's more than all the tanks and large artillery pieces in Iran. They will all be wiped out. All command and control gone. All fuel supplies for military vehicles gone. All planes destroyed on the ground. Iran will have nothing bigger than what a man can carry to fight with.
Iran's ships will last, literally, minutes.
By the time the first tank rolls in they will be virtually unopposed.
It also won't be the same as Iraq. It will be faster. A work of art, really. Too bad about the dead people. - CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9NAVY TOLD: READY FOR IRAN BLOCKADE
http://www.rawstory.com/comments/19820.html
The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1. But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. - Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Like that matters to him?
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, "overwhelming" is a reach.
Interesting signs though. Teams were in Iraq for months before the war. I would not dismiss it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11giving him the ability to wage war for 180 Days without declaring war is stupid, in 180 days you can get yourself so deep into enemy territory that pulling out would be suicidal for all in harms way, once your at that point Congress pretty much has no choice but to declare war
- Tracon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If i were a tin foil hat wearer right now I'd be screaming Gulf of Tonkin. but my hat is cloth so this is an open unspoken threat to the Iranian government.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I hear the fourth Horseman is saddling up...
- GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13@GraceMolloy: I doubt the president of Iran can flush the toilet without permission from the top religious leader in Iran.
First, the nuclear program Iran has admitted to is a civilian nuclear program. Second, they have perfectly legitimate reasons to have military nuclear ambitions.
Consider their neighbors: Afghanistan is a failed state that still harbors violent Sunni extremists. Pakistan could implode if the military dictatorship can't keep in line religious extremists who have common cause with those in Afghanistan. If that happens, Pakistan's proven nuclear weapons could be in play and might find their way into afghanistan, or even Iraq.
Iraq, of course, is a complete *****, but if the US can ever gain the upper hand, its clear that the current administration would like to use it as a stepping stone for military action in Iran.
This would not be the first US adventure in Iran. In the 50s, the US helped depose a democratically elected secular government and replace it with an dictator. They kept that regime propped up until 1979, when the Islamic revolution swept through Iran and drove the US out.
I am against further nuclear proliferation, but honestly, if you were Iran, what would you be doing? - SupaFupa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't know if I believe this guy or not, but if you look at a map of the middle east, and consider that the majority of the countries that surround Iran have US bases, you could make the case that we've been preparing to invade Iran for alot longer than 18 months.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, strictly speaking, we blew the occupation of Iraq, not the war.
Maybe if we had properly declared wars, surrenders, and occupations it would not suck so much. But these are the lessons that are hardest to learn. - BishopAzrael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5ahh... yeah problem is.. there are Digg users who swear the holocost never happened. I remember when digg was first taking off that we had HUGE flame wars on one thread for days about it, and people saying how the jews should just jump into the ocean... all kinds of crap. There was alot of hatred aimed and Jews and Israel from people on this board who should know better...
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OMG! It's in a blog IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
- DanMcScience, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yo man. You should check homeless ppl in Canada, there are plenty. One Toronto street kid just won Rockstar Supernova! Although that's besides the point, Iran's leadership is notoriously out of control and so pretending they're not a problem is not going to work. Also, I'm not an economist but I think that war is a great way to boost the economy for the future...
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Might as well get in your bunker now since this will start WW3.
- demonsnake69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, I guess some black-ops are going down in Iran.
- gummih, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@williamdyer The problem with Iran isn't how you bomb it to ***** - it's how you go in.
Iran isn't Iraq, Iraq is a desert highway while Iran is a freaking mountain range. Going in on tanks means you have to thread valleys and narrow passes - watching out for ambush means that you move SLOWLY and Iran is HUGE. Iran is a logistical nightmare, it's a paradise for ambush, the US would never be able to take it. The only thing they can do is bomb it to ***** and further increase the peoples hate for "our freedom" - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@rockets: Wow. Was uptown's comment too long for you to digest properly?
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So are you ready for a draft, rationing, and skyrocketing gas prices?"
US Forces are overstretched as it is an a land invasion and occupation of a 90million people Iran (in a country with mostly moutainous terrain) is unthinkable.
However, an air war might be feasible. However, if such an engagment did happen we would see a Shia uprising in Iraq backed by the Iranians.
Secondly, if we did start hitting Iran's oil and natural gas sources we'll piss off their 2nd biggest consumer which is... wait for it... China. (Japan is there second)
China will not stand for being cut off from an already hard to get resource. I doubt they would openly go to war against the US but I'd bet they'd back Iran.
This is also the reseason we will be unable to embargo Iran.
The truth of the matter there is nothing we can really do about Iran's nuclear program unless we did do what the parent post suggested we have to do... Which is total war.
Personally, I feel that if we let MAD (mutual assured destruction) takes it course. Iran will not make nuclear weapons or if it did... Use them or give them to terrorists.
We have thousands of ICBM's in the states and I doubt Iran would want its 90million people eliminated in a white bright flash just because they made Isreal disapear off the map too. - Elbart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4OMG IRAQ HAS WMD! EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING!!!!
Exaggeration of C. Powell's speech 3 years ago. ;) - gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"it's possible" he says, this might be an effort to ratchet up pressure on the Iranian leadership..."it's also possible, that I'm just terribly excited about being on CNN".
Pure speculation. "lots of sources" he says...listing one.
Nothing wrong with building target lists. Wouldn't want to accidentially bomb a drug manufacturing facility instead of an intended target. cough cough. We should always support Iranian dissedent groups.
There's nothing like a carrier or two off an opponent's coast to help negotiations along.
We will not attack or go to war with Iran. Nobody wants to see them with nukes. Everyone will try to stop them..well, except maybe Russia and China and France...oh, nevermind. - ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@DanMcScience
Post-Hoc-Ergo-Propter-Hoc was disproved. Going to war does give an economic boost, but not a real one. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not to mention:
Iraq = 20 million or so people (majority who did not like Saddam)
Iran = 90 million or so people (majority who support their government) - hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bush hasn't done enough damage to America yet...he's staying the course.
- realperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Last time the world's foremost military superpower took on all the others they lost.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I doubt this is true. I call BS, on behalf of no specific evidence."
Special Forces ops, UAV flyovers, CIA/DIA spying, etc. Nothing new.
The article is misleading in suggesting that these operations are warfare, they are intelligence-gathering ops. Does that mean Bush is planning for war in Iran? Yes. Not that it will necessarily happen, right now its just a contingency.
Besides, if it does, America is in for a very rude awakening. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. Besides Iran, if America attacks, it will have to deal with an uprising in Iraq and Afghanistan, and backing of Iran by numerous other countries.
Bush walked into a trap in Iraq. America is stuck there. Why do you think Israel was forced to pull out of Lebanon?
I don't know, Americans seem to want a "real war," Iran is going to be such a war. So are you ready for a draft, rationing, and skyrocketing gas prices? Don't think this will be another one of those "wars" you can sit back and watch on TV without being affected. - davids1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I do not understand the urgency. Iran just finished a heavy water plant. They have far to go for weapons grade material.
- davids1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Claiming the holocaust never happened"
The correct translations of Iranian president are out there still waiting to be read. Good luck. - jtryba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@schwack
I don't know if that's a real Nostradamus quote or not, but it made me laugh.
Edit: Ok, its not a real quote. Still made me laugh. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They've also never attacked another country in modern history. They could someday though, so we'd better invade them now.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well, this makes sense, but didn't Mr. Bush invaded Iraq because they have WMDs? So why not invade NK, if our brave leader is so fearless that he doesn't care about invading a country that can reply with WMDs?
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wonder if atheism is grounds for being a "conscientious objector" and refusing to fight a holy war? Let's let the Christians and Muslims duke it out.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Because you like it when I put stuff in you head :) You were asking for it.
- pdevlinbuckley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1TERROR OPS UNDERWAY IN IRAN
http://americanmonitor06.blogspot.com/2006/05/terror-ops-underway-in-iran.html - AtomicPile, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I used to wonder if digg was getting played like several articles claimed. Now I know that Digg is being played by a group of HEAVILY BIASED individuals who will put any crack-pot random thing that is against the current administration that they can. How bout we do something with some credible sources every once and a while? Anyone can tell that mainstream news will put anything on to get ratings, and a retired colonial is nothing... Sorry to burst your bubble. I do hope that new digg API fixes things, this is ridiculous.
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Don't forget Iran's biggest buddy and arms supplier, Russia. Not to mention one of their largest oil buyers, China.
- phlux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3no crazy arm flailing here; serios question.
If I/we started a political campaign to get people to actually sign a petition to impeach Bush AND members of his cabinet and congress, how many of you would be willing to sign and support it? (Not just republicans - but all that stand in the way of a true civilization)
What if The People stood up and sought a solution to such issues. As an example (Off the top of my head - so point out the flaws in this with rationale please), Iran speaks of seeking nuclear power - as do other nations. If there was a joint effort for a combined series of shared facilities that provided power to the various nations that claim to need it from nuclear reactors - and these were run by an organized multi national (no I dont mean UN) power treaty - think NATO but for electrical power.
Seriously - how many people are willing to join in a sane approach to getting the "Land of the Free" back? America once had values - and those values are no longer represented in the political polarization (and hence distraction) of the people. Divide and conquer... - gummih, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@BishopAzrael
Can you find it for me? - jtryba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@blackcell and wowbagger
I hope you're both under 18. - stevegillette, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow, this guy is somewhat uninformed.
"2) “We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step.”"
The article was a work of fiction as to what a war with Iran MIGHT look like, not what's happening right now. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is