What is Digg?367 Comments
- Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+75I wouldn't expect China to be that uppity, and Russia... meh.
See right now Iran is making itself vulnerable to attack while holding a bunch of Brits. Even their allies have to keep them at arms-length as this is an aggressive act. None of his close allies (Syria) has any capability to retaliate against us, but they might escalate aggression against Isreal. That is the absolute worse case short-term scenario. Ultimately any aggression by a Western nation on an Arab nation carries the penalty of making a lot of young Arabs want to grow up and fight the capitalist pigdogs that killed their friends and family, but that is very long-term.
No WWIII here folks, or at least not for another generation. I realize a full 1 in 3 Americans are eagerly awaiting a Rapture, but you'll just have to pray harder. The rest of us would sincerely appreciate it if you'd stop aiding things in this regard, thank you. - Ecowarrior, on 10/12/2007, -2/+62So, how the ***** can it be a "sneak" attack in April when the news is on Digg in March?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn
By Webster G. Tarpley - Mar 26, 2007
The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46@georgestone, I hate to say it, but the British soldiers are being treated as pawns by both sides, not just Iran. Iran clearly believes the US captured one of its top generals in Turkey this winter. Some claim he defected, but I see no evidence, except his odd disappearance.
Either way, a week before the 15 soldiers were captured, Iran said they would capture coalition forces in retaliation. They announced it, if anyone was listening. And if coalition forces had _not_ kidnapped the general, if he had in fact defected, we should have cleared that up right then and there. We did not.
Personally, I think we chose not to, and giving some credence to reports that our special ops are already engaged inside Iran, I think the US goal is to provoke the war the Bushies want. If we goad Iran into doing something stupid and inflammatory (like this), then we can attack and seem justified. All we need now is one more Gulf of Tonkin-like event (against the US) and the war is on. Democrats won't oppose it if it would make them seem weak, no matter what the tragic cost will be to the US and UK in blood and money.
I also think that Iran captured British soldiers vs. Americans because Iran is trying to have it both ways -- hit back at us for the alleged kidnapping, send a message, and also try not to so quickly provoke a war. Whether that strategy succeeds or fails is an open question. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -26/+68This is really an amazing display of how dumb the Legislative Branch of the US Government is. Had they not given GW permission to do "whatever the hell he wants" we wouldn't even be worried about this.
If we attack Iran, China and Russia aren't going to be very happy, and so begins WWIII. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49A Russian journalist discovered the exact date AND TIME of a U.S. invasion of Iran?
This is the biggest load of ***** I've ever seen. If you know anything about Russian journalism (and I have experience, seeing as I'm originally from there), you'd know that most of their work cannot be trusted. The kind of baseless UFO/conspiracy garbage you could only find in "Weekly World News" is often printed on the same page in a mainstream Russian newspaper as a story about the latest terrorist explosion in the Middle East.
Russian journalists on a whole have no scruples or journalistic ethics. Most of the time, Russian journalists aren't working to tell a story but rather to promote their own personal political goal. There is a very thin line in Russian journalism between editorializing and reporting the news, and you will never find another country where journalists try anywhere near as hard to inject themselves (on a personal level) into political debate as in Russia.
I'm not saying this isn't PLAUSIBLE, or t hat the U.S. isn't really planning an Iran invasion, but you'd be a fool to take this Russian story at face value. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38The only ones to be surprised will be the American and British public, who might otherwise say no.
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -22/+49>America will be seen by the rest of the world as a dangerous aggressor that must be stopped.
Other posters are getting dug down. But it is a legitimate question: Why is Iran allowed to go into another nation's waters, kidnap the soldiers, then America is seen as the *aggressor*
I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but do it equally please. - strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40I sure hope that they don't invade Iran. It will be a huge tragedy that will forever haunt the United States. America will be seen by the rest of the world as a dangerous aggressor that must be stopped.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34War with Iran is stupid.
This is Israel's war.....the US needs to stay out of it, they can't even complete 2 wars already going....this is a mistake. - DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22On the good side the nuclear winter should slow down global warming.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Well, not just Israels war.
Britains war as well, unless we get our 15 sailors back.
Obviously war on the basis of them capturing our people is still a long way off, maybe a few months.
And I presume a rescue mission would probably start it.
But no doubt the US government could find a reason to go in sooner. Most likely getting our sailors killed, therefore directly involving Britain in the war. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I guess the point is, if we have their general, we need to explain it.
IF he defected, we should now provide evidence, and it may help spur the release of the soldiers as a "misunderstanding."
IF we captured him, the Iranians may want a prisoner exchange. War is not necessary to get them back and our side knows it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20How many nations must take part for it to be called a world war?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@EntropyMan
Unfortunately I think you're right.
For some reason the British nation is seen as a push over, I really think the Blair should take a tough stance on Iran now that they have taken prisoners. Set a deadline. Tell them who's boss.
They shouldn’t be let off for doing this, what kind of message does that put across. Kidnap as many of our people as you like, hold them for a few weeks and as long as you give them back all will be just dandy.
Iran need to know that the rules apply to them as well. The UN is there for a reason.
If these prisoners are held much longer the UN might even be forced to take action.
A stern letter maybe. With an angry face :@ - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Which is why 12 year-old mindsets don't drive military policy.
- Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21***** you too.
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20 I don't think the US is massing for war.
Springtime is typically the time war games and large scale training begins - and there is an Iraqi Police-force being trained
After last nights rumor of an Iranian attack on a US ship, I think this story lacks credibility..
The "Flurry of activity", could just be springtime road-building from the Army Corp of Engineers... - rstarr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Canada anyone?
Better yet, Switzerland.
Yeah, that's it.
Chocolate, watches, and neutral war policies all around. - Societas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13HAHA The price of a barrel of oil is more than double what it was before the invasion of Iraq. Well, I'm off to dig out my 10speed from my garage!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@wageslaven:
Well, I believe that if we were going to go into Irans waters to "spy" on them we would have at least done the following:
1) Sent in a bigger boat, not a 12 foot hard bottom inflatable.
2) Been a little less conspicuous, dressing in royal navy uniforms isn’t the best way to go unnoticed.
3) A little more firepower as we would expect confrontation, after all we're in Irans waters.
4) We just wouldn’t send a boat to do this. We have spy planes for that.
The Idea that this was a false flag operation seems absoludicrous.
There is pretty much damning evidence that Iran are trying to bait us.
First they say our boat was at [so and so coordinates], then when we tell them that those coordinates point to a place in Iraq waters they change their mind. They give new numbers. - DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm glad my survival bunker is still ready to go from the Y2K scare.
- theasp18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12It's going to take a lot more than a war in Iran to get China and the US in an outright fight. Both countries have too much to lose... probably more so China as we're their number one consumer.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@"probably more so China as we're their number one consumer."
Don't ever underestimate nationalism over economics. Technically WWII Germany was the number one consumer of Russian grain and largest trade partner before they invaded.
But I wouldn't think China would directly wage war on us... We might see something more subversive when we wake up one morning. Remember, the plates and plastics you eat off, toys your kids play with, the mother board in the computer you are using now were most likely made in China.
Catch my drift. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It wouldn't be an invasion, at least at first. Air-strikes are more likely.
But this is exactly how Israel just got burned with Lebanon. We somehow think we can send in cluster bombs that are precise enough. They cause massive civilian damage. Iran fights back with whatever they have (not a big navy, but lots of missiles). And all of a sudden, it's Israel/Lebanon times a thousand.
There's no way Iran can win, but they can cause a hell of a lot of death and destruction as they try to defend what THEY SEE as an American Imperialist invasion. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16so the past few decades of non stop wars havent portrayed the image of warmongers?
- elamr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@odd camron
who said this BS:
"SOMEONE STOP BUSH before he rids the world of another terrorist regime!"
What are we, the ***** World Police?! If so, why not stop China, Pakistan, North Korea.... they are ALL evil, right. The chinese are communists who terrorize there own people, North Korea TEST weapons of mass Destruction, Pakistan has an extremist government run by an unpopular moderate muslim (they ALL have nukes). How about Darfur where genocide is taking place? Isn't that terrorism?
I'll tell you why we don't attack them. Because they don't have the oil reserves. This war is not about terrorism. When the US attacked Iraq they did it under the pretext of saddam having WMD NOT terrorism. The bush administration has changed their reasons for being in Iraq... wake up, man. Something is not right. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"so the past few decades of non stop wars havent portrayed the image of warmongers?"
cite please. I'd like a list of any US military engagements in the last few decades that didn't have the backing of the UN/NATO or weren't in response to cease fire violations from wars that were backed by NATO or the UN. - Societas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Say what you like about the possibility or inevitability of a war with Iran. The truth is it just isn't possible for the US to launch another invasion/occupation especially of a country with the political environment and size as Iran. However, air strikes would not surprise me if things were to escalate.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@WaheSlaven: I'm a Brit and and American, and I don't have to think anything about whether the sailors were in Irans waters.
They weren't. Iran even proved they weren't with the first release of coordinates which oops happened to be in Iraqi waters, when they were called on it they revised those coordinates. We now have satellite data that shows where the boats were and testimony from the commercial vessels crew that their ship was in Iraqi waters.
Even if you still question it, it doesn't matter. A warship in another nations waters is sovergein and, if they are being peaceful, the most Iran is legally allowed to do is tell them to leave.
From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/iran.uk.sailors/index.html
Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in attempts to prove the point.
Blair said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position.
Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded.
The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."
The statement Wednesday from the Iranian embassy in London said the British personnel had made an incursion of 0.5 km (0.3 miles) into Iranian territorial waters.
Even if the ship had somehow strayed into Iranian waters, Beckett said, "under international law, warships have sovereign immunity in the territorial sea of other states."
"The very most Iran would've been entitled to do if they considered our boats were breeching the rules on innocent passage would've been to require the ship to leave their territorial waters immediately," the foreign secretary explained.
On Monday, hard-liners in Iran urged the government to charge the Britons with espionage and put them on trial." - saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Just two, those being the United States and China. The world's largest consumer and producer on whom the world's economy depends. If they get involved, it will ineviably cause a global conflict of economic, political, and military intrests.
- dMinor04, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Is anyone really surprised? The only reason that democrats and republicans are coming to some sort of terms with Iraq is because they both know that after Iraq its on to Iran. That's why this next election isn't going to mean much(in terms of military), because regardless of which way you vote the war in Iraq will be ended, but we are still going into Iran.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14"This is really an amazing display of how dumb the Legislative Branch of the US Government is. Had they not given GW permission to do "whatever the hell he wants" we wouldn't even be worried about this."
Nice how you are so quick to assume, like most other Diggsters, that what you've read is true because it coincides with your ideals.
But please take note: The resources that the author cited are no longer accessible.
I imagine next you'll be saying it's a government conspiracy.
And herein lies the problem with this website - if someone says something that anybody on Digg agrees with, immediately they're telling the truth. People who disagree must be close-minded sheep who can't listen to what anybody says.
Not too mention - you people take this crap for truth without even doing your own research.
What I find even more interesting is how this is based off "he said, she said" without any real proof to back it up, either. Anytime that happens in the White House - it was all a lie. I can't wait till the buck gets turned.
Edit: Nice changing the link, I'm sure after the sources couldn't be verified you had to go with an author who wasn't so full of *****. - Pplus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8FTA - "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
This whole story is nothing but speculation veiled with a reference to "the official." Do you think a highly placed official in Russian intelligence would say "The Pentagon has probably not yet made a decision as when an attack will be launched." This is nothing but some over-zealous reporter referencing unknown sources with vague information that can never be officially refuted. Lame. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13@Detritus
Lol, that brings back memories of when i was watching "The God Who Wasn't There", with that crazy guy at the end of the movie who start the website www.raptureletters.com. The purpose of the website is that you sign up and enter your families email addresses, then when the rapture comes, it sends them letters telling them to repent to get into heaven. Its really hilarious stuff, magnificently scary that people beleive that *****, but hilarious nonetheless. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Webb amendment:
would require the President to get Congressional authorization before launching an unprovoked attack against Iran.
If your Senators have not heard from you before on this issue - and even if they have - it is crucial that they get a phone call from you today.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/?p=213 - SnowPuffKing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"It will be a huge tragedy that will forever haunt the United States."
My goodness, I'm pretty liberal but even I am taken aback by the staunch pacifists here on Digg. You have a lot more faith in diplomacy with countries like Iran than I do. Or do you just believe we should let them be? Either way I think you're delusional. I know you want to wallow in the Iraq bitchfest forever but come on... - creoderiot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@thefirelane - fair enough - but at the same time saying "nuke 'em" or "turn their country into a sheet of glass" isn't constructive and indicates some extremely short term thinking,
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8davesbrain,
nazi germany invasions:
1938 austria
1939 czechoslovakia
1939 poland
1940 norway, denmark, france
1941 yugoslavia, greece, soviet union - DooM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"the US is in short supply of military personel"
Luckily they're all right there on the border with Iran... and looky looky we managed to 'surge' the level of troops who are, again, right there on the border of Iran. We have a shortage of troops to send to Iraq, but that's because all of our troops are IN IRAQ - which is mighty convenient if we decided to attack Iran.
...and it's not like this administration minds abandoning one front of the war to focus on a new one *cough* Afghanistan. - redDC143C, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@ilyag
Are you say all of the Fox journalists are from Russia? - sirpsychosexy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7not even one soviet russia joke?
- drsnooks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Because u screwed them in Afghanistan..."
Yup, by funding and arming Osama and the Taliban.
Although, to be fair, I think that one came back to bite the US all on it's own... - jspegele, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10It's a good thing the Russian press is NOT notorious for spreading anti-American propaganda, or might not have believed this article.
- SuckItUp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The people who hate the US now will go on hating, the people who love it will go on loving. I doubt very much that whatever the outcome of this that very many minds will really be changed either way.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7They hate our power. Russia wants to be the world's boogeyman again. They want influence.
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ EntropyMan
We already went after the people who caused 911 of which iran had nothing to do with.. you should jump on over to Saudi Arabia to finish that job.
That map makes one sick to there stomach with the realization that if you look under the covers of everything that has happened its ironic that every place of conflict is oil rich. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@strangerzero
Most of us thinks that way as it is, im Danish and we were in Iraq with you guys for a long while, but our Minister took a good beating for it, and think we are getting a new goverment next Election.. Anyway, dont take this as a rant towards america, just those few who runs it and there "mob".. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If this goes down it is further proof that we, the people and our representative government, have been swept under the proverbial carpet by Bush Co. I makes me want to move to Canada. Australia or New Zealand might be nice too.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@EntropyMan
He doesn't need permission, they granted him war authority to fight terrorism, and he's already called Iran a terrorist regime, so here we go again. Third war, third occupation in six years, that's got to be a world record. -
Show 51 - 100 of 360 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is