What is Digg?139 Comments
- solvable, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38I couldn't agree more!
I mean, It's a great idea!
Attack them while we have the majority of our troops in other countries!
That's so intelligent! - hannahmar, on 06/11/2009, -5/+33Have you ever just felt totally helpless and had no control over something going on even though you desperately despised what was ultimately going to happen? Because for some reason I feel like that now.
- xyzunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27APRIL FOOLS.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32President Bush is like the kid in Risk who is playing for the first time...trying to occupy every territory with just one man.
- andritchie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30@amightywind
Fire up the F-150!
Yeeeeee hawww! - CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25I honestly don't know whether to trust the legitimacy of this report... but if it is true, all I can think of to say is a big "UH OH".
- mtb167, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24April 4th at 4am!?!? No!!! My Tivo is already set to be watching Time-Life's Sounds of the 70's infomercial with Greg Brady.
Now i'm going to have to wake up and watch it. Great. - DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18APRIL FOOLS!!! Wait... NOOO!!!
- spoiled1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26America = God of War
- Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22Ask the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
- f201, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12This is a reliable source. Reliable. Source.
- kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19if america attacks iran, iraq will go bad too. The whole iraqi govt. will be more loyal to iran, then they ever will be to america. All the shias in iraq will attack american troops. On top of that, iranian troops will be attacking america. And many arab countries will withdraw their support/military bases for america (i.e. UAE). Then you have Hezbollah and Israel, and you risk an out of control regional conflict.
America may eventually win, but it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Something most americans do not support.
@Darph. Yes, america fought two countries at once. But back then, we had these things called allies. In fact, the soviet union and britain inflicted most of germany's damage, we didn't. - RichardHendrix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13As an American Citizen, I hereby demand that we seriously begin to consider the possibility of impeachment.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13While I doubt the truth of this rumor I assure you this much. If this is true all hell will break loose. People are relatively at peace (no pun intended) with the failure in Iraq, but if we start new ***** that's done. People will be pissed. I'm not talking phone your senator pissed. I'm talking burn down buildings pissed. I assure you that is what will happen if this is the case. Mass chaos on an unprecedented scale in the US will occur. Those of us on the edge anyway will not take it sitting down. We will stop the war by any means necessary .
- thecheat1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Never heard of this site before. Somehow though, I doubt this is true.
- InfamousX241, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I have troubles believing this.
Waiting for an article from a credible source. - n8dawg87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12thats Canada's job now...
(note: I'm Canadian...) - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Luckily the USA is too smart to be suckered into that little scheme.
Right?
Can anyone recommend a good beginners' course in Arabic? - Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Err... Yeah, because "Govdirt's blog" says so. It's so professional too, like including
"copyright (c) 2007 please don't copy our stuff - it would be really easy to, but that would suck. "
Right. - neszis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6War in one week? We're not nearly pissed off enough for that yet. I call utter BS on this article. Thanks for the sensationalism, though.
- redthumb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Yeah, I felt that way when we invaded Iraq. Deja vu.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, dude, you are an idiot. Japan was nuked when we were the only nuclear power. Use nukes on anyone now that we aren't the only nuclear power and we greatly reduce the hesitancy other nations will have to use them. Do we really want to risk doing that when conventional weapons are sufficient for the job? Do we really want to risk that Iran's allies (like Russia, China) won't retaliate against us in kind? Besides, what, there's not enough radioactive dust flying around in the global weather patterns to satisfy you?
- soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7From the article:
"This attack is sanctioned by the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives because they removed language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran."
I call BS on this one. The Democrats sanctioning this war because they are allowing Bush to launch an attack without Congress approval when they passed stuff on bringing people back from Iraq? It just doesn't add up. - ohthehumanity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"The goal is for these attacks to paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran. "
I guess were the ***** terrorists now. - j4son, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Who?
- michaelarana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If this is true, Good Luck Bush Administration, Your Hanging Day Is upon You!.
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Then I apologize, the above comment is directed at amightywind only.
- Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Rense.com as a source? This article's credibility just got shot down so fast it skipped the whole gravity thing and just showed up floating dead in the water.
- vaxguru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think you mean Lord of War ;)
- Fungo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I'll try to keep April 6th free as my protest day then.
- MBX1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6it wont happen if we digg it
- insinuate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3World War 3 anyone?
- Hipple, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Who's Bin Laden?
- GGzah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Guess they figure Iraq is already a lost cause, so its time to move on to a new country and start fresh...
This kind of feels like watching a train wreck in slow motion. - 10scott10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7anti. you are completely right. it is basically the exact same thing we did to the soviet union look at how succesful the strategy of bleeding an enemy country of their money
- NotAChickenHawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"OK..do that. But come up with ONE actual reason. Not made up silly ones."
Sure. Oh, where oh where to begin?
Lets see, Mr. Bush has twice taken the oath of office, both times swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". "Preserve, Protect and Defend" does not mean "Trounce, ***** and piss upon". Warantless wiretapping is CLEARLY unconstitutional. The constitution promises habeus corpus, but the president has sought to do away with it (Military Comissions Act). The president has sought to hold people indefinetly without trial (how inconvinient it must be for him that the constitution explicitly guarantees us the right to speedy trials). The President has almost certainly sanctioned (or turned a blind eye) towards torture, even though the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The constitution specifies that if the President signs a bill sent to him by congress, thereby making it law, he accepts it in total, or not at all. He does not get to pick and choose which parts of the bill he likes and then do away with the others or specify which parts don't apply to him with a "signing statement". The power to interpret the law, as specified in the constitution, rests with the judiciary, not the executive. Bush has thumbed his nose at the constitution by doing this. He has also done everything in his power to bolster the power of the Executive branch, even by eroding the constitutionaly prescribed powers of the Legistlative and Judicial branches. The President refers to wars as "conflicts", in a blatant (and blatantly unconstitutional) attempt to bypass Congressional approval for war.
Of course, violating and eroding the constitution are by no means the only categories of offenses that should be considered impeachable. Failure to actually do a good job (or, at least not intentionally doing a horrible one) is also grounds for impeachment. You know, if Congress feels so strongly that the President is so off kilter and is so clearly acting against the best interests of the country that 2/3rds will vote to impeach him. So, lets go to some examples where the President has intentionally disregarded his responsibilities as the Chief Executive. The President has routinely appointed unqualified cronies to highly critical government posts. Dan Brown, the president of a horse trading association was appointed as the head of FEMA. That's *****. Harriet Myers, with no previous experience as a judge, was appointed to the US supreme court. The president has tolerated the presence of criminals (Scooter Libby) in his administration. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has either lied under oath to Congress and is therefore a criminal, or is grossly incompetent (The 93 US attorneys are principal employees in the Justice Department - if he was uninvolved with firing them as he claims, then he wasn't doing his job). Someone appparently in the Bush administration, at who knows who's direction, exposed Valarie Plame's identity as a CIA covert operative - that's treason. Apparently, that person still works in the administration despite the President's promise to fire them. The President keeps traitors in his midst and takes advice from them.
The President has also failed in his responsibilities as Commander-In-Chief. He started a war on pretenses which he knew to be false. He continued said war even after said pretenses were exposed as false. Even though he wasn't "under oath" - he LIED TO CONGRESS by presenting evidence, in person in the form of his State of the Union address, which he knew to be false. He has carried on the war, costing countless lives and greatly weaking the military. Part of "Protecting and Defending" the constitution includes maintaining a strong military to defend us and the constitution against REAL threats to our respective existences, not piddling away the military on personal war profiteering expiditions. - parax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If it turns out to be accurate, will you do the honorable thing and neuter yourself for being wrong?
- phytar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not sure what numbers you're referring to: "As of 2006, the regular Iranian Army was estimated to have 350,000 personnel, including 220,000 conscripts, according to the IISS's Military Balance.[1] Conscripts serve for 18 months and have limited military training. [2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Army - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rense.com is another one of those sites who ADMITTED that he doesn't belevie all the ***** he posts, because it is not his job to weed out the factual rumors from the ***** ones. He says that is left up to the readers. So he posts stuffand makes it look like he beleives them, but he himself does not beleive most of it.
- turrican, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Lemme guess - you're gonna go steal someone's Hummer and drive up into the mountains where you'll mount a resistance, right?
Meathead. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If that happens, I won't be whining, i'll be leaving.
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So everyone who is against nuking Iran should leave the country right now.
Yeaaaaaaah. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3lay off the crack.
- specsaregood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually, go read Ron Paul's latest article: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst032607.htm
Call me a "Ron Paul digg.com Gamer" but, the man sure can predict it:
"To top it off, House leadership may have actually made war with Iran more likely. The bill originally contained language making it clear that the president would need congressional authorization before attacking Iran – as the Constitution requires. But this language was dropped after special interests demanded its removal. This move can reasonably be interpreted as de facto congressional authority for an attack on Iran. Let’s hope that does not happen." - kafitz22, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4C'mon you guys this is great! I mean, videos games need some more wars to use, WWII is getting a little old now.
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In your case I would recommend removal from the gene pool immediately. Lay off the caps.
- pabloD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hdtvdust: Because he's making the americans give him a blowjob?
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2grow up.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is that all you can think about, gas prices?
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3consider? WE need to start the process my friend :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is