What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
60 Comments
- phnx0221, on 11/26/2007, -4/+40FTA:"For Shi’ites such as Kahiriya Musa, however, a Sunni militia represents another potential source of terror in a country where millions have been traumatised by ethnic cleansing."
"A 50% cut in car and roadside bombs, shootings and rocket and mortar attacks since June has brought hope that some of the 5m Iraqis driven from home may soon be able to go back. Yet many – Kahiriya Musa among them – are too frightened of the new militias and the ethnic cleansers in their ranks to risk moving. "
"Carrying their weapons, they went from one class to the next, looking for mobile phones with “unIslamic” ringtones. One child with a pop music ringtone was slapped and kicked in the legs as a warning to the others."
"Habib Haji, a 65-year-old widower from Sab al-Boor, north of the capital, received a letter giving him three days to leave with his daughter Salwa, 15, or die. “I left immediately,” said Haji, whose 18-year-old son Mehdi had already disappeared after going out to buy some cigarettes. "
What a serious dilemma we have gotten ourselves into. So, our government is going to make an alliance with terrorists such as these? All the while, I'm sure (look at Patreaus' golden Anbar), hailing them and their service as a stepping stone towards stabilization, freedom, and democracy.
There is no way in hell we can exchange one "terrorist", for another group of people. At no point should one live in fear for their life, simply for living. There is no justification that I can see for supporting this. We pay $300 per man per month for this? We supply them with their weaponry, their armor, their training, so that they can carry out restrictive, oppressive terror against other human beings?
Goddamn I am so sick of this. - SeethisPass, on 11/26/2007, -8/+27Long ago, those who invented and nurtured the concept of terrorism hijacked America.
Greed is the cause.
Their rejection is the cure. - HappyScrappy, on 11/26/2007, -2/+17'have the Americans achieved a short-term gain in security at a cost of long-term pain that may be inflicted by the Sunni militias?'
Oh, probably. We have a long history of ***** this up. We created the Islamic Revolution by mucking around in the Middle East like it was our playground, like putting the Shah back in power in Iran when he was deposed for corruption (not representing his people). - kooft, on 11/26/2007, -1/+12I thought it was US policy to not negotiate with terrorists, let alone put them on the payroll...
- buckrogers1965, on 11/26/2007, -1/+11I am so happy that my tax dollars are going to fund, train and equip terrorists. That's just fantastic.
- anachronaut, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Yeah, and NewsMax is a completely unbiased, balanced source... as long as you don't mind shamelessly pro-American propaganda in the style of Fox News. Personally, I prefer the truth to propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsMax - X9001, on 11/26/2007, -2/+8Like?
- phnx0221, on 11/26/2007, -1/+6Unfortunately, that's the stated policy, but it's long been an actual policy of the US to not only negotiate, but also to fund them. The difference is, that this is happening now, and we're hearing a lot more about it now, because the information is more easily accessible. The ***** up thing is, that once we leave, they'll still be there, but now with our training, and our weapons to support atrocities against another group of people.
- kooft, on 11/26/2007, -0/+5Every sensible person realizes that an' immediate perfect solution' is not a realistic expectation. A realistic expectation would be for America to return the state of affairs in Iraq back to pre-war conditions, as soon as possible. As of now, a US agenda is being pursued over the welfare of Iraqi civilians.
- DiggDuggDugged, on 11/26/2007, -2/+6You kinda missed the nail, ace. That anger comes from people who saw this tragedy coming six or so months ago when the "Awakening" was being embraced by the Administration. Mixing weapons and one sided American backing with ethnic tensions should give pause to anyone who has paid attention to Iraq over the last three or four years.
Really anything dealing with this Administration and Iraq should channel everyone's inner skeptic. To my cynical nose this has the same scent as the ***** we left all over Latin America in the good 'ole Reagan days. - adamwho, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4I think that anybody who uses the phrase "Blame America First Crowd" to demonize people who the disagree with are the problem
- zachshmack, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3While areas in Iraq *are* improving as a result of the surge, the question to ask is, "At what cost?"
- WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3No, the Americans HAVE NOT achieved a short-term gain in security. (regardless of the rest of the question.)
- zanzzz, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Funding and equipping Sunni militias is a risky move likely to fuel tension and civil war in the long run. It doesn't seem to matter what the US does in what's left of Iraq because all strategies are likely to end poorly. There is almost no end to US arrogance and ignorance in regard to the middle east. At what point do our clueless leaders understand that US troops on Arab or Muslim soil is a disastrous strategy for the US?
- systemghost, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2The *real* problem is that there is a distinction between shi'a and sunnis and christians and protestants (ad nauseum).. well, you get the idea. At what point do we realize religion is another form of justification?
- liquidpele, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2You must be really stupid, because his comment, while flamebait, was a very understandable analogy.
I'll spell it out for you:
He's saying the GP is the Parent, coming in and saying "My Kid" (America) "would never do that!", but in reality they did, they just don't want to believe it. - ultralights, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2whats new, those religious groups have been killing each other for Millennia, nothing the US does, short of a nuke, will ever change it.
- Hermmunster, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power corrupts. So, these guys are not absolute power but they have power. Power corrupts. This is not the sole purview of the US policy. It is the purview of the government of Iraq. One should study occupation in order to understand insurgency and terrorism. Terrorists murder anyone and do it to bring terror. Those people will never be able to hide and in the end if there is a God they will have to answer. Believe me, it will probably be sinners with far less blood on their hands that make it to Heaven (if you believe in Heaven) before they get in. In the recesses of these murder's minds they must honestly believe they are doing something wrong even if they aren't willing to do something about it.
- topapito, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2There is no other way. These poor people are victims of their society, their religious beliefs, and the people who can use those beliefs to gain their ends. It is a violent society, they have lived with violence for thousands of years. Anyone who thinks they can go into their country and turn it into a democracy such as we enjoy, is not only sadly mistaken, but romantically insane. The only way for the US to pull out of Iraq is to hand power over to anyone who can assume it, and don't think that he who can assume it will be a goody-two-shoes, he will be violent and ruthless, much like Saddam. Only he will know that the US can take him out if he ***** with them. Why is anyone shocked? The US has operated this way since it began. And if you change it, you will no longer be a world power. That life you lead behind your white picket fences, with your wife and 2 1/2 kids is brought to you by the heinous acts committed by your government off-shore. Digg me down if you want, but there is bliss in ignorance.
- JEAH, on 11/26/2007, -1/+3I think you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan... but ironically enough, after we're eventually forced to pull out of Iraq, girls there will probably not be allowed to attend school.
- pelosislefttit, on 11/26/2007, -1/+2Your analogy makes no sense nor is it relevant to the original comment.
WTF are you talking about? - fixedcoma, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Surprising that Saddam had more control over Iraq then we'll ever have and we had to oust him! Hmmm, i thought we were after Osama Bin Laden? I guess it goes to show you how little the capture for Osama and the tragedy of 9-11 really means to the administration!
- zachshmack, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Strut? Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8
- kooft, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1"...they don't strap explosives to their chest and run into a crowded market."
Perhaps not, but they do pack cars full of bombs and blow up mosques full of praying civilians. Way to make a distinction there.
"All in all, it is partially the Iraqis inability to accept other beliefs to blame."
It's important that we place the blame for the unprovoked invasion, and subsequent occupation, of Iraq and current internal turmoil in the proper place. It's the Iraqis fault for not provoking America in the first place and it's the Iraqis fault for not putting up a bigger fight and it's the Iraqis fault the infrastructure was destroyed and the government of Iraq was almost completely disbanded.
Brilliant observations. - phnx0221, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1How about something other than, "U.S. says..."?
Independent research my friend. Never trust what any government says about their progress in a war, their death tallies in a war, pretty much anything a government says about anything. Look at different sources, then gather your answer. - HappyScrappy, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1I didn't say the current administration was involved with putting the Shah back. I think GWB wasn't even 18 at the time.
You should read "From Third World to First" for some info on why Democracy not only isn't a cure-all, but it isn't even necessarily the right system in some situations. And this idea that Democracies will bring peace because Democracies don't attack each other is stupid. Did GWB miss how the National Socialists came to power in WWII? How about the IRA attacking England for 30 years? And now we have Palestinians electing a murderous sect as their elected representatives.
Anyway, phnx0221 explained the Iran situation pretty well. - jaymzdean, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Ok...how bout this one...
You're the parent, mmmK?
And your little Timmy's a ***** in class.
You show up to the principals office to inform him that Timmy and his classmates aren't *****.
The point is, Timmy is a *****, but his classmates aren't.
So when you say America is bad, I assume you mean The United States of America, but it's not the United States of America that's a *****, it's you and the fascist regime in the White House that's really the *****. Leave the rest of us out of it. The rest of us are just trying to put a stop to your ***** shenanigans. - phnx0221, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1In regards to the Shah of Iran, it matters little what THIS administration specifically has done. It is a government trend that we have been following for decades. We committed a coup against a democratically elected leader in 1953. Then, when the people were finally able to successfully rise up against the horrible dictator put in place by and for the interests of the US government and Britain, we ousted their newly democratic leader, and put back in the Shah. The hostage crisis of 1979 resulted from the Iranians revolting against violent interference by the United States, in their country's government and public political affairs. Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the second revolution against the United States imposed dictator, in 1979, was thereafter instituted the new Supremem Leader.
Suffice it to say, we cut relations with them, have sanctioned, supported military action against, and are now once again advocating for our own military action against them, ever since. - schroeder, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1@pelosislefttit
Read the wiki, check the sources listed, then make a valid argument. - zanzzz, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Funding and equipping Sunni militias is a risky move likely to fuel tension and civil war in the long run. It doesn't seem to matter what the US does in what's left of Iraq because all strategies are likely to end poorly. There is almost no end to US arrogance and ignorance in regard to the middle east. At what point do our clueless leaders understand that US troops on Arab or Muslim soil is a disastrous strategy for the US?
- phnx0221, on 11/26/2007, -2/+3
"...this has the same scent as the ***** we left all over Latin America in the good 'ole Reagan days."
Quoted for emphasis. Great point. - inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1Last year we were bitched at for not doing enough to protect Sunnis from Shiite Death squads.
If more Iraqis would step up to the plate and join a cohesive unified national army free of religious distinctions we wouldn't have to do this. - sponeil, on 11/26/2007, -3/+3Actually, I thought he was talking about the American revolution. It was long ago, American terrorists hijacked the country from the British, and greed was the cause (most likely on both sides). And no, I'm not British.
- buckrogers1965, on 11/26/2007, -5/+5It was probably carried out by middle easterners. Of course they didn't actually investigate to see where their money came from originally. Strange, almost like they didn't want to find out who funded the terrorists.
- MikeFallopian, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0Having US troops in Arab territories wasn't a disastrous policy in the first Gulf War, was it? As for Iraq, do you really think it will be a war zone in 20 years? It's a country with a rich history of civilized existence; the chaos won't last forever and right now, US policy happens to be helping speed that recovery. I can understand the argument in favor of withdrawal due to US casualties, but to say that Iraq is better off without us right now is to be wilfully oblivious of many statistics that say the opposite.
- pelosislefttit, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0@schroeder
The fact that wiki has been proven to be compromised on various entries means that is cannot be trusted as an objective source of information. Sorry.
Wiki is good for amusement, but to base a factual argument on what is listed is intellectually dishonest.
My comment stands as is. You cannot base factual information on a wiki link. Nice try. But a straw man nonetheless. - WilliamDavis, on 11/26/2007, -3/+3True or not, the fact that such sentiment is so widespread makes it obvious that america has giant problems. There are some extremely dangerous people out there.
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1I have to know where you're coming from ... are you one of those.. "Clinton can do no wrong" lefties?
- joshuasawyer, on 11/26/2007, -7/+7Are you sure 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists.
- jaymzdean, on 11/26/2007, -3/+2You're the parent that shows up to the principal's office saying, "NOT MY CHILD! MY little Timmy WOULDN'T DO that!". While, of course, your little Timmy damn sure did.
- theProducer, on 11/26/2007, -1/+0http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/come-home.htm
- Dysarthria, on 11/26/2007, -8/+7It sees like people want a perfect solution in Iraq immediately. That solution is for the religious nuts in that country to stop killing each other and use its oil resources to better the place. Until then, if I were Iraqi, I'd put up with some of these problems in exchange for not being killed.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -2/+1"All in all, it is partially the Iraqis inability to accept other beliefs to blame."
I would say that 90% of the problems are the inability of Iraqis to accept one another. 10% is Iran. - pelosislefttit, on 11/26/2007, -1/+0And you must think you are just so smart to patronize me.
"Members of the Baghdad Brigade receive $300 a man each month from the Americans, who also provide vehicles, uniforms and flak jackets." That is from the 6th paragraph of the story. The supply of AK-47s is what is being denied.
The analogy makes no sense. It is stated in the beginning of the article that the US is supporting the militias.
You must feel pretty smart right now. Weely, weely smart. - pelosislefttit, on 11/26/2007, -1/+0Ah yes, Stupid ickles has nothing to offer to the discussion and tries an ad hominem attack.
Only to realize that he doesn't understand the definition of patronization. Now of course he will look it up and try to sound smart about it. But something tells me, he will not be able to implement the word properly.
And look really smart. The smartest guy here in fact. - kuzotz, on 11/26/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of dumbasses that don't understand that they are no different from Bush supporters. They are both supporting someone that has and will screw them over...
- batshitcrazy, on 11/26/2007, -5/+4divide and conquer
- MikeFallopian, on 11/26/2007, -3/+1When the US wasn't courting Sunni militias, we were criticized for favoring the Shi'ites and not doing enough to get rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now, we're criticized for doing just that - and Diggers eat it right up because anything that slams US policy is apparently gospel truth. We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, but we're there right now, and the current strategy is working a lot better than most people expected. Attacks are down across the board, refugees are returning in thousands, and AQI is steadily losing ground and personnel. It doesn't mean the war was a good idea, but look honestly at the current trends before beating the down-with-USA drums.
- theProducer, on 11/26/2007, -2/+0http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/resistance-is- ...
- pelosislefttit, on 11/26/2007, -4/+2Yes there are. The truthers and the Ron Paul supporters are a great example.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is