What is Digg?111 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -11/+77"Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a knee-jerk reaction' by the Americans ... they would go thundering off and nuke the ***** out of the place without thinking straight"
If Blair who has met Bush and Cheney thinks this of their mental stability then what should we the citizens think who have not met them? - wiggles, on 10/11/2007, -2/+49@readthis:
It wasn't just Bush and Cheney who were thinking this way -- it was most of the country. Only now that heads have cooled are people opposing the aggressive posture the US has taken since 2001. Remember this picture?
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/E/afghanistan_5day.jpg - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+45@patnolan: Where in the world are we fighting against another military?
- northwatuppa, on 10/11/2007, -2/+36The article is short, uninformative and sensationalist. Not convincing. The source of the quote was speaking off the cuff. Pumping it up like this is irresponsible journalism and not worth a digg.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31I call *****. There's nothing to nuke in Afghanistan, and like dewhead points out, the Taliban were no match to US conventional forces.
- unibomber999, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26@spacemonkeyzero
Iraq used to have a military. You may not have noticed because we dispatched them so easily. However, they were a force to be feared in the middle east before we made them look like a bunch of schoolgirls.
The Taliban was also a military force in Afghanistan, but compared to our military they just look like a bunch of angry goat herders.
I think the point is, we never needed to use nukes in the Middle East, and while there is always the crass "nuke-em" comment, I don't think anybody seriously considers it an option, except in the most extreme circumstance. - tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22No, they sent in troops because it was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. That's why France, Canada, Britain, and dozens of other countries all have troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Remember when the British band (I'm sorry, I can't remember the name of it) played the US national anthem? We had just suffered a catastrophic and horrific event and our allies were glad to be able to help us retaliate. - Dewhead, on 10/11/2007, -17/+35Nuke? Why? The US can defeat any military with conventional weapons.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17"America should have learnt that guerilla tactics own their army by now."
Not really. Sucicide bombers and roadside bombs that kill innocents also get a few of our troops here and there. The War in Iraq has been long over. Its the occupation that is hard, and that has nothing to do with the tatics and power of your military and everything to do with people that wont give up. - RadiantBeing, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15This is *****. If you read Bob Woodward's Bush at War, Bush clearly understood the lack of big targets in Afghanistan, saying he didn't want to "pound sand" or put cruise missiles into a bunch of empty tents.
- digghasnoethics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16@ilyag
Absolute bollocks.
The general reaction around the world was sympathy. There was the fear that in your madness you would do something you later regretted, but there was no cheering in the streets - apart from US reporters staging such things to film.
This story rings true, most people I remember at that time thought the US ill prepared to meet the reality of terrorism on their doorstep. The psychological makeup of the US psyche driving the threat of massive overreaction. Like it or not, the change in world public perception since then has been driven by poorly conceived reaction on the part of the US - thankfully with no nukes (yet). - troyallen069, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Just drop the gay bomb.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12"Exactly... what's there to nuke?"
Goats. - tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11dewhead: The US isn't fighting a military now though. They are trying to fight an idea - neither nukes nor conventional weapons will work for that, but it seems the penny still hasn't dropped for the people in control.
- dictum, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19'We were afraid there would be too much violence so we sent in our troops.'
-I'm not buying it. - M3RCINIAN, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17Nuking is easier.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10"we should have nuked that entire mountain range"
The radioactive fallout would've been carried through the air into the rest of the Middle East (including Israel), North Africa, India, and South-Eastern Europe. Considering how heavily populated that area of the world is, hundreds of millions of lives would've been lost. And for what? A revenge killing of one madman?
See, the sad thing is that people like you do not have the comprehension of what a nuclear bomb is. You think that all it creates is a big fireball, blinding light, and a heat wave. You really need to study up on this stuff before you form such strong opinions. - error2k2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It's not like ancient times now where, if a Roman province used guerilla tactics or tried to rebel, they would just round up a group of people and crucify them or made examples of them. If the US tried that you pretty much know they would lose support from their allies.
- noch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"In comments published in advance in the Daily Mirror tabloid today, "
this is where i stopped reading. c'mon guys . . . . - cyranthus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5as radical as your statement is.... its scathingly true. i agree.
- fotbr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@smuikas
You realize that both the US and the Soviet Union set off megatons worth of atomic and hydrogen bombs above ground in the 40s, 50s and into the 60s for testing, right?
History has shown that the side effects are not small, but they're no where NEAR what you're suggesting.
And MAD only works when the opposition has the ability to nuke you and completely destroy your country in retaliation. It is NOT a fear of changing the climate, and it really isn't a fear of collateral damage either.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of an ideological rant. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10For us, sure. We could have turned there and Iraq into radioactive parking lots in 10 minutes. Problem solved. Think about it, who would stop us?
But lucky for the rest of the world we dont think the same way that the people we are fighting do. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8"But lucky for the rest of the world we dont think the same way that the people we are fighting do."
You think exactly the same! They're trying to impose Islamic Fundamentalism, you're trying to impose Democracy!
NOBODY should be trying to IMPOSE anything! - lithera, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Remember Chernobyl?
One accident in a very remote nuclear reactor... the force of this wasn't even comparable with your average nuke nowadays.
Yet the whole of western europe suffered from the fallout. Even thousands of kilometers away farmers could ditch their complete crops because it was to radioactive.
Imagine what would happen if the US would start throwing nukes on a large scale...... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If you had nuked Afghanistan that itself would be an act of terrorism - a massive one.
You know, the term terrorism arose from the French Revolution, because the public felt the state was being a terrorist - as all states were at the time (and still are). Since then the state has learnt that it must not be seen to be a terrorist and that's why none of you think that whatever our armies are doing overthere is terrorism, when in reality, it is. It's just as much terrorism as what they are doing to us.
Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Get it now? - hfactor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@digghasnoethics
Of course there was no cheering in the streets. Thousands of innocent people died, we all watched it live on TV, and it was shocking to everybody.
Still, while we didn´t think anybody *deserved* to die, we sure knew why America had to face that much hate. And we knew it was NOT because they "hate your freedoms". And we knew it would NOT get any better through any amount of war and violence. We were quite afraid that the US would overreact and we´d get forced into some kind of culture clash/world war III on their side. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Good thing no one in power was really calling for it then.
- matthewmok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The Romans had some good ideas. The way they put down rebellions was one of them. We should incorporate it...it is the best and only way.
- cupofjavaa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3believe it or not, America couldn't defeat every country through convential means. They are paralleled by countries such as Russia, China and increasingly... Iran. Dont over estimate.
- deadA1ias, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you RTA (heck, even the description) you'd see it wasn't Blair, but the "former British ambassador to Washington".
- blackjack75, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Afghanistan toppled the Soviet Union. "
With a little help from some rather powerful friend... in the west. Proxy wars... - wiggles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3sonycam: In the modern era, only when countries band together have wars been truly won. But, you can make the argument that the US has won several wars or military actions without major assistance from other countries. Such wars include the Civil War, the Spanish American War, the War of 1812 (well, that one was more of a draw), the campaigns against the Native Americans, the war with Mexico, and, it could be argued, the Pacific theater of WWII (though the Australians and British helped out a bit there, they were too busy with Hitler to help in any significant way against Japan, other than to use Australian military facilities as a rear base of sorts).
- geekee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What happened to "An attack against one is an attack against all?" in NATO?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO - trer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Do people who call for nuclear weapons as the solution know that you'd be killing as well as condemning millions of innocents and non-combatants whose only crime was just to be "in the way"?
- break99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hilarious, thanks for the laugh. +digg
BTW I totally want to see gay talibans.... - badogg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Every chance I get. Although, I like the nice smooth ones too
- mrfreeziexp, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Nuke? I prefer the gay bomb.
- amoo3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Somebody call for an exterminator?
Nuclear launch detected - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9If by 'defeat' you mean 'kill more than the other team' then yes, you're right.
Personally I'd define winning as bringing peace to the area, something the USA seems utterly inept at.
The fight is still ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I really don't see how you can claim victory. - dalexandruz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4they call u.s invaders, but before that you had pakastani religeous nuts(taliban)invading afghanastan and destroyed pretty much everything and reduced educated women to prostitutes. take islam and shove it. mohammod the prophet taught rape, incest,murder,genecide, slavery, and yet muslims cherish him and go nuts when someone critisizes the so called prophet.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Blair was a good PM. If anything we should be worried about Cameron getting in - all he does it try to influence the media to make himself look good. He will twist and turn on any subject or topic depending on what he thinks will make him look good in the media. He is a fake.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"BTW I totally want to see gay talibans...."
That worries me.. - anitab83, on 10/11/2007, -13/+15Conventional military yes. But suicide bombers, terrorists, etc., no way (obvious from afghanistan and iraq)
- saigumi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What BS statement to make.
We would have never nuked Iraq. Do you think any citizen would ever forgive their gov't for nuking someone else without a really damn good reason.
WW2 was a barely justifiable reason that is still debated to this day. Nuking Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Turkministan, Ethnicisan, or any other country for something as comparably small as 9/11 would never be forgiven. Bush would not have gotten even a chance at re-election 2004. - nullcodes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@error2k2
I'm not sure what you're implying or if you know this, but the Roman empire collapsed and life sucked for most of their stupid empire. Let's use them as an example of what not to do. - kolobcreek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Be afraid be very afraid.
- sam991, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
- Ripley, Aliens. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i agree. and what's worse, an apple fanboy
- PatriotOne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm crying ***** on Blair/UK making excuses for supporting this war effort. They were knowingly complicit and this is just their attempt to explain it away. Blair makes me almost as sick as Bush.
- Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Afghanistan toppled the Soviet Union. The only way to win...is not to play. Don't punch the tar baby.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 