What is Digg?285 Comments
- dukeeeey, on 10/11/2007, -26/+141USA is well on the way to starting WW3.
- mikelieman, on 10/11/2007, -24/+94Should have known the entire Bush Family was *****, when we found out that Grandpappy Prescott Bush was a Nazi Supporter and Hitler fan.
- revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -15/+69Because most Christians in the US don't know a damn thing about Christianity. I probably know more about the bible than half of American Christians, and I'm an atheist.
- darkmaninperth, on 10/11/2007, -9/+60Didn't we fight a war 60 years ago to rid ourselves of all this nonsense?
- DangerCollie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+59"If you're 18 to 26.. your asses are gonna be drafted to fight in this war."
If it were up to me an authorization of force or declaration of war would automatically trigger the draft, with no deferments, and tax increases to cover the cost. If it's worth going to war everybody plays and everybody pays.
Then I bet people would pay a lot more attention to who they put in the White House. - Makaras, on 10/11/2007, -9/+57OK folks place your bets....
1/5 Bush does it....
1/12 The military needs reach that of a draft...
1/27 Russia tactically strikes U.S. instillations
1/50 World War 3
1/1 The ***** generation (baby boomers) strives to equal the greatness of their parnents (think WWII generation) by spilling the blood of mine... - DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -12/+55This story coming to you straight from Israel.
- Mark6569, on 10/11/2007, -14/+55Why is a predominantly Christian country, with most of our elected officials of the Christian persuasion, so war like? What would Jesus do? Why can't GW and his Repub cohorts control their war mongering ways? It's almost like....he wants to start a HOLY WAR.....I almost wish we had a draft so that people would wake up finally!
- neoform, on 10/11/2007, -25/+64Guess what Digg?
If you're 18 to 26.. your asses are gonna be drafted to fight in this war. Hope you're ready. - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -12/+46@Monolith3
I'm more concerned that America has nukes. - jgasm, on 10/11/2007, -14/+47Of course Bush will start a sh!t storm before he leaves office. Are sh!t storms not his MO?
- Onetrack, on 10/11/2007, -9/+37@ TheRemoteViewer
}Yes, we're concerned about Iran having nukes, but we're also concerned about a regional war in the middle east, whose oil exports the civilized world depends on to maintain civilization.}
You're concerned about iran having nukes..? What about North Korea, you know .. madman.. SHOWING off and TESTING his NUKES.. not just possibilities with aluminum tubes..
Its all about oil.. its another goddamn occupation to secure oil reserves so the us population can continue to drive their v8 suv's - michelspc, on 10/11/2007, -9/+35@aegisgfx
Try Vietnam 3 - siszam, on 10/11/2007, -6/+31Break99 being against war does not make you a "pussy". It takes a bigger, smarter person to choose peace and diplomacy. Even the dumbest, most cowardly bully can start fights for no reason and claim harming others is bravery. You're a fool. The answer to death and destruction is not more death and destruction.
- benjaminradler, on 10/11/2007, -16/+39...and we are *****.
- shug7272, on 10/11/2007, -22/+43Yup we did... but then we kept bush.
- Rubuntu, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27The Bush/Cheney exit strategy for Iraq is to attack Iran
- ThisIsBob, on 10/11/2007, -8/+29Fellas, fellas, can we get the road to the Bagdad airport secured first?
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -12/+31As a US citizen... I do not want our country attacking Iran, and I see no reason to do so...
It's sad that we don't have a say in this crap... they go to war to fight a country I have no beef with, in my name... even though I disagree... - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26@Monolith3
Iran is 3 to 8 years from having enough uranium to even build a nuclear weapon. Let alone being able to fire them. So we should look at this rationally before we jump the gun like we did in Iraq. - BeefBaron, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23Funny that with all this nuke talk people seem to forget that the Americans are the only people to have USED one on a population.
What with the >600,000 Iraqi civilians killed, seems more and more like American politicians don't give 1/10000000000 of a ***** about anyone but themselves.
What ever happened to governments being for the good of the people, not for the good of the government? - vikramkr, on 10/11/2007, -8/+24The day America attacks Iran, I am moving to Canada.
- ranirastabout, on 10/11/2007, -8/+22Yes
- dtd00d, on 10/11/2007, -14/+28@Mark6569
That's a really good point actually, because we all criticize suicide bombers and jihadists for following a violent form of religion, when really we're doing the same thing.
Mmmm hippocracy... - nevesis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16I'm sure I'll get modded down by people who want to portray Bush badly. (which isn't difficult)
But....from Stratfor (the world's leading private intelligence agency):
After 27 years of frozen relations, the United States and Iran held their first high-level direct talks in Baghdad on May 28 to negotiate a plan on how to stabilize Iraq.
As the negotiations grow in intensity, so does the noise. The lead-up to the May 28 talks was punctuated by a series of interesting jabs as each side sought leverage against the other.
While the United States sent nine warships with 17,000 troops into the Persian Gulf (which the U.S. military deliberately referred to as the Arabian Gulf in the official press release on the naval exercises) and stepped up threats of broadening sanctions against Tehran due to the latter's nuclear activities, Iran continued broadcasting its atomic advances and announced it had uncovered Western-run spy rings inside the Islamic republic. The United States is still holding onto five Iranian officials arrested in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January as bargaining chips in talks with Iran. Iran has responded with a series of arrests of Iranian-Americans affiliated with think tanks on allegations they are dissidents working to topple the clerical regime.
These belligerent tactics are all part of the game, and will flare up even further as the negotiations grow more serious. - RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Because that wouldn't help the Democrats take the White House. Its better for them to just leave Bush in the office, and wag their finger and talk sternly about him. Then they run on the "we're not Bush" platform. If they removed him now, they would have to come up with some real ideas. Go ahead and Digg me down, but you know its true. That's why congress is sitting at a 22% approval rating. And the senate majority leader is currently at a 19% approval rating.
- satx, on 10/11/2007, -15/+25*you're*
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -12/+21Get ready for Vietnam 2!!
- nevesis, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14You have no idea what you're talking about.
Hezbollah has declared that it distinguishes between Zionism and Judaism. Hezbollah MP Abdallah Qussayr stated that "Hezbollah has never been against religions. Hezbollah supports all religions, it supports interfaith dialogue, and it has no problem with any religion. Hezbollah considers Zionism to be the enemy, not the Jews as a people or a religion." Hezbollah's official web site marks a distinction between "Zionist ideology" and Judaism. - VodkaAvenger, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Faulty intelligence, mistranslation of chatter, improperly perceived threats... where have we seen this before...
- gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12"Can you suggest one article where the Jerusalem Post reported inaccurately? "
It's not a matter of inaccuracy. It's a matter of extreme bias and self-serving priorities. - identifiedlogo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15can Ron Paul, stop this?
- theelectricafro, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15What is the difference between Ron Paul and George Bush?
Ron Paul delivers babies and George Bush delivers body bags. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13China is buying our debt because we are the largest consumer of their goods, and we are the LARGEST EMPLOYER of Chinese labor.
- ThoughtNinja, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9***** this *****. My grandfather and his generation fought a huge war against ***** to put an end to ***** like this. I refuse to fight for a war mongering oppressive government. They may do whatever they wish to me but I will never take up arms. Call me a pussy if you wish but if you choose to support such action then you are the real enemy of peace.
- bobtcat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@manellis
It's easy because it's accurate, sry2say. - McJeff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9There will never be another draft.
The military doesn't want a draft.
The only senator who has mentioned a draft was a DEMOCRAT.
And he didn't want a draft either - he wanted to scare the people into being anti-war.
Only one person voted with him. The other 400+ members of the House voted against.
There will never be another draft. - SonofMoz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"So... none of you are concerned that Iran is going to get nukes?"
A lot of (rational) people on both sides of this debate are very concerned about this. My personal concern is how Bush and Israel plan to accomplish the task of destroying *all* of Iran's nuclear infrastructure without igniting an all out, 3-sided war in the region while protecting our service members in Iraq and Afghanistan from the obvious Iranian (and likely Syrian) retaliation they will face. The consensus I've gathered from the sites that speculate on this type of thing (Debka, arms control wonk, etc) seems to be that Iran, Syria, Hamas, etc are all digging in for a summer offensive and as soon as the first US bomb hits Iran (I am assuming we go the conventional munitions route and not pre-emptive nuke route...which would be absolutely bat-sh!t crazy...), 'they' will launch an all out offensive against Israeli and US targets in Iraq and the wider region. Given Bush and his adviser's military track record for planning for the actual outcome versus the 'rosey path' I'd like to know exactly how they intend to prevent the largest CF in the middle east since the last crusade from happening as a result of any strike on Iran. The mess we have in Iraq is bad enough.
I have no faith that they have a plan that will prevent this, nor do I believe we presently have the military capability to adequately respond from a defensive standpoint when this occurs. Yes, I am very, very concerned about Iran getting nukes but I don't believe we have a military solution that can adequately deal with the threat, and I firmly believe that threat is currently overstated (i.e., Iran is closer to three years than 3-6 months away form a capacity to manufacture a bomb..again, based on sites like ACW and the objective analysis they have provided in the past). This smells of Bush wanted to get his guns off before he loses the chance to, not before we reach a point where a pre-emptive strike is the only solution left on the table. A serious push to disengage from Iraq and get meaningful dialog with Iran should be the goal for the next 6 months, with a clear message to Tehran that if they don't play ball on both the nuke front and keeping their nose out of Iraq now/during a disengagement, they will get what they know is coming. This could actually work if the Bush administration had any credibility and had any intention of actually giving it a shot.
But I don't see that happening. And I have no faith that the aftermath of the administration's 'plan' to mitigate the threat of a nuclear Iran won't be just as bad as Iran developing the bomb. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. - xoon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yeah! Let's bring that Mel Gibson crap back on TV so we get sidetracked of what is actually going on. Or better yet, Paris Hilton!
- gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8"I like how you quote a leader in Hezbollah, a radical terrorist group responsible for the deaths of American, Lebanese, and Israeli citizens as a source of truth in reporting."
Eh? You've eaten the propaganda bullet too? - holzp, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8No, they just get to work doing the wiping.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Yeah, and if Obama wins, he'll take away everyone's guns, so it'll be an easy invasion.
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It doesn't have nukes yet.
If it did it would be suicide for it to use them. It may take out a city but the international condemnation and the military response would be devestating. Iran wants nukes because its neighbour is being occupied and it wants to launch an Iranian Oil Bourse valued in Euros. That oil bourse would be disasterous for the US economy and it knows that US intervention would be very likely, but not as likely if Iran were 'packing'.
You're right in that there has been a Hitleresque run up but Iran only shifted to a more conservative political stance of isolation when Iraq was invaded. Till then it was making reforms to adapt an economy based on the EU system. The Hitler character is not who you think it is. Its not Bush and its not the Ayatollah. Its the private bankers working with, and putting cash into, the military-industrial complex. The current US administration is just its left hand. - pulyx, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Because of today's christian world, only 0,5% of it actually does what jesus would do. Which is complete forgiveness.
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9 We have been fighting one continuous war since the establishment of military industrial complex. Iran's next in a series of all the countries left in the world that we still haven't messed up. By the time we're done with the last the first one will be done rebuilding and we'll be able to play this game forever.
- loopyloopy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Why wouldnt Iran want to defend themselves by all means necessary. They've just seen the US invade and occupy Afghanistan and former allie Iraq, neither of which were responsible for 9/11. For what reason? A Haliburton pipeline though Afghanistan and oil reserves in Iraq.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+14@manellis:
What will it take for you to realize that the ENTIRE WORLD "has a very negative view of Bush"? (including the vast majority of Americans)
Total oblivion, perhaps? - akira117, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Well I learned in preschool not to hit.
Wars (or hate) doesn't solve anything, except give you more reasons for another one. - mpn401, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You forgot that many people oppose wars on principle rather than the fear of personal death in war...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 264 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is