What is Digg?53 Comments
- StingingNettle, on 12/02/2008, -6/+27Wow! There are so many new fresh faces! The change is killing me!
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -5/+19It's not as if we don't know him from his record in the senate ( PATRIOT act, FISA, Wall Street Bailout Ripoff, Iraq war funding, sucking up to AIPAC ... any of that ring a bell? ).
Please read the previous comment, and the posted article. If the secretary of state doesn't do anything, as you imply, then why not just appoint a dog or cat to the position? Why appoint a war monger like Clinton and not a peacemaker like Cynthia McKinney? - twitchr, on 12/02/2008, -3/+16um. No news here. We already knew that Obama was friend to Israel and wants to continue the fight against terror.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -3/+15We already knew that "friend to Israel" is a codeword for "allowing the illegal settlements to expand and to go fight wars that benefit Israel to the detriment of the United States." There, fixed it for you.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -11/+23Sort of like Nixon and Kissinger, right? Nixon made the decisions to bomb the ***** out of Cambodiaa and Kissinger just carried it out right? Maybe Nixon and his protegé Obama should just have appointed Benji the dog as sec of state.
You Obama fans are so dangerously naïve. - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -6/+17BTW I'm from the genuine antiwar left, not from the pro-war Obama fanboy club.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -2/+12And you are just the first of many thousands! Some lucky ones may only be maimed for life by the change.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -3/+12@twitchr that's exactly why the genuine antiwar crown campaigned against him. Because we knew his record. You pro-war Obama fans have chosen your side, we anti-war folks will be united in opposition against you.
- ZZeke, on 12/02/2008, -1/+9"Terrorists" do not want to kill me or you, that's crazy Bush talk, like saying "they hate us for our freedom". Arab terrorism is, was, and always will be a direct response to oppressive US and western international policy, and the Israel/Palestine conflict. The "war on terror" is a total sham which has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with enforcing western policy on the middle east and elsewhere under threat of violence...it is also a vehicle which has been and will continue to be used to curtail civil liberties and human rights both at home and abroad. It is also a huge cash cow for the "defense" industry, or as I like to call it, the war profiteer racket. It is a war against an ideology, there will never be a clear enemy, there will never be a clear victory, and it will never end, because there will always be people who are willing to oppose US/western policies with their very lives. You can't fight an idea - this is why the "terrorists" have become stronger over the course of time, because every time you kill one of these "freedom fighters" as they are commonly referred to in their cultures, you create 10, 20, 50, 100 more converts. Diplomacy - whether it be positive or negative diplomacy - is the only answer.
It's true, there are many who hate America and might think that killing Americans is a good idea. However, if you haven't noticed, the steps we've been taking have only bolstered those kinds of feelings globally. We can't just force the entire world to see things our way and live by our rules, especially under the threat of violence. The wars we are engaged in are both unnecessary and wholly unethical. While we've been busy trying to enforce US/western hegemony over the middle east, there are conflicts going on in Africa (as always), people are being murdered, starved, and displaced - and as always, we do nothing but let them starve and die.
Remember, the day after 9/11 all 19 hijacker's pictures were on the front page of every paper. The government knew exactly who they were, because most of them were supposed to be under surveillance or should not have been here to begin with. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be vigilant, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't take the necessary steps to fight against those who would do us harm, but I am saying that the "war on terror" and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are unnecessary and have not accomplished anything in the fight against terrorism, besides possibly making the terrorists cause more worthy in the eyes of many young Arabs and Muslims. All we've done is thrown gasoline on the fire. We can combat terrorism and the terrorist's ideals without waging a global war - notice I didn't say we could do it without any violence, just that we can do it without mobilizing entire brigades and fleets, spending billion after billion and accumulating high "collateral damages". - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -4/+12Get a grip, folks.
- jimbabb, on 12/02/2008, -12/+20Watch the excuses pour in from the anti-war left. They're still trying to explain Obama's billionaire bailouts, wiretap immunity, etc. I can't wait to see how they justify the endless wars abroad, police state at home and forced labor program.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6They're both Patriot Act supporters.
Birds of a feather flock together. - ad33lshahid, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6the point im trying to impart to you is that saying a "muslim terrorist" wants to kill you just because you're not muslim is characteristically false. This is the lie that has been propagated and has given the administration a carte blanche to initiate and sustain wars for their own reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process, whether the reason be financial gain for buddies like halliburton kbr or blackwater, securing resources like oil, or furthering an imperial agenda in the face of a newly multipolar world. Ofcourse you will believe none of what i'm saying, and it is for that reason why its even pointless to argue this point.
- jstreveln, on 12/02/2008, -3/+8 i believe that the man who beat the Clinton's and the republicans in a two year election by maintaining a steady and intelligent style of leadership will prove to be just as effective at bringing about real change by keeping his friends close and his enemies even closer,(this man understands sun tsu)and forcing those who hold power in washington to work for him.they do well. they increase his power,and by doing so their own. his cabinet choices are powerful experienced and diverse enough to create the possibility of change from within.obamas choices have for me affirmed my belief that obama is the right man for the job.
- inactive, on 12/02/2008, -8/+13I think BO supporters are going to be sorely disappointed real fast. And that is change you can keep.
- ZZeke, on 12/02/2008, -5/+9...we'll be lucky if half of them ever realize it - half the Bush supporters never did and still don't!
- ad33lshahid, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4what are you basing this on:
"but that doesn't mean they wouldn't kill you given the chance. They would kill any American or westerner they had half a chance too. to say otherwise is naive at best."
the same people that brought you the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq are the ones that brought you the idea that "they hate us for our freedoms". If you ever pick up the 9/11 Commission report you'll see that one of the first things bush called for after the attacks was to "secure the oil fields of iraq" as "terrorists might use them" as a launching point for their attacks. Seriously? Is it really that hard to make the connection?
I'm telling you this because there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world and actually 10 million within the united states itself. How can you justify going to war with entire countries, based on the actions of 19 out of 1,500,000,000.
thats 0.00000126%
And by the way, how are we better than them if we are the ones killing them by the thousands, just out of fear that MAYbe one or two of them would kill us if given the chance? - xprojects, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Umm, excuses? Obama had on his web page his pledge to Israel and the War on Terror since the start. This was known well beforehand.
The cheers for Obama and the hope is in his youth and his race.
Also, I'm not a Democrat, and I'm pleased that we have a black president with an eye on technology, but I'm not expecting much other than the typical DC BS. - ZZeke, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Also, this thread has very little to do with why I don't consider myself a "liberal", either.
- GovernmentSp00k, on 12/03/2008, -2/+5Fake change and pitifully phony "hope" politicoid double-speak marketing soundbite ***** rhetoric that means nothing. Tailor regurgitated for a dumbed down society of unquestioning, TV-addled willfully ignorant dummies conditioned to live in fear of the big bad bogeymen from desert caves overseas.
If voting really "changed' things it would be illegal. - ZZeke, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6There's no grey area when it comes to war, twitchr - you're either for it or against it. That may sound like Bush rhetoric, but we're not talking about terrorism or some "axis of evil" here. War is wrong. Period. Unless we're actually defending our lives and homes from invaders, there is absolutely no reason to be sending our soldiers off to kill and die. The reality of the world is what we make of it, there is no logical reason for violent conflict at any given time, save for defense. How people who opposed war under Bush but approve and make excuses for THE SAME EXACT CONFLICTS under Obama is completely beyond reason and just as blindly partisan.
- ad33lshahid, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4exactly, how many "terrorists" do you think we've actually killed or captured. now how many new "terrorists" do you think we've created thanks to our illegal and illegitamate wars, our constant aerial bombing campaigns, our ruthless economic sanctions, our bold-faced hypocrisy when it comes to nuclear-non proliferation for one country versus another, our first supporting a government/group and then opposing it (saddam, afghan resistance ring a bell?).... the list goes on and on. Saying "they hate us for our freedoms" and you "can't negotiate with terrorists" is an extremely naive way to look at the world, and quite frankly its a racist mentality to think that others are incapable of rational thought in quite the same way you are. The mess we're in today is a direct blowback of our foreign policy over the past several decades, and if we as a country can't put someone in the white house who will steer this ship away from the policy of years past, we have failed as a nation and be ready to accept more of the same-- the same wars, and the same repercussions.
- kemp34, on 12/02/2008, -5/+8Hold on to your hats folks.
- ad33lshahid, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4so tell me, twichr-- how good of a job have we done in capturing bin laden anyway? isnt it more likely that our entire goal is to have bin laden as a boogeyman, going from country to country, allowing us to justify illegal wars against nation after nation?
and by the way are you a CIA agent or does a litlte birdie whisper into your ear, telling you that government "knowingly allows them to have safe haven within their borders"? how do you know that? have you ever been to afghanistan or pakistan? get a clue - xprojects, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Whatever you call it, we already knew it. Israel has a whole section on his web site. Blame the legions of stupid ass Jesus-lovers who think Israel is the holy land. As long as these religious whack jobs exist our government is going to pander to their majority. This is evident going back as far in history as you can manage, and it's unlikely to ever change unless we stumble upon some true enlightenment.
- ZZeke, on 12/02/2008, -6/+8Alheithinn obviously believes it will be Obama who is deciding what our foreign policy stance is. However (never start a sentence with "but"), it will be Bryzinski and Emmanuel making those decisions.
- Waiting2awake, on 12/02/2008, -7/+9Fun times are a coming. Watching the slow realization from the Obama supporters that they have been had...
- DeskFlyer, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Obama isn't president yet....
- BrownManUPS, on 12/02/2008, -2/+3I haven't followed cabinet appointments up until this election, but that's only because this is the only election I have voted in but more importantly this is the first election that I followed because I believed in the man I voted for. Now, with this appointment, I still believe in HIM and what he promised to us, but I don't believe in Hillary.
If voting for Obama and really believing that he will make a difference in politics (compared to years of recessions and corruption), I guess I will be attributed as an "Obama fan-boy". But I like to think of me being more "hopeful" than naïve. - ryan83189, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Right, so her job is to stand there and look pretty? We already filled that position out on
Nov 4. - inactive, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1"B-b-b-but Obama is CHANGE!"
/gullible netsimp - stonecircle, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
- ZZeke, on 12/04/2008, -1/+1They're not a majority, they are a very clear minority who have been falsely touted as a majority (the "moral majority" was never actually a majority to begin with) - more and more Christians are seeing the light everyday when it comes to war and the holy land, especially now that the Israeli government has begun to turn it's back on Christian Israelis and global Christian relief efforts in Israel. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't mind saying and believing that true Christians are with us on this one.
That being said, I do agree with some of your sentiment regarding "legions of stupid Jesus-lovers", although I don't think I would use such harsh language. Evangelism is definitely a problem, these false prophets who tout "Jesus as God's soldier" and hold ***** "battleground" conventions where the youth are indoctrinated in the ways of "Holy War" (while the "church" counts the $$$). It is certainly a sickening phenomena. I can only hope that some of these poor souls can handle it and find their way to enlightenment when they figure out how they are being used by twisted sick men with even sicker agendas.
True enlightenment is always hiding just beneath the surface, you can do your part by showing anyone who will listen the "way"....and like Jesus once supposedly said (I'm para-phrasing, of course), don't waste your time with those who aren't willing to listen, you can't force enlightenment - just move on to the next one...that seemed to work for him and his followers. - krahzee, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1I just don't get it. If it was me I would never put her in position to stab me in the back people to take her side to my own people. Many of those same people who used to work for Bill.
Sure, Obama is still the President, but how many times will she network among his staff to try to win their support for her stance on an issue the two may disagree about? Now throw in history with all of these people, many who credit Bill for their big break, and they are going to listen to her WAY too much. - alma4nader, on 12/02/2008, -4/+4Oh god help us. hey, at least i get to spend the next few years saying i told you so.....here we go. let's all congregate at votenader.org
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Result of a DEAL between CLINTONS and poor OBAMA.
- CoolHandLuke70, on 12/02/2008, -5/+5You had to know that Billary or a Bush would make it to the White House some way! Impossible to remove them from their pharaonic reign! Hillary Titsnosoul!
- thenekkidtruth, on 12/02/2008, -7/+7The fundamental premise of Mr. Frank's piece assumes that Ms. Clinton, while undeniably formidable, wins the battle of the wills. I might suggest that Mr. Frank has been lulled by the quiet, understated nature of the President-elect, and that it is Barack Obama who demonstrates a force of will which exceeds any figurehead I've known in my lifetime.
Indeed, it was Barack Obama who dominated supposed heir-apparent Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then towered over John McCain in his successful bid for the presidency. I might suggest that Mr. Frank directs his analysis to the real decision-maker here, Barack Obama, in whom I have perfect faith thus far. - flumkin, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Digging this comment so I can follow up with USNavyBlu in a year to see if he's right.
- twitchr, on 12/03/2008, -2/+2What am i basing it on? do a search for nick berg, or any of the number of innocent people that have been beheaded on video. Do you think they took a second to check where they stood on foreign policy in the middle east?
I never once said that they hate us for our freedoms. I said they might hate us for our foreign policy and then said nothing more on that. I also stated multiple times that I'm against the Iraq war. there is a difference between questioning authority and dismissing it as evil.
I don't justify going to war with a Muslim country, my government does. for a variety of reasons. When terrorists, like Bin Laden, hide in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan, and the government knowingly allows them to have safe haven within their borders, then we have every right to do what needs to be done to capture or kill them.
We use the safest weapons on the planet. We can zero in on a damn dime if we want to. Yes, mistakes get made, people die. Is that right? no. Are we going out of our way building weapons that will prevent that? yes.
and seriously, if you think that there's only 19 Muslim extremists in the world that want to destroy our country and way of life, you are more naive than i thought. - NoDrama, on 12/03/2008, -5/+3So if he brought in his loyalists, as Bush did, would that be the change he promised? No.
Instead, he bucked history and retained a Defense Secretary appointed by the OTHER party, and has proceeded to incorporate former rivals into his cabinet. If you don't think that's change, my friends, frankly you just don't think. - twitchr, on 12/03/2008, -4/+2@ad33lshahid
First off, i wasn't talking to you with my response. i was responding to a discussion i was having with ZZeke.
Second off, i stated clearly above that our foreign policy might be the reason they hate us, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't kill you given the chance. They would kill any American or westerner they had half a chance too. to say otherwise is naive at best.
Why do you discount that i won't listen? did you even read my responses above? You make to many assumptions. open your world a little and get your face out of the Chomsky books. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -4/+2Change? Same change as always promised. Another ***** Clinton in the mix. Obama (PBUH) preached change and is now showing that he is the same breed of liar that has occupied the white house since all other breeds of liars have done so. I expected nothing different regardless of who took the reins.
I'd have to think it must suck just a little bit for you who truly believed there would be a change? Obama is no different from any other politician. You'll know they're lying as soon as their lips are moving.
There is a cure. Study history @ 1776. We took care of things then and can do so once again. It won't be easy or pretty but can be done. Keep 2010 in the back of your minds. Once the FRN loses its status as the worlds reserve currency, expect an escalation of change the likes no politician has blown up your ass in quite some time!
Prost! - twitchr, on 12/02/2008, -5/+3I rspect your opinion, but I would say it's the opposite of blind partisanship. Blind partisanship is being against all of anything based on principle. Being totally for war, or totally against, is ignoring the gray area that does exist there. A lot of democrats are against the Iraq war, because there was no reason to fight that war. although the war on terror might have been mis-managed and used to promote different agendas under the Bush administration, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fighting that fight. It is a war of defense, and a just one at that.
I would agree that blindly going to war on faulty intelligence is a mistake, but that doesn't make all wars a mistake. You cant reason with terrorists. They want to kill me, you, anyone that goes against their twisted views of the world. - Ghoztt, on 12/02/2008, -6/+4I predict in about a years time you will see t-shirts that say "CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE" all across the front.
....with a picture of Obama on the back saying "j/k lol" on the back.... - twitchr, on 12/02/2008, -8/+5Say it anyway you want, the point is that we already knew these things. It's not like he campaigned on one policy and then changed that policy. Whatever your bias against Israel is has no bearing on the conversation.
- twitchr, on 12/02/2008, -5/+2eh, i see your points, we have gotten pretty far off topic here. There is a certain way the American government handles it's business, and i most definitely don't agree with a lot of it, but to say the war on terror hasn't accomplished anything just isn't true. like i said above, we have used the war on terror in many ways to further agendas, and to remove freedoms, that i totally disagree with, but we have also removed from the world some seriously insane terrorists. How many lives do you think were saved taking out just a handful of these guys?
I think the biggest problem isn't that we are fighting the war on terror, it's that we've spent all our resources on a war that we never should have been fighting.
I also don't think its "Bush Talk" to say that terrorists want to kill us. I agree that it might be our fault that they feel this way to begin with, but the truth still stands, that if you were face to face with a Muslim terrorist, regardless if he knew that you were sympathetic to their cause, would still not hesitate to kill you. - twitchr, on 12/02/2008, -8/+4We know you won't be happy till Ralph Nader is president. Most anti-war democrats that I've met voted for Obama. Your problem is that you see no grey area. Your thinking is as bad as a Bush supporter. All this choosing sides crap is exactly what we need to get away from.
I Think there's a big difference between a war monger like Bush or McCain, and Obama. It IS essential for America to protect herself and her alliances. You can be anti-war all you want, but the reality of the world we live in calls for conflict from time to time. The important thing is to have someone in office that knows when to fight, and when to talk. -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is