What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
193 Comments
- pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -4/+87the neo-cons keep claiming it wouldn't be a war because it would be "surgical strikes". i wonder how the US would react to "surgical strikes" from another country.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -0/+70Eh...
Attack on Iran would BE a war. - Daxx22, on 07/04/2008, -0/+48The US is still reacting from the last "surgical strike"
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -4/+44Thank you Mr. Obvious.
In other news, watching porn may lead to jacking it. - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -3/+38In other news, the CIA reports that John Madden might actually be a senior Iranian military official
- dafpoo, on 07/04/2008, -4/+39How is this news? Attacking any country would start a war
- SirSid, on 05/27/2009, -4/+36Does'nt that seem oddly obvious.
Perhaps they should also report about the findings that show eating pizza and beer makes people fat - pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -0/+27to most rational people this is obvious. but the neo-cons and zionists know the american public doesn't want another war so they are trying to convince them that they will just be dropping a few bombs. they want to rape the american public again, calling it "surprise war".
- avengingturnip, on 07/04/2008, -2/+25"Why should we not?" - Because to do so would be a grave and irredeemable evil.
- Carthagefield, on 07/04/2008, -3/+26What kind of answer is that? If you can't explain the logic behind your own argument, why bother posting at all?
- Carthagefield, on 07/04/2008, -3/+25For what reason, my Likudnik friend?
- mshtml, on 07/04/2008, -0/+20Its not so obvious. I think the title is fair. We've been bombing Somalia for the past year and Israel just bombed Syria. While these are acts of war, no war broke out from that aggression. This case is different. Iran is going to defend themselves.
- Carthagefield, on 07/04/2008, -2/+22k, thnx bye!
- colonelbuckshot, on 07/04/2008, -1/+21Funny, I remember neo-cons also claiming the Iraq war was the litmus test for further geopolitical wars in the Middle-East:
"This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?ite ... - shig, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17It won't be so obvious whenever Israel attacks an Iranian nuclear facility causing Iran to strike back.
Then it'll be an "unjust retaliation", nuclear safeties will then be disengaged, and bombs away... even though they are the victims. So in this world, stating an obvious fact has become a means of protection from predatory States. It won't make much difference, though, unless this story was dry read in front of a mass American audience; "If Israel attacks an Iranian facility it would be an unprovoked war of aggression towards Iran." Instead, what you're going to get from the MSM is that Israel attacked Iran to save the world, because they are a terrorist nation, and any retaliation from Iran is the act of a devil. Just because something seems obvious now it will not remain so obvious after countless 24hr news cycles claiming Iran is the agent of Satan working with Osama bin Laden.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell - Carthagefield, on 07/04/2008, -2/+20More of an obscure acquaintance, really.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17BREAKING: Attacking a nation causes war. More at 11.
- blanketfury, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17That's Captain Obvious to you, young man.
- charm803, on 07/04/2008, -1/+17We should hit you very hard.
- pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -2/+19The U.S. is supplying Israel the Guns, Weapons and hardware they've been using to launch missiles into Palestine. They've also been supplying arms to many of the groups that have gone into Iraq to fight against the Iraqis. In my opinion, we should Bomb all of their Nuclear refining facilities, and all their Weapons Manufacturing facilities. Of course, most of the world public won't be able to peel themselves off their mamma's titties long enough to grow the balls it would take to get this done, so I won't be holding my breath.
- SpectreFire, on 07/04/2008, -2/+16In other news: Lunch is edible.
- kroni, on 07/04/2008, -0/+14USA military is retarded or what? They expect to attack a soreveign country and not start a war?? like when they sent troops to Iraq and expected to go in and out without a KIA
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -0/+13Do you have any idea how the world works? You honestly think you can just bomb a country, no big deal. If you think the war in Iraq is a mess it's nothing compared to a war with Iran
- cryptomystic, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14I think what Iran is trying to say is that they will actually give the Americans a fight for their money unlike Iraq's military which got pulverized early and pretty much surrendered.
- pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12half a trillion dollars and over 4000 dead soldiers so far in iraq. what else would you call it?
- medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -0/+11And the US has been supplying Bin Laden before, Taliban and Saddam Hussein with WMDs. In addition the US Government is right now supplying terrorist groups in Lebanon such as Fatah al Islam and Iran to fight its own crusade.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/0703 ...
Does that give a third party country like China the right to bomb the US?
Hamas missiles are nothing related to Iran. They are mostly homemade steel pipes. Israel controls all inlets and outlets in both the West Bank and Gaza. Not to mention large portions of weaopons in the West Bank and Gaza are supplied by rogue Israeli weapon dealers, which is far easier to deal with than bringing weopons through Jordan or Egypt, both countries deeply allied to the US and have treaties with Israel, and more importantly ,through the inlets that Israel control. - kroni, on 07/04/2008, -3/+14a good surgical strike would be cut the balls of Mr Bush, just to get even for all the blood, from americans, from innocents, from people all around the world, for raising the oil price, and for most evil that has happened in the last years in the name of "war against terror"
- kroni, on 07/04/2008, -0/+11a good way to deal with iran would be diplomacy, like they did with russians back when there was the cold war... the current USA gov is retarded
- Hangly, on 07/05/2008, -1/+12I'll hold him down.
- blanketfury, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11What do you mean, "these people"
- yosserhughes, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11Now, when you say 'we', you mean anyone else but you, right?
Pieces of rancid dog snot like you never put yourselves in harms way, always better to let the other guy do you killing and dying for you, eh? - zadadka, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11No sh1t Sherlock.
- Meekus, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12I would further this by saying that imposing strict sanctions against Iran is an act of war.
- PantsSupreme, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9If you're afraid of another war as I am, take a look at what Scott Ritter says the consequences of it would be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4 - pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9opposition to unnecessary war is "anti-jew"? or do you consider all jews to be zionists. i certainly don't. many zionists are christian, like john hagee and his group CUFI. being against zionism is not anti-jewish. that's like saying being against apartheid in south africa is anti-white people.
- RobotCitizen, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9At what point does all the US saber-rattling justify a pre-emptive strike by Iran (if they could)? Or does the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption only apply for America?
- Waiting2awake, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Greeted as liberators I believe the DICK said..
- NelsonR, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9I wonder what Joe Lieberman thinks about attacking Iran? Bet he is for it. Bet he wants America involved. Bet he is one humongous traitor that should be tarred and feathered and sent packing to his true country of origin. Not against Jews but our national policies have ALWAYS favored Israel over any other Arab nation. WHY? If I were an Arab I would despise America also.
- pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9not only is he for attacking iran, he co-authored the kyle/lieberman bill which declared the iranian national guard a terrorist organization. that allows bush to attack iran under the guise of "the war on terror" so he doesn't have to go to congress for authorization.
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/092607Lindo ...
traitor joe lieberman's loyalties lie with israel, not with america. - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Punching that drunk guy in a bar is going to trigger a fight.
- lead2thehead, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9Thanks, Captain Obvious.
- voyage34, on 07/04/2008, -2/+10No *****.
- medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9This might be obvious to normal people, but not to the lunatics that live in the White house and Washington. The point is, neolunatics think that Iran is too weak to retaliate and that they would just sit idle as they get bombed. He is stating the obvious, because to the delusional neocons it might not be as obvious.
- RobotCitizen, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8There's not a single goddamn thing that Iran is doing or has done, that doesn't parallel something the US is doing or has done.
- Neiby, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Yes, but we--the "good guys"--will spin it so it sounds like Iran started it. Because, you know, we're the good guys. We don't start wars, right?
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The United States has already settled the idea that preemptive strikes are okay. Our attack on Iraq was a preemptive mission, allegedly. Since we now accept that this tactic is legitimate, it logically follows that it is legitimate no matter which nation uses it. Based on this philosophy, Iran would be completely in the right to attack Israel.
Think about that. If Iranians used the same logic that our warhawk leaders did, they would already have attacked Israel. And, again by our logic, Israel would deserve it. - ZenMojo, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Hated as occupiers I believe is the current status.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -2/+9Great article
- Waiting2awake, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7You might want to look at what is happening around you - you might see it more his way.
How much has the average American lose, both due to dollar devaluations, and increased debt load? If that isn't a rape then nothing is. Heck, it is better than rape - this way you get to rape this generation, the next, the next, and possible even the next....
Multi-generational raping... - KDX200rider, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8And this surprises who?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 201 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