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.
971 Comments
- lazycat, on 06/30/2008, -36/+365They would get more respect, if they use all that energy to plant trees.
- Sheri123, on 06/30/2008, -38/+279No one ever said that Iran's leaders were sane.
- tbhurst, on 06/30/2008, -14/+226That's very strange. Seems like a political calculation that is just a lot of sword-waving.
- greytfriend, on 06/30/2008, -33/+242Who thinks, hey, let's dig some mass graves just in case? Those leaders are seriously crazy.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -71/+276How many nations has Iran attacked in the last two decades? How about the USA?
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -52/+242"There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran." - Barack Obama
- sgiffy, on 06/30/2008, -16/+170Its seems much more likely, in the unfortunate event of war, that the graves would be used for Iran's citizens.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -28/+161Saddam said the same ***** in Gulf War 1.
he got owned. - sodade, on 06/30/2008, -22/+136Actually, we have proved to the Iranians that the ONLY way for them to get respect is to get nukes.
- rrife, on 06/30/2008, -53/+152The past 25 years, the US has:
-Invaded Grenada to free captives.
-Bombed Lybia as retaliation and to deter terorrism from them.
-Invaded Panama to remove Noriega from power (and to bring to US court for drug charges) after Panamanian soldiers kill US soldiers that were protecting the region's shipping routes.
-Invaded Kuwait/Iraq to restore goverment of Kuwait.
-Invaded Somalia to feed starving population, remove corruption and restore govt.
-Invaded Haiti to feed starving population.
-Invaded/Bombed Bosnia to protect the minority muslim population and ensure peace in the region.
-Invaded Kosovo to reenforce the outcome of the Bosnian conflict.
-Invaded Afganistan to remove terrorist and punish govt. for suppressing population and encouraging terrorist organizations.
-Invaded Iraq for whatever reason.....but maintained presence in Iraq to ensure the safety of the population, deter terrorist from making it a safe haven and help build strong govt.
It sounds like a lot of things, but all had the goal of helping the local people with little to no benefit to the United States. All but the latest two were short term, low casulty (civilian & US soldier anyway) conflicts. Compare that to Iran who has had border suffles and wars with neighboring countries since the 80's and have supported terrorism that they used to attack several countries. They've also invaded several oil platforms and ships in the gulf, claiming ownership of the water. They've also continued to make numerous threats.
Also, if you look at our pre-war preperations we do tons and tons of recon & intelligence gathering missions to ensure that the conflict is as short as possible and with the fewest number of casulties on both sides. If we could fight a war with 0 people dying, we'd do it...however it rarely works out that way. Compare this to Iran who's prewar preperations are to dig 300k graves, since their goal is to just kill as many people as possible. - Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -21/+120Its pretty much Iran saying "Bring it on" to us and anyone threatening to attack. This isn't a move to attack others or commit terrorism. They are saying they are ready for someone to try something, and they won't put up for *****. This is just a very effective way of making sure everyone knows they won't roll over. They are pretty much on the defensive in this one and our next move will determine how the world sees us.
- beesaretasty, on 06/30/2008, -19/+117As long as the US invades with 321000 troops we'll be fine.
- ashes0, on 06/30/2008, -5/+80Well, actually....
Obama - "There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran,"
Close enough though :) - TrevorPace, on 06/30/2008, -0/+68I think it's more of an intimidation thing. No country especially Israel is going to want to lose their soldiers let alone to have them buried on Iranian soil.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -11/+78Well, after Bush signed the $162 billion war spending bill just now...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns ... - noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -43/+107I like how, on Digg, there is no possible way that Iran could require a strike. I like how diggers act that this is solely an American attack and completely ignore the fact that the whole internaional community is telling Iran to open up its nuke program or brace itself.
Think about something for a second. There have been three generous offers from different nations, including the US, to provide Iran with all the technology and support it needs for nuclear power generation but Iran refuses and refuses to open up its program to scrutiny. Tell me that's not a sign of a nation with something to hide. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -5/+66It worked for Pakistan.
- CannedMango, on 06/30/2008, -23/+82If you think that those events were out of any sort of moral justice, then rrife, I applaud your optimism, but you really need to do a lot more research into the history of the US political-military machine. Almost every move they make on foreign soil is to protect national interests (and I don't mean the safety of Americans...).
- SpacePoet, on 06/30/2008, -2/+60It has to be a strange way of saying, go ahead, we dare you.
- Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -6/+62The US military is incredibly effective. The US military is NOT an occupation force or a force to help set up governments. They are used to defend, attack, safeguard and conquer. That is all they are trained for. We won the "war" in Iraq in a week. But now the military is being used for something it was not meant for, which is why it is failing in that duty. If we attack Iran, we will crush them very quickly and effectively as we did with Iraq. But something worse may spring up in its place.
- mamboboy, on 06/30/2008, -6/+59how thoughtful!!
- Harabeck, on 06/30/2008, -18/+66Thats just plain ballsy.
- GhostyBoy, on 06/30/2008, -51/+97***** Obama.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -8/+52He said it's in accordance with Geneva conventions on proper burial, and he's telling the truth:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/dead-and-wounde ...
So, Iran is saying if someone attacks us, we'll fight and follow the rules of war in respecting the dead, unlike what happened to American soldiers who died in Vietnam. Don't see what's wrong with it? - kolinkoolface2, on 06/30/2008, -11/+54yea because we all know that, Israel would be stupid enough to invade Iran...? WRONG. They would just launch wave after wave after wave of fighter jet and long range bomber missions. Iran is being incredibly stupid if they think this is intimidating. Maybe to other middle eastern countries but not Israel.
- screamingjoker, on 06/30/2008, -11/+53The "attack" isn't going to come across your borders on land. It will be "Death from Above". Screaming warheads reducing your ancient cities to pulverized pottery. In which case your senior military leader who is spending the time and energy to dig holes along your border may want to have a plan-B.
But a nuke attack on Iran, would also mean a massive retaliation attack on Israel, perhaps even lead to irreversible failure and collapse of the Israeli state. And Russia and China would be all involved too. It would be pretty bad. - whorunbartertwn, on 06/30/2008, -0/+41We should send in highly trained commandos on a moonless night with dump trucks of dirt to fill all the holes back in. That would show 'em.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -8/+48What's wrong with warning invaders about their fate? Should it be red carpet instead of graves?
- Landlocked, on 06/30/2008, -12/+50I am not worried. President Obama is going to have direct, open dialogue with nations that want a holy way and convince them to change generations of hatred.
Just kidding. - Lax32, on 06/30/2008, -10/+48Idiots.
Those are totally going to be covered in leaves and ***** in like 2 weeks. Then what are you going to do? You are gonna have to dig them again. - jsd8cc, on 06/30/2008, -13/+51You do know Bush is done in 4 months, right?
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -2/+39...and North Korea.
- mshtml, on 06/30/2008, -12/+48If the Mafia attacks the NYC docks should we bomb, invade and occupy Italy for 6 years? Don't you remember the official 9/11 story? Almost all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
- Vodd9, on 06/30/2008, -2/+38He said the same also before the present Iraq war.
- kerosion, on 06/30/2008, -0/+35"Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak." - Sun Tsu
Given a superior enemy against which there is little or no hope for victory the only option may be to make oneself look stronger than one is in reality in order to dissuade that enemy from attacking in the first place. We saw this demonstrated by Iraq in what became one of the follies of the United States most recent War in Iraq. In order to dissuade an attack by Iran, Iraq let the world believe weapons of mass destruction existed in the country. Aware that Iraq could not fight another war with Iran at the time Iraq made itself appear strong, even though they were weak.
Iran is in a position today similar to what Iraq was then, a superior enemy force exists along one of their borders. They are acting accordingly by flexing international power and giving the world something dangerous to consider. Iran wants to appear stronger than they actually are in order to avoid an attack by the United States, without making themselves appear so dangerous that it causes the attack in and of itself. At the same time, if the country is to have any say in politics and future of the region they cannot appear passive. The aim is to ride that fine line in between (perceived) cause for attack.
Although on paper Iran looks in a terrible position in a military exchange with the United States, public opinion need be maintained to sustain a war. US casualties in Iraq upsets a large number of US citizens, the digging of graves is designed to tap into that segment of society. For many Vietnam embodies the idea of dead US soldiers as well, voicing this is meant to further emphasize the idea of just how many soldiers could die in Iran. Iran is taking advantage of the fact that Western News organizations will carry the story and put the idea into the mind of apprehensive citizens.
As a whole, the nuclear weapons threat, threats to disrupt shipping lanes, cause further instability in Iraq, disrupt the world oil economy, so on and so forth is Iran trying to appear big. The country is threatened by the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and should be considered as such. Given the hostile nature of the current US administration, Iran will most likely ride out its current strategy until a new administration is in place. The question remains whether Iran has walked the knife's edge, or taken things too far. - pintomp3, on 06/30/2008, -10/+44"bomb bomb bomb iran" - John Mccain.
- fleischner, on 06/30/2008, -28/+62I'm sure the thought of this topic gives all you lefties hard-ons, but it's going to be really tricky for Iran to get all those American airmen down from 30,000 feet...
- Obzerva, on 06/30/2008, -11/+44If we attacked Iran, it would be an air strike against their nuclear facilities, and probably not a land invasion. We'd attack with stealth bombers and maybe use F-22s to get air superiority. Iran won't be able to TOUCH the US Air Force. What do they have, some crappy Russian MIGs and some old, outdated F-14s that they can't maintain because they don't have any replacement parts?
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -3/+36Technically he said "plant trees" not "successfully grow trees"
- sandiegodude, on 06/30/2008, -12/+45Meh, Sabre Rattling which is more for the government to impress their own citizens than to strike fear into the heart of enemies. Remember Saddam's million man army? He would trump his massive ground force to his citizens constantly, but when it came down to it, they were half starved, ill equipped and badly trained.
This is nothing more than in-country propaganda for the ruling government, nothing more. - byikes, on 06/30/2008, -5/+36It won't after the first day
- PabloMac, on 06/30/2008, -8/+38I can't believe people are digging you down for that quote.
- ericmerrill, on 06/30/2008, -8/+36@sifuchar: So does America, what's your point?
- aphexcoil, on 06/30/2008, -5/+32Hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is where we'll all end up regardless of who is in power.
- elTito, on 06/30/2008, -2/+29Erm...
France, Great Britian, Russia, China, India, Pakistan (just off the top of my head). - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -6/+33"Is there something that makes you think we can't?"
Oh, only Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. - raisputin3, on 06/30/2008, -9/+35Barack Obama - Bought and Paid for by AIPAC
- MattFid, on 06/30/2008, -5/+31Not that the US should attack Iran, but even if they did, I feel like 320,000 enemy casualties is a bit optimistic.
At least the soil will be nice and aerated. - neko6, on 06/30/2008, -7/+32Last time I checked, Iran never denied holding an Israeli POW for years without access to the red cross:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Arad_%28pilot%29
nor have they denied their involvement with other kidnappings of the sort:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3453738, ...
So any talk of "following rules of war" is ridiculous. - noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -6/+31Iraq is what the military looks like when restrained by politics.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 996 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