What is Digg?347 Comments
- jazzguitar18, on 07/02/2008, -24/+58I can still see Bush bombing them.
- mecanofan, on 07/02/2008, -21/+49This is great! One least reason for Bush to go and bomb their country. We'll see if the White House continues to instigate.
- nikitab, on 07/03/2008, -6/+26What people are afraid of is that Iran would make the technology available to groups like Hezbollah. The purpose in doing that would be to try to hurt Western economies (anonymously if possible), which would then significantly temporarily improve the Iranian government's position, which is basically resistance to decentralization and economic and social development.
- noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+18Why? He's never said that was his intent. He just finished a tour of europe where his key focus was getting them to agree to sanctions and other diplomatic tools.
- bosssmiley, on 07/03/2008, -0/+15Comical Ali - that guy was a laugh*. You could tell he didn't even believe his own press releases by the last few days.
"We are beating the infidel dogs back to the borders. Dogs shall eat their bellies. Iraq shall be victorious! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my accumulated holiday right now...all in one lump...with immediate effect...with a bag of Swiss Bank documentation as my carry-on luggage."
* Serious: no, he wasn't. He was a murdering bastard and high up in Saddam's secret police. - iceperson, on 07/03/2008, -3/+18amusing how when israel defends itself it's called "aggression"...
- noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -4/+17They can if they comply with inspections that they agree to. The US is NOT the only nation that has been pressuring Iran the UN has been actiely persuing more and more sanctions.
- hmmmok, on 07/03/2008, -1/+14Do you believe the Iranian Foreign Minister who said the possibility of an Israeli attack is nil. Oh that's from the article, who bothers reading that.
- nikitab, on 07/03/2008, -11/+25Riiiiiiight... it's not Iran that openly supports attacking Israeli (and other) civilians. It is Israel, which supports human rights regardless of religion of ethnicity.
I don't believe you care for Iranians at all as you equate Iranian government with Iranian people. A friend of mine is an immigrant from Iran and every time we speak, he shakes his head and says that it is truly sad how so many people in the US don't realize that there are two Irans. There is the old guard that is in power and there are Iranian people, who just want to live in peace. And the connection between the two is iffy at best. - nikitab, on 07/03/2008, -8/+23Good. Because if you see this, this means Iran might actually follow through for fear of consequences if they do not halt the nuclear program... and so there will be a political solution and US will successfully push Iran towards opening up as a society without bloodshed.
- ianam, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12"Saddam continuously kicked out UN inspectors"
It's amazing that there are morons who still believe the Bush lies. The inspectors were never kicked out, they were withdrawn prior to the impending invasion -- this is simply a historical fact. And it's because of the inspectors that there were no WMDs -- the inspectors had found the remaining hidden caches and forced the Iraqis to dismantle them years earlier. No, Iraq was invaded because the neocons wanted to invade it, and nothing Saddam did was going to stop them. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -15/+27Saddam offered to surrender, after the US refused his offer of full cooperation to investigate the so called WMD sites. He did everything he could to avoid the war.
It wasn't really about WMD, just like Iran isn't really about their nuclear program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/07/iraq.b ... - poidh, on 07/03/2008, -24/+37Don't fall for it. This tactic is known as "cheat and retreat" and Iran has been pulling this ***** for years.
They "suspend" their nuclear program, resetting the "efforts" of the "international community" to stop them, all the while heading towards their goal of functional nuclear weapons. Then when they are discovered they simply "suspend" their activities again and so it goes on.
My money's on the "international community" falling for it hook, line and sinker for the nth time. - sn4ke666, on 07/03/2008, -7/+18These are the following outright claims you make:
Israel is "illegal"
Israel is "evil"
Israel seeks to kill all muslims, period.
Israel, in and of itself, is an imminent existential threat to the world.
Never "elements in the government" or "the far right", always just Israel, period. You sound like Ahmadinejad.
Nice job of making rash generalizations. It scares me that you don't hold all autocratic, corrupt, religiously fanatic governments to the same scrutiny. But hey, as long as its not America or Israel, let's take their word at face value. - foopirata, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13@JasonCox: I wonder if you could point to ONE of those "multiple occasions" when Israel has "threatened to use the bomb" ?
One. Not two. Not three. Not multiple. Just point me to ONE. - siali, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10None of the above.
Having nukes will bring Iran more problems than power. Israel has around 200 nukes with capability to deliver them to Iran in a couple of minutes. Iran will be wiped out before it can even start an attack. In the very rare situation that they can attack Israel first they will be wiped out by US. They may be many things but they are not suicidal. What they are after is to prove that they have the "capability" to develop nukes. That way, while they don't provoke attacks on themselves, they will hold a bargaining chip to score in the region. Thus it will not be surprising if they halt the uranium enrichment, at least for now, as long as they get the right incentive. - noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10"North Korea didn't give up its nuclear program."
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/2008 ...
North Korea has declared its nuclear assets and has began to dismantle their program.
"I hadn't heard that there was any conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran."
The issue is not whether they have anuclear weapons program it is the fact that they are not complying with inspections they are required to have in order to run a civilian program. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -1/+11Yeah big difference.
It would've cost you a few millions instead of many trillions, a million human lives, the loss of your integrity , your credibility and the hatred of the entire planet. - Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12While I'm not a big fan of any nation having nuclear weapons, I'm really not comfortable with any nation lead by someone who leans toward extremism possessing nuclear weapons. I think you're right on this.
- trevor98, on 07/03/2008, -10/+19You can't have it both ways. Iran stating that they may suspend their nuclear program is an admission that they have one. You can't say that Bush and Co are making it up if Iran admits to it (unless Iran wants to get bombed).
- neko6, on 07/03/2008, -1/+10"They seek to genocide all Muslims"
In 1948 there were 1,300,000 Arabs living in Israel and Palestine. There are 5,000,000 today.
In 1948 there were 800,000 Jews living in Arab countries. There are 8,000 today.
99% DECREASE of Jewish population under Arab sovereignty, 385% INCREASE in Arab population under Jewish sovereignty. Whose doing the genocide? - RusskiGuy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11I found it odd they have 2 spellings used in the article for "Mattaki" so I went to msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, nytimes.com, and cnn.com and none of those publications had the story on their front page. Sorry Miami Herald, I'll wait for a more reputable source on international news before considering cheering!
- sn4ke666, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12It's not so much that Iran itself, as in the central elements of the government, would use nukes directly on Jerusalem, DC, or even give the nukes to terrorists. The danger lies in the same problem that occur ed when the Soviet Union fell apart: the government of Iran, for all its autocratic nature, might not be able to always control what goes on within its borders. Things go missing, and with all the fanatics there, you can't be guaranteed that something dangerous won't get into hands of some people who don't understand or care about mutually assured destruction.
Now, this all does not mean a military incursion to attempt to prevent Iran from developing nukes should be the first option. Nor the second. The urge to use military force immediately in a situation like this comes from two sources: ignorance, and ulterior motives. Now something should be done, of course. It seems as though multilateral, sanction-based diplomacy is having some effect. - noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12They suspended their weapons program but were still persuing a 'peaceful' program. The big issue has been they are not willing to comply with inspection requirements which made a lot of folks nervous
- mnocket, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12And there you have a perfect example of liberal "logic"....... U.S. citizens have no right to possess guns: Every nation has a right to possess nuclear weapons. Go figure.
- GhostRidr, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11Remove the argument over the interpretation of that statement, and you still have multiple instances of Iran threatening Israel, and sponsoring terrorism.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11Oh this is priceless... This one's basing his philosophy on a sci-fi movie.
- hmmmok, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11Nobody would mess with Iran ? You mean like the capturing of their sailors in international waters? Oh wait, that's what the Iranians have been doing..
- neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Pakistan never threatened to destroy another country...
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11"He had to pretend like he had the weapons."
What are you people insane? This happened 5 years ago, not decades ago. How ***** short are your memories? I feel like I'm in a zombie movie ffs.
Nobody, aside from the US, pretended that Iraq had WMDs.
The UN said Iraq didn't have WMDs, everybody was asking for any type of conclusive evidence, which the US was never able to produce and the evidence they did have was found to be entirely fabricated.
You people are ***** insane. - bdiggitty, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11@Achalemoipas
I think your hatred for America is clouding any logical judgment. For one, most diggers aren't advocating war on Iran. I certainly am not. There is no question that they are enriching Uranium for what they say is their unalienable right to for energy. That is what we all KNOW. That is what all sides agree is the case. There is no evidence of nuclear weapons. But the world is in agreement that Iran is not the type of country who should have nuclear weapons as most of Europe and most certainly Israel would be under direct threat of being attacked. Primarily Iran is an Islamic theocracy, with Ahmadinejad as a figurehead. Therefore, something must happen in order to diplomatically resolve the situation. This is without question. I'm not sure if I understand the alternative. Are you suggesting that there is no threat, and therefore the world should not be involved in Iran period? - rrc7cz, on 07/03/2008, -14/+22It never ceases to amaze me how the average population have this blind loyalty to Isreal and hatred of Iran because the news, politicians, and tradition has told them to. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Iran is a small country being threatened with military action by a superpower who happens to have half it's military next door to you in a country that formerly never even attacked it!
What would you do in the same situation? Go ahead and bury me... keep towing the line. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -25/+32I wonder if the US and Israel have decided to do the same? Iran has broken no international laws so I am at a loss to see why everyone is getting so worked up about this. Considering the nuclear arsenal of both the US and Israel, Iran knows full well if it were to launch a nuclear strike, it would be decimated within hours of doing so.
This is a load of ***** meant to scare everyone and drive the price of oil higher. Iran is no more a threat to US sovereignty than was Iraq or Afghanistan. Lay off the Kool-Aid and look at reality. - noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+10No one planned on bombing Iran and oil sure as hell was not an issue. Pay atention to facts not the hype you read on Digg. We've been pressuring Iran over non-compliance with a program they agreed to, that is all.
- spawnfree, on 07/03/2008, -8/+16nice try Iran.
they are still going to come and get you.
personally i wish Iran was super nice so any military action against them looked unjustifiable from the word go. - ianam, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7"How do you act like you have weapons by saying you don't exactly?"
This is a crackpot idea invented by right wingers after no WMDs were found, to try to explain why Bush had claimed there were some. But the truth was simpler -- Bush lied. Just ask Colin Powell, who knew damn well that his UN speech was fraudulent. - GhostRidr, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Then why are they not letting inspectors in? Because they have a nuclear weapons goal.
- Tenbatsu404, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12Do you seriously think there isn't a proxy war already in progress?
- Zacktopia, on 07/03/2008, -8/+15The mullahs have been playing the UN with stalling tactics like this for years. Behind the scenes, their Manhattan project is still full speed ahead.
- noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -11/+19By Instigate do you mean 'persue diplomatic solution'? Because that's all that's been going on lately. The US and UN have been laying sanctions against Iran and warning them to open up or halt the program.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+9"Saddam continuously kicked out UN inspectors"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/31/bu ...
You are a trained sheep. - flink405, on 07/03/2008, -7/+14Iran weekly, if not daily threatens, Israel; calling for its total destruction.
Iran provides weapons and training for the Hezbollah and Hamas terror groups in the Middle East.
If Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel it would wipe out the country (including all the Palestinians that Iran is supposedly so concerned about).
Iran also has visions of Pan-Islamic state from Morocco to Indonesia, where Iran is the center of power. Having nuclear weapons is a simple way to bully countries into being a subservient part of Iran´s dictatorial religious Pan-Islamic empire.
The current Iran government is not to be trusted. - ozymandias2012, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7robin...who are you voting for?
- Zacktopia, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9Sweet Jesus, let it be so.
- neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6@mecharabbit - if that was true, Iran would suffer the consequences of the hundreds of attacks Hezbollah performed in the past and the hundreds of Americans, French and Israelis who died in their hands.
Fact is, nobody attributes these attacks to Iran even though they funded, trained and armed Hezbollah. - wpi97, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6"Iran weekly, if not daily threatens, Israel; calling for its total destruction."
No, no, no... It calls for Israel to "vanish from the pages of history"... - neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Robin - If you were a Muslim, would you live in a country that wants to genocide you? 18% of Israel is Muslim. If Israel wanted to "kill off all the Muslims", how come 77% of these Muslims said in a recent poll they PREFER LIVING IN ISRAEL over ANY OTHER NATION? How come the Palestinians under Israeli rule are one of the fastest growing populations on the face of the earth?
Your rhetoric is not just wrong, it is OPPOSITE to the facts. - siali, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Quite on the contrary, an agreement between Iran and US at this stage can actually mean worse human rights for Iranians. Iranian government is facing two obstacles, outside and inside pressures. If the outside pressure subsides they get more chance to take care of the inside one. For poor Iranians catch-22 is written all over the nuclear standoff.
- mnocket, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8Theoretically, would you have extend the same "right" to the Nazis? I mean do your really believe ANY country should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? How about Cuba?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 350 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