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.
80 Comments
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+38I'm not trying to take a stance here, but America has certainly not backed down from imperial expansion following the end of the cold war, so it's understandable why Russia wants to stay observant.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33Given Russia's president, this is no surprise.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24FWIW, Britain concluded Russian spying was back to Cold War levels a couple of years ago, although didn't go public with it until quite recently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6452519.stm
When reading that, one should remember that Britain was completely overrun by Soviet spies under the cold war,
Most if not all other European countries have come to the same conclusion, but with the exception of Sweden haven't gone public with their concerns. Russia is an important trade partner to most of EU, and Russian gas and oil are vital to e.g. Germany and France; combined with Russias oft-demonstrated willingness to throw tantrums and cut off gas supply at the slightest provocation this means that most european countries prefer to remain silent. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26first one to 10,000 nukes wins.
- kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Doesn't surprise me in the least, we probably have spies there too, it isn't necessarily a hostile thing, as a country you can only make decisions if you have good info, you can't always get the info yourself, so its good to know what the other guy knows too.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -4/+13Here's my no stance: It's "You're" dumbass.
- jazh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Putin is no champion of the "free-world" he blackmails neighbours by cutting off oil and gas, then vetos the UN security council quite often in regards to the mid-east.
- Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Shammer1: Expansion in that America interferes in the workings of foreign countries to set up favourable trade agreements for itself (Iran-contra scandal, anyone?)
"Freeing" countries is laughable... No-one is altruistic enough to go to war and have many of their own citizens die just so that someone else can be free.
Freedom is a pretty damn subjective concept, too. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16@kingkilr
9/11 and Iraq should have let you know just how woefully inadequate the US human intelligence capabilities are at the moment. - toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9exactly, they have nukes
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10pickypg what about all the incidents when the CIA was used to overthrow democratic governments in favor to of those that supported US interests? A so-and-so US corporation is being kicked out of a foreign country and asks the US government to help them maintain their presence. Within months the leader is murdered or exiled and everything goes back to normal. This scenario has happened dozens of times since the end of WWII.
Iran had a democratically elected leader before we overthrew him in the 50's. Why did we do it? The British asked for our help when British Petroleum was at risk of losing their business presence in the country. Guess what smartass? You can't march into other countries and pretend you're liberating them.
You're an idiot if you think you know the United States isn't to be considered imperial just because it hasn't publicly declared foreign land as its own.
The British Empire never "owned" India and the French Empire never "owned" Haiti. Yet they were still Empires. It's called colonization.
We've had strict control over Saudi Arabia for the majority of the 20th century to the extent where OUR OWN CONGRESS was discussing as to what books their education system should use (don't believe me? go look it up).
We caused the death of 70,000 people in El Salvador because their democratic government was posed to elect a leader who didn't agree with us. So we replaced him with someone who did. How in the world is that supposed to "free" or even help them?
Want to know why so many of the 9.11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? Because we put in place one of the harshest regimes in the Middle East, and we help it stay in power. We provide them with military equipment and intelligence to make sure they can crush any possible revolts.
Stop watching TV and go read. Read books, read declassified reports produced by our own government, and you're bound to learn a lot more than what you see on Fox. - turpialito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Nations don't have friends. They have interests"
H. Kissinger - pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@lnomis
How was Iran-Contra about a trade agreement? It was to fund a guerilla group in Nicaragua (where the "Contra" comes from in Iran-Contra). If you deem the end goal of toppling a far leftist government anti-US as only beneficial to the US, then you're just flat out ignorant.
We did not go into Afghanistan to free it. We did not go into Iraq to free it.
We went into Afghanistan to topple the government because it was a major backer of terrorists, which as a side effect, freed its people. We went into Iraq to topple its government (obviously not under the most concrete reasons, but they were accepted and believed by the /world/ at the time; it was not just the CIA spouting out that information) to prevent it from creating WMDs (see other parathesis) and passing those on to any other country that would not be in our best interests (not really referring to Iran here because Iraq and Iran were enemies [and still are], but I am referring to North Korea). It also had the side effect that we freed its people.
We did not take over their countries. We did free their people. I think the freedom to live and do what you want, versus what your dictator says (whether that's you die, or you do a certain job) is quite a bit less subjective that you seem able to comprehend. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Russian state spying is nothing compared to the industrial espionage carried out by foreign nationals, residents, and naturalized citizens. Check out this fellow:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051104-111851-2539r.htm
Multiply his treasonous ass 100,000. Ever wonder what the nature of the communications between the Chinese at work in the cube next to you and the reds in Beijing? I hope they send this guy to Gitmo. - desu43fnoc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Unless of course our intelligence agencies were so great, they made us think they were inadequate in order to steer us from an alternative truth.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Guys... Not everything revolves around the US.
Just saying. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's because our leaders needed a paper tiger to threaten us with. If it wasn't Russia it would have been...you guessed it, "terror". Oftentimes it's "crime" or "drugs", depending upon how worn out their current campaign of fear has become.
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I really appreciate the wasted tax dollars, that just perks my day right up!
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Because they are still a large country with a major military, albeit a dated one, that blackmails other countries and sells military equipment to our enemies (Iran, North Korea, and even China).
This isn't to say stop looking at China, it's just to say, don't stop looking at Russia. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Their rusty old thermonuclear weapons still go BOOM.
Another thing that few people knew then or even now.
The USSR had a totally unstoppable first strike weapon.
The Russians still carry them as standard equipment on all their submarines.
They render such ideas such as SDI as useless.
So they are far from toothless......... - BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14@shammer1
You sir, need to stop forming your opinion entirely via FOX News. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, I've said this before, but apparently it needs repeating: Not *everything* revolves around the US.
Not *every* piece of foreign news is a direct reflection of US politics.
Other countries *are* in fact capable of doing things without being influenced or motivated by US domestic politics in general or Bush's politics in particular.
This whole approach that foreign news exist only as reflections of US domestic politics is insular, and, frankly, deluded. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While the US at present is perhaps a tad overly keen on sending troops around the globe, the Russian spying isn't predominantly "defensive" spying to keep tabs on US troop movements. That is done, but it's not why Russian spying is ballooning.
The normal targets for russian spying were mentioned in the BBC article I linked to in the first post: "Targets include military hardware, scientific know-how and technology, and inside tips on Westminster politics. Businessmen who may have access to sensitive information are also of interest, as are Russian dissidents."
Basically the russian spying now is offensive and aims at getting advantages in business. The separation between state and big business may be somewhat blurry in the US, but it doesn't exist at all in Russia, and "companies" like Gazprom are both controlled by and have the full support of the state.
Keeping tabs on and occasionally taking action against russian dissidents abroad is also, for some reason, a priority. That really does seem to be a surviving "old habit" from the Soviet days. - toiletduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder who is going to do the "Red Dawn" remake......
- GloriousNight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4In Soviet Russia, spy machines ramp up you!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Russia is a joke. When I lived in Poland during the cold war, we were always wondering why US is afraid of Russia. Russian tanks in our town were rusty, soliders broke and drunk on cheap vodka. No one took them seriously against the U.S.
Nothing from Russia is quality made, nothing. Not their cars, trains, computers. Maybe some of their women, but thats it. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2because the cold war wasn't about tanks.... but something a *little* bit more deadly [/sarcasm]
- cntx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Old habits die hard.
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While in Poland, you have the finest prostitutes in all of Eastern Europe and one major case of an inferiority complex, requiring you to constantly bash Russia and kiss the Americans' ass.
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@tehdoom
There is a major difference between self-governance and being run by the Taliban or a Dictator (even if he did get 99-100% of the vote in that election of his, which I'm sure you probably thought was legitimate).
This is not expansion. This is war. When we're done, we will withdraw exactly as we did after World War 2, and Vietnam (though for two clearly different reasons, but Democrats clearly want to make Iraq into Vietnam 2 with the time table). Note: I left out Korea because we have a major base there because of the concern that North Korea could literally attack at any moment, still.
Last I checked, there were NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as British (and Australian, among others) troops in Iraq. It's a much more multi-national force in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq, but neither one of them can be used as an example of American expansionism by anyone that can count higher than 2, which apparently seems to be a minority here.
1,2,3,4... - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@enemyofstate430
Umm... If your adversary(or potential adversary) has spies that have completely infiltrated your government and have access to all of those juicy troop deployment, status of forces, tech development, state department memos, etc.... They are an EXTREME threat.
Think about it this way. Sure, they may "just" have nukes, but knowing exactly when, where, and how to use them... or hell, even who to put a single bullet into is a HUGE tactical and strategic advantage. It also gives them more control over any trade/ treaty negotiations because they know exactly what you have, what you want, and what your limits are.
It's like playing poker with someone where you can't see any cards and they can see them all. - MetalLizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hopefully this will spawn some newer, better, Bond movies with Daniel Craig. I'm all for Goldeneye 2: Stuff is happening again.
- holeitout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yea if painted over rust means back to cold war capabilities!
- Ayrapetov1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They just want to fool the public into thinking this is the start of another Cold War. They went us to be afraid. That way they have the upper hand against the public. Prepare to see the news going crazy over this the next few days.
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@slapsack
Keep making it up as you type. It becomes more believable as you go.
Iraq was being forced to trade oil in the oil for food program. There were also much easier targets (Sudan anyone? Which dismantled its weapons program uncovered after watching us invade Iraq at their border) that were and still ARE considering switching over to Euro's. Besides, it does not come down to the individual nations to price the oil. The cartel decides. That's a lot bigger than those three.
"we now know for a fact that north korea's nuclear capability was never a threat because they didn't even succesfully test fire a weapon."
I'm dumber for reading that sentence. Not that they didn't try, and not that the $300 million that complete morons like yourself are about to feed into North Korea on the peaceful nuclear disarmament agreement is about to restart. I can see you telling me how we're the only horrible country on Earth, but if you recall, the Clinton administration gave them the nuclear abilities they have today and we're about to repeat it one more time, so that they can successfully get it working. What kind of logically thinking person believes a mad man that starves his own people is going to put that $300 million to a good purpose and not directly into their military budget to get whatever isn't working, working?
The important thing that I obviously need to reiterate here is that North Korea is not any less of a threat because they failed to create a nuclear bomb. On the contrary, it's quite obvious that you should be nervous because they are so desperate to get one that they are testing it before it's even ready at the same time that they are testing long range rockets.
Everyone knows that there is some peak oil. What no one really knows is what that peak will be. For a conspiracy theorist (and by the way, most conspiracy theorists at least recognize that they are conspiracy theorists instead of passing that off just to nut jobs), you seem to be missing one of the biggest problems with your own argument. People are admitting to it. However, what you're missing is that almost everyone has a different number and year that we'll be running out in. Not to mention that if it was the sole purpose to go to war (as opposed to switching back to your whole other idea to get them from switching to Euros), then we would have scientists running like mad (even madder than they are) looking for other energies so that we can prevail should another nation take a major chunk out of the oil market (say, Russia or China). Instead, we're simply stock piling barrels of oil because we're not afraid of running out, rather we're afraid we'll be cut off. After all, we still have Alaska and the coast of Florida to drill into when desperate times start calling for desperate measures.
I'm not a tool and it's because I am not a freaking idiot, like you. For not being a tool, as you claim, you sure seem unable to connect your own dots.
Next thing you'll post is probably how we attacked Iraq to stop the bad press about the Kyoto treaty, which would lead into everyone switching over to the Euro (an obvious concern since the currency was created). - CoreOverride, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My first car was a Lada 2101 >:(
And it was, in fact, a perfectly reliable car if you took care of it properly. - LowRentDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We must be about to win the war on terr
- SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Everything politically does revolve around the US.. imagine what would happen if we went isolationist and only imported goods from Canada and exported/outsourced everywhere else. Yea a lot of stuff would be slightly more expensive but the world would face an economic decline beyond all sight. O and China does not make 10 trillion dollars a year, that is their spending money, they make in fact ~3 trillion a year which comes down to as "dirt poor". Their GDP and spending capability is much different. The US GDP and spending capability is 13 trillion which frankly is double of China's with only 1/4-1/5 their population. Please before you bash the US or how much the American empire sucks realize that we help more than we harm and the American people do the helping, the government does the harm.
- tehdoom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Because we're not selfish? Even if "expanding the empire" WAS a good thing for the US (which I doubt), oppressing other countries by suppressing their right to self-governance is a bad thing in my book, no matter how much I benefit from it.
But if you want to focus on the non-moral side of the argument, the state of the war in Iraq shows just how effective and successful this "expansion" really is. All that is ultimately coming to the US from this is a screwing over of the members of our armed services, a massive waste of tax dollars that could have gone towards things that are actually useful, and a few more enemies on the international stage. - lolo2007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Russia is a joke. When I lived in Poland during the cold war, we were always wondering why US is afraid of Russia. Russian tanks in our town were rusty, soliders broke and drunk on cheap vodka. No one took them seriously against the U.S. Nothing from Russia is quality made, nothing. Not their cars, trains, computers. Maybe some of their women, but thats it.
http://www.gwafi.com/news.html http://www.gwafi.com/story.html - greenjohnsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0haha, right. Stop spamming!
- ideo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Unbelievable! Nothing particular, but still interesting for me.
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Screw that, execute them for treason. Thousands (at least) of Americans will likely die one day in a war with China, should one ever happen, because of traitors like this giving up our military advantage.
Obviously they should be proven guilty first though. - Meowbiusfox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ground control to major DUH
- jamyz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If the US is an empire (which I do not believe it is), I would support the USA 100% and no I'm not an American. In fact if the USA would make the formal move to being an empire, I think the world would be a lot more stable, however I think this scenario is extremely unlikely.
- tehdoom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@pickypg
You missed my point by a bit. Provided the Dem's succeeded in their timetable we will get out of Iraq fairly soon, I am aware of that. I took childofsiberia's post as being about imperialism (with the use of the word 'empire' and all) and was attempting to address that. I believe that the liberation of people from dictatorship is a good thing, but imperialism is, in my mind, even worse because it is not only suppression of a people, but suppression by an outside power. There are still horrid prisons, government corruption, and widespread violence now that Saddam is dead. You imply that I'm naïve enough to think that dictators are legitimate, I hope YOU are not naïve enough to believe that the situation in Iraq now is anything but worse than it was before we invaded. I think the studies about how many Iraqis have died due to the war more than speaks to that. But I'm getting away from my point.
When I mentioned the war in Iraq I was calling it "expansion" (those quotes were there for a reason) to discus the point childofsiberia brought up. I would have thought the quotes and the fact that I was replying to his comment rather than commenting on the story itself were enough to convey my intended meaning of "expansion," but perhaps I was wrong. My vision of "expansion" was either indefinite occupation of Iraq by US army personnel who would influence the country by their very presence there or the manipulation of Iraq's government into a puppet state of the US, either of which coincide with my view of what imperialism is. The fact is, I don't see either of those happening, but I needed an example.
And finally, in regards to your reference to our so called 'allies' in this war: We are by far the largest nation involved in this war. But part of that can be attributed to the fact that, in the minds of our allies (whom I agree with), the war is winding down and the need for conventional troops is diminishing. The US doesn't seem to agree though, but that's off the subject. What is important is that this war is the US's. As was Vietnam, which you also referred to. You'll notice a pattern here: wars that the United States enters into without a real consensus in the international community (Iraq, Vietnam) don't seem to go so well, whereas the more international wars (like the other one you mentioned, WWII) seem to work out better. Could it be that America isn't always right and that other countries have some sense too?
Nah, thanks to the brilliant leadership of people like you I'm sure we have far better judgment than the rest of the world. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No one had to say it. But thanks for trying. It's still funny after thousands have said it in thousands of stories on digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0What war on terror ?? you mean the same war like war on drugs ??? all these 'wars' are unable to win .. so lets revive a old enemy. . and start a new war. . .
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1At the moment the developments in Russia are more troubling than the developments in China.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ pickypq
yes iraq was forced to sell oil for food but when they started that program they were using dollars,they had to petition the un to switch to euros which they did later on down the line. and as far as those NK rocket tests go i remember they didn't go over too well either.if they can't put together the weapon systems successfully then they are not a threat.the sudan isn't sitting on top of the #2 PROVEN reserve in the world and iraq was easy as pie because of those no fly zones we have been enforcing ever since 1991.i never personally told anyone to sent north korea 300 million and i didn't vote for clinton so those are non-issues. whatever UNPROVEN oil reserves in alaska and florida will not be able to replace the oil we receive from the middle east.there is no such thing as "some peak oil",it is a global phenomenon that affects everyone. it doesn't matter if it happens in 2009 or 2012, the fact that it IS going to happen at all,which has been proven will occur,it's a major threat to every industrialized nation on earth. it's not that we will be running out of oil either,it is the fact that the supply will start dwindling and the demand will continue to rise and rise and who is going to say" hey we will put our welfare on hold so you all can continue to expand your economies"? why would anyone only need one reason to go to war? our great leader gave many for invading iraq it's just none of them were the real reasons.and america is not an evil nation,it's just the power structure that is corrupt.i don't beleive the citezenry of this country is evil at all, just the entrenched powers in washington. you don't hear the scientists yelling about these problems because they have no outlet to voice those concerns. the media in this country is not letting them be heard. scientists the world over are talking about the very serious ramifications of global warming but the debate here is still wether or not it's still just a theory.that is madness and anyone who has been outside lately knows its true. im in ny and on december 1st of 2006 we had tornado warnings in a major portion of the state.TORNADO WARNINGS ON DEC. 1ST IN NEW YORK STATE! but they are still stuck on if it's real or not. gimme a fukkin break.....
ommiting facts does not make you correct.name calling is for children.and if you are dumb you were before you ever read what i wrote.you made that clear when you started typing your flawed response. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is