What is Digg?43 Comments
- foontala, on 04/11/2008, -0/+12I say it's time to debate foreign policy and whether we should follow the Constitution or not.
- TheLastProphet, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9Barak will do no more than gesture. He flip-flopped on his answer when he was pressed. (same w/ Hillary) He'll maintain the status quo.
The only one STILL running for President - Paul - would start reducing involvement.
He's the only one referencing our pull out from Viet Nam.
He's the only one talking about our foreign policy of interference and occupation. - JettaMan, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4You have no idea who this man is, do you? He has lived, been involved with, and written about politics his whole life. I guarantee he is more knowledgeable than you or any of the major candidates.
- JeffreyRGlenn, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4The problem with this whole situation is that it all was totally avoidable. If, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush did what was constitutionally required of him, that is ask for a declaration of war on Afghanistan, and then proceed to wipe them off the map (with all options on the table, conventional and nuclear), then Mr. Hussein would have fallen right into line like the dictator in Libya did upon the invasion of Iraq. And then we would have had an offsetting force in the Middle East to counter balance Iran. Instead, we have this large, relatively powerful nation with no one to oppose them.
It is high time for this government to put the needs and security of the people of the United States ahead of the "Iraqi people" and every other damn thing in this world. That is, after all, the very purpose of their existence. So, we should immediately withdraw from Iraq. Leave what the Republicans used to call "nation building" when it was being done by Clinton in Bosnia, Haiti and elsewhere, to be done by the Iraqi people themselves and the United Nations. As to who controls the oil in the Middle East, and who dominates Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.? Who cares? It is not a vested American interest who sells us oil, so long as they do so. And if another attack like that of September 11, 2001, or even something more dire should occur in the future, then the proper response is to totally annihilate, without concern of world opinion, the perpetrators and those who back them.
Peace through strength and minding our own business is surely the wisest course of action. Otherwise, the future that is in store for us is bankruptcy and the eternal creation of more enemies from our "policeman of the world" mentality. - kipmartin, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3i dont believe 'pandering' is the correct term. i believe Obama has never liked the way and in the face of negative press, voted against it. pandering means 'soliciting'. Obama never stooped low for votes.
secondly, pulling out is NOT a strategic blunder. this war is none of our business. the sooner we get our noses out of the world's problems and quit smacking the terrorists' hornets nest with a stick, the sooner we will be free of attacks. why on earth are we involved in someone elses civil religious war? lets just get the hell out, start spending that money on our deficit, worry about health care, our sub-prime problems/recession, and maybe for once enjoy some piece.
oil interests, defense interests (ie halliburton), and conservatives pandering to the Angry White Guys and promoting fear-based attacks on our constitution are keeping us there. lets let them work this out.
we should vote for Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or someone like Pat Buchanan. anyone but the warmongers.
OK, start burying me! - ugotz2, on 04/11/2008, -4/+7The analysis is more than plausible as outlined by Pat Buchanan. There are three scenarios depending on who is the next President:
1. Barack -- will pull out troops and it's possible that Iran will stay out of Iraq for enough time such that Troops are significantly drawn down -- then make moves on areas like Basra fully expecting a U.S. foreign policy to leverage diplomacy rather than military confrontation. Outcome: bloody civil war between Shia and Sunni forcing International Coalition back into the area
2. Hillary --- She will listen to the instructions of the Pentagon despite her rhetoric to her voters and justify a sustained presence of enough force to avoid another Iran / Iraq War. Outcome: Status Quo
3. McCain --- Will attempt to form coalition with Moderate Arab states to bolster support for Iraqi Military. Will take advice from Commanders on the ground and also draw a line in the sand with Iran. Outcome: Status Quo....
Over time our presence in Iraq will be viewed by most Americans as a necessary strategic presence in the region to keep Iran in check vs. Israel.
Pulling out of Iraq is a strategic blunder.... Obama is more inclined to do it than Hillary... but I suspect they are both pandering to the left for their vote but once in office they will make the all important National Security Speech to the American public and put forth the case as to why its necessary for us to remain with boots on the ground in the Middle East. --- Just a Hunch... - datsfishwrap, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Mr. Buchanan as always is spot on. But the larger question isn’t if the US will be at war with Iran---I believe this will happen before November, but rather why are we over there in the first place? The answer will not be found in neo-con bashing, Pat needs to look deeper into Pandora’s box for the real answer.
- BucketOBits, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2You write as though Ahmadinejad is a reasonable man, with whom we can sit down and speak as we could with, say, the Prime Minister of the U.K. or the President of France. Do you honestly think that to be the case? I don't know too many reasonable men who act and speak as Ahmadinejad does.
- retdep110, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2AMEN....
- blueridgewv, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2and don't miss this part either, which shows the complicity of a Democrat-led Congress:
"Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran."
There you have it. Pelosi is false opposition, and the Democrats entirely responsible for not learning from the neocons' Iraq propaganda. Between AIPAC and their own stupid compromises, they are being walked like well-heeled dogs to war, and that includes Hillary and Obama who promise a "change" or withdrawal. - mustangmike53, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Why? Because they have already killed, and are continuing to kill, American soldiers. As concerned as you are about American blood (but not concerned enough to spell 'losing' correctly) this fact ought to concern you.
Of course, in your world the first cause for all aggression against America is something we did or are doing, so fighting back is unjustifiable. There's no such thing as an enemy; only people deservedly retaliating against some harm we've done them! - kipmartin, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2somewhat violent, but in many respects i agree with you.
i doubt we would suffer another 9/11 if we got out of the region and let them work it out. i use the 'hitting a hornet's nest with a stick' metaphor when i argue about our vlue in the terrorist world.
its all about israel, btw. - BucketOBits, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Okay, then. Do you trust Jane's?
http://www.janes.com/press/press/pc080411_1.shtml - infocyde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I like how they dig you down because the truth doesn't mesh with their world view...frightening.
- infocyde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Well thought out comment. I agree with you mostly, but the what should of happened is not what is happening. Iran is killing American troops by proxy. They, nor anyone else, should be allowed to skate on that, don't you think? Regardless of if we pull out of Iraq or not?
- infocyde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1What if the U.S. started executing anyone who went by JettaMan online? Would you want some other country to intervene? Even if there is no imminent threat? What if Canada become Nazi's? Should the U.S. intervene to save Canadian Jews? Just making a point...sometimes other countries do need to intervene in other country's affairs.
- mustangmike53, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Buchanan states "No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran."
He didn't say the neocons want a war, and he didn't say Bush/Cheney want a war, he said "It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran."
The reasons being that Iran is already fighting us in Iraq and is working as fast as they can to develop nuclear weapons. Already attacking us with special forces, proxies fighting on several fronts in the region, and developing nukes. Hmmm. Negotiate? Or fight back?
Retaliatory and message sending strikes on Iranian bases supporting the fighters in Iraq seem a reasonable response, and far better than allowing the Iranians to operate unchecked. Any regular military reaction from Iran is unlikely - they would lose - and they're already running pretty much fully committed with their special foreces in Iraq. Time to stop ignoring them and hoping they will go away. - JettaMan, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Well, really no nation should be messing around with other nations unless there is a *true* imminent threat. There is none. The only threat is because we are messing with other nations, and that quite logically pisses them off and so they are fighting to get us to leave them alone.
- infocyde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1A lot of nations aren't speaking Russian right now because of the various compromises the U.S. made during the cold war with sometimes less then moral regimes. Sometimes we went to far, and maybe sometimes we still continue to go to far, but most of the world benefited from your efforts. Rather then getting on your high horse and talking down to Americans, even though they have done more for world peace in total over the last 100 years then any other nation in existence, maybe you should start offering alternative plans of action. Also, what America does does not justify terrorism against Americans. Actually nothing justifies terrorism.
- JettaMan, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1No I wouldn't agree with that. The people would not stand for it very long. Other countries should not intervene with the affairs of other nations. The cure is worse than the disease.
- infocyde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I like it, the information came from someone I don't like, thus the information must be false. I like your little box that you live in. Stay in it.
- infocyde, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1We should always use diplomacy as a first resort, but what the libs don't get is that sometimes diplomacy doesn't work. I think Iraq is a quagmire, but I don't think we should sit back and allow Iran to kill U.S. troops by proxy and get away with it. I don't really care if this plays into Neocon plans, I don't really care if this makes libs wet their pants, I don't really care if our acions make the Euro's spill their foo foo coffee drinks and gag on their croissants. If you overtly or covertly kill Americans, frak you, time to die. Period. How come we always have to talk, but libs give a pass card to the bad guys? Libs hold the U.S. to some uber high standard while overlooking the grevious sins of the rest of the world? Why don't the bad guys have to talk to us before killing us? Why is it ok for them to skip diplomacy and go right to the killing? Why does this gain the bad guys sympathy from the left instead of condemnation?
- BucketOBits, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1That's the modus operandi around here. I'm pretty new to the Digg community, but I've quickly learned that thumbs-ups or thumbs-downs are given based on whether or not one agrees with you, not based on the strength of your argument or the eloquence of your writing. Many here will give a thumbs-down to a message, but will fail to post a counter-point (often because there isn't a valid one to make).
- techie06, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Show me a link explaining how Paul is a religious nut, please.
- wsnell, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1my apologies to ugotz2--I hadn't meant to bury his comment.
- mustangmike53, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Did you even read the article?
Do you get that the United States might "want" Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? Then, if you get that, do you get that force - a "short, sharp war" - is one method we could use to get the Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? Finally, do you get that to many people, a "short, sharp war" appears to be the best method, or possibly the only method we could use to get the Iranians to stop killing our soldiers, abetting terrorists, threatening our friends and allies, and seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons?
You might disagree that it's the best option, but please don't pretend it's not an option we might "want" to use. - BucketOBits, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I fail to understand the logic behind the argument that we "want" a war. Could you elaborate?
- twig92, on 04/11/2008, -4/+4To BucketOBits: No Buchanan is not advocating a total hands off policy concerning Iran. What he is saying is that the neo-cons and their boys Bush/Cheney have been looking for excuses to Bomb-bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran for quite some time. Are these Iranians so horrible we can't speak to them? Must the U.S. bomb every country in the Middle East (except Israel), because there may be terrorist activity there? Buchanan advocates a kind of foreign policy beyond just throwing our weight, and bombs around!
- justbeingman, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0It's not about Israel and never was. Iraq had very little to do with Israel. Yes, Saddam paid families of suicide bombers a stipend, but big deal. Iraq doesn't border on Israel. Iraq wasn't going to invade Israel. Iraq, on the other hand, did invade Kuwait, and the fear was Saddam would make a move on Saudi. So your flip remark regarding Israel is groundless. It was about oil and the fact that Saddam had planned to assassinate Bush senior. The thinking was he had gotten out of line and needed to be put down and serve as an example to others, which did in fact work in the case of Libya's Qadaffi, who gave up his nuke program after that.
- kipmartin, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1yes.
- techie06, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0The max you know about Buchanan is what's from the Wikipedia article.
- sustained, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2yes!! We should do something
- justbeingman, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0Buchanan: "Israel has been hurling invective at Iran .." This gratuitous statement reflects more on Pat than any comment I could make. With all of Ahmadinejad's outrageous rhetoric aimed at the destruction of Israel, Pat Buchanan reports that Israel is hurling invective. There have been, I think, two remarks by prominent Israelis, but all in all the Israelis have been playing it remarkably cool, considering. You may agree or disagree with Pat, but I have my own opinion on what has shaped his political views in this area. They are deeply psycho-religious. Where else does he agree so totally with the Left? Isn't that the least bit odd?
- justbeingman, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0... and I want to add that I do agree with Pat Buchanan in a lot of areas as I do Ron Paul, but it's like a situation in your personal life. It may be a difficult place to be, but you can't always just up and leave just like that. Too much gets torn apart. The consequences of doing that are sometimes too awful. You cannot always have the ideal in a situation that's already been flawed.
- Talastan, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2Interesting article considering a European Spy Satellite has photographic evidence of an Iranian missile production and launch facility being built southwest of Tehran. The same one they are supposed to be using for their space research, has a lot more military security around it.
Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350230,00.html - bobgraham, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2The USA has to lose their attitude of being the only one who can help other countries especially where Muslims are concerned . The USA promotes, give weaponry and finances many countries , such as Afghanistan vs USSR and is not the almighty God of the world. This attitude has only weakened the USA worldwide and made it more dangerous for citizens abroad and here at home . War should be war and not undertaken until all other options are exhausted and then it should be the final solution , i.e. no more people on the ground in that country . Stupid is as stupid does but we don't have to keep electing them .
- kipmartin, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1oh yeah, Fox News. good source. i trust Comedy Central more than Fox.
- tyruler, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1More and more WARS for the sake of Israel.
Why do you think Zionist Joe Lieberman is a ultra-militant when it comes to foreign policy of ME, esp. all conflict against Arab Muslims vis a vis Israel. Who do you think ADL supports with a recent ad campaign calling Switzerland, terrorist enablers?
Are Americans really that stupid and NOT know the war against Iraq was not for WMDs, Freedom of Iraqis, Saddams being Hitler on his way to conquer the entire ME, or Democracy? It was for oil and Israel.
Until the gorilla in the room is spelled out clearly, get ready for THE US economy to plunge with its military adventurism esp. in ME with AIPAC cheering and bullying it way in Congress. (Pelosi pulled the Iran resolution b/c on pro-Israel pressure)
STOP THE NEOCON TERRORISTS or kiss this nation's wealth, sovereignty, and peace goodbye. - retdep110, on 04/11/2008, -2/+0Why? What will we gain? Real estate, oil, what...other than loosing more American blood, and for what? Victory? Define victory. Iran and Iraq mean nothing to us...Israel, yes, the US, no.
- kipmartin, on 04/11/2008, -4/+1no, Barak has NOT flip-flopped in this area. the one thing he 'gets', is the need to get out of Bush's war. i wish Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan had a chance, but they simply dont. have you seen what Nader has to say about iraq and iran? remarkably similar to what Ron Paul has said.
id vote for Paul if he wasnt a religious nut. and i MAY buy a Nader sweatshirt just to piss my friends off! - soulcatcher357, on 04/11/2008, -5/+1Buchanan has no in depth knowledge of the groups operating in Iran and is somewhat simplistic to say that the government/whole of Iran is responsible. He probably used Wikipedia as a source, but I know that is largely incomplete.
- BucketOBits, on 04/11/2008, -7/+2So, Buchanan is advocating that we NOT react to Iran's killing of our troops in Iraq and their attempting to destabilize the Iraqi government--not to mention their obvious nuclear ambitions? That we pack our bags and go home, leaving Iran to do whatever it wants in Iraq?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is