What is Digg?347 Comments
- tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -8/+203This just ***** suck, you know? Neither Americans nor Iranians want war. It's just that our ***** governments are full of ***** who think they can do whatever they want. *****, if this was two hundred years ago, this would never go over. Bush would be hanging in a noose on th street.
- Taorluath, on 10/10/2007, -13/+200Hell, no! A majority of the Iranians want peace! Bush is such a retard!!!
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -7/+116Hell, no! A majority of Americans want peace! Bush is such a retard!!!
- chase001, on 10/10/2007, -5/+106If they attack or invade a thrid Muslim county in a row that will be the beginning of World War III.
- reeder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+86No *****. People still don't realize that Ahmadinejad has the same ratings as Bush. In fact, the majority of Iranians have a favorable opinion of the US.
Yet again, people in gilded towers decide the fate of the rest of us. - duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -9/+94And then when Americans stand up to protest, Bush declares Martial Law, Haliburton opens the detention camps and America dies :(
- Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -2/+66Don't worry, when American troops march into the streets of Tehran, they'll be greeted as liberators and met with flowers and blowjobs, just like in Iraq.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+64FTA: "Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran, there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over."
You've got to be kidding me. That's ***** insane logic right there. - MeMongo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+64They won't. They still think that they had full justification for invading Iraq. Their hubris knows no bounds
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -5/+53Why didn't the Soviet Union bomb the US when we were supplying rebel Afghans with weapons? Because we have nukes. This is exactly why Iran wants nukes, to deter the US or any other foreign powers from invading, but if we end up invading their nuclear program will have been one of the biggest backfires ever.
- Insanekingkong, on 10/10/2007, -6/+48Dear Common, peace loving folk,
Unless you cry oil, we don't care about your welfare.
Yours Truly,
America. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+41So that’s why the British are hotfooting it out of Basra.
- LethalAmbition, on 10/10/2007, -2/+41No dude. I don't give a ***** if they have an exit strategy. WE CANNOT ENTER ANOTHER WAR.
- sh0k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38Listen up.
We can all sit here and bitch, but when the bombs start falling, I expect all of my supportive fellow diggers to hit the streets. Join (or start) a college direct action organization. Start a community awareness program. Hook up with a local Food Not Bombs. Begin to download or make fliers, and post them all over your neighborhood.
Stay away from the crazies, but for xenu's sake, get in the damned street and start doing things. Revolutions, cultural or otherwise, don't start themselves. - ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36Really? What's the justification now? I keep forgetting. WMD? Or are we still on Saddam's connections to 9/11? I lose track easily.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35Way to make the current Iranian regime more powerful through providing them a nice external bogeyman.
- zenerdiode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28If a vote comes to pass in Congress, take note of how your Rep and Senator votes. And for once, make them ACCOUNTABLE!
Clinton SHOULD NOT be leading in polls based on her Iraq vote. - shaka776, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30Rather than actually bomb them, we should just deter them with some of the WMD's we found in neighboring Iraq...... wait a minute.. CRAP!
- jimmiss, on 10/10/2007, -7/+35Sorry guys, Iraq had nothing. Iran has fleets of fighter jets, submarines, and is several times bigger than Iraq. If this happens there will be an attack on American Soil.
- ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26Our government? Contingency plans? AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAAAA. Woo that's a good one.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28You're deluding yourself. Onward with whom? You're broke, strategically out on a limb and without adequate forces. A million Iranian soldiers, an Iraqi population made up of Shi'ites and a Russian built Silent running Iranian submarine fleet say the initial American attack would be horrifically scarring but the counter would see the Gulf black with American oil, the economy executed, the supply routes gone. Attacking Iran, especially in the current position, will be the worst military campaign disaster of all time. Compared to it, Gallipoli will look like a gap year.
This is not anti-American rhetoric - it is cold, reasoned argument. The economy, the resources, the troops, the strategy; they can't cash this check. - browwiw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24Yeah, I like the fact that the Bush Administration is taking great pains to make sure the American public at large (fat ass, Bible belt white people who watch Fox News) doesn't realize that Iran's gov't is divided into three distinct domains that never get along and that Ahmadinejad doesn't really have any power. But, hey, he says crazy ***** and is "the boss of Iran", so obviously he have to act before he does.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27You don't understand the term 'fascist'.
They might be considered theocratic, oligarchic, autocratic even in the case of Iran though despotic fits better, certainly both authoritarian. Afghanistan may even be considered quasi-feudal.
But not fascist...I'm sorry but that one is reserved for much closer to home. - SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23Thirty-year war? You mean the war started during the 1979 revolution in Iran because Iranians hated Americans ***** around in their country. The revolution that used Mossadegh as a symbol against American imperialism? They believe by acting like imperialist scum bags they're going to win over the Iranians?
Those silly *****, it was their "neo-con" strategies that paved the way for the Ayatollah in the first place - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Also, that Ahmadinejad's practical political power in terms of anything military is practically zilch compared to what the US presidency has.
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24Hell, no! The bush administration doesn't give two ***** for peace. Bush is such a retard!!!
- Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Would that be Israel's "final solution" for the Iranian problem?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22get ready for another great depression.
globally. - Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I have a sick feeling that WWIII is precisely what they're aiming for. These people are not human in the way you or I are humans. They are not taught compassion and empathy, respect for others and decency, but if they were they've forgotten it. These people hold all those beneath them in contempt, and care only about maximizing profit and gaining broader influence over others.
It is part of the human condition to disregard that which makes one feel guilty when one lacks the power to reverse the error. Once you kill one man you must kill another in order to make it seem a normal thing. You must make a pattern of the sin in order validate every previous instance of it. Those who brought us this war, those who've financed this war, those who've profited from it; they've all lost a very big part of their humanity to greed and lust for power. They are not likely to stop themselves, for that would require reflection, and reflection would bring with it feelings of guilt, and guilt is not easy. These monsters must be stopped at all costs. - reeder, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29Neocon freak.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24America will be seen to be dead. In a Scroedinger's Cat sorta way it is already in a limbo state of not yet having passed on but not what it was. It is important that America gives itself closure, otherwise what has been done will come back to haunt them time and time again. In the interest of being able to move on America itself must declare itself dead, draw a line under agressive foreign policy and corporate gloabalisation and begin again.
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Don't worry about Saudi Arabia arming the militants. They're friendly!
- BeefBaron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16A retard who stands to profit immensely by keeping wars ongoing!
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Iran is bigger than Alaska. Alaska is pretty huge ( http://mirror.longhornlive.net/alaskaUS.png ).
Are we going to be able to manage a plot of land that big with troops already thinned out between Iraq and Afghanistan and *not* expect the Iranian government to attack us? If we invade Iran, we become a sitting duck to them, and their army is bigger than ours (thanks to mandatory enlistment). They have one of the largest military reserves in the world out of any country, and they *will* use their military to defend their homeland. They've done it with Iraq and they will do it with any other invading force.
Invading Iran would be suicide. - cleric85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16So how hard is it to get a citenzenship in Canada?
- CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16"The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over."
John Titor FTW
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20360859/ - Spoomeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14If they attack or invade a second country in a row for no good reason that may be the beginning of American Revolution II.
- hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Yea, a nuke in the wrong hands like ummmmm, Dick Cheney? Lets see an aggressive,nuclear, war mongering country that attacks other nations for their resources... Wants to attack another country 4000+ miles away because it does not have nukes but could get them, but still not have a way to deliver them. OK, clear as mud. So Hitleresqe. Funny how Hitler used this whole Terrorist scam also. Wake up people.
- guitarpunk411, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15you're an idiot.
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Dunno about that, but get used to >$5 gas prices.
- deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13200 years ago many of our necks would be hanging in the nooses because we'd have the balls to stand up the this tyrant dictator. Lets start calling him for what he is.
- DruSam, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16It's not Ahmadinejad people should be looking out for in the first place, it's Ayatollah Khamenei. Being Supreme Leader of Iran and all...
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Don't sensationalize the danger.
- ScornedPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Oh great, here we go again.
- bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Judging by approval ratings, America is no place for pro-bush shenanigans, either.
- TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Your ignorance and inhumanity boggle the mind. Too many war movies.
Your opinions are shocking and frightening. - thebigsix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Uhhhhh, get ready for $5 and higher a gallon for gas if this happens...
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The Iranians already have a democracy. Ahmadinejad was elected. What they need is to strengthen their democracy by removing the Ayatollah... but this is totally up to the Iranian people. The US needs to butt the ***** out.
- Flashman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I think your sarcasm went over some heads...
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11And all that pesky evidence that war in the Middle East would be and has been one of the dumbest ideas since Flooz "internet money," that's just plain traitorous to notice.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 341 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 