digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

US Officials: 'There Will be an Attack on Iran'

time.com — And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yatoobin, on 10/10/2007, -48/+19I'm not for war but if they're pressing for an attack, they damn well better have contingency plans and an exit strategy.
    • 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
      • Madrigalian, on 10/10/2007, -44/+5They still have full justification.
        • reeder, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29Neocon freak.
          • CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11if the economy is falling apart and we declare another war i guarantee you armed revolt against the US government WILL OCCUR.
            i think there are many people in this country who have had quite enough. Some are losing their jobs, others are losing their homes.
          • bluezinc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You underestimate the complacency of our nation's people. I thought Bush would be dead by now by a crazy guy with a gun after he "won" the 2004 election. I was positive someone would flip out and shoot him or something. People are lazy and nothing will change, just learn to deal with it.
        • 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.
          • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Nah, I think at this point they are on the, "We ***** up a teeny bit, but if we leave the terrorists will take over the ***** we left there".
          • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm surprised they're not saying that Iranian President Ahmadinejad actually planned the 9/11 attacks by now. I guess they realized that blaming the leaders of every country or militant organization that is not friendly towards the US won't keep working on everybody, but I'm sure there are a few people who will be fooled all the time-- "And those are the people we have to keep focusing on." --GW
          • BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 We don't need justification. They're an OPEC supplier turning renegade. The fact we keep strangle hold on them through external refining capacity, doesn't seem to bother them anymore, either cause they figured there isn't much oil left, or cause some other neighbor (such as Russia) has agreed to do the job for them. We'll do the same thing as in Iraq - we'll invade and then come up with something along the way. We'll spell it out a million times until people believe it, then move onto Syria and whatever other countries we have in the list.
        • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5After the debacle of WMD in Iraq I want video on YouTube or it didn't happen.
    • LethalAmbition, on 10/10/2007, -2/+41No dude. I don't give a ***** if they have an exit strategy. WE CANNOT ENTER ANOTHER WAR.
      • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the human race has been fighting wars pretty much non stop since the beginning of recorded time. do you really think a bunch of whiny moonbats are gonna stop it now?
    • ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26Our government? Contingency plans? AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAAAA. Woo that's a good one.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4wow wtf... with his last few months in office... Bush will screw us all over... once again... -_-
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's why he needs to be impeached. Think of the damage this will do. I'm really beginning to think that George WANTS some apocolyptic scenario to unfold. But then, what else should people expect from him? Ask him what god's told him to do lately, I'm sure he'll tell you that armageddon is a priority.
    • DDRSkata, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They make less money if a war is won. It just needs to be sustained.
      • Dush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I wonder how much money each of the dead US soldiers has been worth to the military industrial complex.
        The government likes to say if the People are patriotic and hate terrorism they should be willing to sacrifice their lives and liberties.
        Well, if these defense contractors are actually patriotic and hate terrorism why don't they donate their services or at least charge a whole lot less for the equipment the military needs?
        Instead they love terrorism because it boosts their profits.
  • 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!!!
      • BeefBaron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16A retard who stands to profit immensely by keeping wars ongoing!
    • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35Way to make the current Iranian regime more powerful through providing them a nice external bogeyman.
    • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13you're spot on.
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=6j9dt0NBnRc
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24Hell, no! The bush administration doesn't give two ***** for peace. Bush is such a retard!!!
    • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9you don't need a majority of people to press the red button.
    • Suricou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The majority of Americans want peace, and that is *exactly* why there will be war. Bush has less than two years left in power. He sees Iran as a threat that must be dealt with, and he knows that if he waits for a diplomatic solution there is a good chance it will take more than two years - leaving him out, and a less violent president in his place who, in Bush's view, will be too weak to take military action. Thus, Bush is going to rush - he wants to see Iran attacked, and he knows his only hope is to initiate the war himself.
    • dliberty, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5No, you are the retard. The Iranias are controlled by a fanatic government which terrorizes their lives and for that matter Israelis and Americans (in Iraq) as well. Their dictatorship is being inforced by the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps which is by the way, also responsible for Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program. An attack on the IRGC and their facilities is not an attack on the people of Iran, but rather on that fast growing cancer that is killing them all. Investing their money in weapons instead of feeding the people. The shias will fall once they can no longer kill any of their political opponents.
      • woody313, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2A voice of reason in the sea of BDS.
        What are you doing on Digg?...Probably same as me, laughing at the the stupid moonbats.
        • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5blah blah blah you're a wingnut blah blah let's call each other names
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Whatever you say about Iran, and it's government - goes for teh Bush admin - the difference, is one country hasn't illegally invaded another... Guess which one?

      • moonlessrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Like screwing for virginity you guys condone killing for peace.........you make me so tired.......sigh......
      • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm sure you'll run right down to the recruiter's office. If that doesn't work, you could always work for Blackwater. Are you ready to put your life on the line because of Iran's threat?
    • walshie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm sure it stated 'war against the IRGC' and not 'the people'? - although I can see very cynical views being returned from this comment. I don't think anyone doubts the IRG need dismantling, but it's another 'how to do it' question without resorting to violence.
    • Ch1ll1ng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You people need to research the issue more before you make ignorant remarks. The average Iranian wants peace as much as we do. The IRGC and Ahmedijad is the problem. The US wont go dropping bombs on average Iranians they will try to pinpoint their attacks on military and government facilities. I'll assume your American. Why the hell would you want to allow the IRGC to enable insurgents to harm American soldiers? They've already attacked Americans before and they will continue to do so until Ahmedijad feels the US is no longer threat (or a world power). As for the nuclear end of things. There is no doubt that Ahmedijad is refining nuclear materials for bomb making. There is no doubt Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons as much as any other country should not have them. The urgency with Iran lies in the fact that Ahmedijad is likely to use them offensively. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, they wont only destroy their intended target but most likely kill millions of innocent civilians if not by the explosion alone but by whats left floating in the air. Another thing is, do you want a regime like the Taliban telling you how to live your life. If people like Ahmedijad aren't stopped they will eventually try to invade the US and force their way of life upon us. It might not happen soon but given time a dictator like Ahmedijad will build up his military as he is now and will eventually attack. He doesn't have a problem making him or his people a martyr so he can spread his influence. This is already happening in the UK. "Honor" killings have already taken place there. Dont forget the fact that Ahmedijad is buddy buddy with Hugo Chavez. Iran is pretty far away but Venezula sure as hell isnt. Cuba is even closer, which gives us one more reason to court Cuba once Bush is out of power. The US MAY have possibly created a lot of these problems but left alone they will destroy us also. I'm a liberal Democrat but even I can recognize a threat to our interests and safety.
  • 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 assholes 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.
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -15/+0honestly though, all it takes is a nuke in the wrong hands. i'm just saying, don't trivialize the danger.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Don't sensationalize the danger.
          • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Iran's not going to have nukes anytime this side of ten years. Please stop fear mongering.
        • 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.
      • 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.
        • spukeesan, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Derogatory blanket-statements serve little to bolster a cause - I'd implore you to rethink your own position before defaming an entire population. Often times you'll find that jobs, family and recreation take precedence over the time that's needed to delve deeper into current events than the information readily available to us will provide. If your goal is to educate then educate, but please note that not all ignorance is willfully contrived.
          • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well, then could we agree it's a form of laziness? What could be more important than the loss of American lives? I can't imagine the type of people referred to in the original stereotype would approve of laziness. You know, like the kind of lazy they accuse people on welfare of.
        • thePuck77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4*****. That's the whole point...your understanding of currents events and your ability to comprehend them due to real knowledge and critical thinking is simply more important than your job at the plant, football, and jebus. It is the citizen that builds civilization, not the rulers, and you are avoiding your responsibilities to civilization when you let others do your thinking for you.

          And you allow jobs, family, and RECREATION to take such a precedence, your ignorance is purposeful and contrived (who set your priorities?), you should then shut the ***** up when it comes to the really real world. Quit voting, quit trying to dictate society, and go back to Wal-mart...I hear there is a sale on Bud and pork rinds.
        • spukeesan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Do you truly believe that all other responsibilities pale in comparison to socio-economic understanding? I flat out refuse to neglect my family, my job, and my own well-being to live up to someone else's esoteric "ideal". As I stated in my previous reply - if your intention is to teach then do it. I'm sure the majority of people would relish a new and open source of well thought-out information on current events. However, most of us are not political leaders and have no aspirations to be such - the information we glean from readily available sources, such as televised news and the paper, is more than enough to enable us to form our own coherent opinions.

          Furthermore - and somewhat ironically - I think it's safe to say that your envisioning of the typical "stupid American" is some of the most often used rhetoric in these types of debates. I do have to question from where you gathered your own "real knowledge." Suffice it to say, it hardly mirrors reality.
    • 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...
      • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4that's true, but inflammatory rhetoric is still inflammatory rhetoric whether it's the Bush administration that takes it as a challenge to national security, or spoon-fed Iranians under the influence of an authoritarian/religious propaganda machine
    • cleric85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Don't forget being skinned and a mob dragging his remains around.
    • RMoore08, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"Bush would be hanging in a noose on th street."

      That could still be arranged....
    • 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.
      • CkMaverick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Unlike the America of old when the government was afraid of their people in the America today the people are afraid of their government.
  • 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.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -13/+10There's a lot more to the decision to go to war with a nation than whether they "have nukes." For that matter, there's a lot more to the desire to become a nuclear state than to ward off invasion. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a source of national pride, and their ticket into the big boys' club.

      It would be disastrous to invade Iran, not because their nuclear program may or may not exist, but because it would further open up the cold war between Islam and the west, and cause terrible cultural blowback within Iran itself, as it would give the Muslim extremists a very popular reason to push Iran towards a fascist state like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
      • 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.
        • felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I consider fascism a system of government that is extremely right-wing, uses racial, ideological, or nationalist identity to create an "us vs. them" mentality, often scapegoating an ethnic or religious group, demands submission to the state, and terrorizes those who don't fit its ideals.

          Yes, you can say that there are fascistic tendencies in Bush's America, but there was also flat out fascism in the Taliban, and any nation under fundamentalist Islamic control goes right into Jew-hating, female-subjugating, morals-enforcing, xenophobic fascism.
        • makyron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I wish I could digg that twice felchdonkey ^_^

          And it's nice to see people carrying on a thoughtful conversation for once, instead of just adding the same 4 comments over and over again.
          --Cheers!
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'd have to correct your definition of Fascism on this one. I get my definition from Benito Mussolini, who many people call one of the biggest fascists in history. His view on Fascism was a complete and total union between business and government, and where one branch of the two faces is limited in its power, the other branch would be able to carry out the directives of the leaders unimpeded, and vice versa. I'd have to say that is the direction of American politics of late.
    • InsaneOni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think that actually has a lot to do with it. America wants to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms and so we have started attacking countries developing them to show that it can backfire. Sadly the only way for a country to have international power is through nuclear arms. Remember the 5 permanent members of the UN security council are the confirmed nuclear powers...but that's just a coincidence.
      • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0read up on this. there are a lot more than five confirmed nuclear powers
  • 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 :(
    • 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.
      • 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/
      • nicktheawesome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Futurama was dead on.

        "You are now dead, thank you for using stop and drop, the number one suicide booth since 2008"
        • repete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Isn't it supposed to be 2012?

          (Hmmm...First attempt with HTML. Does this work? Noop. Oh well. Wiki 2012 predictions...)
    • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I wish your statements were in the realm of fantasy....
      • dbz253, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3at this point, i don't even really care anymore. people need to see what apathy gets them
    • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i honestly laughed at your frowny face
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they have no guilt or morals. That is part of the initiation into the "Mystery Schools". All that matters is the Brotherhood.
    • 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.
      • Suricou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6America is incapable of revolution. Its population has been pacified by fluff media.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not exactly like WW2 though. This time we can be certain evil will prevail.
      • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Didn't the Soviet Union gain Eastern Europe in WW2? Didn't WE pay for the reconstruction of Europe? Who do you really think "won" WW2. Most people live under delusion about history. We haven't "won" a war since the Revolution, and there is some question about that.
  • Clogs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+41So that’s why the British are hotfooting it out of Basra.
  • Madrigalian, on 10/10/2007, -26/+3Onward to Tehran. Damascus, take note.
    • 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.
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10No to mention the rest of the world. Tony Blair and John Howard may have been willing to swallow President *****'s pork sword on Iraq. You will go in to Iran with no allies and the condemnation of the rest of the world. Condemnation which will hopefully result in more than bitching an moaning like last time, and will hopefully result in actual economic sanctions/fines and boycotting of American goods and services, as should have happened when you went in to affect your regime change, oops, I mean find your non-existent WMDs.
        • repete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5LOL. Digg me down idiots. All you do is prove my point. Truth hurts...
        • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I dugg you up. Truth hurts is not a good argument, however.
          • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Meh. I wouldn't waste my breath arguing. If people don't get it by now, nothing I say is some irrelevant comment chain on some web site will make any difference to anything.
  • lazyink, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Imagine my Shock & Awww ®
  • Vlcujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -33/+17GOOD! Bomb those filthy muslim swine into the dirts so that the Decider in Chief may claim what is rightfully His - a solid gold hot-tub full of bubbling crude that he may wallow in with Jeff Gannon and the rest of his harem. NO SMOKING IN THE POOL
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Do you think that *****'s funny?
    • Flashman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I think your sarcasm went over some heads...
    • sams495, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"NO SMOKING IN THE POOL" - LOL
    • duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dugg him up, some diggers need to turn off their gaydar and activate the sarcasm...dar.
  • 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.
    • 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
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The question is, do the religious members of the neo-cons actually believe they are doing God's work to bring about The Rapture, or do they just use religion to control the masses? If the latter, I understand and despise them as I do. If the former...*sigh*.
        • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Neo-Con artists in charge only pretend to be religious in order to keep their fold in check. They don't believe it, they just use it.
  • homerj14, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13isnt this just a contingency plan like the rest of the hundreds of articles on Iran we have had?
    • Frozo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Exactly. This article was posted for one reason. To get seen. His title is extremely misleading.
      • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3His title takes a quote at the end of the original article. I wouldn't call it "extremely misleading." Hell of a lot better than 90 percent of the titles I've seen on Digg.
        • Frozo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, the ONLY thing the headline says is "U.S. officials: 'There Will be an Attack on Iran'"

          Nobody is saying we are attacking Iran (even though I am pretty sure we will be). It's just an answer to the question that the author posed to the official, "And what do we do if just the opposite happens"

          That is one hell of a different interpretation. Yet most of the comments here are focusing on the fact that we "will" be attacking Iran, totally disregarding the fact that this statement was in answer to a "what if" scenerio. Better yet, I get dug down when I try to explain this. Go figure.

          I'm becoming more and more discouraged with Digg and its extreme left's total disregard for fairness in logic (and I'm a registered Democrat).
          • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dude, I'm a conservative and it's clear we're going to war with Iran. The end of the article quotes U.S. Administration officials. These days, you can't get a named quote from administration, it's always anonymous. So when will you be satisfied that we're actually going to war? Hopefully it doesn't take you until it has already started to see what's happening.
    • Curiousity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I sure hope so.
    • afruff23, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2But homer, wouldn't you love for Israel to drop a nuke on Iran?
      • homerj14, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I have nothing against Iran I know plenty of great persians, and I know there leadership is the problem not the people

        only at the palestinians but thats besides the point
        • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah, that's the way it is all over. The people are OK, it's the government that's screwing the people. I'm a Virginian, but I don't have anything against Americans, except that they are for the most part a bunch of ignorant fools, who would elect a dumbass like GWB. I'm actually glad to find some thinking human beings on DIGG. It's also interesting to read the posts of those who support the traitors in our government. All very entertaining, but I'm afraid only academic, for there is nothing that the little people can do to prevent the governments from screwing the people.
    • bipher, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Homer, is your surname Simpson?
    • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The author of the article, Robert Baer, was a CIA agent in Iraq and other middle eastern countries for years. I've read a few of his books and recommend them highly -- he is a very, very smart man. So I'm pretty scared.
  • futureisours, on 10/10/2007, -28/+5About goddamned time if you ask me. With the help of the almighty, President Bush will defeat these evildoers and peace will bloom in the area for 1000 years.
    • spoiled1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And hence the prophecy will come true...RIGHT!
    • spoiled1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You fking moron...why don't you take yourself to Iraq as a mercenary and wage a crusade against muslims?
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'm pretty sure you're joking but I gotta bury you just the same.
    • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You sir, are a moron. With the help of the almighty? LOL!!! are you serious? You have no idea what you are talking about. WE are the eevildoers, so maybe you are right, after we suffer a crushing defeat in Iran, there will be peace for 1000 years.
    • RavagesOfTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's not that funny anymore.
    • duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL! Damn the sarcasm is just being missed left and right today!
  • FireAtWill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Hopefully Harper has the same balls that Chrétien did.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The only balls Harper has are Bush' balls in his mouth.
  • ScornedPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Oh great, here we go again.
    • theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3***** this *****, here's the plan, US secret service, when the little ***** head is asleep you guys come and bag him up, stick him on air force one and bail him out over Iran. Lets see if he can fight the war on his own.
  • 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!
  • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A direct attack is not a good idea with current political trends domestically or internationally. Just remove the opposition groups from the terror lists so they can take down the Iranian government from inside.
    • funk49, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If memory serves me well, Clinton tried that 10+ years ago when they had a much more secular government than now.
    • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How about just stay out of other people's business and leave them alone?
  • 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.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8*Yours truly, Bush Administration

      fixed.
  • 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.
    • eean, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Dunno about that, but get used to >$5 gas prices.
      • afruff23, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You've obviously never been to Europe.
    • newstart, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5O' RLY?
      • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i like how your icon speaks for itself
    • synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7On American soil? Are you retarded? Unless you mean Embassies or bases, theres no way Iranian fighter jets or submarines will ever make it anywhere close to US soil. The worse we can expect on the home front is danger from possible terrorist cells already in country, but we're not going to have Iranian planes flying overhead.
      • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Who needs Iranian jets? Hey, let's have a big hand for that broken Mexican border that so many illegals cross daily. Ooops, I mean Bush is keeping possible terrorists out of the country by putting 7 year olds on no-fly lists.

        I'd bet some old Russian nuke is sitting hidden somewhere right now, just waiting. Mexican border is like a sieve, tons of drugs come over, what else may have been brought in?
      • dbz253, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8wait, why is it "terrorism" when they fight us but not when we fight them?
        • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4because they're the terrorists ... duh.. bush told us ... remember?
      • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who says it will be Iran attacking us in response? China has billions of dollars tied up into Iran and they get a 1/3 of their oil from that country.

        How would you think the US respond if China attacked Saudi Arabia?
    • Lister169, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Is that a threat?
    • miket, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2its not that good of an air fleet, and their subs are just a bunch of old diesel boats. we could wipe their navy easy, their air would fall fairly quick. Then it will stagnate like somewhere else we are all too familiar with.
    • ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Israel's air force could defeat Iran's air force. So I think we could prevent them from coming here. Also given the fact Iran would need an aircraft carrier to even bring it's fighters in range. But hey, lets not fall into the logic trap.
    • Suricou, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0If this went full-scale war, Iran would be crushed. Almost as much a pushover as Iraq. America is very, very good at old-fashioned war, with tanks and bombers and ships. Iran has the forces to inflict some losses going down, but not to win - and once it gets going, nothing can end it except their defeat. Afterwards, though... as Iraq shows, the US military is far more capable at fighting another military than they are at fighting insurgents.
      • zardozzzzzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah right. And how would you do this... literally, with what army? The U.S. has a hard enough time stocking Iraq with IED-fodder, where are they going to find 500,000 soldiers to take on Iran? Good luck getting a "Coalition"
    • indicas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if they cannot attack militarily, who is to say they wont use unconventional attacks, ex: terrorism.
  • avions, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1Majorities can be just as blind as minorities sometimes.
    Just because a majority of people of believe the war in the Middle East is wrong, does not mean that it is as such.
    • 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.
      • avions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "pesky" evidence that you get from CNN, MSNBC, op-eds in NYTimes and the tombstone-toting Anti-War Nuts down at the local pier does not show the entire picture.
        There is equal if not greater "pesky" evidence that shows the exact opposite picture of said sources.
        However, it is not the quantity of sources that is important it is the quality of sources that is so essential reaching an informed opinion. Sensationalist sources do not qualify for the position of quality reporting.
    • Curiousity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7My problem is that we aren't being given enough information to decide, and the information we are given is solely for propaganda purposes. How are people supposed to make an informed decision if there is no information?
      • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You will know your informed decision when it's presented to you.
      • avions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's like saying that James Bond must keep the UK public informed of all SPECTRE's ongoing operations. Sometimes it is less prudent to share all your information and more prudent to just take care of business. It is not up to US citizens to make informed decisions it is up to the government officials, whom they appointed, to make those decisions in their stead.
  • Frozo, on 10/10/2007, -22/+4To the OP:

    You are a sensationalist *****. Although, I tend to agree that we will most likely attack Iran, the title of your article is ENTIRELY out of context. You left out on HUGE word from that sentense... "IF"

    Post responsibly, jackass.
    Buried as inaccurate.
    • Mardala, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Know you are a misreading *****. The very last line says, and I will quote: "There will be an attack on Iran."

      Maybe read the whole article, which should have been easy in this case, it was only about 200 words before jumping on the poster about this.
      • Frozo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1No I think it's YOU who needs to re-read. Yes, that's the last line, but you are lacking in reading COMPREHENSION.

        The entire paragraph says:

        "And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. 'IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran.' "

        This article is written by the man asking the "Administration official" the questions directly. The question posed to the official was (and although not quoted, it was obviously a question that preceded the officials answer) "what do we do IF just the opposite happens?"

        His answer to that question was, IF that were the case, THEN "There will be an attack on Iran."

        It's not just the words you must read, but the meaning of them IN CONTEXT. Nobody ever stated that "there will be an attack on Iran." Even though that is the quote. Understand now?
        • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Man, talk about reading comprehension for the loss.

          The previous paragraph:
          "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. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it informs White House thinking."

          The first sentence in the paragraph you cited was not an IF THEN statement. It was a transition sentence for the new paragraph which brings up the question "Well what if the neocon argument is wrong and an attack unifies Iran behind their clerics?" The source then replies that it doesn't matter because the IEDs are a cause for war in the Administration's eyes. And we get to the final statement "There will be an attack on Iran."
    • ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5FTFA:
      "If [...] a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime" -- is this the if you're talking about? The administration official was dismissing that possibility therefore justifying (in very delusional thinking that we're unfortunately used to by now) his next declaration that "there will be an attack on Iran." The "will" was a "will" and not a "would," and was grammatically correct in being so. No subjunctive clause.
      • Frozo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, wrong "if". I was mistaken when I said the "if" was in the same sentense. I meant paragraph.

        Anyway, I explained it in my last comment (Sorry about the returns not working for some reason).
  • 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.
    • CPMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But, that's just the thing. Congress will never actually vote to declare the war, but that won't keep us out of Iran.
      • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That is when we take Bush out by expedited impeachment.
    • funk49, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Since when did our Congress EVER vote for their constituents...and by constituents, I mean "people other than lobbyists"? Seen the 4% approval rating lately?
    • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I'm not mistaken (and I may be), the authorization for military force that Congress handed Bush was pretty much a blank check to go anywhere that he deemed posed a terrorist threat to the US, in which case Congress has already agreed to attack Iran. All the more reason they need to repeal that authorization immediately...
  • eean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Don't worry about Saudi Arabia arming the militants. They're friendly!
  • nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22get ready for another great depression.
    globally.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm already depressed.
    • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Get rid of your debt. You can't eat your house or gold, so make sure you've got a plan on how to get food. At the end of the day, all you really need is air, water, food and shelter. Anything else is a luxury. I guess the issue is when the elites have these things and more, and you don't. Serfdom here we come.

      I'll also put this in here real quick. If you're going to digg me down, at least have the guts to leave a comment. Otherwise you're a coward. Some people would just seem to digg down everything I say, even if it is just a quick little joke or something, telling me some are on a personal vendetta just to digg down my comments.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3re: digging down. I feel that way sometimes too, that someone's got a vendetta against me and is digging me down, but the truth is simpler: digg is full of assholes. There's smart, friendly, cool people too, but ***** are there a lot of mindless assholes. They're the bury brigade. Ignore em
  • 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.
    • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wanna-be Digg stars, take note. The preceding comment is an example of ironic sarcasm done exactly right.
    • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And remember, we'll be doing them a favor if they get martyrd because then we will have helped the iranian fanatic men get their rivers of wine and their 12 virgins in their so called paradise.
  • thebigsix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Uhhhhh, get ready for $5 and higher a gallon for gas if this happens...
  • 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.
    • synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7When the bombs start falling it will already be too late.
    • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You do realize that Xenu was the bad guy, right?
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Still is. He's locked in an intergalactic prison somewhere or something.
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Seriously, how can you diggtards stand how stupid you are? Made up quotes, snippets taken out of context, what's next photoshops?
    • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2One suggestion: use noseplugs to keep the sand out.
  • flogistan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15I think we would do best to attack israel. They have done more damage to this country's reputation than anything else.
    • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Your probably right move Israel to Europe where most of the jews lived before WWII and a lot of the problems will go away.
      • nkassi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Darn it, I meant to press the RED button. That is one hell of a stupid comment. Moving people and creating countries for no purpose has gotten us where we are. Thanks British empire. You ***** us up for more than 100 years after you went.
    • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'd be happy if we would just quit financing them.
    • katie212, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0We need to stop AIPAC funding the lobbyists. but congress refuses to do so or they don't get reelected and continue using earmarks for their own private gains.
  • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Did ANYONE READ THE ***** ARTICLE??????

    "But frankly they're guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy."

    So, that's just some people in D.C. the reporter is talking to believe we MIGHT attack Iran. WTF? Assigning blame when even the REPORTER calls *****.... This is the ultimate in digg propaganda.

    GROW THE ***** UP AND READ THE ***** ARTICLE.
    • rritterson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would prefer us saying 'holy crap they might bomb iran' and overreact, then us say 'nah, they will never invade iraq-- they couldn't be that stupid'
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm not saying they are taking an attack on Iran off the table... I'm just saying that the summary and title are FACTUALLY INCORRECT if you even take a summary glance at the article.

        "Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will."

        Followed up IMMEDIATELY by:

        "But frankly they're guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy."

        The rest of the article is PURE SPECULATION.
      • Briankb68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah it doesn't matter what the truth is does it?
    • Frozo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You are 100% correct, I stated the same exact thing... and I'm being dug down too. Go figure. I'm a leftist too, but most of these guys are just to damn extreme to be trusted with logical thinking.
  • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9FTA: "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."

    This assumes the neo-cons give a ***** about democracy.
    • browwiw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This assumes the Iranians want democracy.
      • 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.
        • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But since the president nor the legislature has real power... aren't they still not in a democracy?
          • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Kinda like the US? Who won the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential election? Who lives in a country where the VP ducks and dives to choose which branch of the government he belongs to so he can pick and choose which laws apply to him? Where those who leak the names of undercover intelligence officers go unpunished? Where "We can tell you about the secret stuff, ‘cause it's secret". On this last point, every country has its secrets. What's scary is how often "It's a secret" seems to be the answer when someone wants to know what their government is up to.
          • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They're still a democracy, they're just electing powerless goobers? Democracy is just a fancy way of describing how a choice is made. A democratic government is one where every decision is made by the people, and it's basically mob rule. Spreading democracy is a bad thing. I oppose forcing any form of government on any people who don't choose it for themselves, but if we're going to be in that game, maybe we should spread democratically-elected republicanism? You know, like the one we have. :P
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Iranians DO want democracy.
  • cleric85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16So how hard is it to get a citenzenship in Canada?
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1I don't know. For someone like you who lacks basic reading comprehension, it might be rather difficult.
    • sdcarter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Screw that... I'm worried about radiation making its way north after the rest of the world has enough of our ***** and bombs us into oblivion. All our ICBMs will wave as they pass each other. The smart move is selling everything you own, moving to Mexico where we still get decent exchange for our dollar, and building an underground bunker to hide from the fallout.
    • cleric85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2thcobbs what's up your ass? It was a sarcastic comment.
      • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2People saying ***** like you did based on the summary of an article that is at odds with the actual content of the article. I apologize if I was in error.

        Also, I want to keep as many people in the US as possible.... It keeps debate....

        Lively
    • cleric85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am a skeptic til the end. With a recession at our doorsteps and a budget crises. I don't see how a war is possible. Not to mention how we can afford to keep an army in Iraq meanwhile we fight this war.
  • guitarpunk411, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12If the US attacks Iran, after everything that has happened in Iraq, I will seriously believe that 911 was staged just to get into the middle east and get control over afghanistan, iraq and iran. WWIII will begin, America will most likely win. The New World Order will form and the world as we know it will change for the worse.
    • cleric85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3America will not win. Sure we can beat their army and that's it. To maintain their country and people is an impossibilty. Iraq isn't working so why would they consider another invasion. To perfect failure?!
      • Livewire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Iraq is working wonderfully for them. Wars are not fought for protection anymore, they're fought for money. The ones highest in power are seduced into starting a war, forced into borrowing a plethora of money from the central bank (a private company by the way), then paying it all back plus interest. This is why long "failing" wars are the best for the government; they create more interest for the banks. The banks get more money, while Americans become slaves, repaying money that doesn't exist, and forced to create even more debt. In exchange, the bank gives the ones highest in power some money too.
      • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Livewire is exactly right. The money is created by private banks and loaned into existence. It doesn't matter where it's spent, but war is a good place to spend it because it accomplishes other goals than simply wasting money. They are using the created money and the ignorant American people in their quest to dominate the middle east. A good read along these lines is The Iron Mountain Report. It was said by some to be a farce....but read it and think about it. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/iron_mountain.htm
        He who pays the piper calls the tune.
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3If the US attacks Iran, I'll stand up for the impeachment of Bush.

      However, if digg liberals keep pushing these type of stories to the front page with these fallacious summaries, I'll be more inclined that there is a liberal slander agenda against republicans.
    • sdcarter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3sorry friend, nobody will win that war. It will be nuclear. It will result in at least 1/6 of the world population dying. That's when the aliens will invade. They're just biding their time letting us kill ourselves and waste our military resources on ourselves. Once the governments and militaries are gone we'll be easy picking... and I'll thank you in advance for abstaining from that stupid Futurama quote about welcoming our new leaders.
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hitler thought it could beat the Soviets.
      Tojo thought he could beat China.

      American thinks it could beat both Russia and China.

      Russia just started its own bomber runs over international waters again this month and I really don't think China will take kindly to a foreign power attacking a country that supplies it with 1/3 of its oil.
  • Eric1285, on 10/10/2007, -15/+0Thank goodness, I've been waiting for us to attack Iran ever since we went into Afghanistan. It's about time. We need to wipe these people off the face of the earth, and then move in and take control of all the oil fields. This country runs on oil, and in the long run, this is what we need. The IRGC has nothing that can stop us. I'm sure we'll develop some sort of improvement for the reactive armor on the Abrams tank that'll be able to stop these new IED's. I'd also love to see Iran's F-14's go up against our F-22's...should be quite the show.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Your ignorance and inhumanity boggle the mind. Too many war movies.
      Your opinions are shocking and frightening.
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL. I started to make up a reply to Eric1285's comment in my head, and noticed you're was pretty much it, word for word. Well done sir.
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You sound like a moron. How about you be the first person to fight Iran? Yeah, go over there and die for your fellow Americans. Keep us save, and you go out there and protect us! Thanks, Mr. Moron.
    • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Been playing too many War based video games I see....I hope you are the first go go
    • indicas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1because finding an alternative fuel is much harder compared to fighting 3 wars at once with no public support.
  • Bluntman4000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Off to play War again I see!... War is pretty idiotic if you think about it. The Government sends their citizens to go kill other countries citizens to try and prove that they are some how stronger than them... hhmm makes sense...
    • footodors, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1boy, you're a dumb *****, aren't you?
  • 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.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Oops. Actually, Iran is 27,000ish miles smaller than Alaska. 636,372 sq. miles vs. 663,267 for Alaska. In other words, Instead of invading an area the size of the portion of the eastern seaboard highlighted in the parent image, we'd be doing that same amount minus an area slightly smaller than Massachusetts. I figured I'd point that out now that I checked up on it again (the last time I read it, Alaska was smaller than Iran. I wonder what changed)
    • joelito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They could reinstate the draft.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yes, they could reinstate the draft, but then there'd be a coup d'état.
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Invading Iran = Draft
    • anaesthetica, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4We're not going to invade Iran. We're going to do a series of military strikes against the Revolutionary Guard, if we do anything. Doesn't require an invading army, or reconstruction, or occupation. It would be functionally different from the Iraq misadventure, as it would be targeted against a paramilitary group inside Iran (Rev. Guard) and nuclear sites, not against the regime or the country per se. Look for an operation similar to the Israel-Lebanon conflict.

      Not saying it's a good idea. In fact it's a terrible idea and will probably result in a war stretching from Lebanon to Pakistan and all the places in between. But the strike on Iran will be a different type of conflict than the invasion in Iraq.
      • ffleming, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, this.
      • thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It will result in the Shia rising up in Iraq necessitating using nuclear weapons against Iran and/or a full scale invasion. This is what Zionists like Lieberman have been pushing for for years.
  • footodors, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1Those towelheads got lucky living on top a gold mine and are obviously making a mess of it. Time we took it from them, just like we took it from the indians.
    We can create reservations they can live on, so they can continue fighting each other and stoning their women. Heck, we could even let them build a few casinos like the indians do here.
  • digbird, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Robert Baer was a senior CIA case officer. My guess is that at best, he was a GS-15. Moreover, the way he left the CIA was most definitely not in a manner likely to leave a coterie of admiring employees there or anywhere else who would be likely to slip him accurate information about whether the US is going to go to war or not.

    This reminds me of when I was over in Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991 as a junior Army military intelligence officer. I was about as far down the intelligence chain as you can possibly get. I remember all the "fun" we used to have to try to guess what was going to happen "will we get to go home? when will we attack? what will Saddam do? what's the flying speed of a swallow (Middle Eastern or Levantine?), etc.

    The point is almost none of the speculation and conjecture I engaged in turned out to be right. I pretty much knew what was going on when it happened, shortly before, or shortly afterward. Robert Baer is in the same boat and his "analysis" should be read for what it is, someone trying to reach definitive conclusions on extremely (repeat -- extremely) limited evidence.
  • crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3The world is filled with only nice boys and girls so we live in a Utopia. Furthermore, I believe in Santa Claus, Peter Rabbit and the Tooth Fairy too !

    Hugs and kisses boys and girls !
  • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Who are the 24% extremists still supporting this criminal administration? How comfortable are their lives; how naive, how ignorant, how misinformed and indoctrinated are they?

    Who are the wretched bastards still signing up with the U.S. military? How poor, how desperate, how prone to propaganda and to promises of glory in battle are they?

    I'd be willing to trade the lot of them for an equal number of decent Mexicans.
    • digbird, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Another example of how some people find it a lot more psychologically satisfying to imagine that the people who don't agree with them are all stupid, corrupt, or evil.
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Assuming from your comment that you're a supporter since you seem to be criticising the comment above. And sometimes they are just "stupid, corrupt or evil". How many people have to die for this to be worth it? Are you willing to put your life up for the cause, or just sacrifice other's. If Bush sent his daughters to Iraq, I might give him a little more credit. Not much mind. And don't give me that "It's not the way it works. We have a volunteer military"-rubbish.
    • andales, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Napoleone = someone who thinks that the world has always been wonderful, bad things never happen, and has gotten whatever they wanted from the moment he popped out of their mommy.
  • bushisterrorist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Depleted uranium will effect your life forever.
  • joelito, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10A note to the rest of the Civilized world.Please invade us if our Government starts another war of aggression. Just make sure you don't use WMDs unless strictly necessary.
  • theghoul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Planetary war sucks. Wait until the dominion invades. The Jem Ha'dar will wipe us out so easily. Victory is life.
    • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, it's the Minbari and the Battle of the Line. Get it straight! :)
    • SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just take away the JemHadars milk supply and they will fall like straw men.
  • digbird, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I wonder why people assume that military action against Iran would be an invasion? Given the fact that the issue is Iran's nuclear weapons complex, I would assume that any military action would be a program of air strikes and cruise missile attacks and possibly use of special forces. Rather than think "invasion," people ought to be thinking about something like Operation Desert Fox, the December 1998 attacks that Clinton ordered on Iraq against its supposed WMD complex and regime targets. Or they could look back even further at things like LINEBACKER I and LINEBACKER II, intense bombardment of North Vietnam during that war.
    • CatManDoIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree. Airstrikes and Tomahawk missles is the expected method of attack. There is a chance that tactical nuclear weapons will also be used in order to reach underground complexes. There will be no "invasion" as there are simply not enough troops available.

      I disagree that it will be like Operation Desert Fox, there will be significant blowback from such an operation. Iraq was crippled when Clinton attack it in the last 1990s. Iran is not at all crippled right now.
    • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2because if air striked happened against the USA, we all know the USA will see that as peaceable and not an invasion
  • mutant90, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5wow, mr. president please don't go to war. i'd like to be older than 20 before i die. but the way the gears in your head turn, i could be drafted when i turn 18 (im 17) and die. oh, that's right you don't care about the soldiers, we're just expendable assets to your ever expanding empire.
    • crackedlogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2sorry, he can't read your comment. He's too busy planning a war.
    • zioxide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1^ wtf are you talking about? "plan" is not in Bush's vocabulary. Otherwise he might have had a plan for Iraq
    • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I hope for your sake, if no other, that we aren't dragged into another war.
  • empirefalling, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Again your Fascist leader prepares to invade another country. Why do you allow this? The Grand Alliance of Iran, Russia and China will not permit it. Do you wish an offensive by the Grand Alliance on your own soil? Must you be stopped though external authority? How far will you advocate your Nazi tactics on the World Body? Please stop, capitulate to the wishes of the Peoples of the World Body, change your Fascist direction now before you are destroyed. You have nowhere else to go. Do not let your yourselves be destroyed by the above Alliances . Stop.
    • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+01) Iraq (2002) = Poland (1939)
      2) Iran (?) = Denmark/Norway (1940)
      3) ???
      4) Profit! (My arse. Welcome to World War III)

      With Bush probably not having read much history, I guess he's due to repeat it. The only thing is, I think he and some other people actually want this. FFS.
    • CatManDoIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you purposely being incoherent?
    • Sarevok9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well you are right about one thing.... china / russia would wipe the fcking floor with us....iran.... not so much.
    • Ch1ll1ng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Russia! Russia wants control of Chechnya and is just as likely to invade a country as we are. Using Russia in your argument is a poor decision.

      What Americans need to do is actually study current events and world history to make more informed comments rather than sit comfortably in their homes and say dont do this dont do that forgetting how nice we have it. Iraq could have been left alone, Al Qaeda and the IRGC are a different story.

      Yes there is a point where we need to stop our government. The problem is we are voting these people into power. Actually we didnt with Bush though, the f'ing electoral college did.
  • LesTesmel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I agree that invading Iran would be a serious mistake at this point. Some ridiculous percentage of Iran's population are under the age of 30 and they are overwhelmingly pro-western, pro-democracy and have nothing but disdain for the mullahs. If we attack we will turn all of those young Iranians back to the mullahs as an attack will bring out a fierce sense of nationalism. As myopic as Bush administration foreign policy has been I really don't see Bush ordering a strike on Iran. The best way to go after Iran's government is financially, the Iranian economy is anything but robust, the US state department needs to deter corporations from investing in Iranian oil and gas. Hit them financially and work through proxy groups to pump pro-western, pro-democratic propaganda to the Iranian youth.
    • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Or how about we just leave them alone completely? Freedom and liberty don't require propaganda. Every man, woman and child has an innate yearning for these things. But if they are able yet unwilling to fight for them themselves they do not deserve them.
    • CatManDoIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, an attack on IRan will widen the gulf between the West and Islam. Some say that the US attack on Iraq was a gift to Al Qaeda. If true, then an attack on Iran should also be a gift to Al Qaeda. It's pretty depressing really.
    • infoseek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The international climate on attacking Iran is simple. DON'T DO IT. However, leaving it alone means longer occupation along with costlier U.S. lives. Then there's the ultimate threat of Iranian animosity towards Israel.

      I think it's very likely BushCo will do everything they can to provoke Iran.
  • xSEED, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10i blame bush and the retards that voted him in twice
    • infoseek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I voted for him before I voted against him in 04. I didn't know, and I don't think I deserve to be call retard, just because I'm a GOPer.
      • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're a retard for labelling yourself after a party.
        • infoseek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Your hate on Bush seems to be very clear and concise, along the party line.
      • crackedlogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1anybody who voted for bush at any time deserves to be called a retard. not voting for him in 04 doesn't clear you of stupidity, and yet that's such a common defense.
    • joebagodonuts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I blame the retarded opposition party that couldn't field an acceptable candidate that would defeat Bush. Hell, it wasn't like folks weren't open to the idea. But what do we get? A ticket featuring Kerry - a rich Massachusetts intellectual, and Edwards - a freaking trial lawyer??? Are you kidding me? That was the best they could come up with? They couldn't have found 2 more unappealing candidates to the majority of this country if they had tried.

      But they're trying now - a Clinton / Obama ticket might top Kerry Edwards in sheer un-electability.

      I cannot wait to see how they will screw up the opportunity for the next presidential election.

      The other thing to consider - we had a congress controlled by the same party. Seems to me it works best when the executive branch is dominated by one party and the legislative by the other. Not that there is much substantially different between the major parties - it's just that there's just enough quibbling and petty bickering that nothing gets done. The less the government does, the better.
      • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anybody that votes for a Republican or a Democrat is a reatrd.
        • infoseek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Who else? The thrid party or little independents? They are *****'n tools! Just like you!
      • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Same idea as: "That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine
      • darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Okay... yes, double-post. But this one isn't Digg's fault! I'm just retarded today.
  • LordBalderdash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0if the u.s. were to bomb iran then israel better duck and cover because that's where iran would retaliate - and they wouldn't be alone in that battle. if things got desperate enough then israel could go nuclear and then all bets are off as to just how much ***** would break loose.

    probably not the best idea in the neoconartist playbook.
  • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know, whether or not I agree with the various fellow posters here on digg.com, at least you people do act concerned about various kinds of actions taken by our government. What really scares me is the time when people in this country no longer care about that, only how this government can help fill their pockets or take care of them in this way or that, even at the cost of -- for argument's sake -- nuking another country off the face of the Earth. And don't try to tell me that sad day isn't coming. Look at where we, as a nation, are going -- culturally, morally, spiritually, economically -- and look me in the eye and earnestly try and tell me it either cannot or will not get that bad.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.