What is Digg?231 Comments
- quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -50/+239"If they were real patriots they would have staged a military coup d'état back in 2000 and handed the country back over to the candidate that the majority of Americans voted for."
Well, not really. That would go against their oath to 'support and defend the Constitution" that states that the candidate with the most electoral college votes wins, not a simple majority. So in fact you are wrong. - choochee, on 10/12/2007, -53/+215The generals should quit because Bush is president.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+121@jerryparid:
Wrong. The Electoral College's purpose is not only to protect the country from ignorant voters, but it was also put in place so that every state has an equal voice. That is why every state, regardless of how small, has at LEAST two votes. This makes sure that the hugely-populous states don't control the country and, as you can see, the majority of the states voted for Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000
Furthermore, the election in 2000 wasn't the only one in which the winning candidate didn't win the popular vote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college#Electoral_vs._Popular_vote
I hate Bush just as much as anyone else, but I suggest that instead of complaining about the way America was founded, you start complaining about the fact that the Democratic Party can't even manage to select a candidate that can win against a president with a 30% approval rating. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+111Good for them. It's good to see military officers that put their integrity above their rank. There's still hope for saving this country from that madman.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+92the problem with a US military coup is taht the army is so huge that you need to get everyone on board or risk a civil war.
- Aard88, on 10/12/2007, -10/+84"Reality has a well known Liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert-
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -24/+97@quickgold192
One crucial point: The electoral college didn't put Bush in the White House, the Supreme Court did. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+77> What happens when a general quits?
early retirement... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+87I've already met one of these "rogue" generals. I won't say who it is because of obvious *****. I met him through a friend...who was a high school friend of his. We played golf together one day.
Once we got rid of all the aides and turned off all our electronic devices (cell phones, etc)... he confided in me an my friend (his friend) that Bush "disgusts him." Flat out.
Considering that this man is one of the highest ranking military officials in the government...and from his response...I'll bet he'd most likely be one of the "resigners."
And I wouldn't blame him one f'n bit. In fact, I'd support him. - xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -13/+74The troops aren't even supporting themselves now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+69When a private quits he's a deserter. What happens when a general quits?
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -8/+62Everyone but the conservatives have a clear liberal bias!
- bradleycomer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52There was an article similar to this on Digg a few months back, and when I saw a friend of mine who is currently in the Army, I mentioned it to him. Basically, from what he's learned about the chain of command in his time there, what would end up happening is that if the President is hellbent on invading a country and a General refuses to do so, he will be replaced within 24 hours. If the person below him refused to send troops to war, they would be replaced equally as quick, and it would just continue down the line until someone was in the position who has no problem doing the job.
- CodyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -12/+60
Too bad this point is skewed because we all know that U.S. Generals have a clear liberal bias. - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -12/+53For those of you saying this country is a democracy, you're wrong, it's not: it's a republic.
- aegis9975, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45>>If they were real patriots they would have staged a military coup d'état back in 2000 and handed the country back over to the candidate that the majority of Americans voted for.
I know this is Digg, but I'll bite. . .
There is a reason why the American government is designed with a civilian as the head of the military (which is why the President is commander and chief of the US Armed Forces). The chain-of-command is specifically designed to avoid military coup d'état; being that the highest commanding officer is not a general. Historically, military generals make poor leaders of free nations. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+51@strangerzero:
And our nation's forefathers would have turned in their graves because we are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41@HankHill
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson - AkatsukiNoTobi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+44The U.S. generals, Russia, and almost the rest of the world is against the attack; and yet, I have a strange feeling that Bush is still going to try to attack Iran because of a lame excuse such as the "War on Terror."
- xstnothing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35@drizek
The President can replace as many soldiers as he wants if he reinstates the draft. - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40"But Iran, on the other hand, is indeed a case of a dangerous bunch of crackpots who are dangerously on the verge of getting WMD."
Wow.. that sounds a lot like Iraq, circa 2000. How do you know that Iran is a bunch of dangerous crackpots who are on the verge of getting WMD's? Have you been there? Do you have video evidence, with signed affidavits from Iran's President (I can't spell his name), with a date & time stamp on an analog medium with thousands of copies, and the original in a top-secret location that can be broadcast immediately to the entire world at a moment's notice? If not, then you're just believing whatever the media tells you... just like the conservatives did in 2002 with Iraq.
Moral of the story: Don't come off all high-and-mighty because you believe something about one country and not another when the only difference is hindsight. - Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31>"It's the most widely-read newspaper in Britain.
The most widely-read newspaper in Britain is The Sun.
The Times isn't even close. Not by a long-shot.
Daily circulation figures:
The Sun - 3,200,000 copies
The Times - 670,000 copies - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41No...the troops ARE finally supporting themselves against foreign policy blunders, tactical blunders and the will of a Neocon lead White House that hungers for perpetual war.
Seriously, read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. The Neocons LIVE that book...and by the time you reach the end of chapter 2...you'll have no argument as to why I see it as the scariest book of all time.
It makes Mein Kampf look like the Boy Scout manual. - kazumaSHELL, on 10/12/2007, -22/+53@Soniti
"It makes me sick that I risk my life every day for some of you."
you made a CHOICE at some point.
cry me a river you bitch. - clangcave, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35waiting2awake just now,
Behold the power of the neocon propaganda machine, a large portion of the mis-informed population of this country STILL believes Saddam had "something" to do with 9-11. A la Fox news, A la every corporately owned media outlet. And oh, where is ol' Osama these days? The one individual responsible for the largest attack on American soil in 60 years. We know where Tojo is. - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37Do you really think bush can get away with something like that? He can replace 10 generals, but can he replace 200,000 troops? Enlistment is already low as it is, who will sign up to fight in iran?
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Iran is not a dangerous bunch of crackpots, it's a divided country. A large part of Iran would like to change the leadership of the country. If we attack pre-emptively, we will create a united Iran, united against us. It will set back normalization of Iranian politics, and thus normalization of Middle Eastern politics at least four generations.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25@flazz
"Contrary to popular belief no one has the right to vote, the only rights we have are outlined in the Bill of Rights."
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26its happened numerious times..
My father enlisted in the marine core, and started out as a private, and by the mid 1990s he was a Major before retiring...
There are some ambitious people in the military... - Darkseit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@enzomedici
I am a veteran of two foreign wars and it is entirely too sad to see how little regard you have for human life...
"If it's ok to wipe out 500 people with a bomb, then it's ok to shoot anyone for any reason period"
-It's NOT OK you *****! That's exactly why we don't use the blanket-bombing techniques of the world wars and develop more precise rockets and "smart-bombs", because there are innocent civilians that we don't want to kill.
"We're too busy trying our soldiers for Abu Graib and murdering people."
-Once again, NOT ACCEPTABLE! This is the only thing that lends the slightest bit of credibility to the military campaign there. A soldier cannot forget what he stands for, he is not a murderer, he is a defender of freedom and a symbol of his country, the America we love and defend does NOT stand for murder. If we went around and just "shot someone in the head" just because we felt like it, it would make us exactly the same as those idiots flying the planes on 9/11. If we do what you're suggesting, we risk leaving a mounting trail of suicide-bombers in our wake. I pray for you son, I pray that you may one one day realize the incredible value of just one human life, and that an American uniform is never so disgraced as being worn by the likes of you. - green1152, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28So pretty much, Bush is thinking about starting a WWIII just to leave a little legacy behind for the next guy? What a fu**in' idiot.
- hydralisk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Obviously the President can fight a war if he wants to. It's not like the military will stage a coup or resign en masse. But that a number of a senior military commanders are so strongly opposed to another war that they'll quit should send a strong signal to those in favor.
- mhearne, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25The President may be the commander in chief of the armed forces, but he does not have the legal right to declare war on foreign nations. The laws which are presently being employed, that enable him to do that, are the first and second War Powers Acts. The reader can look these up by researching the United States Code, which I will not go into here. Please see the First and Second War Powers Acts at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title50a/title50a.html
The "Powers Acts", were passed in late 1941, and early 1942, and were scheduled to be repealed on September 30th, 1946. But because Franklin Roosevelt died in office, this was never done.
Only the Congress of the United States has the legal power to declare war. They have not done this since 1944, when a simultaneous declaration was issued against Romania and Bulgaria, for their cooperation with the Germans.
If the Powers Acts had been retired on schedule, then there never would have been a Korean War, or a Vietnam War, or any of the skirmishes in between. What has happened to our country since 1980 is unconscionable, and it may be too late to repair the damage by now. It seems to have become acceptable to defecate on our Constitution in the name of Political Correction and the implementation of Fascism.
Iran is old Persia. They have not been subdued since the time of Alexander the "Great", and that lasted about a month. We have neither the resources nor the men to mount such an invasion. If we invade Iran, I predict that a huge number of our men will be killed, and that we will lose all remaining credibility with the world, and will become a third world nation ourselves. - choochee, on 10/12/2007, -14/+34The article from the London Times. It's the most widely-read newspaper in Britain. It's like the Washington Post or the New York Times.
- Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26@sanman
#1 - they, at least originally, were not after weapons, but energy.
#2 - now that the US has openly threatened them, #1 may have changed(but even that is years away on the inside. Imagine that, US policy creating more of what it is supposed to try and stop?)
#3 - why do you say that Iran is filled with "crackpots", They haven't invaded anyone - the US has. They don't have WMD's - the US has, their leader is well in check - the US's isn't.
Maybe you should be looking a little closer to home if you are sincere about making the world safer? Hmm?
Cheers./ - jerryparid, on 10/12/2007, -43/+62@quickgold192
The US government is by the people, for the people. The electoral college was simply put in place to limit the ignorant populous. Back during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, the electoral college voted freely, often opposite of the will of their constituents. But, in the 20th and 21th century; it serves merely as a powerless institution that follows the vote of the constituents.
It fails horribly in the sense that it elected Bush without the greatest number of popular vote. Electing Bush as the president will server as one of the greatest American mistake of the 21th century. - kodak543, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26No decent human being EVER wants to go to war. Its a pointless endeavor that costs innocent lives (655,000 in Iraq) , soldiers (3100+ Americans, and 10,000 Iraqi), and way too much money($300,000,000,000 [thats 300 billion!!!]). Its absolutely sickening, when we have so many more issues to deal with like better education, improve our infrastructure, rebuilding New Orleans, getting rid of our oil dependence
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@Soniti
"It makes me sick that I risk my life every day for some of you."
You risk your life by posting on Digg? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26I'm confused, which scandal is this?
Is this the Abramoff bribery scandal or Tom DeLay's money laundering scandal?
It could be the Cunningham bribery scandal...
Or is it the illegal wiretapping scandal?
The GOP pedophilia coverup?
The 9 billion missing in Iraq scandal?
Or is it the Vermont vote tampering scandal?
The Kentucky hiring scandal?
Or the Ohio embezzeling state funds scandal?
No, wait, Ohio is another vote tampering scandal... or is that Florida?
If this is about the CIA, it could be the intel fixing scandal.
Although it could be the attempted murder of a CIA agent to get back at her husband scandal.
But it could be an entirely new scandal...
Can I get some help here? - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18It's been a while, but doesn't the President need permission from Congress to send us into war with another country? I don't see this Congress doing that right now and I don't see them effectively giving him another "blank" check to go to war like they did with Iraq.
- thushan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Gee... if only you could bury the War in Iraq/Terorrism... for the same reasons...
- choochee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20The Sun is not a newspaper. It's like Fox News, which is not a news outlet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Integrating the military and allowing gays to serve are "one" thing...
...but openly attacking ANOTHER country when we're not done in TWO OTHER countries...when our military is ALREADY stretched thin...is ***** RETARDED. These generals have a duty to the troops under their command as much as they have a duty to this country. Just because the CIC is ordering something doesn't make it RIGHT...or SMART.
Hell, I'll argue that their duty to the troops under their command and their duty to this country coincide...because attacking a country that *isn't* a threat yet...along with the fact that such an attack would stretch our troops even FURTHER than they already are...they're saying that "enough is enough" and I wholeheartedly support them.
It would be like going into a gang war with one clip and a pocket knife. - clangcave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20no, pal it is the commander-in chief and his organized crime syndicate who should fall on the sword.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Lately the "Journal"...and I'm assuming you mean the Wall Street Journal...has proven themselves to be just as unreliable and biased as any of the "liberal" newspapers.
I pray for the day when the "news" again becomes just the "news"...without any op-ed *****.
FACTS, people...all we need are the FACTS. - thushan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15on the internets, no-one can hear you scream... so quit typing in uppercase... (atleast you didnt do MiXeD CaSe to look super cool!)
as for wtf the OP is complaining about, its this part in the article...
> The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are
> willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
"Learnt is more common in British English, and learned in American English."
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/learnt
The world doesnt have to be americanised, i've learnt that and so should you:p - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Machiavelli's The Prince is just realism. It's more observation than instruction.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21When Bush's presidency is over, I can seriously see Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld all being put on trial for the war in Iraq and the negligence that led up to 9/11.
of course they have to wait until there out of power because Bush is to much of a loose canon. - AhmedOmran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16"Trying people for murder in a war is insane. It's a war. If it's ok to wipe out 500 people with a bomb, then it's ok to shoot
anyone for any reason period. Those people should in such fear of US troops that they bow down as they walk down
the street."
Then it's ok to murder an entire Iraqi family, then rape the 14-year old daughter while you're at it. I guess you're the type of psychopath who would do that.
"Stop whining like pussies and fight the war....or kneel down towards Mecca. We'll see how Muslims tolerate your liberal
ideas once they bitch slap you and take over. I'd love to see the Taliban come rolling through your town."
God, when will this myth ever die out? Muslims are NOT planning to take over the west. Muslims are NOT oging to destroy the world and convert everyone to Islam. STOP BELIEVING THAT STUPID CRAP ALREADY!!
You're clearly dillusional. And do you know who made use of that in the past? Hitler. Yes, good old Adolf kept ranting about the Jewish threat, and that Jews will take over Europe and destroy the Arian culture, that Jews will do this, that Jews will do that, yadda-yadda, until people like you started believing it. And it led to very, very ugly results.
You want Hitler as your role model, sanman? Sieg Heil, sanman?? - ELWmusic1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@jetsetgo
You have no clue what you are talking about. Your statement does not make any sense. If you don't even know the ranks, don't comment on something you know nothing about. -
Show 51 - 100 of 223 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