What is Digg?122 Comments
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -21/+117Because attacking worked even better, right?
- Germanicus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+58The US vetos anything dealing with Israel. China and Russia will similarily protect their interests. There is no use in pointing fingers. As long as everyone is being selfish, the UN will not be able to act on these matters.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -31/+77Because sanctions worked so well in Iraq...
- alder, on 10/12/2007, -24/+61The Chinese will never agree to sanctions against Iran. Why should they? Iran supplies them with cheap oil, necessary for their rising economy. And the Chinese know Iran will never nuke China.
The Russian won't support sanctions for similar reasons. An essential part of their developing economy is all the weapons they sell to Iran and its allies - Syria and the Lebanese Hezbollah. Which is also true for China - all the current - and advanced! - Iranian military technology comes from either Russia or Iran, and paid for by petrodollars.
Personally I think it's revolting how China and Russia allow themselves to sit on the fence and watch how the whole thing plays out, taking care of their very selfish interests and caring nothing for the adverse outcomes - as long as they won't harm said interests.
In particualr, it's amazing that under the current circumstances China and Russia keep selling the Iranians military resources and technology, including long-ranged ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear yields as far as Europe. They simply don't care about the rapidly increasing probability that those weapons would cause death and suffering to thousands - God forbid millions - of innocent people in the West.
And no, Iran won't necessarily put her power in danger for that to happen. The scenario of a major nuclear terror attack on Western soil gains a lot more probability with a nuclear Iran, for two prominent reasons:
1) Iran has supplied state of the art, military grade weapons technology to terror groups in the recent past, and have never denied their propensity for doing so now (Hezbollah was recently promised a fresh supply of some of the best and deadliest miltary technology in existence, like the C-802 they employed recently against Israeli ships).
2) A nuclear Iran has very little to fear from being linked even to the massive casualties resulting from a unconventional terror attack on a Western population. They obviously were not afraid to supply terror groups with the best conventional weapons, what would they have to fear once every attack on their regime would entail a massive nuclear retaliation? - razarizvi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Terrorism is the act of killing civilians to achieve some future political goal. I cannot imagine how a person with a conscience can justify the killing of two hundred thousand innocent people and not classify it as terrorism. The point about saving future lives is just speculation. The only thing worse than killing two hundred thousand innocent men women and children is condoning that massacre.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+50Why are the US even in the UN?
How is this different from Bullying? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45Only super power? I think China and Russia beg to differ, and soon Europe.
Considering the world isnt built by the US anymore,I think those countries that BUILD the products that you WANT are the real super powers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+56The UN is a joke because the US made it a joke.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Iran is a tyrannical, dictatorial regime? How about informing yourself before making such statements? It's a messed up authoritarian theocracy, but it's certainly not a tyrannical dictatorship.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32@nreynolds
No.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey found this in their investigation:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
http://web.archive.org/web/20041011111052/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1946/460619-bombing-survey1.html - syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23They dropped two on two cities in case one was a dud? They were 3 days apart. If you're going to spout ignorant *****, at least make it PLAUSIBLE ignorant *****.
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25I believe this quote sums it up best:
"Hey UN, you got a problem with that? You know what you should do? You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army--- oh! wait a minute - you don't have an army! I guess that means you need to shut the ***** up, that's what I'd do if I didn't have no army I would shut the ***** up. SHUT. THE. *****. UP!!! That's right!" - Dave Chappelle - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18The sanctions against Iraq (ie the oil for food program) was a great idea. Unfortunately it was implemented in such away that allowed for massive corruption.
The Idea was good the implementation was bad - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -19/+35I read that the war was ending anyway and that Japan had already pretty much lost when the US dropped the bombs on the civilians. Also, they dropped 2 on 2 cities incase 1 was a dud. They really should have demonstrated the power on a more sparsely populated area, but the tactics of tactical nuclear weapons is killing civilians, so they got the most bang for their buck.
- Germanicus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Lets not forget, the US tested nuclear weapons, knowing that the scientists said there is a possibility of incinerating the world's atmosphere (having never used an atomic bomb before). How scary is that?
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -28/+43If I recall, sanctions did work in Iraq. That is why Saddam disposed of all of his WMDs. So when the US said in March 2003 that Saddam had 1 week to dispose of all of his WMDs he had nothing to do or show.
- hehe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20We're in the UN for the sake of showing a guy in a suit to the rest of the world. We don't actually listen to them...we have to do things high and mighty and above the rest of the world that are widely disagreed with.
- Germanicus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18If the US left the UN, they wouldn't be able to veto on issues that the rest of the world wants. Then it wouldn't be able to protect its interests.
- wusupdoe, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30This guy's spot on and you guys dugg him down. The U.N. is a joke. They threaten to write those nasty letters, and when the country doesn't listen, they pretty much write them off as a loss.
But then again you modded up the guy who said the U.S. bombed Japan out of anger, and modded down the guy who corrected him. - Germanicus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Stinknugget is correct. The US impedes UN from progress. But the UN can't stop the US from acting alone. If the US acts alone, its not because the UN is useless, its because the US doesn't believe in the idea of a United Nations.
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"But the UN can't stop the US from acting alone."
The UN can't stop ANYONE from doing ANYTHING. - razarizvi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Please lets not talk about Iran being a tyrannical regime and how it is oppressing its people because for 8 years the Western governments had been arming and aiding Saddam Hussein in killing these same Iranian people that we all of a sudden feel so compassionately about. The people living under the rule of our allies (Saudi, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt....) have far far fewer rights than those in Iran.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21Wow.. we're going to war with Iran soon aren't we? I guess that New York Post investigative journalist might have been right..
- freebirdpat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Newsflash: Belgium has an army.
- drawab, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18It seems the US has lost sense of all the logical reasoning it preached a few years back, it stayed quite over Israeli attacks on Lebanon, it went into Iraq with a flimsy excuse and now it wants Iran, why is it that the US has all of a sudden found a bone to pick with every Muslim nation on the earth. It was only Osama who attacked, you continue to dangle his face at every excuse threaten of dire consequences if left untreated - come on get over it, just hunt down Osama and close the chapter. No use making 9/11 a Holocaust II. it is undoubtedly a tragic moment but all the aggression the US has done and the number of people it has killed in response to 9/11 are now dwarfed. Who remains the greater evil???? My guess is the one who kills the most (lets not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki for our short term memory folks)
- neopara, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17@alder
So when the Americans supplied the Mujahideen against the USSR, that was freedom fighting. It was also different when the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to use against Iran.
Quote "Wikipedia - Iran" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
"The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000. Although Iran itself also possessed chemical weapons, it never used them during the war." - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18If the US leaves the UN, who will enforce their resolutions? Ah, that's right... no one.
- Fungo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@ SmokedL
You're a Colbert fan aren't you?
To quote Homer Simpson, "Facts are worthless. They can prove anything that's even remotely true."
It's all about truthiness. - AiNoMuchi, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25stinknugget,
I live in Japan and I'm a Japanese specialist trained in US/Japan history, politics, etc. It wasn't anger. It was for fear of far greater casulties (on both sides) had they invaded putting troops on the ground. It was an unfortunate choice, no doubt, and because of it many Japanese feel that inspite of what the Japanese government/military at the time did to Koreans, Chinese, Thais, etc, it pales in comparison to the nuclear loss of life in two short instances, thus forging a victimized attitude.
Be that as it may, America would never drop another bomb, but some rogue state could... - Araxen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12WW3 takes one step closer to reality.
- danpsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, sanctions seemed to have worked pretty well considering they had no weapons at all.
- rampage3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No, Its just the World Fight over natural resources and nothing more.
http://digg.com/world_news/9_11_Coverup_Documentary - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The UN is a joke because every member of the security council has a veto. During the Cold War the US and the USSR canceled each other out. Now the security council members use their veto powers to secure their economic interests. The reason that nothing was done to Iraq for many years was that France, Russia and China had significant oil contracts with Saddam's government.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Fungo
"You're a Colbert fan aren't you?"
He's about the only person shown regularly in the mainstream media that actually tries to make people think, to see through the *****, rather than blindly accept whatever dogma the media wishes to peddle. And he's funny as hell to boot.
You're damn right I'm a fan! - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Wow, what a surprise to see the US sidestepping the UN.
.. not. - nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -28/+33@ stinknugget
I don't think you can say we used those nukes in "anger"
We used nukes on Japan to End A War. Research has even proven that the destruction of these two cities SAVED LIVES. If we hadn't done this, we would've entered a lengthy ground war which would have killed many more people (many more CIVILIANS too) - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Who here wants Iran to have the bomb? What has the UN done to stop them from making it?
- CrackIsWack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Here comes the WMD argument again. I'm sure they're just itching to drop a nuke on someone so that the whole world can turn on them. Great foreign policy!
- AirRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7...AGAIN?
I see a pattern emerging. - Zique, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@lj535i
Military power isn't the only definition of a superpower. EU still has the largest economy in the world and a lot of soft power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_as_an_emerging_superpower - McMultiverse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, I'm not crazy. What's happening in Iraq is an occupation. If we did to Iraq what the Allies did to Germany or Japan in WW2, there'd be nothing left. That's what I'm saying. World War has meant a MASSIVE military campaign against equally matched world powers. And my point is that Iran ISN'T a world power and that applying a term as loaded as World War isn't very appropriate.
But, yeah, go Belgium! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@perogi
I for one am not willing to satiate my conscious with the vague, baseless hypothetical that the murder of 200,000 innocent people saved many more.
The facts say otherwise.
We did not *need* a mainland invasion. A simple blockade of strategic ports, or the tactical bombing of military targets using conventional weaponry would have achieved the same surrender. - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Your a tard...stop fooling yourself. Not that many people agree with you in america. Your a fringe nutcase. Please move to Canada or something better like Saudi Arabia where you will be real happy. Thanks and have a nice day.
- t3rr0rz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@stinknugget
Lets not forget that the fire bombings in Japan killed more people then the 2 bombs we dropped. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9step 1: undermime the united nations
step 2: blame the united nations when the ***** hits the fan.
man, americans certainly have some pathological hate for the united nations, that extends beyond rationality, dont they? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -33/+37And the US can?
Lets not forget the US is the only country to fire not one but TWO nuclear weapons in anger. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17@neopara
Go away. We don't want none of your facts. We have The Truth!
The Truth that Iran is a mad country will nuke the west the first chance it gets.
The Truth that it's all good when the US does it, but evil when others do it.
The Truth is that everyone to the left of Democrats are crazy communists
We don't need your facts. They're all logic, no heart, no patriotism. Our Truth and patriotism can beat up your facts! - gendjinn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Perhaps the US and UK should cease it's support for the terrorist MEK operating in Iraq against Iran. The MEK was funded, supported and protected by Hussein and used to attack civilian targets within Iran. They have continuned their terrorism under the sponsorship of the uSUK forces.
The Contras in Nicaragua were also terrorists that are responsible for the deaths of 50,000 men, women and children who were guilty of being teachers, trades unionists and civilians. All funded by the subversion of the US constitution by a b-movie actor and his minions.
Who's the ***** rogue nation again? - rendition, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6According to UNICEF an estimated 500,000 chidren in Iraq died as a result of the sanctions regime. By all accounts the embargo strengthened Saddam's grip, and punished the innocent civilians most. Scruffydan (above) says that the sanctions on Iraq were a great idea. I take it you've either no idea about the degree of suffering caused to Iraqis by US-led wars and sanctions, or you are completely sick in the head. For a guide check out http://www.casi.org.uk/reader/
- razarizvi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Hezbollah kill 241 American soldiers for aiding Israel in their occupation of Lebanon, allegedly with Iranian support. American govt installs and aids Iranian dictator and his secret police (SAVAK) that kills countless Iranian civilians. American soldiers kill 290 Iranian civilians (66 children) by shooting down an airliner in international waters. Then-Vice President George H. W. Bush declared a month later, "I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are." American govt arms and aids Saddam in a war that kills and injures millions of Iranians civilians. American confiscates billions of dollars invested by the govt of Iran and belonging to the people of Iran and refuses to return it.
So I agree with you: "you don't get to avoid responsibility for attacks on us by hiring somebody else to conduct them, sorry" or doing it yourself! -
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is