What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
475 Comments
- Phaedryn, on 02/12/2009, -37/+150Couldn't see that one coming...
You mean Iran...lied? After all, didn't they tell us it was all for energy purposes?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
/s - inactive, on 02/12/2009, -13/+107I am baffled by this whole attempt at a premise.
Is the premise that if Iran gets a nuke, they will immediately use it on Israel? Or just generally, "they will use it"?
If that is the case, Iran has had the capability to bomb Israel with poison gas/chemical weaponry for a long time, yet they haven't. Is it just the image of a nuclear weapon that makes this tongue wagging more important?
I'm not saying Iran should have a nuke. I just am trying to figure out the rationale. - chinaman1212, on 02/12/2009, -25/+111What? did it go unnoticed when the previous administration said this? or does it sound better from the Messiahs administration?
- Janinco, on 02/12/2009, -44/+92Iran...lie?
That would be like Nancy Pelosi or Barrack Obama lying...oh wait... - NoLibertarians, on 02/12/2009, -46/+88Obama best keep a close eye on these bastards, and not be naive about their intentions. They aren't looking for nuke power to pop popcorn
- inactive, on 02/12/2009, -26/+65You mean a crazy irrational nation that has leaders that talk like Hitler (when referring to Jews) could possible have bad intentions?
- Wargala, on 02/13/2009, -18/+52Wait, wait, wait a ***** minute here. When this first came about when Bush warned about it, ALL of you here on Digg said it was a conspiracy, how it was part of a Right Wing Agenda, how it was all about oil, and all that sort of stuff.
Now that Obama's saying the same thing, that means that either Bush was right, or Obama's lying.
Now choose Digg: Was Bush telling the truth? I know in your heart of hearts you know he was, but you simply can't get yourself to admit it. - tobor0, on 02/12/2009, -11/+42You feel safe? A missile is not the only way to get a bomb into Israel. Check out this imagined scenario:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/sep/13/00010/ - dkapuchino, on 02/12/2009, -32/+60Frankly, I feel pretty safe here in Israel. We've got the Arrow missile defense system, that can shoot down any nuclear missle from Iran.
Recently the Iranians were successful in launching a sattelite into space. That's mean they can effectively reach any spot on earth with a different payload. If I were europe right now, I'd be pissing in my pants. - BillE3, on 02/12/2009, -9/+35I think they put this in the news again to get our minds off the stimulus package and quit calling congress and writing letters to complain. Diversion tactics.
Besides Obama talked about talking to Adminajob who is not the leader in Iran. The Ayatollah is the supreme leader in Iran, he will make the determination of where, when, how and who uses a nuclear device against whom.
Remember when Jimmie helped the Ayatollah return to Iran to take leadership after Jimmie helped get the Shah out of leadership? - jorisb, on 02/13/2009, -1/+26Bush: Iran is developing nucular weapons
Digg: ***** Bush!
Obama: Iran is developing nuclear weapons
Digg: ***** Iran! - RealmDown, on 02/13/2009, -9/+33but, but .... they promised. They PROMISED!
- Pstall, on 02/13/2009, -4/+28Just remember... if the stimulus bill is not passed we will lose 500 million jobs every month in all 57 of the United States.
- inactive, on 02/13/2009, -6/+29The argument over whether or not Iran is building a bomb is utterly ignoring the question "Do we have the right to stop another countries technological advances?"
If we don't then the only ethical thing to do is develop defense against said bomb, and stop saber rattling.
If we do, then any country should have the right to invade us on the basis that we have the bomb.
We aren't somehow better than other developing nations, and we can't control what they do.
(Also: This article certainly has brought out the disgraced Bush-supporters and war-hawks.) - Phaedryn, on 02/12/2009, -9/+32I am less worried about 'conventional' delivery systems (aerial bombs, guided missiles, unguided rockets) and more worried about over land transportation and delivery (as well as detonation).
While detonating such a device at ground level is far less effective that an air burst, it's still detonation of a nuclear device.
Having said that however, I am hopeful that even if my government (the US) drops the ball yours (Israel) will not.
Frankly I have far more faith in Israeli intelligence services and the IDF to deal with this than I do the US's. I’m referring to more of "will to act" than "means to act". That isn't meant to disparage Israel's means, it's just a matter of scale. - richgustavson, on 02/13/2009, -3/+26What about North Korea?
- dkapuchino, on 02/12/2009, -8/+31Its much easier to defend from Chemical / gas weaponry. And they don't make land uninhabitable for decades.
Gas/Chems won't destroy Israel. Nukes will.
But the most important issue here is to understand that Iranian nukes don't just threat Israel. They threaten Europe and the middle east, and they also pose a threat of leaking into terrorist hands.
The second worry is that once Iran gets nukes, all hell brakes lose. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, all suddenly feal threatened, and start their own nuclear weapon programs. - TSK05, on 02/13/2009, -7/+30Wait wait, wasn't digg bashing Bush for saying Iran is pursing nuclear bombs (even though he wasn't) and claiming that he'll attack them for non-existant WMDs? What happened, the responses here sure say different.
- Zacktopia, on 02/12/2009, -9/+32Q: "Dropping a nuke on Israel guarantees their annihilation. Why would they?"
A: The mullahs have openly discussed this possibility, and have devilishly bragged that the vast far flung Islamic Empire would remain intact and quickly fill the vacuum.
Further, "When you have a regime that would be happier in the afterlife than in this life, this is not a regime that is subject to classic theories of deterrence."
- John Bolton - brbeaird, on 02/13/2009, -7/+29Bombs create energy, too. Just a whole lot of it at once in a single area.
- UrbanJewess, on 02/12/2009, -32/+54Iran has repeatedly stated its intention of destroying Israel. Only a fool would sit back and ignore this. Israel certainly can't afford to, and I know that there is intense anxiety on the part of Israelis about Iran and her intentions.
- inactive, on 02/13/2009, -4/+24This is one of the reasons I took it easy on Bush on things like Iran. He gets daily briefings from dudes who's job it is to spy on Iran see what kind of ***** they're in. When someone like Kerry or Obama criticized Bush for how he handled the situation, I don't feel like its fair, because they didn't have the same information he did. Now that Obama has been getting those daily briefings, his policies are starting to look more and more like Bush's, and he's doing things he swore he'd never do. Just sayin'.
- PuterPrsn, on 02/13/2009, -10/+30Ya think?!?
- fiatjustitia, on 02/13/2009, -5/+25Gentlemen, this is no place for fighting, this is the War Room!
- inactive, on 02/12/2009, -4/+23They are struggling to get one nuke, with no delivery system (yet). Dropping a nuke on Israel guarantees their annihilation. Why would they?
North Korea comes to mind (not the best example, but I don't want to go all Pakistan). - richmomz, on 02/13/2009, -11/+30Same old *****, different president.
- LonesomeFighter, on 02/13/2009, -9/+28well, to be honest, more people ride Obama's dick than they did Bush's. I think if Obama came out and said water was essential to life, it would hit the front page as breaking news and that we should drink water.
- Phaedryn, on 02/12/2009, -2/+20Actually some variants of Chemical weapons can make land uninhabitable for many decades (persistent chemical agents can remain in the top soil for a very long time, any dust kicked up makes them an aerosol again).
However, Chemical agents are difficult to disperse over a large area and easy (as you pointed out) to defend against. They just are not very reliable as a Strategic weapon, though they make excellent tactical weapons (which is what they were originally developed for).
Biological weapons are even more problematic, especially in that region of the world. The climate makes them even less likely to be very effective.
Nukes, on the other hand, leave little to chance. Additionally, they make a pretty big statement to the rest of the world. Of the three they are the most difficult to produce but the easiest to deploy effectively. Sort of ironic. - sultanknish, on 02/12/2009, -8/+25conventional chemical weapons wouldn't finish off Israel, but a few nukes would
- Striker101, on 02/13/2009, -7/+24One undeveloped bomb without a delivery system seems not so threatening as the thousands of bombs around this earth. Were Iran to actually succeed and drop an abomb, tho, it could easily trigger our world turning into glass. Not only Iran, any fool could start the chain.
- Hetman, on 02/13/2009, -4/+21I think they are both wrong. Our foreing policy has failed. We should not be intervening into foriegn affairs. It is not our job to police the world.
- OwdenBowden, on 02/13/2009, -5/+21You Mean Obama Reversed his position?
You mean Obama Lie?
Didn't see that coming... - zantos420, on 02/13/2009, -9/+25If I were in charge of Iran and surrounded by nuclear-bearing-crazy-ass-***** I'd want a nuke in my arsenal too
edit: *especially* if israel has 'em already. - LeepII, on 02/12/2009, -28/+42Paid pentagon propaganda. It is sad how many supposedly smart diggers fall for this *****. The "wipe Israel off the map" comment has already been proven to be a deliberate mistranslation by an Israeli translator. Both the IAEA and the CIA have said that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons. Israel has been in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty for several decades, yet there is no talk of attacking Israel.
Get a clue people, turn off the propaganda box and do some real research. - Infowarsdotcom, on 02/13/2009, -2/+16*Release
- V3n0M, on 02/13/2009, -6/+20Maybe it's Obama who is lying...
- ajwinder, on 02/13/2009, -2/+16I cant tell if this is snark but on the off-chance it's not...
We've never shot down anything with the missile shield that we did not have trajectory, target location, and velocity information on. That's a pretty un-realistic scenario for an enemy engagement. Beyond that, we're talking about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, not having a delivery system that could affect us. And third, you're downright moronic if you think the missile shield would bring down a serious nuclear threat. I'm not talking one missile, I'm talking a concerted attack consisting of many missiles -- a doomsday scenario. So, this system will never protect against a "doomsday" scenario, and right now, that means we're developing a non-working system, with near-infinite budget, that aims to spoil small-scale, one-missile attacks. IE, attacks from nations without delivery mechanisms that can affect us. The missile shield is philosophically, technologically, and logically moronic.
If we put that money towards rooting out the crazies that live in this country, I'dda felt a hell of a lot safer. - miffelplix, on 02/13/2009, -6/+20If we're serious about nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East, let's start with Israel and her +400 nukes. Otherwise, Iran has every justification to pursue nukes for self defense.
- sultanknish, on 02/12/2009, -4/+17With a first strike, their annihilation is not that certain. Israel doesn't have the kind of world spanning nuclear sub network and large territory that made MAD work for the US.
Israel is smaller than Rhode Island. Two or three nukes might well wipe out Israel with no retaliation toward Iran.
Furthermore Iran has plenty of terrorist partners such as Hezbollah and Hamas they can simply pass suitcase nukes onto. - txchica, on 02/13/2009, -5/+18Have you listened to Ahmadinejad? This is one man who would gladly attack Israel or the US if he thought there wouldn't be any retaliation, but I wouldn't put it past him to give it to someone else to do the dirty work. Plus, why do you think they keep testing those long range missiles? It's not just for kicks and giggles.
- Hetman, on 02/13/2009, -0/+13They do not need to hit Hawaii. They have enough firepower to destroy South Korea. South Korea is one of the most thriving democracies in the world. They are also our ally.
- alpha19, on 02/13/2009, -0/+13@CrazedLeper: WOOSHHHHH
- Insightful, on 02/13/2009, -3/+15Pure propaganda. Every single Arab/Muslin contries say they want to destroy Israel and America too while they are at it - do we cower in fear because of it? No!
Ahmadinejad was simply restating Iranian policy. The President before Ahmadinejad said the same thing and so will the President after. Furthermore, he made the speech at the "World Without Zionism" conference - what did you expect him to say?
In addition, Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian, He said بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود which says the regime that occupies Jerusalem will vanish from in time i.e. Israel will collapse - something that is said in Middle East every single day.
After the speech, Shimon Peres stated that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map." Is that not a threat and does Israel not have nuclear weapons?
US has Israel as an ally. Great. We sell it billions of weapons. We also have Saudi Arabia has an ally and we too sell it billions of weapons. Oh yeah, they also sent us the attackers of 9/11.
My point is that we needn't be afraid of bogeyman and there are plenty in the Middle East. - Phaedryn, on 02/13/2009, -8/+20Im sorry, is Israel a signatory to any treaties pertaining to nuclear weapons? I wasn't aware they were.
Oh, wait...
"Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea."
It is kind of difficult to be in violation of a treaty you haven't signed...just saying.
I also wasn't aware that Israel was spreading nuclear technology to other nations (proliferation), do you have any proof of this? And if so, which nations have they been exporting to?
"Nuclear proliferation is a term now used to describe the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations which are not recognized as "nuclear weapon States" by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT." - novaculus, on 02/12/2009, -7/+18Too bad crap isn't neurons. Have you talked to a neurologist about that little "***** for brains" problem?
- rrife, on 02/13/2009, -18/+29The problem is is that Country A has publicly said, repeatedly, that they want to eradicate Country C and will stop at nothing to do so. They've also funded operations that have killed civilians of Country C, so there is no reason not to believe them. Yes, it's premature to think that Country A will want to bomb us all with their nukes, however we've got to take Country A's word on it when they're claiming that is their goal.
- dkapuchino, on 02/13/2009, -4/+15Wasn't taking over an American embassy and keeping American Diplomats hostage for a year and a half kind of Attacking a Western Nation, let alone a NATO Member?
Isn't the burning of American and Israeli flags every friday Mass kind of a declaration of intentions?
Isn't funding and training Hamas and Hezbollah, which are terrorist groups that have carried out countless suicide attacks, and in case of Hezbollah, attacks not only against Israel, but as far as Aregentina? - yerdaddy, on 02/13/2009, -4/+14Well cool. Let US see the proof.
- saunders45, on 02/13/2009, -4/+14Duh... it's digg.
- xerigen, on 02/13/2009, -7/+17Funny how Obama can cite the NIE in debates when the NIE concludes that Al Qaeda is most likely in Waziristan (part of Pakistan) but he can conveniently disregard their advice on Iran.
I am glad I'm not a Republican or Democrat. Because during the Bush administration, the Republican apologists made me sick, and now the Obama bots justifying things that they admonished Bush for make me sick. -
Show 51 - 100 of 482 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is