digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Paul: I hear members saying "If only we could nuke Iran"

infowars.net — Congressman Ron Paul has warned millions of radio listeners that the US is heading into a deadly confrontation with Iran, revealing his disbelief at members of Congress who have openly voiced support for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the country.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • raphinaus, on 07/04/2008, -9/+215we're entering a new age of madness. they'll do it, and they'll get away with it, if you Americans don't get off your butts and do something about it.

    rights are never granted. they are usurped or defended.
    • lazerus9, on 07/05/2008, -1/+26My full quote is:

      Rights are never granted!...They are either usurped or defended!

      Lazerus9

      Obviously I agree!
    • sk11, on 07/06/2008, -1/+11This is what will strongly encourage many countries to develop/secure weapons of mass destruction, frightening thought huh?
    • DroogInPhoenix, on 07/06/2008, -1/+16Don't be an idiot and blame all Americans... I support Ron Paul, I donated quite a bit.. He still has my support as I cannot in good faith vote for anyone else. Don't blame Americans, blame the American media. The media: lies, distorts and puts their agenda ahead of truth. hmmm wait.... OK blame Americans.
    • cubedw00t, on 07/06/2008, -8/+3let's be serious. the U.S. would NEVER use a preemptive nuke. they don't need to, it's not advantageous enough.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2They would nuke another country if they felt they needed to.

        The George Bush presidency has been all about exaggerating threats, lies blamed on wrong data, lack of accountability, and ends justifying the means.

        All he has to do is dream up a threat that warrants nuclear war and boom.
      • sdocpublishing, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1It should also be mentioned that George Bush has already clearly stated his belief in Armageddon, and feels that he has a role in it.
        By nuking Iran, he is just doing his Gods will.
        He wants it. I am quite convinced that George Bush will either nuke Iran himself, or give full support to Israel to do it.
      • NonServium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1"The US would never use a preemptive nuke"....

        That should read

        "The satanists in charge of many countries, including the US would never use a preemptive nuke"...

        ... and you're wrong. They would.
    • MemeWarrior, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen."
      - W.H. Auden
  • XanderDee, on 07/05/2008, -6/+125My god I never though that any sensible person would want to set off a nuclear bomb on civilian city again. I mean once America uses a nuclear weapon the it will not be undone it will be open season for every nuclear power on the planet, never mind the fallout political and radioactive.
    • lazerus9, on 07/05/2008, -0/+28Have you seen any sign of sensibility?
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5in the government, you mean. and the answer is no.
    • TonyLocNE, on 07/05/2008, -0/+21And that's exactly what Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector, says would happen if we were to ever invade Iran.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

      I'm not holding out hope for this country.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5beautiful. I miss book tv, they stopped carrying it (cspan2) on my cable network. probably to stop the repbulicrats here in Georgia from hurting their heads thinking too much.
      • Leadman584, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2The "Pick Your City" quote is insanely disturbing. Our government will use any retaliation, by any country in the world as an excuse. Our borders have more holes than swiss cheese. What worries me more, is contamination of one or more water supplies. Lake Meade in NV supplies over 20 million with water. The Great lakes feed rivers to most of the Midwest and some Eastern states. Introducing toxic chemical or biological agents into these water supplies would be catastrophic.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/05/2008, -2/+26Israel (thru AIPAC) is pushing with all its might to get the US to obliterate Iran. Unfortunately, there are enough whackjobs in the US who are looking forward to this so they can meet Jeebus in person and enough politicians who are willing to pander to them to make it happen.

      You've got 3 nations beholden to religions fanatics playing chicken with each other in the name of God. There is no sensibility or rationality in any of this. Combine this insanity with the lust for control of the middle eastern oil reserves, a nuclear arsenal, and a retarded chimp looking to make a name for himself with nothing to lose, and the stage is set for a major disaster.
    • rewinn, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6The kindest excuse is that a lot of people are still driven mad with fear, whipped on by the White House and others who profit from their cowardice.

      The less likely excuse is that Iranians are, after all, dark of skin and therefore, in the eyes of many Republicans, not human.

      Nuclear weapons burn people to death. Their use is a crime and calling for their use is also a crime.
      • chromerium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4If you happen to be simply burned alive within a few minutes, count yourself "lucky". The ones that will truly suffer is the hundreds of thousands or millions who will succumb to radiation poisoning for decades, centuries, later.

        Nuclear weapons are truly horrific, and I fear that there are not enough people in power these days who were around at the time the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki who truly understand the terrible power of these devices. Instead the people we do have in control of these awesome, terrible weapons are selfish, mindless, stupid puppets, who don't care how the world ends up as long as they and their friends 'get' something out of it at the end.

        If it all goes to hell, they'll be safely ensconced in a bunker with enough provisions to last a hundred years, why would they care?
  • c0ri, on 07/05/2008, -5/+102I guess people really don't realize the implications of something like this. It doesn't just do initial damage. It continues killing for generations through cancer and other diseases. Come to Japan and talk to people, they will tell you.
  • sphira, on 07/05/2008, -6/+70Only madmen take a Pacific Paradise like the bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands and blow it up!
    the indigenous population was relocated - sounds like an ultimatum was in there somewhere -

    "The United States government enrolled some of the Marshallese into a secret medical experiment called Project 4.1. The intent of the project was to study the effects of radiation on human beings."

    Oh ok - so we fight a war to depose despots - and casually perform tyrannical acts -

    Madmen infest our government - the PEOPLE'S government
    They were there then, and they are there now
    It is up to us to root them out! -
    Paul is our next best chance - momentum through the next four -
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 07/05/2008, -57/+7This is wack ass crap here. Everyone knows that we wouldn't nuke Iran.

    Iraq was the 5th largest army in the world when we attacked them and we rolled right through. The same would happen with Iran.

    And honestly I've heard several people say just nuke the middle east, it's more or less a way to implore disgust.
    • dawnraid101, on 07/05/2008, -5/+26Iraq's infastructure was completely in disarray for years previous, they had no backbone to support an army, their soldiers were miltia. Iran on the other hand is ***** organized.
      • HotSaucePanCake, on 07/05/2008, -4/+8the first time we attacked iraq
      • silentboom, on 07/05/2008, -2/+19When Obama and McCain say "all options are on the table" they mean ALL OPTIONS. They certainly would do it, at least with tactical nukes. Many tactical nukes are almost as devistating as one big one. Iran would be much tougher than Iraq, especially since Russia and China would be angered by us doing it.
      • iizh, on 07/06/2008, -3/+1A boy scout troop is also "organized." It means little when the country's technology is primitive. The best in its air force are F-14s and early versions of MiG-29 and its navy consists of obsolete, aging warships that were hand-me-downs. I think it's a safe to wager that Iran will get its ass handed to it quickly.
    • Sogladtobehere, on 07/06/2008, -1/+12Iraq had the fifth largest standing army in the world at one point, but you are off your rocker mate. It was nowhere near it's peak when the US invaded (the second time).

      If America won't nuke Iran, what is the purpose of America making new "bunker buster" nuclear weapons?

      As for your comment on "disgust" with the middle east, perhaps Americans should take a long hard look in the mirror. Why do you think the rest of the world is disgusted with you? Still, generally most non-Americans are educated enough to not use the "let's just nuke 'em" line as an expression of discontent. (Even if we do hate you as a nation, and we do.)
    • 007brendan, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Iraq DID have the fifth largest ARMY in the world when we invaded KUWAIT, NOT IRAQ. Mind you, their Navy and Air Force were virtually non-existent; and even though they were fifth, it was a FAR off fifth. Kuwait is pretty damn small, and America only faced a portion of Iraq's Army.

      Either way, just because our Army could roll into Iran, doesn't make it a valid argument for doing it.
      • Leadman584, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Iran has the largest standing Army on Earth. More than China and North Korea combined.

        There may be "Shock and Awe" for a bit, but these are insanely proud people. Every Persian, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jew, will fight to the last man, woman, and child.

        This is not a regime change issue. Genocide or victory are the only 2 possible outcomes.
    • dagnome1984, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1To paraphrase Bill Hicks. After the 4th largest army there is a huge ***** drop off. I am the 6th largest army in the world.
  • avengingturnip, on 07/05/2008, -6/+92These people are absolutely delusional, functionally insane. What has happened to America?
    • Kent4jmj, on 07/05/2008, -5/+20Public Schools
      • NeoConSlayer, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2That's why I was home-schooled, and my wife and I home-school our boys.
    • silentboom, on 07/05/2008, -2/+18America has been bought by supernational corporations and the Bush regime has international interests, they don't care one bit about our Constitution. We the people mean nothing, they don't even care about increasing taxes anymore because they can suck the value out of the money in your pocket by inflation. The middle class is the most resistant to globalization so they will be pushed downward until they accept socialism just to survive. If that doesn't work they will go the fascist route and give subsidies to companies like Walmart lobbies who will give you checkups at their clinics and cheap medication, soon to open Walmart hospitals or something like that. It doesn't matter if your tax money goes right into a socialist program or is handed off to a corporation who does the same thing. Either way, you are led to being a child of the government and your choices are heaviliy influenced or removed. That is why we need subsidies minimized along with socialist programs. The choice need to be back in the hands of the large and powerful middle class. We must fight for our way of life with ever passing day.
    • BlackJackJester, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3You voted them into office, that's what happened, or worse, didn't vote. Next time don't vote a lawyer into congress.
    • trackerbishop, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3you voted them in, and keep voting for the two party system. then when they bombed iraq and staged 9/11, you (and i) sat on your ass and didnt take up arms. that's what happened. we are all guilty

    • cowboy77061, on 07/06/2008, -2/+2religion.
    • Kent4jmj, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1Actually Religion is proven to have a very beneficial effect on society. It's role of instilling a moral code can not be taken over or usurped by government..
  • vault, on 07/05/2008, -45/+11I find that pretty hard to believe because it wouldn't even be necessary if the goal is take out their nuclear reactors. They were either exaggerating, Paul is making it up, or they were referring to nuclear bunker busters which aren't quite the same thing.
    • fuzzybeard, on 07/05/2008, -3/+12A nuke is a nuke, schmuck! The differences between nukes are:

      Fission or Fusion
      Single or Multistage
      Yield
      Detonation in Space, Air, Ground, Underground, or Underwater

      Thing is, they should NEVER be used again! There's still a few survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki around; go talk to them and see what it was like to live through an atomic blast.
      • vault, on 07/06/2008, -9/+2A nuclear bunker buster is absolutely not the same thing as a conventional nuclear weapon. They penetrate further into the ground with much less fallout.

        Even still, no one is seriously considering nuking Iran, so your troofer wet dream will have to wait. Paul probably made the whole thing up just to get his point across.
      • dagnome1984, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3I seriously doubt that Paul made it up considering how trigger happy the neoconservatives are. Take some time out of your day and listen to the majority of idiot callers on neocon talk shows who say that the middle east must be turned into a class parking lot.

    • 007brendan, on 07/06/2008, -2/+4What right do we have to take out their nuclear reactors in the first place? By that course of logic, you would be perfectly fine with Iran dropping a "bunker buster" nuke on three mile island; so long as they weren't "trying" to kill any civilians.
      • vault, on 07/06/2008, -3/+2Who cares what right they have? I want as few countries to have nuclear weapons as possible, and ideally no countries who are hostile to the United States should have them.

        But then I love my country and care more about it than I care about what's 'fair' to terrorist theocrats.

        Following your "course of logic" every country in the world should be able to have them just because the United States does.
      • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -2/+2What's wrong with that logic? There are plenty of internationally banned weapons. Why can't nukes be one of them?
      • vault, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Because they're significantly more powerful than the other banned weapons and you can't reverse the fact they've been invented nor the demand for them.
  • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/05/2008, -3/+69If we pre-emptively strike any country with a nuke I am getting as far away from any major city I can because I guarantee it will be us who will be hit next. The nuclear countries of the world are not going to let us get away with that ***** and I would fully understand a nuclear country's choice to launch nukes back at us if we decide to pre-emptively launch a nuke.
    • mrcoderga, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Better to live as close to a major city as possible. You will avoid the greater nightmare of living with severe nuclear poisoning.
    • Stormwern, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1The nuclear powers have too much to loose to attack US directly, attacking the US is not a gamble but plain suicide. It's quite likely however that russia or china would break the non-proliferation treaty and sell nukes to middle eastern countries for self defense.
    • ad33lshahid, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1iran doesnt have nukes. if it did, we wouldn't be this belligerent with them. take alook at pakistan and north korea which do, and iraq which didnt.
    • lexynuzum, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0haha. :) so true. I'm glad I live in rural iowa.
  • Parapadrifter, on 07/05/2008, -7/+40And all because they want to control their oil. Time to develop again what Tesla did from the patents President Hoover took. Pulsating DC current is the key to converting the ZeroPoint Energyfield aka "Dark Matter" into useful energy. 80% of the universe is this Zeropoint Energyfield, it does contain energy, how do we utilize it?
    • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -2/+56It's not only about oil.

      The war fetishists and PNAC schemers now want Iran because Iran's local central bank is not under control of the Federal Reserve.

      The corporation of the US (following orders under direction from the Fed banking cartel) is after Iran to get control over their local central bank to integrate into the Federal Reserve system. They want Iran and Syria because they are not under control of the Federal Reserve. Control the currency and the flow of money, control the entire country in the palm of your hand. It's yours to do whatever you please. Oil is secondary. A "fringe benefit" icing on the cake.

      The hostile corporate takeover (war) against Iraq, the war against Afghanistan, the war against the Balkans, Bosnia, were all to get the control over the *local central bank* under the Federal Reserve system. This was the real issue. We serfs were sold lies. Control the currency, you dominate the entire country. This was one of the primary reasons for the hostile corporate takeover (war) on Iraq. to get the control over Iraq's local central bank under the Federal Reserve system. The central bank in Iraq is now completely under full control of the Federal Reserve. Not of the corporation of the United States, but of the Federal Reserve monetary system. Mission accomplished. Iraq will now be (ab)used to setup permanent military bases for launching future attacks on other non-conforming countries such as Iran and Syria

      Also FYi, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Bosnia, in Serbia, Kosovo, were invaded and bombed just the same - to gain control over the local central bank into the Federal Reserve system. If you study after how the banking system has been affected and changed in those countries after the takeover, you will understand the country was bombed to get control over the local central bank.

      These hostile corporate takeovers (wars) are over bringing these countries (so-called "rogue states") under control of the monetary power. Whatever country isn't going along with this, they want to stay independent in their printing of money, they're going to go after them. And use the corporation of the US's military power, weapons, to do it for them.

      When a country has control of their own money, they can do what they want. They are FREE. The people that are behind the control of the Federal Reserve System don't want countries that are "free" from their system. Their intentions are of a global rule and one currency. It's economic slavery and a one world currency. They have been breaking and bankrupting third world nations for generations. Now that they are getting the unions, EU, NAU, AU, etc. the truth of their plans is leaking out.

      They want Iran and Syria because they are not under control of the Federal Reserve.

      That is why they don't like Chavez in Venezuela. Because he has control over the Central bank and of the most important bank in Venezuela.

      It's the same thing in North Korea.

      Are we starting to see a pattern here yet?

      "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
      from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
      It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers
      to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie,
      and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the state."
      ~ Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels - Hitler's propaganda minister

      "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and prayers, but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator of her own." -John Adams

      "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson

      "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards.

      As long as the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." --Samuel Adams
      • FMWatkins, on 07/05/2008, -0/+21Well put. One more quote I think will fit in well here.

        "Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes her laws" - Mayer Rothschild.
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+20FMWatkins: Absolutely. Thank you. + another:

        “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826
      • FMWatkins, on 07/05/2008, -0/+14You know, such quotes should be part of the school curriculum. A quote and then an explanation. A new one at the end of each day, at the end of the week there's a summary and discussion about them all.

        These quotes and their histories are like knives cutting through decades of socialist propaganda.

        They are as powerful as they are sobering. History is merely repeating itself, albeit with better technology.
      • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -0/+13Ron Paul - restore the constitution revolution march July 12 in Washington D.C.
      • MrTulip, on 07/06/2008, -2/+2@sickofwhatever:
        from conspiracyscience.com:
        "Instead of telling us the date of the quote or where it's from, the film just tells us the birth and death years of the person -- which is less than helpful. When searching for it, I noticed it was attributed to a letter that simply didn't exist. I did find letters that supposedly contained this quote[8] But the other sentences in these letters were actually from different letters to different people[9]. The entire quote in the film cannot be attributed to Thomas Jefferson, at all, anywhere. I searched all his complete works. It was fabricated from somewhere as far as I can tell. In letters, though, I did find that Thomas Jefferson was worried about banks being able to create their own currency, the exact thing the Central Bank system prevents[9].

        http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeis ...
      • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I think you mean the World Bank, not the Fed, but your points remain valid.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/05/2008, -0/+20"Their intentions are of a global rule and one currency."

      For those who doubt:
      http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/
      http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/01/31/edpaul.2.t_ ...
      http://www.onecountry.org/e104/e10402as.htm
      http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/58347.html?wel ...
      http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sprr_e/ital_e.ht ...
      http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres98_e/pr113_e ...
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+9Thank you for the detailed links, AchaIemoipas. Lots of good info there. Federal-Reserve - is neither 'Federal' nor a 'reserve', it stole our currency in 1913. It's about as "federal' as 'Federal Express." Check this one out too:

        How a cleverly devised banking system robs the average person of the right to a decent life while providing enormous wealth for its corporate owners and stockholders:
        http://www.federal-reserve.net/
        "Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender."

        "These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War."

        “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826

        Benjamin Franklin said, "It's a Republic...if you can keep it."..
      • silentboom, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5When the people are numbered and made subhuman, they become the currency.
    • JigoroKano, on 07/06/2008, -2/+8You don't know what the ***** you are talking about.

      Zero point energy is a basic fact of quantum mechanics: that the lowest energy state of a quantum system actually does have energy and motion, unlike a classical system's ground state. Tapping into the this energy is done all the time... with Casimir forces. Such forces are absurdly tiny and one cannot extract any meaningful amount of energy from them. It's the smallest quanta of energy, and that's very small.

      Tesla's experiments with E&M have no relevance, by any stretch of the imagination, to dark matter.
      Dark Matter only interacts through gravity and gravity is by far the weakest force.
      Strong Nuclear > Weak Nuclear > Electromagnetic > Gravitational
      E&M defines the characteristic energy scales of chemical energy, and weak nuclear defines the characteristic energy scales of nuclear fission and fusion reactions. You would be going backwards to be extracting energy from gravitational interactions.

      In short, even if one could do what you are saying, it would be completely worthless as a method of generating energy. You've been reading too much pseudo-science garbage.
      • Parapadrifter, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2So explain the patents that were took by the Hoover administration after Tesla's death? Why seal them up?

        the video I viewed about the future of Quantuum Mechanics is: Energy from the Vacuum. Critque their video not my comment.
  • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+73The government has a history of lying to the American people and the world in order to further it’s ideology regardless of the cost in money, lives and blood. The people aren't buying the propaganda. Terrorism is the way in which governments who all eventually turn bad in the end wrench freedom and rights from the people. Hitler had his own parliament building burned down in order to get his country behind a war and blame it on the 'communists." We are beyond that stage and now the PNAC manifesto neocon chicken-hawk war fetishists are salivating at Iran. They're marketing a hostile corporate takeover (war) applying the same soundbite scripts as they used with Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Let's not be saying in 2012 that we were 'fooled' about intel on Iran!

    Google: Halliburton sells Iran nuclear technology
    or click http://tinyurl.com/6gzplc
    Yea, its true. So lets keep paying Halliburton billions of dollars of our money to setup up other countries too so we can destroy them and 'rebuild' for taxpayer funded, no bid cost-plus government contracts. "We have to destroy the village in order to save it."..As if their Iraq profiteering mess isn't bad enough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ
  • MrRobotoSki, on 07/05/2008, -38/+9Although I believe Congressman Paul, this is just a lot of fear mongering by Alex Jones. This is how he makes money. By scaring the ***** out of Americans.

    This is not something that just happened, Ron Paul has stated this 6 months ago. It just happens to fit Jones' daily topic. Alex is all about misinformation.
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5I'm the first person to admit that Alex Jones is sensationalist, and there are a lot of things he believes that I don't agree with (that the "controllers" are Satanists for example.) His facts are credible though, even if his interpretations aren't. There are a lot of things I wouldn't know about if AJ hadn't brought them to my attention, and for that reason I can forgive what I perceive to be the flaws in his personal worldview.
  • Berkana, on 07/05/2008, -4/+39If we go to war with Iran, I will call the Democrats who refused to impeach and cuss them out and tell them this is as much their fault as it is the fault of the Republicans and Bush.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/05/2008, -1/+21It is almost like there is only one party isn't it?

      Makes you think how long it has been going on for doesn't it?
      • Berkana, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Seriously, for once I wish the Democrats would get vengeful and impeach, if for nothing but spite for what the Republicans have done. The Republicans would have impeached a Democrat for far less; I don't understand what the hell the dems are thinking.
      • NonServium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I think you missed the point Berkana.
    • meuse, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2One of the first things Nancy Pelosi accomplished as speaker was to kill a bill that would have required Congressional approval for the U.S. to invade Iran. She did this on AIPAC's orders.

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Nancy_P ...

      If the U.S. is attacked, the Democrats and Republicans will share the blame equally.
    • mediaspree, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Don't wait, Call them now.
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2A lot of people will complain, and the war will go ahead anyway. Clearly calling politicians doesn't have any effect.
    • Rikety, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Hangly, what would you like to do? Lunch the SOB's? Or just line them up and pretend you're Che and put two bullets in the back of each head?

      Inquiring minds want to know...
  • Berkana, on 07/05/2008, -4/+83Expect this if we nuke Iran: They would likely blockade the straight of Hormuz, the bottle neck through which Saudi oil tankers must pass to come to the US, and if not, they may just create a massive oil spill at the straight and set it on fire. Perhaps sink a tanker or two. Watch as the price of gas skyrockets. They would likely do this because then oil would become too expensive for us to buy, even for our military. Then we would print more money via the Federal Reserve to try to buy more oil, and OPEC would see that dollars we are paying them are essentially useless money we make up out of nothing, worthless crap that we devalue by printing as much as we want, and the value of the dollar would collapse. That is likely how Iran would fight back.

    Expect a war with Iran to spark a war with Russia, and possibly China. Imagine the collapse of the US. Imagine martial law. Imagine the elections being called off. Folks, this is what pre-emptively nuking Iran would bring.
    • Arkavus, on 07/05/2008, -7/+4They wouldn't be able to hold the straight. The US and Iran have already had one of the biggest naval battles since WWII in the Straight of Hormuz and Iran was completely overpowered. It wouldn't be any different a second time around.

      Not that them trying, or even setting the entire straight on fire, wouldn't cause a giant spike in oil prices and then what else you described. Just that they wouldn't be able to hold it.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/05/2008, -2/+14Wasn't there a test(two American generals facing off one having the expected Iranian fleet, the other the American one) not to long ago on how that would work out? Wasn't the US military destroyed in a matter of hours? They had to "re-do" the American fleet?

        I believe it was even on the Daily show for christs sake.

        I think your arrogance doesn't fit the potential reality right now.
      • Leadman584, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5No Naval battle necessary this time around. They have learned, just as Russia has, to use better missiles. We can't possibly hit all launchers without an all out nuclear strike. Our military brass are positive that Phalanx systems will be enough. The sailors aren't so sure.
        Say we do destroy 80% of all missiles, readied, and or launched. 200+ anti-ship missiles may get through.

        Dr. Paul mentions a couple of times in this interview, the danger to our Naval Forces in the Gulf. Why?

        Google "Sunburn Missile", "Yakutz Missile", and the old tried and true "Exocet Missile".
      • publiclurker, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4The straights are not all that large, they could clog it up rather nicely with our fleet. As a previous poster mentioned, we had a war game last year, and van Ripen made such a mess of the fleet that they had to reset the game and re-float all of the ships.
      • Berkana, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4How ironic if it turns out that this time around it's the Persians hold off a mighty invading military at a narrow pass.

        All they would have to do to cause havoc is to shoot missiles at a couple of Saudi tankers. Those things don't have phallanx guns on them.
      • MrTulip, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4@waiting:
        yeah, the 'millenium challenge'.
        two good articles:
        http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID ...

        http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID ...
    • iizh, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1Wild exaggerations aren't good for your credibility. Pray tell, how would a country (with a "navy" composed of aging, obsolete ships) that's just been nuked be able to organize a blockade? And why would Russia and China declare war on the U.S. over this?
      • Leadman584, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Shanghai co-op.
        Believe whatever you like.
        Maybe they are bluffing, maybe not?
      • iizh, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Give me a source on when the SCO claimed they'd go to war with the United States. I'll be waiting.
    • NonServium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"WE" won't do it. THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! will. The US government is not WE god damn it. Wake the ***** up about that already. THEY AREN'T US!!!!!!! THEY DON'T GIVE A ***** ABOUT US!

      Convincing us that it will hurt us if THEY nuke Iran does what exactly? You really think we have any say in what THEY do?
  • ArbitraryTask, on 07/05/2008, -3/+33This truly could be the beginning of the end.
    • spaceman77, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Or if we want to, the beginning of something new.
  • tajitj, on 07/05/2008, -4/+43The religious fanatics are trying to full fill Revelations.
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I don't see why. Revelations says the entire planet will go to war with Israel, and that Israel will ultimately lose. (Jerusalem gets conquered after an incredibly bloody war.) Jesus comes and spares them at the last moment before they're annihilated completely, but that's not because Israel is the good guy in the conflict.

      This habit the fundies have of seeing Israel as the good guy is a gross misreading of the Bible. The Old Testament especially is just one long series of stories about Israel ***** up and God punishing them for it. They're not exactly a model to follow or a country you want to ally yourselves with.

      /end Bible class.
    • NonServium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Perhaps, or perhaps these billionaires with homes in every country who've never demonstrated any loyalty or even humanity towards us are willing to sacrifice us so that they gain more power.
  • isparadiselost, on 07/05/2008, -3/+14I am beginning to realize why there is no mention of the US in Revelations. We are going to self implode and no longer be a world contender.
    • Leadman584, on 07/05/2008, -2/+6Unfortunately, we are mentioned in Revelations, sorta. Symbology used in the book is intentionally vague. The 3 big players referred to are the Eagle, Bear, and Red Tide. This is not coincidence.
      The story doesn't end well for the US.

      Spoiler Alert!
      The Red Tide engulfs the earth.
      • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1What? You're way off, the bible does not mention the eagle, bear, and red tide in Revelations... lol

        A bear is never mentioned in Revelations, and below are all three eagle references in Revelations:

        Revelation 4:7 - the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle.

        Revelation 8:13 - Then I looked, and I heard an eagle crying with a loud voice, as it flew in midheaven, "Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, at the blasts of the other trumpets which the three angels are about to blow!"

        Revelation 12:14 - But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.
      • curtisag, on 07/06/2008, -1/+7Sounds like a bunch of crap to me Asus2000. We make our own destiny, it isn't written down in any book.
      • Leadman584, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Sorry. My recollections of this piece of fiction are rooted in the distant past. I've successfully overcome the indoctrination into stupidity. I overcame the brainwashing of the USMC as well. Review Daniel 7, and we can argue the relative merits.

        I'm sure I was recalling some piece of propaganda spewed from the pulpit decades ago.

        I was wrong.

        PS. I'm a fervent Atheist, and love challenging the brainwashed religious.
    • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7Revelations speaks of the great whore... That's us sir.
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2A lot of people believe that references to the "New City" refer to the US, or a city in the US.
  • gigione, on 07/05/2008, -5/+56We need to vote out every member of congress except for Ron Paul and a few others.
    • jana67, on 07/05/2008, -1/+18If we survive that long....
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -1/+7Kucinich can stay too.
    • NonServium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because these people wanting to pre-emptively nuke other countries surely wouldn't be evil enough to rig the voting machines, never mind all the evidence that they have.

      www.blackboxvoting.org

      This problem will not be solved by voting. Work on an actual solution and stop pretending that voting is the answer.
  • eliot2000, on 07/05/2008, -6/+25Afghanistan was a justified war, Iraq is our Generation's Vietnam.
    And if we let it happen, Iran will be our Poland.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/05/2008, -1/+21I used to hold the same view - but tell me, why is Afghanistan justified again?

      They offered up OBL in exchange for evidence that he was responsible for 911. The US said essentially "We are the US, we don't need no stinking proof!" and the world went along with the US because, they had been relatively on the side of good.

      Then came the lies over Iraq
      the lies over the WMD
      the lies over ties to OBL and Saddam
      the Anthrax mailings (What ever happened to that BTW?)
      The outing of agents
      the torturing
      the secret prisons
      etc,
      etc,
      etc,
      etc,
      etc,

      Makes you wonder if Afghanistan was truly justified or maybe they were lying for months before we caught on. Maybe we didn't just catch their first major lie?

      • silentboom, on 07/05/2008, -1/+8And most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi.
      • eliot2000, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Honestly, it's hard to tell anymore. After putting up with almost 8 years of a white house constructed almost entirely of garbage, everything seems false. Maybe OBL wasn't really behind 9/11, I'm not 100% sure. Nobody outside the administration knows anything true.

        That said, when the Iraq war was being sold, anyone capable of a little critical thinking could tell it was *****, even if you watched only Fox News. They did an adequate job at making Iraq seem like a threat, but just barely. It's hard to imagine how a completely dysfunctional white house staffed with barely-competent cronies could have managed the greatest hoax of all time.

        If the 9/11 event was comprised of only people on TV reciting their talking points like good little boys and girls, then maybe. But anything more complex than that, and they FAIL every time. Hell, they almost managed to screw up our border treaty with Canada.
      • omegaant, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2My understanding is the US wanted to put an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and the Taliban opposed it. Big mistake on both parts. Many people involved in that endeavor are either dead or not speaking about it. Then, voila, 9/11! It's disgusting. Ron Paul is the only one who gets it, makes sense, but if he got more publicity and followers his own life would be in danger.
      • NonServium, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"It's hard to imagine how a completely dysfunctional white house staffed with barely-competent cronies could have managed the greatest hoax of all time."


        Pulled off? What, because only about 100 million people in the US know they did it, and many more outside the US? Or pulled off because they didn't prosecute *themselves* for their crimes?
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6We invaded Afghanistan for the drugs. The Taliban put a serious crimp in the global banking system by wiping out all poppy production in the Golden Crescent.
  • lebreezy, on 07/05/2008, -3/+22The stage is set for a ***** up situation for all Americans. This is just another thing that Bush is trying to screw up before he leaves office...I wish McCain or Obama the best of luck when trying to recover all the the Bush administration has damaged. You kind of have to feel sorry for the next guy.
    • Hiltonizer, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7You're naive in thinking either of them aren't bought and paid for already. They won't do anything different, it's all a big show.
    • brainon4u, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8You don't quite get it - McInSane and Hussain are NOT meant to fix anything - THEY are a continuation!!!!

      Here's the recent list of those who set this up (others before did their fair share)
      Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/McCain/Obama - the die is cast, the mold is set - expect NO change.

      Only Ron Paul will attempt to change this mad cycle through education. He is a very BRAVE patriot when you look at the list of others who tried to tell the truth.

      They have build underground cities and transportation for their own safety. It is the Billions of us who are in the way. They believe the planet can only support about 500 million people. Do you GET IT NOW?
  • roho76, on 07/05/2008, -3/+50I just don't understand the rational of stopping a country from getting a nuclear weapon, and using said weapon, by using a nuclear weapon.
    Am I ***** retarded or something?
    • liberalnurse, on 07/05/2008, -1/+17No, your the sane one, they're ***** retarded or something
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5It's "might makes right". We got 'em; we don't want them to get 'em, too. Don't expect principle. It's "justified" by declaring the other guys to be terrorists, savages or barbarians.
    • bunghole999, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2You are sane, they are insane
  • roho76, on 07/05/2008, -1/+28Also I will add. If the President and the Members of Congress do decide to go forward with this, I will personally go to Washington and put their heads on a stick. And I am sure I am not alone. You have been warned.

    Get ready, people. All hell is about to break loose.
    • liberalnurse, on 07/05/2008, -1/+14We will take it the streets!!
      • fuzzybeard, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Assuming the streets haven't been turned to glowing glass before we get there, of course.
      • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Please don't run out into the streets. Stage your "protest" (here I'm thinking with either mortars, IEDs or a nice sniper rifle) from someplace with adequate cover and a planned escape route. If we line up and stand there in rows like at the end of V is for Vendetta we'll get cut down like mice under a lawnmower. Real revolutions don't work like they do in the movies.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/05/2008, -1/+10its about ***** time.
    • bullhead2007, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I'll be there.
  • Ransack, on 07/05/2008, -1/+30A pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non-nuclear nation would be considered a heinous war crime. Forget about Iranian blockades, every nation on the planet would blockade the USA.
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3The carnage in Iraq wasn't even condemned by any of the other major powers. I suspect the fix may already be in.
  • joe39275, on 07/05/2008, -1/+20If we attacked Iran under an Obama regime, the only good that would come from it is that people would realize both parties are *****.
    • RP08, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7Or we would have people who would support the Iran War just because Obama is president, when they otherwise wouldn't have.
    • brainon4u, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4McInsaine would same more whites - Obama would save more blacks.

      They are all in it together, make no mistake about it!

  • thewebmind, on 07/05/2008, -0/+17What is particularly appalling are the things that no one - not the news media, not the majority of Congress nor the White House - are talking about, including the proposal Iran made to the P5+1 on May 13, in which the Iranians said that they would be willing to consider a plan for a multinational enrichment consortium in Iran with Iranian participation. This plan was first outlined in March not by an Iranian but by a former US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas Pickering. You can watch him make his case here:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A

    Instead, Congress is proposing harsher sanctions and a naval blockade of Iran, which, under international law, is an act of war. Rep. Paul has spoken out against this bill, as mentioned in this article. You can help stop this resolution from passing by writing to your Representative demanding that they oppose this bill by going here:

    http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/hconres3 ...
  • UKLooney, on 07/05/2008, -0/+14How can America call itself a Christian country? Surely 90% of congress will rot in hell, along with the majority of the population who stand by and do nothing. And I'm afraid it is too late to attempt to try and educate the masses, the Elitist plan is way to far advanced. Come November, there will be no way back...
    • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Christian, lol. Not anymore... 80% of the world's porn comes from America.
      • meuse, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1The porn industry is not run by Christians. It's run by Jews who hate Christianity.

        Straight from the horse's' mouth:

        "‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks’ ... Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged."

        Triple-exthnics
        Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry
        http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?article ...
      • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1That's funny, I was born from both Jewish and Christian parents. I had no idea what they were up to.
    • Elise1984, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7I can't agree more.
      What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is hard to understand?
      If most of America truly were Christian, we wouldn't be in Iraq, and we wouldn't have conflicts over many other issues.
      However, I don't think that Obama or McCain (They both suck!) could do any MORE damage than Bush has already done. I think it's best to wait it out, and continue the Campaign for Liberty.
      The best approach is to liberate peoples minds, and the internet is nearly the only venue to do so.
  • amckalip, on 07/05/2008, -0/+12Total insanity and utter evil. We must all do whatever it takes to STOP this!!
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." -- Mao Zedong.
  • btschul, on 07/05/2008, -3/+33We had a chance to stop this. We could have elected Ron Paul. But, everyone just sort of went along with Obama's ***** generic campaign slogans, and now there is no hope for change. Well, America was fun while it lasted.
    • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9JP Morgan bought controlling interest in the news outlets nearly a century ago. Most people don't know who Ron Paul is, it's all being controlled...
  • lexynuzum, on 07/05/2008, -1/+16Nuking for peace is like ***** for virginity. Our government is retarded. Do they think we're going to buy this crap? I think it's about time the American public start protesting outside Washington's door---DAILY! We've let this abuse by our government go on too long. They are (not) declaring wars in our name, and smearing the good reputation the founding fathers had intended for us to have. Let's get off our computers and out in the streets!
    • bluto20, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5You'll have that chance July 12th.
    • mediaspree, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6"Nuking for peace is like ***** for virginity"

      May I become a millionaire selling your slogan on bumper stickers? I'll cut you in.
      • xkorbin, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1@mediaspree NO you will not.

        It's a quick adaptation of a George Carlin quote.
        Don't you dare.
      • lexynuzum, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0yeah, haha, not my saying. I revised it from a sign i saw once in pictures of protests from back in the vietnam era. it's great. :)
  • Leadman584, on 07/05/2008, -2/+3OK, to correct a misspelling, it is "Yakhonts missiles". The Chinese and Russian models have nuclear tips. Hopefully Iran doesn't have the nuclear payload.
  • Slick37c, on 07/05/2008, -2/+8Hopefully Paul = Jefferson Davis if they nuke. I know I'll want to take up arms.
    • Hangly, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Good. Glad I won't be resisting alone.
      • NeoConSlayer, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Trust me my friend, you are not alone. I live in a very rural part of N. Texas and people here have had it. A few years ago all you saw in the parking lot of the local feed store/gas station/diner were Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on every truck - They are all gone now. Some of the conversations that I've participated in, and overheard, lean towards a real uprising if things don't change.

        P.S. These people are "Salt of the Earth" types - Ranchers and farmers, etc.. They are armed to the teeth, and they know how to survive off of the land. We will not stand down when the time comes.
  • btschul, on 07/05/2008, -1/+24To quote George Carlin: "Nobody seems to notice, Nobody seem to care."
  • Hetman, on 07/05/2008, -0/+10There is no justifiable reason to nuke any country for any reason. Even if we did go to war with Iran. Which I totally oppose doing, we still would not be justified in nuking them.
  • RobotCitizen, on 07/05/2008, -0/+21"Go back to bed America. You are free... to do as we tell you."

    Bill Hicks
  • Hiltonizer, on 07/06/2008, -2/+20467 diggs and still not front page... looks like congress runs digg now too
    • hiphoc, on 07/06/2008, -1/+9Yea, Is this part of the digg algorithm? Paul + infowars.net=block
    • meuse, on 07/06/2008, -2/+4Just as the Zionist lobbies control what legislation makes it through Congress, the Zionist bury brigade controls what makes the front page of digg.
    • asus2000, on 07/06/2008, -0/+41000+ diggs now, and still no front page. PROOF that Digg suppressed the Ron Paul movement and put Obama in its place, just as the regular news media did on television and newspapers. Jeez! I thought for a moment we had something unbiased.
  • kabes, on 07/06/2008, -1/+17
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    -Albert Einstein
  • pookkake, on 07/06/2008, -11/+4There is always the hope that right before the republican convention, someone puts a ***** bullet in McCain's stupid old ***** head. Then Paul gets the nomination.*

    *Not that I am telling anyone to do that or saying I am going to do that or condone violence in any way

    [/limbaugh]
    • meuse, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Paul would not get the nomination if McCain dies. He was in a distant fourth place in the delegate count behind Huckabee and Romney, if I remember correctly.
      • pookkake, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1But those guys withdrew from the race, and are thus ineligible.
  • ninalama, on 07/06/2008, -2/+7I really thought that by now, our society would have learned where we'd be if we used nukes. We'd pretty much obliterate the human race.

    I mean, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cold War, etcetc? Why aren't we learning?
    • SupaDawg, on 07/06/2008, -1/+9because 95% of the population are ***** sheep.
  • superkendall, on 07/06/2008, -19/+1Come on, the current policy is diplomacy first - even from Bush! Ron Paul is playing you all like a fiddle.
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7> "diplomacy first"

      Please. Bush gets a woodie from being a "war president" and Puppet Master Cheney gets a stiffie from all that black-ops, operating on "sort of the dark side, if you will."
    • 007brendan, on 07/06/2008, -1/+4Name one confrontation, that started during the Bush presidency, where diplomacy was exhausted before sending in troops.
    • thewebmind, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0What the White House and most of Congress call diplomacy is really bullying Iran into doing what we want them to do. Contrary to the common rhetoric, sanctions are not diplomacy and they do not weaken the "targeted" regime - they hurt the people of the nation and allow a corrupt regime to consolidate power. Just look at the destructive effects sanctions had in Iraq.

      Diplomacy is negotiating, but the US refuses to negotiate until Iran gives up its biggest chip. The US claims that it must build leverage against Iran in order to engage in diplomacy on the strong side, but as the most powerful nation on earth, the US will always be in the strong position as it can hurt that nation which does not do as we wish, and help that nation which does as we please. But the US has put itself in an impossible situations by demanding too much before negotiations can begin and now, the longer we wait to engage Iran, the weaker our position looks to the world. This situation must be resolved through diplomatic means as the Iranians have been all too willing to negotiate on equal terms. The US will look awful bad - internally as well as internationally - if this ends with armed conflict.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 07/06/2008, -0/+9sorry kids, i am not getting drafted. Please do not do this.
    • MelvinSchlubman, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5I worry about by 12yo eventually being drafted. But, by then, it might not matter any more.
    • lexynuzum, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0I say, if there's a draft, we all just refuse......hey, we don't want this war anyway!
  • db0255, on 07/06/2008, -2/+15I like how even though it has 600 diggs, because it mentions Ron Paul, it's not making the front page. The algorithm is getting smart!!!
  • sumeetg, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8Doing so would create 65,397,521 new enemies who would want revenge.
  • frisk415, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8I hope we can get through all of this...

    I mean everyone: Americans, Arabs, Persians, Asians, Europeans, Latins, etc.- everyone. We live in scary times. It's gotten to the point where all we can do is hope that some sense of morality and common sense will compel American "leaders" to do the right thing. Only time will tell. If the US does nuke Iran everything will be *****. Do these people not see their madness?
  • jtbell04, on 07/06/2008, -9/+4Eww, infowars.
  • spaceman77, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5Those members of congress are culpable for premeditating mass murder and environmental contamination of the highest degree. This is a sick mindset and they need to be mentally examined.
  • GorfTron, on 07/06/2008, -12/+2Iran... the "death to Israel" and "our nuclear project is for energy" guys. Yes, the country that regularly talks of the end of Israel. Think their own words and actions have anything to do with this? Iran is their own worst enemy on the world stage.
    • smokeymcblunt, on 07/06/2008, -2/+11Why can't Israel defend ITSELF again Iran? WHAT THE ***** DOES AMERICA HAVE TO DO WITH THE JEW/MUSLIM WAR? Israel has a strangehold on our government! And the sad fact is that only about 5% of Americans even know it.
      • GorfTron, on 07/06/2008, -9/+3Israel is an ally of the US. Think about it. If some country was bellowing about wiping England off the map, we would be on England's side too. Iran makes it's own problems. If they cut the *****, it would be over today.
      • meuse, on 07/06/2008, -1/+8Iran is not threatening to kill Israeli citizens, as the Zionists like to imply. They're stating their belief that the government of Israel will collapse.

        When the Soviet Union collapsed, were all the Russians killed? No, of course not.
    • thewebmind, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Ahmadinejad's "wiped off the map" quote was debunked a long time ago as a mistranslation but, of course, it wasn't publicized in the popular media. He was referring to the occupation regime, not the country or the people. Here are two expert analyses:

      http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-an ...

      http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the ...

      The vast majority of the Iranian population is pro-American and they are not hostile to Jews as a people. Iran has the largest Jewish population by far of any Muslim nation, and the Jewish community is allowed a certain freedom of religion - to practice, have their own schools, etc - though sharia law does contain many discriminatory measures towards non-Muslims.
  • brainscab, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5he set up a totally credible WW III scenario there.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2yea, by then we will probably be fighting china.
  • tog2476, on 07/06/2008, -1/+15www.campaignforliberty.com, if you want to stop talking and do something about it, that is the site you need to go to. Ron Paul tried to show us the way, and we shut him out because Obama promised to change the country. Wow, now Obama is going back on everything he said now that he is the Democratic nominee. Imagine that. When are people going to realize that the ones they try to black out of the media, and keep us from seeing are probably the ones we should be listening to. Kill your television, stay away from Fox News, CNN, and ABC, NBC is decent if you must watch t.v. news. They have infiltrated it all. Now all we can do is pray that Ron Paul gets elected from the floor, we are still trying to make that happen. Join in if you wake up. www.campaignforliberty.com is where the real change is happening.
  • RamsesII, on 07/06/2008, -4/+6Tell that to the millions of young Iranians who dislike Ahmadinejad and are actually quite sympathetic towards the west. The fact that these people could even consider talking about such a thing should be grounds enough to throw them out of office.

    On a sidenote, much as I'm kinda pissed off at him lately, ***** like this reminds me how vital it is that we elect Obama instead of Mr. "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain. I could actually see him doing this.
    • meuse, on 07/06/2008, -0/+11Did you hear Obama's speech at the AIPAC conference? He's going to bomb Iran if elected. True, Obama doesn't appear to be a natural psychopath like McCain, and he might be more reluctant than McCain to use nuclear weapons in an attack. However, it doesn't really matter which one of them is elected this November. They'll both attack Iran on the Zionists' orders.
    • TheLastProphet, on 07/06/2008, -1/+11Guess you didn't hear Obama say he'll go to war for Israel.
    • MrNashus, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Ahmadinejad isn't really disliked by the Iranian people. As a matter of fact, a recently released documentary details Iranians are experiencing a great amount of voter apathy... knowing that war is eminent no matter what they do. "Either way I vote... I will get nuked... why vote?"
  • Sogui, on 07/06/2008, -16/+3Ron Paul talking to Alex Jones? Oh you know this is going to be hella legit... just like how Russia was going to nuke us on New Year's Day in 2000. How'd that turn out again?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 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.