digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at firedoglake.com

Six Years Later, McCain Says He Still Would’ve Invaded Iraq

firedoglake.com — Get a clue you two-thirds of America who've concluded the war was a mistake because of no WMDs, no ties to al-Qaeda, 4100 Americans dead, 29,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, an emboldened Iran, a resurgent Taliban in Pakistan and a 2 trillion dollar price tag -- McCain says there was "no question" it was the right thing to do.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CoolHandLuke70, on 07/01/2008, -27/+140McCain is a big doddering old warmongering turd!
    • kelstock, on 07/02/2008, -32/+4I eat pieces of ***** like you for breakfast
      • fgonza226, on 07/02/2008, -0/+45you eat pieces of ***** for breakfast?
      • Acewrap, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17Oh no! It's the Internet Tough Guy! Everyone run!

        Pussy.
      • zomglolcats, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8On digg.com? I bow before your manlihood.
      • publiclurker, on 07/02/2008, -1/+15I guess you are what you eat.
      • DangerMouse9, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4So are you in support of McCain or not? Based on some of your comments/shouts you're warning of the McCain clan trying to befriend you and how you think "This man has the values and integrity to repair this country - in the home, at home, and abroad." in regards to Obama, but turn around and call CoolhandLuke a piece of ***** for calling McCain a warmongering turd.

        Where is it you stand on the issue?
      • Sherman901, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2haha, you guys all suck.

        it's called sarcasm. original post had the guy calling McCain a turd so kelstock says that he eats pieces of ***** like you for breakfast, in reference to McCain.
      • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Pics or it didn't happen.
    • homercles337, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8He's not even very good at it. He was at the bottom of his class at annapolis. Do we really need another flunky for president?
    • shardayyy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Quote from the CIA report from when he was a POW (http://cryptome.info/cia-mccain-pow/cia-mccain-pow ... from livegreenordie

      "He showed himself to be intellectually alert during the interview. From a morale point
      of view he is not in traumatic shock. He is neither dejected nor depressed. He was
      able to be sarcastic, and even humorous indicative of psychic equilibrium. From the
      moral and ideological point of view he showed us he is an insensitive individual
      without human depth, who does not show the slightest concern, who does not appear to
      have thought about the criminal acts he committed against a population from the almost
      absolute impunity of his airplane, and that nevertheless those people saved his life,
      fed him, and looked after his health, and he is now healthy and strong. I believe
      that he bombed densely populated places for sport. I noted he was hardened, that
      he spoke of banal things as if he were at a cocktail party.

      During the interview he quietly drank three cups of coffee and smoked one of the
      cigarettes the Vietnamese had placed on the central table."
    • ZenMojo, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Vote AGAINST McCain to keep us the ***** out of Iran.
  • girwen, on 07/01/2008, -40/+30McCain is a big doddering old warmongering turd! you can say that again
    McCain is a big doddering old warmongering sloppy turd!
    • NightVortez, on 07/02/2008, -5/+15Is this really how low the maturity level of digg reached? Down to name calling? How appalling.
      • DangerMouse9, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Where have you been for the last 3 years?
    • didiman, on 07/02/2008, -7/+4when you get out of middle school let me know
      • afx1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4why don't you have a seat right over there?
  • livegreenordie, on 07/01/2008, -10/+54Here is a CIA report from when he was a POW.
    http://cryptome.info/cia-mccain-pow/cia-mccain-pow ...
    • wbg34, on 07/02/2008, -13/+3This is truly pathetic. It's sad that people are so desperate to tarnish McCain, that they have to regurgitate stories from a card carrying communist and friend of Che Guevara. Of course knowing the mental capacity of many digidiots, the word from a friend of "The Che" might as well be the word of God (if god existed that is).
    • ThrstForKnwldge, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9"...he showed us he is an insensitive individual
      without human depth, who does not show the slightest concern, who does not appear to
      have thought about the criminal acts he committed against a population from the almost
      absolute impunity of his airplane, and that nevertheless those people saved his life,
      fed him, and looked after his health, and he is now healthy and strong. I believe
      that he bombed densely populated places for sport. I noted he was hardened, that
      he spoke of banal things as if he were at a cocktail party."
    • JebBlack, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3So McCain suffered his injuries from the crash, not from torture? I've heard this before but the media continues to say his injuries were from the torture.
      • m0tbaillie, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I've read both. From what I understand, be broke and arm and a leg in the crash, and they kept re-breaking his leg while he was being tortured.
    • Diderotten, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I've never hated John Mccain more than I do now.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g&eurl=ht ...
  • ScurM, on 07/01/2008, -12/+56Looks like someone is delusional
  • TeddySanFran, on 07/01/2008, -19/+122McCain is D A N G E R O U S
    • winnestow, on 07/02/2008, -25/+8Obama is a S O C I A L I S T
      • publiclurker, on 07/02/2008, -1/+14Do you even know the meaning of the words you spew, or did it just sound neat when you overhears some adults talking?
      • Lyk4n, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Whether you like it or not this country is already a socialist country. Welfare? Basically everything is public nowadays, shy of healthcare. If you don't like it then leave.
      • DangerMouse9, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8What's wrong with caring about the social welfare of all citizens? Do you think it's okay to deny someone proper health care coverage just because their ancestors weren't rich or cheated the system to make more money so their future generations could be better off?

        Seriously, what's wrong with wanting to improve the quality of life for those that aren't as well off?
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8I'm a socialist. Which policies of Senator Obama are socialist? I'd be happy to vote for a socialist, but you'll have to convince me that Senator Obama is a socialist. What have you got?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7Jesus was a socialist.
    • texpundit, on 07/02/2008, -8/+8You're both right...and this country is most likely screwed no matter which gets elected.
    • rawg, on 07/02/2008, -0/+12Dear Senator John McCain,

      Was getting rid of Saddam Hussein really a good enough reason for the Iraq war? Was he really an immediate threat to US security? I don't understand why you can't admit that you were wrong.

      With what you know now, do you really believe that there was no better way of preventing Saddam from immediately attacking the US other than sending 140,000 American troops overseas for 6 years, sacrificing 4,100 American lives and spending $500B tax dollars?

      We just got North Korea, a confirmed nuclear power, to destroy one of it's nuclear cooling towers by giving them FOOD!

      Please think harder next time you vote on a war. Thanks.

      rawg
      • Peetweefish, on 07/02/2008, -9/+11. Saddam Hussein was a potential threat and it is likely that war with him was inevitable. This does not justify the immediate action taken by the Bush administration, but if Saddam had gotten a nuke, things would have been different. Kim Jong Il is an insane ***** just as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but they are not terribly reckless which is why they are slowly pursuing their weapons, refining them, and stockpiling before they pull *****. They have restraint, which is something that Saddam has historically shown he does not have.

        2. I always see the stats for the number of Americans killed but never for the total loss of life in Iraq. If you value human life which include the stats for the total dead. By showing only the American deaths you come off as an insensitive ***** to the total amount of destruction that has occurred and it exposes the truth that the average American only cares about other Americans. It cheapens your argument.

        The historical averaged ratio of enemies killed to American troop killed is over 10 to 1, close to 15:1. That is the ratio that the American military considers low, but acceptable. Usually, with the exception mainly of Vietnam, the ratio is closer to 20:1 or 25:1.

        3. The republicans STILL have a better war record than the democrats, at least as far as the 20th century is concerned.
      • Lyk4n, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Those are more than just numbers in a ratio. They are our neighbors, siblings, and parents. Of course we Americans care more about Americans than for the other guys.
  • EllieElliott, on 07/01/2008, -13/+35McCain would do it just for the hell of it
    • jason4188, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3At least we have Obama, he knows it was a mistake and we need to withdraw immediately, err until the primaries are over. Then we need to withdraw gradually, err depending on what is going on, on the ground... It looks like some blood is starting to come out of the top again, would you mind flipping that for me.
    • BeefBaron, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2McCain does it for the big cash payout from his defense industry buddies.
  • InvisibleInk, on 07/01/2008, -19/+32McManiac will destroy what is left of this country's reputation and isolate us even more from the world community, let alone cause untold more death and destruction and economic chaos. I'm no fan of Obama, but McCrazy is far too dangerous.
  • tw3k, on 07/01/2008, -17/+51McCain == asshat
  • thewump, on 07/02/2008, -27/+15McCain or Obama - who gives a *****. They're both saying exactly what they think the majority of people want to hear and not dealing with the real issues. Really - what difference does it make if we spend money we don't have on Obamas stuff, or McCains stuff?
    • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -7/+7We have plenty of money. We are wasting it on pointless military *****.
      • dafragsta, on 07/02/2008, -6/+8In your tiny ***** worldview and the same tiny worldview of people who don't read the news or make the correlation between the price of gas and the value of the dollar. People are ***** stupid. The planet is doomed, the country is doomed, and it truly is an epic fail.

        I don't know why your comment is getting buried thewump. It's impossible that someone can hate the politics of BushCo and not see the Clintonian writing on Obama's wall. Everyone thought Bill Clinton was great until the dirty laundry started to get aired, but unfortunately, not so much in the MSM. I'm not even remotely talking about some ***** meaningless blowjob, which is entirely understandable when you are married to the frostiest ice queen that has ever walked the earth.
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2what difference does it make if we spend money we don't have on Obamas stuff, or McCains stuff?
      I'm trying to get at your meaning. Should we not spend money at all or spend it on 'real issues?'
  • ciaran036, on 07/02/2008, -18/+15what an eejit. I feel sorry for anyone who votes for this man. Obama isn't worth voting for neither - but he's definitely much better than McCain!
    • winnestow, on 07/02/2008, -11/+2eejit > socialist
      • Bowd99, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7Can an American please explain to me what is the big problem with socialism? I've always thought that it was basic human nature to share resources, information and generally help each other out. It makes me think that the reason there is a large amount of anti-American sentiment in the world is that you portray this image of "I'm alright Jack, so ***** everyone else" to the whole world because of these sort of views.
      • TRScheel, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4The problem is that people share when they want to, but most hate being forced to share. America is the most generous nation in many aspects and are generous by their own initiative without being forced. People hate Wal-Mart and Bill Gates but those two have donated the most money in history for the good of others. Neither were forced to do so.

        Most people are more open to bartering with others and upset when they have to work for x and someone else is given it to them, especially when the other is fully capable of working for it.
      • Bowd99, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4I can understand the whole leeches on the system angle, that's one thing that pisses me off over here to be honest!

        Does it not even seem worth it for the piece of mind to have a little extra tax added on to your paychecks or cigarettes, alcohol etc so that you know if you are incapable of working for a lengthy period or get seriously injured you and your family would be supported?

        I guess it's difficult to compare and relate when you're used to the system you live in, it just seems to me that although the pros outweigh the cons in my head, you guys do tend to focus on the negatives.
      • TRScheel, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2The problem is that healthcare costs arent really out of reach for the average (and below average) american. It is just that everyone seems to have a set view of their standards of living and refuse to go below it.

        I am all for the opportunity to have healthcare, but not for the entitlement. Everyone is given free K-12 education and if they utilize that well they can easily get a college education (even if that means taking loans). With that education getting a job that pays well enough to pay their own healthcare or get it as a benefit is easy enough.

        I have been in college classes with 50 year olds who wanted to change their life and make more money. They were doing it entirely on loans and had never had a better job than what I have had. The opportunity is there... just people refuse to take it (or move to somewhere cheaper where they have that option). There will always be exceptions to this, but you cannot give everyone a utopian equal opportunity and if you try to you end up hurting everyone.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7"Can an American please explain to me what is the big problem with socialism? "

        Not really. Americans have been beaten so long by their owners that some are in love with the whip.
      • Verfel, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3I honestly think the general populace consider socialism as a step toward communism/totalitarianism which, in itself, is deemed an opponent to democracy... which is funny because we have limited amounts of democracy in this republic.

        Personally, I think our government has implemented democracy in the same way China has implemented communism. Poorly.
      • Bowd99, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4@TRScheel

        Thanks for your input. It's nice to hear a sound argument as opposed to the socialism = evil diatribe.

        @Verfel

        That's understandable, I think in terms of the UK we've had many different forms of government over the centuries so we tend as a people to be a little less hesitant to adopting new ideologies.
        However, your view on poor implementation does ring true, we don't have a perfect hospital or welfare system (regardless of what Michael Moore tells you) over here which I guess could sway your opinions somewhat!
      • Verfel, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2@Bowd99

        Actually, I had never considered that concept. It's true that many European countries have gone through many ideological changes and the coinciding governments usually roll with the populace (or their heads would). Where as here in the states, we've only ever worked under one method and that method has been, regrettably, "We're right, you're wrong."

        The concept of a political change toward another system has been near unacceptable from day one. It's almost as if a great deal of the public believe that our method is the only method that can possibly work. I do have to wonder if that stems from our inbred belief that we are "the best."

        Thanks for the nugget of enlightenment.
  • Bonekhan, on 07/02/2008, -26/+16No offense (as I'm sure I'll be dugg down promptly after saying this) but it seems that a large majority who love to flame McCain for being a warmonger are also the same people who have not read into the situation properly enough. The fact is, we didn't find any WMDs because of the fact that we pretty much gave Iraq a go-ahead to remove all their weapons months before we were actually searching. Had we gone in quicker, we would've found--as has been pretty much documented via Iraqi military and neighboring reconnaissance--very good reasons. Perhaps we took a wrong approach. Maybe our president handled it wrong.

    But don't think it is so black and white because you find some blog telling you so.
    • SoyJames, on 07/02/2008, -11/+13So in other words we invaded for no reason. How's that for black and white?
    • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -10/+17You are missing the point. Even with WMD, Iraq was not a threat to the USA. Ever. It's a ridiculous suggestion to begin with. There is nothing that justifies America's attack on Iraq.
      • poidh, on 07/02/2008, -14/+3Remind me not to assist you if I see you injured in the street.

        The entire world had reason to get rid of Hussein. Only a few countries had the balls to do it.
      • Azurensis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+17We sure saved Iraq by killing off hundreds of thousands of their innocent civilians. We have been far more efficient at killing off innocents than Saddam ever was.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/02/2008, -0/+15@poidh

        You didn't invade for Hussein, you invaded for WMDs.

        And why him? Why Hussein when Kim Jong Ill actually has nuclear wepons? How about Mugabe? How about the rest of them?

        And nobody asked you for anything. Iraqis were happy under Saddam, no matter what you've heard And you killed more Iraqis than the total of people killed indirectly or directly by Saddam in his entire life, in any country.

        The only thing you liberated is Iraqi property (Oil fields) from nationalization.

        You're a damn fool if you think Iraq was about freedom. It even took them a year after invading to come up with that incredibly stupid excuse for killing a million people.

      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -1/+10"Remind me not to assist you if I see you injured in the street."

        OK. If I'm injured in the street, please don't run over me with your car.

        Americans have "assisted" over a million Iraqis into their graves. I can do without your kind of "help."
    • swrostmore, on 07/02/2008, -9/+22Where did they move these hypothetical WMDs to, and how did they do it without leaving behind a single trace of evidence? And if they did so, how do you know about it?
    • AshScholl, on 07/02/2008, -6/+4Oh OK, but it's black and white because I find some commenter on some website linking to some blog telling me it is so. I got it now. Thanks.

      Have you been hanging out with Rick Santorum?
    • jdenzer, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6So we need to invade North Korea and China.
      Lets not forget Israel, they are always threatening to Nuke their neighbors.

      List of countries with WMD
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_n ...
    • Andysan, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2The really paradoxical thing about this whole Iraq thing is this:

      We have an economy totally dependent on Mideast oil mostly because our own libtardgreens refuse to allow energy development in this country. The only alternative to that short-sighted policy is to ensure there will be a supply of oil from the Mideast. Thus we are up to our butts in Iraq precisely because of our own internally dysfunctional Congress.

      When Iraq war objectors state that we wouldn't be there if there was no oil involved, they are exactly right -- only it is our own stupid energy policy that keeps Mideast oil involved.

      If anyone thinks the working public supports our current energy policy they should put a bumper sticker on their car that says "I support higher gas prices." Then take bets on how long it will take someone to run them off the road or shoot out their windows. (The shooting part is probably not all that far away.)

      If the current energy situation is acceptable then be sure to vote for Democrats in Nov '08. Doing so will guarantee an even bigger mess.

      Oh yes, let's hear all the usual babble about wind, tundra, sunshine, speculators, global warming, oil companies, etc, etc, and let's, of course, forget to mention supply and demand which drives the whole process.
      • Lyk4n, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4"We have an economy totally dependent on Mideast oil mostly because our own libtardgreens refuse to allow energy development in this country."

        First off, I'm going to assume you're talking about the Alaska oil drilling and other places like that.

        With as bad as our situation is right now, if we let the oil/coal companies ravage our natural resources then we'll have dug ourselves even deeper into the pit of "When your ecosystem shuts down from heavy pollution and major extinctions" and all of the goodies that come from that pit. We would be much worse off than we are now. Think about the kind of world you want to leave for your children's children, because if you don't who else will?
  • Lynx55, on 07/02/2008, -7/+31No real surprise...and I totally disagree that we needed to do anything in Irag...at least at that time. We NEEDED to concentrate on Afghanistan...Irag was a distraction and it has cost us tremendously.
    • eggsovereasy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3iraQ
    • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -6/+7Invading Afghanistan is the same war crime that invading Iraq is. Afghanistan never attacked the USA and was no threat.

      America is wrong in both cases.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 07/02/2008, -4/+5You're right, there were no ties whatsoever between alQueda/911 hijackers/Afghanistan.

        Dumb. Ass.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9"Ties" don't justify invading a nation and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

        George Bush has "ties" to Osama Bin Laden.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1Afghanistan had more than "ties" to Osama at the time and you know it. The Taliban was providing Bin Laden with material support as well as a large base of operations to work from. He had just killed almost 3,000 people and caused billions of dollars of damage, and there was no telling how soon he would attempt further (and possibly even more serious) attacks were he (and the Taliban) left untouched.

        Years of "diplomatic pressure" had produced only the first World Trade Center attacks and the USS Cole bombing, so we had good demonstration that that would not prevent further attacks.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7Osama Bin Laden is not and never was the government or people of Afghanistan. It doesn't matter if their government refused to extradite a criminal. That doesn't justify a military invasion that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

        Invading Afghanistan is a war crime.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1He never was an official part of the Afghanistan government, but he provided significant support to them during 1996-2001.

        "Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif.[88] Taliban-al-Qaeda connections, were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the Taliban.[89] [90] Perhaps the biggest favor al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the assassination by suicide bombing[56] of the Taliban's most effective military opponent mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before September 9, 2001. This came at a time when Taliban human rights violations and extremism seemed likely to create international support for Massoud's group as the legitimate representatives of Afghanistan.[56] The killing, reportedly handled by Ayman Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad wing of al-Qaeda, left the Northern Alliance leaderless, and removed "the last obstacle to the Taliban’s total control of the country ..."[91]" All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relationship_ ...
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Funny, I didn't see anything in your cut and paste diatribe that involved the USA. Nothing there that justified a single death of an Afghani by Americans. Nothing to justify illegally invading Afghanistan.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Lets see if I can break this down into simple points for you to understand.

        1) Osama had already been partially or fully responsible for multiple terrorist attacks in the USA before 2001

        2) Diplomatic pressure on the countries harboring him had so far done absolutely zero to prevent him from attacking the US, leading up to the 9/11 attacks

        3) The Taliban was providing Osama save haven after the attacks, with the full indication that they would continue to do so. This would give him all the time and support he needed to launch further attacks at the US.

        What you want would have left Osama secure in Afghanistan with the significant chance that he would have attempted further attacks.

      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Let me see if I can break this down into simple points that you can understand.

        You extradite criminals.

        You don't murder thousands and thousands of innocent civilians to "get" one criminal.

        After billions wasted and millions dead, Osama Bin Laden is still secure in wherever with a chance to attempt further attacks.
      • comedianX, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1It's not like Bin Laden shoplifted a candy bay in the US and then fled to Afghanistan where they refused to extradite him. The Taliban government allowed Bin Laden-run Al Qaeda to operate/train in their country and carry out attacks on other countries.
      • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Seems like Saudi Arabia and Pakistani Intelligence had more to do with it...
    • Veretax, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Now that is a reasonable question to ask Lynx. Could we have delayed a bit more in Iraq, I think we could have, but how much longer do you put off dealing with Saddam the guy was thumbing his nose at the US and the UN, at some point the US had to stand up and hold him to a line, even if it was Saddams incompetence at proving he'd disarmed that was the reasoning from it.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5"the US had to stand up and hold him to a line"

        Who will hold the USA to "a line?"
      • sodade, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2"Who will hold the USA to "a line?"

        China will if we default on our massive debt.
      • StaticThunder, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1If I owe the bank 1000 dollars and don't pay, I have a problem. If I owe the bank a million dollars and don't pay, the bank has a problem.

        U.S. defaulting on its bond obligations would collapse the world economy. Its a scorched earth maneuver and nobody wants it, not even China.
  • seks03, on 07/02/2008, -9/+14I thought you become a hero for not getting shot down...
  • borez, on 07/02/2008, -7/+14Wrong answer.
  • khail250, on 07/02/2008, -14/+3because we would still go there for the same F******ing******************* reason!
    • dafragsta, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2What reason is that?
      • fireashes, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2we only attack if there is oil. North Korea, China, Israel has wmd. we attack Iraq.
  • Alegoo92, on 07/02/2008, -11/+1I think we should have stopped at Afghanistan, but if Iraq was still approached it wasn't necessarily wrong (since being a world power we have high responsibility for foreign affairs). But no matter what the way it was handled was a joke.
  • brokenspatula, on 07/02/2008, -16/+8FIREDOGLAKE SPREADS LIES
    • AshScholl, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10That's all you could come up with?
  • ObamaWins08, on 07/02/2008, -10/+18I dunno. When you think about, Saddam should have been removed just like people are wanting Mugabe removed. However, the plan was completely flawed from the start and things should have been done differently. It's kind of a toss up, but I am more than willing to venture that if there was no oil involved, Saddam would still be in power.
    And that's another thing that bugs me. If it was a war about oil, we couldn't even get the cheap gas part right. But, it's like one of my fellow diggers said: Our administration sells the gas, they don't buy it.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/02/2008, -3/+13Your president should be removed. The US should be kicked out of all conventions, boycotted and embargoed. You're insane.

      Saddam never even came close, in his entire life, to killing as many civilians as your country did in the last 6 years in Iraq alone.
      • Peetweefish, on 07/02/2008, -6/+1Good luck keeping the world economy running without us *****.
      • Slizzo, on 07/02/2008, -4/+2Excuse me, if insurgents and other Iraqis are killing each other, how is it that WE are killing them?

        Please tell me. In my 15 months I spent in Iraq the only "Iraqis" we killed were the insurgents trying to kill us...
      • MacEnvy, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6@Slizzo

        Ever ask yourself where these "insurgents" were before we invaded? They were IRAQIS (the vast majority, anyway). They were people who didn't appreciate a foreign nation coming in and taking over their sovereign soil and then holding them in an occupation.

        They weren't "insurgents" until after we were invaders. I would like to think we'd do the same if someone came here to the US and tried to take us over - I'd sure as hell be an "insurgent" if that were the case.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3@MacEnvy

        Agreed. And we should just call them what they are instead of using million-dollar words. Insurgent = rebel. They're rebel Iraqis and they're rebelling against us.

        @Slizzo

        And how many Iraqis were killed in our "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad? Oh, right, we don't keep track of casualties...or make a big deal about missing our targets.
    • quasipolymath, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10With the exception of Japan and Germany after WWII, when has toppling a leader and installing a pro-US/Western regime worked out positively for either us or, more importantly, the people of that country?
      • kanabiis, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Not to run off on a tangent, but Japan and Germany were world superpowers before, during and after World War II.

        The fact that they are doing just fine today is less a reflection of any good that the US did after the war, and more the fact that both countries already had thriving economies, established industrial capabilities and the infrastructure to quickly rebuild post war.

        East Germany almost collapsed under Soviet rule in the 80's, the unification brought on by a starved, overly taxed populous was the only reason it survived.

        Japan had always been an economic superpower since the late 1800's, they had the infrastructure and economic stability to quickly bounce back from the destruction of World War II and continue being the powerful nation that it is. Little credit can be given to the United States for the success that Japan has had over the last 50 years, unless you count the billions of dollars American consumers have spent purchasing products produced by Japanese industries.

        Iraq on the other hand had no such economic, industrial or social establishments leaving them incapable of any recovery from the war.
      • quasipolymath, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4That was kind of my point. Ignoring the question of what should have been done (I don't think anyone wants to question toppling Hitler's regime, but I think there are some lingering questions about our actions in occupying Japan), Japan and Germany bounced back despite having had us topple their leadership rather than due to it.
      • Peetweefish, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Philippines and South Korea.

        By the way, the Marshall Plan was used with great success in Europe and are aid in Japan helped too. The major difference is that we had fought armies that had centralized leadership, which the insurgents in Iraq clearly do not have. Germany's and Japan's leadership were pushed into surrender but the terrorists in Iraq act as autonomous cells, same with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Thus when the fighting was called off in WWII, the fighting stopped (with a few small pockets of rebels but the armies generally followed the leadership), but even though we have toppled the government and put in place new leadership in Iraq, the people fighting there have no loyalties to any ruling party just to their cause. A big pain in the ass.
    • yellowsnowcone, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10You're right about the oil, but wrong about the motive.

      The motive wasn't cheap oil. But the presence of oil gave the neo-cons their nation-building fantasy. They believed they could use the oil revenue to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq ie it's a self-financing operation.

      Obviously, it didn't turn out that way. And they would have never have tried in a place lacking a valuable resource.
  • watklax, on 07/02/2008, -7/+13Well, McCain know ***** about nothing.
  • 666dorado, on 07/02/2008, -8/+28hmmm, 6 years later and i still say we shouldn't have invaded iraq. maybe i should run for president.
  • GhostyBoy, on 07/02/2008, -16/+11Obama might be yet another spineless sellout but at least he isn't completely obtuse.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/02/2008, -16/+11http://digg.com/politics/PDF_The_Military_s_Iraq_A ...

    "One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes."

    "Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank."

    "State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000."

    When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support orgianizations it knew to be part of Al Qaeda - as long at that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long term vision. A directive from the Director for International Intelligence in the IIS to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain orders him to investicate a particular terrorist group there, The Army of Muhammed.

    A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that “this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.”

    In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam’s decision to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.”

    In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden’s and Saddam’s interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

    • Ceryn1126, on 07/02/2008, -1/+41. You're burried for posting an entire article instead of your own response.
      2. So what? Regimes always support groups that go along with their national interests... welcome to realpolitik 101. Even the US backs "terrorist" / dictatorial leaders when it suits us. Doesn't undo the fact that they didnt have WMDs and you also didnt see us invading places like Pakistan which really was developing WMD / making places for Bin Laden to hide. The war was to make Bush's friends even richer end of story.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2Just as long as you concede that the FDL writer is a liar for saying that Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US and didn't have connections to Al Qaeda.
  • poidh, on 07/02/2008, -17/+5Hundreds of thousands of dead?

    Nope. Only about one hundred thousand or just over, and almost all of those were killed by the jihadis who by the way are responsible for their own actions.
    • quasipolymath, on 07/02/2008, -3/+10Sure. It's ok if it is just one hundred thousand people.

      Also, when smart bombs miss their target and explode, the explosions only kill "bad" people. Due to this, when we nearly leveled whole swaths of Baghdad from the air, I'm sure only terrorists were the ones caught in the explosions.

      Idiot.
      • poidh, on 07/02/2008, -5/+1Foolish child.

        Re-read my post: "...almost all of those were killed by the jihadis ...". I'm not denying that some were killed by Allaied bombing, just that the vast majority were killed by the jihadis.

        Simpleton.
    • johnfn, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5One estimate gives 650 thousand deaths. ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1011-06.ht ... )

      Another gives over one million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_Wa ...

      Please get your facts straight before you spout nonsense.
  • pakakapa, on 07/02/2008, -13/+20***** dumbass bush II
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/02/2008, -17/+10Knowing what we knew at the time, going into Iraq was the correct choice (Hillary said the same thing: http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/04/06/h ... Knowing what we know now, war was still a justifiable course of action, as McCain has pointed out.

    Also, where the hell are the freaking transcripts for things like this? I'm sick of all this politically charged bullcrap without being able to read the comments in context. Quit giving me soundbites and snippets. My attention span is longer than that.
    • MadKennyP, on 07/02/2008, -4/+11The Iraq War was the wrong decision at the time and is the wrong decision today. Congress was spoon-fed intelligence by the Bush Administration and therefore did not have the whole picture.

      Bush and his administration cherry picked intelligence that backed up their desire for war. The truth was, Iraq had no WMDs and had not "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons program. The Bush Administration knew that significant evidence supported those facts, but chose to ignore and hide that intelligence.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Please, do us all a favor and shut up. Bush won by a larger margin for his second term, and AFTER the war had started. Face it, you were and are in the minority.

        We didn't find any WMD's because we told saddam "you have 48 hours". Saddam was already in hiding and on the run at that point, and we almost killed him, we had his whereabouts with some damn good intelligence, except we kept our word and waited the full 48 hours, and lost track of him. You and a lot of other people are naive enough to assume that a man who is smart enough to go into hiding to save his own life is also too dumb to get rid of the evidence (WMDs) to validate the war against him.
      • jaredd777, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0dafunk - Are you saying that he in fact did have WMDS but he got rid of them, which contradicts what everybody in the Bush administration has admitted, including George Tenet ? Nevermind that it's impossible to do that in such a short amount of time, but why didn't he use them? What did he have to lose? The intelligence they had was very ambiguous and shaky, and some of it made up. i.e. yellowcake uranium. All they found post- invasion were a couple of missile heads from the 1980s with sarin gas that were unused and deteriorating, and other insignificant weapons, but no stockpiles and no nuclear bombs.

        The war in Iraq is about US national interests and thats a fact- oil, bases, pro-west free market etc. Theories abound, but the only one that doesn't make sense is the Iraq as a grave imminent threat argument, but its the one they could use to sell the war.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -9/+11From the article: "Silly me. I was under the impression that Saddam was a threat to the United States because he had nukes and evil chemical-spewing drone planes and was BFFs with Osama bin Laden."

    Exactly. The author was under that impression, but he clearly never read the Authorization to use force in Iraq. His impression is irrelevant.
  • ItIsNow, on 07/02/2008, -11/+314000 Americans dead. One million Iraqis slaughtered. And McCain says "Hurray!"

    Maybe he wants to head back to that market with the armed guard of hundreds and full body armor. Let's send him there -- minus the guard and the armor -- and let's tell the Iraqis he's coming.
    • merlin5, on 07/02/2008, -8/+3How ridiculous. 1 million? Only the filthy liar terrorists believe that obvious distortion. So many cowards believe like you. Why don't any of you do something about it. Answer; because its all lies.
      Could have voted for Gore...didnt show. Could have voted for Kerry...no show. Blah blah, lies and rumors yet not enough gumption to vote.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9There are several scientific studies that back up the horrendous Iraqi death toll caused by the illegal invasion. There are links above in at least one other post. If you have a scientific rebuttal of those studies, post it.

        or STFU.
      • EnnuiStudent, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_casualt ...

        Or if you think wikipedia is evil:
        http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?New ...

        It has a link to the Opinion Research Business polling agency's report. And by now, estimates are as high as 1.2 million and rising.

        But nooo, our media and government wouldn't spruce up the numbers for a war that's widely believed to be a mistake. Because propaganda doesn't exist in war.
    • Veretax, on 07/02/2008, -8/+4Don't take this the wrong way, but 4000 American lives lost is a pittance compared too the death tolls suffered at D-Day, in WW II, Korea, or our own Civil War. Go read up on history and get some perspective please.
      • riseabove, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9yeah but you know what? those wars were legitimate, this war was based on lies and sold to the american people. nobody should have died for this.
      • sizzzzlerz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11You're honestly comparing bush's great adventure with D-Day and WW II? Great jebus in the sky, you wingnuts are ***** insane! Its not a question of quantity, but the justification for sacrificing American lives for a cause. This wasn't worth a single life since iraq was not a threat in any way, shape, or form to the US. Never was. Never would have been.
    • confuseddesi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Actually, three of his four children do serve in the military.
  • BaronSamedi242, on 07/02/2008, -11/+22Of course he would do it.

    He's getting kickbacks from BIG OIL just like Bush is.

    It's all about us being kept down, paying $5 a gallon, while Halliburton and the Saudis get rich, with fat kickbacks to the Republicans and the Skull and Bones set.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
  • Rudegar, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1maybe he would had don it alone?
  • awesomeric, on 07/02/2008, -20/+5I hate Mccain, I hate bush, I love Obama, i love abortion, go environmentalists, i put up grammatically challenged posts on digg thinking that i am important.
    -A Douchbag liberal still living in mom's basement
    • Verfel, on 07/02/2008, -2/+5Are you speaking as said douchbag or as a conservative ***** who can't respect the beliefs of others... oh wait, slight redundancy there, sorry.
      • awesomeric, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0respects for using the word *****
    • sandersdamnit, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2I guess I am grammatically challenged my friend, i have no idea what a "douchbag" is.
    • JoeVet, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6I hate Obama, I hate Hilary, I love McCain and Limbaugh and Drudge. I love war but I won't support the troops, go big oil stick it to the little people, i can't read the bible but i know it should be taught in science class, i put up grammatically challenged posts on digg thinking that i am important.

      -A douchbag neo-con living in a doublewide.
      • awesomeric, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Thanks man its a singlewide but hopefully if the government keeps giving me handouts we can afford the double
    • xBreakdownx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Best comment ever. I'm tired of all this McCain hating, Obama loving ***** on digg.
  • dcollins, on 07/02/2008, -13/+10I dunno, atleast McCain says whats on his mind even if its grossly unpopular. I respect that. I was very pro obama, but his latest wavering is causing me to reconsider McCain. Its almost like Obama is trying to keep some act going, but is getting run down and occasionally he lets his guard down and we see through it.
    • Verfel, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2It's almost like this is some giant popularity contest...
      • dcollins, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2No, its more like I don't want somebody in the office who says one thing and does another. But of course I am getting dugg down as I said something nice about McCain. I guess I should just stick to offering to fellate Obama.
      • Verfel, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Remember, people digg down for various reasons, they disagree with an opinion, they're politically bias, they just don't like your name... basically I'm saying that if you're honestly going to withhold your comments just because you go into the negatives then you're doing yourself and the digg community an injustice.

        I, for one, share your opinion to some degree. I thought that Obama shouldn't have even bothered appeasing McCain when he got "hurt" from Obama's constituent discrediting his war record (I mean seriously, suck it up McCain) but Obama has been jumping through hoops and dancing on hot coals to reject any statement that seems offensive to anyone. I still think he's better than another King George, but I see where you're coming from.
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2McCain has 'wavered' on a couple of important things himself. Can you respect that?
  • ProUSADigger, on 07/02/2008, -14/+5Given what the entire world "knew" at the time, anyone in their right mind would have invaded. He is just being honest.

    The Clintons, Kerry, and the vast majority of Democrats agreed at the time. So, I'm not sure why this is an issue. Oh wait, yes
    I am...this gives the shrill liberals yet another thing to piss their collective pants about.
    • Rudegar, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2"Given what the entire world "knew""

      no the entire world knew that those claims was at best guess's which was why powl could not get anybody in UN to take the "proof" seriously
      • ProUSADigger, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Come on, you're smarter than that. It has been known for years that the UN has never and will never be
        fair regarding anything US or Israel related.

        Literally every major intelligence agency on the planet agreed that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam HIMSELF said that he had WMD's and threatened to use them if we invaded. The vast majority of liberal politicians (except the obviously anti-American ones [i.e., Obama]) agreed than not only did Iraq have WMD's, but that he would either use them or hand them to terrorists and that the only way to prevent it from happening was to invade.

        Please don't let your hatred for America and our allies cloud your ability to use logic to arrive at
        what should be a simple conclusion.
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Insults make your party and country look bad.
  • devophl, on 07/02/2008, -7/+4But if you believe that the wars for the world's economic base in the next two decades will be won and lost on the oil fields of the Middle East, then invading Iraq is exactly what you want to do. Saddam Hussein gave Bush the ammo he needed to invade Iraq while the rest of the world was concentrating on 9/11 and Al Qaeda. This is the first battle in the war for oil!!
  • justice7, on 07/02/2008, -8/+3hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Pakistan isn't where the Taliban originated (as the post description would lead you to believe). The Taliban are from Afghanistan. We are not at war with Pakistan. Typical, and very hypocritical.
    • justice7, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1i see i'm getting a lot of + and - here, those of you hitting -, would you mind telling me which part of my statement is inaccurate? Since we're in the business of giving false information and all.
      • herbertstrasse, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3I'll do my best. The article mentions a resurgent Taliban presence in Pakistan. In other words, a revitalized Taliban has found a home in Pakistan, presumably after being driven out of Afghanistan.

        Also, we aren't at war WITH Afghanistan either.
      • justice7, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Generally speaking, you're only at war WITH the regime in power of any given country; generally not the country itself. Like the Nazi party in Germany; we were never at war with the German people.
      • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Since you asked...I'm burying you for...
        Since we're in the business of giving false information and all.
        Judging a post before the post suggests trolling.
        Also this...
        hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Pakistan isn't where the Taliban originated (as the post description would lead you to believe). The Taliban are from Afghanistan. We are not at war with Pakistan. Typical, and very hypocritical.
        ...is condescending. I didn't think it said the Taliban originated in Pakistan. Also I don't see how that would be typical. I guess you say hypocritical because we are 'friends' with Pakistan. And I guess in THAT you would be right. Maybe I'm a little bury happy. Whoops.
    • Rudegar, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
      pakistan too they're supposed to be formed first in koran school there before taking power in afganistan
    • riseabove, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1yeah but guess who's hiding there now?
  • ronin4740, on 07/02/2008, -12/+3Six years later and I'm glad Presidential Candidate McCain isn't whining about President Bush "making the wrong choice". There's far too much "if we knew then what we know now" recanting of decisions going on in the political world. I'm confident that President Bush made the best decision using the information at hand at the time we invaded Iraq and want to cast my vote for a Presidential Candidate who will commit to finishing what was started.
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1What will the finish look like? I think this can only end with our being asked to leave.
  • philasurfer, on 07/02/2008, -8/+27After 4100 dead, oil at $143, 1 or 2 trillion dollars lost, no WMD, no threat to U.S. security....Im so confused. How is this guy not driven out of public life! It is an indefensible position.
    • dafunkmonster, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Merely saying "It is an indefensible position" doesn't make you in the right. It doesn't mean he should be driven out of public life. It doesn't mean *****. I don't know why people are digging you up, you're just regurgitating the same ***** that the article said. Take your asinine parroting somewhere else.
      • thedragon4453, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1So why exactly did we need to go to Iraq? The terrorists that hate our freedom?

        Him saying its an indefensible position doesn't make it true, the truth makes it true. We did not have any where near enough of a reason to get into this war.
  • UnleashX, on 07/02/2008, -13/+7DIGG WE GET IT, YOU SUPPORT OBAMA!

    Stop posting these ***** articles already!
    • RonBurgundy76, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3How's that whole navel-gazing thing working out for you?
    • sandersdamnit, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1unleash the fury
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2If you support McCain, you probably support Iraq. This is arguably a pro McCain article.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -12/+5Anyone else find it amusing how liberals think it is possible to travel back in time and make decisions based on information from the future?
    • gryphon50, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2there were plenty of people at the time who said this wasn't a good idea. I remember because all the conservatives, after being in Iraq for like ONE DAY, said at the time that liberals should not be in charge of foreign policy, since they had said to not go in and it was such a smashing success (after one day!)
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1That's true. But doesn't actually address my point.
    • salinemist, on 07/02/2008, -6/+3To be fair most of them posting on here are 12 or 13.
    • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -4/+6We were right before the illegal invasion of Iraq. On Feb 15, 2003 millions of us were in the streets of every major city.

      We were right. We were right before it happened.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3Would you like a cookie?
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -3/+4"Would you like a cookie?"

        No, I'd like my money back and an admission that you were wrong. Thanks.


        Oh, and a war crimes trial for the Bush administration...
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3I think you have a better chance at getting a cookie.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2"I think you have a better chance at getting a cookie," than getting the American right wing to admit they were completely wrong.

        Yes, I agree.

      • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2I want the right wing to admit they were wrong AND a cookie. I'll settle for one...but it better no be the cookie.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1or so you think. You want a democracy, but you want a refund when it doesn't go your way. You want your country protected, but you don't want your neighbors to die volunteering to go protect it. You want the government to eliminate poverty, but you don't want your dispensable income to become a tax increase.

        I believe this is what is commonly known as the mentality of a 12 year old. Good job. You're deficient at life. Now, please stop posting on digg. We know you're voting for Obama, even if CNN comes out and says he's the Antichrist. Stop trying to force the majority to convert to your asinine, impractical views.
    • riseabove, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3because we're NOT going to let something like this happen again.
  • chrissku, on 07/02/2008, -7/+12That's alright John...I'm STILL gonna vote for Obama.
    • CSimonds, on 07/02/2008, -3/+7Vote for Obama all you want. He won't get us anything any different than we already have. Do you HONESTLY think the powers that be would allow someone good for US to run for office? Get real.
      • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Is your point to not vote?
      • cnot3, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Obama wants a war with Iran. Not voting would be preferable to voting for either him or McCain. Just write in someone you truly believe in, or vote Libertarian. I would not be able to leave the polls in good conscious, voting for McCain or Obama. Why is it always between a douche and a turd sandwich?
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1And in six years, I still would have done it again.
  • 55mph, on 07/02/2008, -10/+1010 years ago i thought the War game was over. The US had a nonintervention bias, the wall came down in Russia, Saddam's invasion into Kuwait was short lived, it took us awhile to get involved in Serbia's genocide of the Croats.

    9-11 was the catalyst that got all this started and 9-11 is a very suspicious event. Especially when you know that Dick Cheney had direct control over Norad, our emergency aerospace defense command. WTF??

    Bulding 7's implosion is an event the 9-11 commission didn't want to touch.

    Then there's the Pentagon. Coincidently vacant section of the building get one big hole in the side. Where are the wings and engines. Disintegrated prior to hitting the building?

    And it was all done is plain sight. Who would believe it? That's what the manipulators think of
    the American public. They can do what they want right in front of their nose, and then tell them an official story. The best is when you are accused of being unpatriotic when you question the official version.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -10/+5Unpatriotic? No. A wackjob? Yes. (in regards to the "truther" crap about 9/11, that is)
    • superkendall, on 07/02/2008, -10/+6***** truther. *spit*
      • RonBurgundy76, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Maybe he's wrong. Maybe he's right. Since when is it wrong or 'unpatriotic' to question suspicious events?
      • 55mph, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3what sucks about the truth?

      • pagno, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1***** sheep! BAAAAAHHH!

        I wont dignify you with my saliva.
    • Rudegar, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0"However, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent were Serbs and more than 5 percent were Croats"
      from
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War

      so unless you mean bosniaks rather then croats
      the serbs sure suck at genocide :P
      • 55mph, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2yes, correction noted. Bosnians. The Serb's wanted Croatia?
      • Rudegar, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0some of it i guess the serbs wanted a big serbia from the cost of the black sea to the middleteranian guess they just wanted as much as possible of the former yugoslavia but mainly bosnia

        the croats was starting to fight back with success and also think they killed the muslim bosniaks at times

        a classic every group for themselfs fight vs. everybody else
        but that region have been like that for eons their commie dictator held them in check with an iron fist but when he died and the wall fell it started

        funny thing that even today croats are seen as the good guys and serbs the bad ones but in ww2 the croats was on hitlers side and the serbs never surrendered and did guerilla warfare in the mountains

        i just hope that the forming of kosovo dont cause too much problems in the furture :S

        there are no winners og heros in such internal strugles
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3Cheney did NOT have "direct control over Norad." He was put in charge of the Office of National Preparedness within FEMA. FEMA does not control norad.

      http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_charge_of_n ...
    • dafunkmonster, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I was reading your post as if you were a credible source, and was about to digg you up.

      But as soon as you mentioned building 7, I realized I had been duped. You're a moron posing as an intellectual. Please take the off the sheepskin, you're not fooling anyone.
  • yellowsnowcone, on 07/02/2008, -10/+11The invasion isn't the problem.

    The problem was that Bush lacked a plan for what to do after invading.
    • DulcetTone, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1If people like Shinseki, McCain, and Petraeus had had their voices heard and not squelched, the balance of how the effort is perceived might be dramatically different than what Cheney, Rumsfeld et al have delivered us.

    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Really he just lacked a back up plan.
      The plan was to allow the invisible hand of the free market magically put the country back together. And then invisibly pay all our bills.
  • Dan11023, on 07/02/2008, -10/+4i would
  • NelsonR, on 07/02/2008, -8/+6The average citizen must abide idiots like Bush/McCain but lets face it the media ignores Iraq and continually use the phrase "Less violence in Iraq". WHAT? I personally care, even today that even ONE AMERICAN dies in AMERICA'S war of aggression while our economy is on a path to depression. Let's save the world while destroying ourselves. No, lets rephrase that, allow us to prevent our five percent getting richer on the backs of most. Republicans are a bunch of hypocritical, lying group who say they live by a God's law while sinning daily. Democrats are a close second in hypocrisy.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/02/2008, -7/+8Hey maybe McPain will attack Canada, I hear they have oil and the boys could come home on the weekends for a visit.
  • rational31, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3He would have certainly done it and he is being honest about that part BUT he is not being honest about the reasons why he would have done it. Check this out for a different take on why it was necessary to go to Iraq in the first place: http://www.rationalreflections.com/Iraq_war_many_q ...
  • superkendall, on 07/02/2008, -9/+3If Iraq ends up like Germany or Japan, a stable force in alliance with the US, then the results will absolutely have been worth the cost - if nothing else to help the people of Iraq, but also to help the other people of the region have a less repressive Arab government to look to as a model.
    • gryphon50, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5tell me something- do Germans and Japanese seem like Iraqis to you? What makes you think you can draw up that analogy?
      • executorzz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2I seem to remember the Japanese military was a bit of an extremist force, even using suicide attacks, but later became a friend of america and a model for government in asia after world war 2.

        Perhaps that's why he thought he could draw up that analogy?
      • gryphon50, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3it's still not a good analogy. The Japanese were always disciplined and obedient to a leader. They were never "out of control." Regardless of their atrocities, they weren't doing anything their leaders disapproved of. After the war, the new leader became us so they changed their policy and became peaceful. The Iraqis, on the other hand, belong to different sects, clans, etc. Even if you could get some on your side, there would always be others willing to be insurgents. Totally different people, culture and situation.
    • villageatheist, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3I thought Saudi Arabia was the model we were giving to the Middle East.
    • Yodaisking, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0As much as we would like I don't think peace in iraq under a democracy is possible in iraq, these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years. constant civil war.
  • Veretax, on 07/02/2008, -13/+3Oh no! McCain says something about the war. and The Liberal Digger Alliance starts bashing him over it. Wake up people? We tried diplomacy for how many years with Saddam Hussein? You guy shave a very short memory, but when we left Hussein in power after we kicked his but out of Kuwait, it was not long later before he was using poisonous gas on kurds and shia. I love how the liberal media is so upset about Darfur since it happened under bush's watch, but didn't care about what happened in Rwanda under Clinton's watch.

    Listen people, for over a decade Hussein made a mockery of the international community. He violated the treaty that he signed with us to end the first Gulf War, and frankly, I and many other americans were sick of hearing about him. It was time for him to disarm or be taken out by force. You guys seem to forget that this was an issue that Bush Campaigned on in 2000. So why was it such a surprise that he would follow through on that issue. Oh that's right, because liberal politicians prefer leaving issues on solved so they have them for the next campaign.
    • gryphon50, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3and Bush has left this whole mess for the next president to clean up.
    • herbertstrasse, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4For your edification:

      The Halabja poison gas attack, which I believe you are referring to occurred in 1988, during the Iraq-Iran war (well before the Gulf War). The chemical weapons herein employed by Iraq were supplied by foreign powers - including, but not limited to, the United States, which had been tacitly supporting the Baathist side throughout the conflict as part of its "tilt" campaign against Iraq.

      I'm not trying to be a Saddam apologist and say "his people liked him" or any such nonsense. Hussein was, for lack of a better term, a huge dick, but he was not alone. He was simply one name on a huge list of awful dictators the world has long been burdened with. This, however, is not an acceptable justification for our pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation.

    • villageatheist, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2The United States makes a mockery of the international community. The U.S. government supported Saddam and helped him become a powerful figure in the Middle East so read some history before you make a fool of yourself.
    • clfitzu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1It's a amazing how SOME people post comments with incorrect information...thanks herbertstrasse for correcting the original post.

      To address this whole issue of who was right or wrong, it's not really about that from my perspective. It's about the deception of the administration. They knew that it was a crap shot when they invaded Iraq, but they intended on doing it anyway, because they were and still are in bed with the oil companies. The evidence is in the most recent oil contracts that were given out to several of America's biggest oil companies. Now, the administration would argue that it was a fair bidding process, but now we find out that the U.S government brokered these deals. Come onnn!!!

      What I'm saying is: Just stop treating us like we are stupid. If you were going over there to secure oil for the interest of the country, just say so. But stop twisting information to server your own purposes, but they knew that the American people wouldn't have supported a war that has lost over 4, 000 lives and cost billions of dollars, just in the name of oil.

      And for all those people now trying to justify it for humanitarian reasons. Stop feeding us the load of bull *****!
      You weren't worried about the suffering of those people over there. Stop trying to defend the actions of a President who was wrong, just because you voted for him. You're just as narrow minded and hard headed as that idiot we have in office.
  • strungoutyeh, on 07/02/2008, -9/+11as a non-american............i hope you guys do not elect this man
    • tellahoohooo, on 07/02/2008, -3/+10o we won't, it's diebold that will
    • DulcetTone, on 07/02/2008, -6/+1A lot of un-Americans agree with you! :)
    • zombies187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Please let other non-Americans know that non-American opinions are always interpreted to make the opposite point. It could be that your opinions are valuable and true, but Americans want to do the opposite of what outsiders tell them to do. If you DON'T want McCain to be elcted, start saying things like, "You stupid Americans should vote for a MAN like McCain, not Obama who was once not only black but a GIRL! At least that what our superior French Media tells us." It sounds crazy but thats the most you can realistclly do to avoid McCain.
  • darkfus, on 07/02/2008, -4/+13Yet he knows full well there were no WMDs. So what was HIS rationalization? Yeah, nobody really knows.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -4/+2^---- and example of this "time machine" mentality referenced above.
    • riseabove, on 07/02/2008, -4/+3^---- an example of having poor judgement and being a warmonger
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2heh... I've been called many things, but a warmonger is a first. Do you even know what the term means, kid?
  • phphreak, on 07/02/2008, -8/+1Iraq was such a tranquil place before the US invaded..the land of milk and honey, where Saddam ruled with a gentle and loving hand. Where were all of you when Iraqis were being killed in the thousands back then? Oh that's right, you didn't care....
    • riseabove, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4it wasn't our problem, and it should never have been, mr.humanitarian
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 96 of 96 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.