digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at newyorker.com

The Bush Regime steps up its secret moves against Iran

newyorker.com — "Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caferrell, on 06/29/2008, -27/+224In Bush-world we finance insurgents to destroy infraestructure, murder people and try to topple the government in Iran and we call them freedom-fighters.
    In Bush-world Iran finances insurgents to attack the occupying army's infraestructure, murder soldiers of the occupying army and Iraqis that are assissting them and try to topple the puppet government in Iraq and we call them terrorishts. (We would call them terrorists, but we are apparently incapable of speaking English)

    In Bush-world, the mainstream media repeats all this crap as though it were true.
    • m1th, on 06/29/2008, -6/+80It's certainly not exclusive to the Bush administration. The American government has been doing that for that past couple of decades.
      • Naieve, on 06/29/2008, -21/+7What infrastructure has been destroyed? What have these "insurgents" done?

        So far all I've heard of is action against the Revolutionary Guard, a terrorist organization.
      • ad33lshahid, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6I think he was talking about Iraq for that particular part of his comment.
      • vinod1978, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4@m1th - But at least Congress approved those actions.
    • solid12345, on 06/30/2008, -16/+10We are financing insurgents to destroy infrastructure?

      Tell me where are the stories of car bombs going off in Tehran or people being kidnapped off the streets and beheaded?
      • Naieve, on 06/30/2008, -29/+3Come now, stop asking them to prove their accusations, they might question the determinations of their emotions and start looking to see what has actually transpired. Can't have that now can we?
      • truspect0r, on 06/30/2008, -1/+13Then go find the terrorist groups responsible. You don't go destroying the whole country.
      • pauliusuza, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Terrorists have a different goal - their goal is to SPREAD A MESSAGE by destroying infrastructure, kidnapping, beheading and setting off bombs. By claiming an attack they are making their message stronger (if anyone cares of course).

        Covert operations are called "covert" because no one ever hears about the attack from the official sources or if it does indeed break through to the mass media - then usually no one takes responsibility for that attack.

        Attacked nation on the other hand cannot use any information on these attacks (if they have it) publicly due to the pre-set conflict side roles (good vs. bad). Any information against a "good" nation from a "bad" nation is usually perceived as false.
      • infiniphunk, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Wow, you're pretty naive, huh?
      • pauliusuza, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11Actually, the US "contractors" are being paid from YOUR money, do you know how is this money actually used? Will you ever?
      • vinod1978, on 06/30/2008, -0/+14@solid12345 - I assume you are talking about this phrase "...Iran finances insurgents... "

        It's a pretty well known fact that Iran does indeed fund many of the insurgents in Iraq (so does Saudi Arabia but Bush is to buddy-buddy with them to do anything about it). What he was saying that WE - the United States have done this many times and we call it democracy. For example, we funded and provided the Taliban in Afghanistan which not only stopped the Russian invasion, but they in turn used the money and weapons against their own people. We also gave money to Iraq when Iran & Iraq were pissed off at each other and fighting - and we actually helped Saddam to become more powerful until we didn't like him going after Kuwait Oil.

        What he says is true. We fund people when we say it is ok, and when other people do it we call them part of the axis of evil. We definitely have a double standard, and it is alarming that most of the mass media does not report it as such. What's is unique to the Bush Administration is that we are blatantly playing both sides of the coin and no one is calling Bush on it. We are now paying the same "terrorists" in Iraq that were killing American soldiers. What do you think they are going to do when we leave and stop paying them?
      • Dumbledorito, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5@Naieve: For kidnappings, go look up "extraordinary renditions."
    • unpluggedboy, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10If everybody knows, is it a secret?
    • skcoder, on 06/30/2008, -12/+5In Bush We Trust.
    • toetagger, on 06/30/2008, -1/+12It is these kinds of actions that lead many around the world to say the US is the world's #1 country for state sponsored terrorism. Facts are facts.
    • Gilgamesh73, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Did anyone else catch the quote:

      The Pentagon consultant told me, “We’ve had wonderful results in the Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flags."

      The Pentagon is admitting that they are conducting false flags. People, when will you wake up and realize 9/11 was a false flag?

      Watch this video IMMEDIATELY before it is taken down: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cvdu_aaron-russ ...
      • RogueMountie, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1What exactly is that supposed to prove?
    • dagnome1984, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5It's like Bush wants to provoke Iran to attack. If not him the lackeys that are responsible for these covert actions.
    • radiofrequency, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2In libworld, law-abiding Americans shouldn't be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms but terrorist nations like Iran are justified in trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
      • mrraven200, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5In the hard left we protect the 2nd amendment because of pro brownshirt wing nuts like you scare us, AND we hope the US. government doesn't commit more war crimes in the middle east.
      • caferrell, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4@radiofrequency, I wrote that, and I am a conservative libertarian gun owner. I will defend liberty with my life if necessary, and do you know who wants to take away my liberty? The same ***** that wants to invade Iran.

        You have bought the neocon lie my friend, if you truly believe in freedom, then can it with the Michael Savage routine and vote for Bob Barr
      • mrraven200, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3caferrell although I am Green type lefty I have total props for true conservative Libertarians like you and I will fight alongside you and your friends if they put Blackwater goons on our streets.
    • Jaymo89, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Has anyone noticed the webpage is marked 7th of July? Must be a week into the future.
    • morsky, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3II agree, caferrell. Except I would also add, look at the difference both in scale and duration of such financing: US has been financing thugs and terror groups since 1917 and more so after WWII.
      • caferrell, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Yup, but we have added a sanctimoniousness that I find particularly repulsive
  • djRob, on 06/29/2008, -16/+147Don't say, so that "conspiracy cook" Alex Jones wasn't lying after all when he said that USA was sponsoring Sunni terrorists in Iran. I wonder if some of his opponents will apologize for calling him a liar.
    • sgiffy, on 06/29/2008, -37/+12Alex Jones right: 1 time
      Alex Jones wrong: 1,000,000 times and counting
      • JonForTheWin, on 06/30/2008, -9/+19Not the only time someone has had to admit Alex Jones was spot the ***** on "just one time".

        so sgiffy . . FAIL
      • sgiffy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5Getting something somewhat right amongst a sea of nonsense is not that remarkable.
    • dukeeeey, on 06/29/2008, -11/+40Alex Jones predicts 911.
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-122244572 ...
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/29/2008, -28/+2Holy *****. I get it now. Alex Jones did 9/11. It's all so clear now. That's the big conspiracy.
      • radiofrequency, on 06/30/2008, -9/+0Alex Jones would feel right at home in Obama's racist church.
      • GeneralFault, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1What an apt name. You obediently repeat whatever crap is being transmitted over the radio.
    • 2reflective, on 06/30/2008, -4/+18He's also been right about the systematic devaluing of the dollar and the need to buy gold.

      If you truly understand and follow what he says, you'll realize he's rarely wrong. Sometimes things just happen a few years later than he predicted.
    • ZenFountain, on 06/30/2008, -17/+4I wonder if Alex Jones is familiar with the fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf. How many times during Bush's second term have we heard reports that he's on the verge of bombing Tehran? It's been so frequent from the likes of Jones that now if Bush really is plotting to start a war with Iran regardless of merit or the desires of the American people, reports of such are taken much less seriously. While I do respect Jones as someone who probably does what he does because he loves America, not to make a quick buck or get his face on TV, it simply boggles my mind how anyone can take him seriously if you've actually followed his work over the years. I am taking these latest reports of covert action in Iran very seriously but not thanks to Alex Jones.

      Bury, etc. etc.
    • Infowarmachine, on 06/30/2008, -1/+16hes not the only kook saying that
      i saw a mainstream news report with reporters talking about how the CIA was paying terrorists to carry out car bombings in iran
      and the news casters were like 'good!'
      • blackinthmiddle, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Lindsey Williams is another such kook who seems to, for over 30 years, pretty damn accurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk
        He's predicted that due to devaluaing of the dollar we WILL go to war with Iran. He also predicted war with Iraq, $4,$5,$6 and $7 gas (again, he wrote his book, the Non-Engergy Crisis) in the 70's).

        I'm not a finance guy and don't quite understand every Williams is saying. I also haven't been able to verify much of what he's said. He often asks you to believe him, yet there's no way to verify what he's saying. I tell you one thing, however: He seems to have a habit of being Nostradamus. It seems for many years now that we've been hell-bent on war with Iraq and Iran and the question becomes, why? The reasons the Bush Administration has given us simply don't make sense. So why are we over there?
    • Gilgamesh73, on 06/30/2008, -1/+13Did anyone else catch the quote:

      The Pentagon consultant told me, “We’ve had wonderful results in the Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flags."

      The Pentagon is admitting that they are conducting false flags. People, when will you wake up and realize 9/11 was a false flag?

      Watch this video IMMEDIATELY before it is taken down: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1cvdu_aaron-russ ...
    • OCSmoke, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4I used to say and think he was a sensationalist nut. But an awful lot of his craziest warnings have already come true. His police state warnings, his fear of a North American merger, and his exposure of government terrorism were brave, true, and valuable.

      I was wrong.
  • eclipse007, on 06/29/2008, -17/+70On one hand I'm happy that Bush's support and funding of terrorism is exposed again, but this also gives more fuel to regime in Iran to label political activists, journalists and students as US-funded terrorists.
    • MorganMghee, on 06/30/2008, -12/+1Well, gosh, it looks like some of them could be! Covert Ops isn't a box one generally checks on an inbound travel form.
    • koft, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Who cares? We should drop nukes on them and take their oil. We need to do war with Iran properly, like we didn't do in Iraq. Go in 100% and kill everybody. If we had just done the job right in Iraq, there would be nobody left to cause trouble. Look, gasoline isn't getting any cheaper, I don't know about you but I'd rather be cruising around town on 4 wheels in the air conditioning than riding a god damned bicycle. It's hot outside. Wake up people.
      • ZZeke, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3You forgot to add "/sarcasm", or at least I hope you did....
      • RogueMountie, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4I hope you are being sarcastic. I can't tell anymore, because there are actually Americans who talk like this.
      • GeneralFault, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2He has to either be insane or sarcastic. Nobody would be so cavalier about killing 160 million+ people. Or perhaps he is an idiot and thinks that the U.S. makes up 99% of the world. Either way, I'm glad I don't know him.
  • whodat51773, on 06/29/2008, -13/+97One thing is for certain all the democrats who supported this authorization will claim they were lied to or misled if and when action is taken and becomes public...
    • ZenMojo, on 06/29/2008, -18/+12***** you, McCain, and ***** you, Clinton.
    • Naieve, on 06/29/2008, -7/+14Hypocritical indignation here we come.

      Go Democrats... Woohoo...
    • MorganMghee, on 06/30/2008, -8/+2Right, the Dems did this.... Somebody was shot in the face, somebody was indicted, somebodies were fired and someone was dead on Fri 13th.
  • whodat51773, on 06/29/2008, -15/+48 "members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran" and so will be Amabo if elected
    • cheezintern, on 06/30/2008, -4/+15Are you surprised? Many of the same people voted for war. They're mostly all hypocrites, but I think most people already know that.
    • rayfiend, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9FTA: "Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference."

      And that was some slick editing you did there, whodat, Here's the more complete version: "In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

      You just cut that word SOME right out of there, didn't you?

      • whodat51773, on 06/30/2008, -9/+2Yeah man, something new I learned from the editors at : rawstory, huffington post, and Olbermann....you like?
    • MorganMghee, on 06/30/2008, -6/+1Based on false, manipulated information.
    • geddon, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3you missed the rest of the quote: "...while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."
    • toetagger, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8The United States of AIPAC.
    • tucsonwc, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2The democrats do not have a supermajority in congress. And unlike the republicans, the conservative democrats do NOT vote along party lines in lockstep like the republicans mostly do. This means that they do not have the ability to get majority votes passed or even still to override a presidential veto from Bush.
  • Teachum, on 06/29/2008, -53/+6The New Yorker and their so called elitist appear to be protecting themselves from probable attack by divulging information. Its report, Preparing the Battlefield is no less than treasonous against the United States. Terrorist Al Qud cells could bomb New York, perhaps the offices of the New Yorker itself. Islamofascists DO NOT respect RATS! They will believe that the New Yorker somehow a hand in their fate, which is the worst of positions. You just don't get the position or ramifications of jihad, its cells will be the first to thank the New Yorker types, and the first to eliminate them.
    • Rotzooi, on 06/29/2008, -1/+29Huh?

      /buried for nutjobbery
    • chicofaraby, on 06/29/2008, -6/+26"Islamofascists" = stupidity marker


    • emkaysmith, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7I've seen your other posts about, e.g., Martian "bunkers" in Washington, DC. You have obviously fallen out of your tree, Bonzo.
    • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6Do you watch Fox news, by any chance? Or any other mainstream media outlet excessively?
    • jugger74, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Wake the f***k up buddy it's time to fight for the ideals America was founded on not the propaganda these phony politicians from both sides would have you believe.
  • bluebovine, on 06/29/2008, -13/+73Yet another Bush "decider" decision to proceed without the support of the American people.
    • OffPiste, on 06/29/2008, -32/+5Nice to see you libtards get what we conservatives got during the 8 years of the Clinton regime. Ahhh karma is a bitch .
      • NotOptium, on 06/29/2008, -4/+20We need constructive, reasonable, logical arguments. Not name calling and singing "nah nah nee boo boo". Stop destroying America.
      • JupiterLander, on 06/29/2008, -2/+9"Nice to see you libtards get what we conservatives got during the 8 years of the Clinton regime. Ahhh karma is a bitch ."

        Peace and prosperity?
      • GeneralFault, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1War? Recession? Financial crisis? Crumbling infrastructure? Enemies all around us? Debt without sign of relief? I was here in the U.S. during the Clinton years, not in the USSR or where ever you apparently were. I would rather have a Clintonesque government any day of the year than the incompetent war loving idiocracy that we have now. Thanks.
    • Naieve, on 06/29/2008, -6/+15Umm, Congress is supposedly the will of the people.

      How is Bush unilaterally making this decision when it is agreed to by the DEMOCRATIC Congress?
      • bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -3/+7The 51% Democratic Congress?

        Stop acting like only one party is in there.
      • Naieve, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2Why should I do that?

        The Democrats surely didn't.

        Turn about is fair play.

        Or is taking any form of responsibility for your actions not on their list of qualities?
      • bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2LOL!

        Are you calling the Republicans responsible?
      • toetagger, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3But Israel trumps the will of the people.
    • SwedishNinja, on 06/29/2008, -4/+6On foreign policy, Bush claims to be a Liberal Interventionalist by claiming that the reason for the Iraq War was to bring "freedom and democracy" to the Iraqi people, but the truth is, he's a Power Realist. Power Realists believe that the President should lead popular opinion, not be lead by the general public. If Bush and his advisers see a threat in Iran pertaining to the balance of power in the Middle East and beyond, they WILL make a move. Especially now that Bush is essentially a lame duck, he couldn't give a flying ***** what the rest of the American people think about him or his policies. Sadly, McCain or Obama won't be any different. Obama might take a more diplomatic tact during his first term, but after that, all bets are off.
    • kosser, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9just another example of how there is no right and left in our government. both democrats and republicans coerce to make this kind of stuff happen. Yet people will keep sprouting we hate republicans or liberals or neo cons until the end of time. Why can't you understand that they all work for the same people.
      • toetagger, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2The rest of the world knows this is an American thing not a Dem or GOP thing. The US has been at this for way over a hundred years now. Party's don't mean ***** to the true power brokers.
      • GeneralFault, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1That is why they can switch sides so easily like Lieberman or Hillary Clinton.
  • hoosiernorm, on 06/29/2008, -7/+36Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's a secret.
  • NotOptium, on 06/29/2008, -9/+43Check out the date of the article. The New Yorker is publishing articles FROM THE FUTURE!!!
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/30/2008, -20/+7That's easy to do when you make stuff up.
  • CosmicH, on 06/29/2008, -18/+47Further perpetuating U.S. status as a bully state. *****.
    • Rotzooi, on 06/29/2008, -4/+10I'm assuming Bush & Co. are who you refer to as ***** and not Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker?
    • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4You've got to stand up against your government.
    • mrzack, on 06/30/2008, -8/+5America is a tool used by the globalist bankers to take over the world.
    • tehxen3, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Further perpetuating US status as a country that gives a ***** about protecting free nations from religious lunatic and preventing World War III.

    • GeneralFault, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1"Further perpetuating US status as a country that gives a ***** about protecting free nations from religious lunatic and preventing World War III.'
      Whether or not those countries want to be "protected" by us or wheter or not we have the leadership with enough competence to do such...
  • rzxc, on 06/29/2008, -9/+31The question is...who leaked this information? And for what purpose? I can think of two scenarios. First scenario. The information was leaked by the neocons. They believe this story will intimidate Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment program and they believe this story will force Iran into convincing the Iraqi government to sign an agreement with us. There is no way this story will achieve those ends, but the neocons are dumb enough to believe nonsense like that. The second scenario, which I think is more believable, is that this story was leaked by the Democrats, the military, and in particular, Secretary Gates. They know that the efforts to overthrow the Iranian government will fail. Not only that, they know that these operations will invite massive retaliation from Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. They believe that if this story becomes public knowledge, our government will be forced to stop its operations. I hope they're right.
    • stienster, on 06/29/2008, -2/+11hmmm... I can't say I agree with you. Firstly, the elites, or globalists, or neocons, are not dumb. They are evil. Second, they don't care about massive retaliation from any country. They are proud of their power grid and know exactly how far it extends: Everywhere. They want this story to become public knowledge because it stirs everything up. The more agitated we get, the more likely and sooner they can take "legitimate" control of every square inch of this country. They won't stop their operations until they accomplish their goals, or God decides time is up for them.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3While I immediately thought like rzxc, "who released this info", I agree with you in that if the info's getting out, the neocons are behind it. Why they want it released is beyond me, but your theory seems plausible.
      • GeneralFault, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Maybe, just maybe for once an investigative journalists did his job? Isn't this what we wanted before 2003? I don't think either group is pushing this story. In fact, it appears that both are doing everything that they can to suppress it, at least until after the next election. I think it far more likely that both groups are irritated that this story is out... again.
    • SwedishNinja, on 06/29/2008, -11/+3Third Scenario: This story is completely made up or a sensationalized version of the truth. This must have been the sixth "BREAKING: BUSH WILL ATTACK IRAN OMG" article I've read on Digg in the past week.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4There have been insiders -- the professionals, who have to work for these Bush appointed assholes. The ones who spoke out are probably without jobs. So the people who still believe in America, are working against the BushCo loyalists and leaking this information -- and you won't be getting a name.

      It's quite simple. The NeoCons have to put up with at least SOME, of the professionals, because they couldn't manage to run a ice cream shop on their own.

      It seems that a LOT of BushCo attempts have been thwarted. So, hopefully, by calling this out, it won't happen again. The more likely that it looks like Obama will win election, the more likely a war with Iran. Because a lot of people are going to prison if we ever get back our Democracy.
      • gigibachorski, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1How is it "leaked" if its on the public record?
  • rzxc, on 06/29/2008, -9/+37I guess another reason for leaking this information would be...perhaps the neocons are trying provoke Iran into doing something stupid. Right now, there is no support for military action against Iran. But if Iran cracked down on its citizens in response to this article, perhaps the neocons could use that as an excuse for military action against Iran. Iran must be careful and not take the bait.
    • bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4They'll just use this.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle ...

      It's coming, boys and girls. Hang on tight.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7It doesn't matter what happens inside Iran. So far, most everything BushCo has said, and the Media has parroted has been 50% *****, 40% Truth, and 10% fairy dust. They will just make crap up.

      They probably have had covert ops, trying to get nukes into Iran. They probably have been supporting terrorists destabilizing that country. They will probably bring more air craft carriers into harms way and try to provoke an incident.

      In Iraq, they painted planes to look like UN vessels, and put them in harms way -- trying to get Saddam to shoot them down. The news media never reported bombing in Iraq 6 months before the "official" invasion.

      I can't believe we are having this unprovoked, ***** war again.

      They will try anything to make it look like Iran is attacking. More than likely, Israel will start this, and Bush will claim that we have to "defend" them because of treaties. Like he gives a ***** about obligations and law. I am so tired of pretending that this "mobster" is a President. These NeoCons are looting our country, and having everyone debate Oil Futures on TV, or drilling in Anwar.
  • MrRobotoSki, on 06/29/2008, -14/+18Get used to nothing *****! What a stupid comment.
  • flavioribeiro, on 06/29/2008, -14/+50As a foreign citizen, I ask Americans to take a stand against this. And I don't mean to escalate your online petitions and posts on Digg. I mean organize huge real world protests that block streets in major cities. I'm talking about civil disobedience. Many of you would get arrested.

    The only way this will stop is if citizens and servicemen resist the government. Once a military campaign starts, regular citizens will be powerless and a serviceman who resists will be shot for treason. Servicemen should not report to active duty, and maybe move to other countries who will give asylum (Canada is an example).

    If a sea blockade against Iran is approved, the United States will be solely responsible for the war that ensues. The United States will be the aggressor, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians will die.
    • Naieve, on 06/29/2008, -20/+4Yeah, we are going to go crazy in the streets for Ahmadinejad, sure.

      Remind me, how many US soldiers have been killed by Iranian weapons?
      • flavioribeiro, on 06/29/2008, -5/+15You're not going crazy for Ahmadinejad. You're going crazy against an illegal war.

        Most posts I read on Digg criticise the war because several thousand American troops have died. They say the war is unadvisable because the US military is spread too thin, because the economy is bad and the price of oil would rise.

        Those are all fine reasons, but the problem with the war concerns its legality, and the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. What do you think would happen if any other country operated covert missions inside the US to spy on its nuclear facilities, or try to overthrow the government? The US has been doing this to Iran for decades, and now is planning to impose a sea blockade.

        A lot of people complain about Israel, as if they were responsible for this. Israel is only defending its immediate interest and the safety of its people. After all, Ahmadinejad did threaten them.

        However, the United States has no business with Iran. Blaming Israel is just an attempt to transfer the responsibility for an illegal war.
      • Naieve, on 06/30/2008, -9/+3I refer you back to Iran attacking US troops before this happened.

        They played with fire and got burnt.

        FYI, Israel is an ally of ours, as everyone accuses us of daily. Guess he shouldn't threaten our friends.
      • kooft, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9"Remind me, how many US soldiers have been killed by Iranian weapons?"

        Zero? Unless wild accusations without proof is evidence enough for you.


        "I refer you back to Iran attacking US troops before this happened."

        Source for this claim?


        Let's take a brief look at US-Iranian relations for the past 50 years so we can have a better perspective on things. Please respond with documentation that shows Iran's hostility towards America predates this list:

        1950's: Iran is a fledgling democracy and attempts to nationalize its oil industry. The US & UK overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and install a dictator. This dictator used terror squads, trained by the CIA, to quell dissent and impose his will.

        1979: Islamic revolution overthrows the US backed dictator.

        1980-88: The US backs Iraq in a war of aggression against Iran. US intelligence community provides Saddam Hussein with satellite intelligence of the battle field after chemical weapons attacks against Iranian troops and civilians. This intelligence was used to increase the efficiency of Iraq's WMD's attacks.

        1988: The US shoots down an Iranian civilian jet liner killing hundreds of civilians. The crew that killed the civilians were awarded medals for their 'heroism'.

        2003: The US backs self-described anti-Iranian terrorist groups in Iraq.

        This is just list of 'highlights' and is by no means all-inclusive.
      • flavioribeiro, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2The US government never apologized for shooting down the Iranian civilian airliner.

        Vice-president Bush repeatedly said "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are".
    • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -2/+18Definitely. As a source of motivation, 9 protesters in my city broke into Raytheon's (US 'defence' company) offices and caused £20,000 of damage. They were taken to court, but walked away without charge. The jury decided that they had only done it in an effort to halt or delay production of weapons they knew were being used to murder innocent people in Lebanon.

      I'm with you on this! Resisting is the only option - anti-war protesters are having minimal effect. Shouting abuse at McCain hasn't done anything - he ignores them, the assembled crowd or audience cheer like the sheep they are, the protester is thrown out, sometimes arrested, and the mainstream media ignores it entirely or calls them crazy tinfoil hat people...
      • blackinthmiddle, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately, you and flavioribeiro are correct. Great, so we know this guy is gearing up for war with Iran. What his motives are are debatable. But it seems obvious we will be in war with Iran and it won't be just. Us saying, "Aha, see how smart we are? We've uncovered your plans", unfortunately will do next to nothing. We'll be spitting in the wind. Unfortunately all of the people I've heard over the years who've been labeled "crackpots" seem to be right on regarding us going to war. There's only one way for this to stop and it's for us to physically resist our government, which I don't see happening as we've gotten too fat, figuratively speaking.
      • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Thats a good point blackinthmiddle. We've spent that long sitting in front of television screens and computers that many of us are simply not built for it.
    • tufftugg, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4 Your all foreigners on Native American Land. Nothing will happen, the U.S. is a nation of the fearful now.
    • tsotha, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1As a foreign citizen you probably don't realize Hersch is willing to print whatever people tell him if it's sensational. You would do well to wait until you hear something like this from a more reputable news source.
  • pauls88, on 06/29/2008, -4/+13secret?
  • aaryn, on 06/29/2008, -6/+27this was on cnn front page for about 10 mins then moved off to the side
  • Thrilltone, on 06/29/2008, -17/+16Be the first one on your block
    to have your boy come home in a box
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=u0jxHB3E710
    • OffPiste, on 06/29/2008, -15/+6Better to fight the terrorist on their soil then have civilians killed on our soil. We pay soldiers to fight our wars. Let's let the warriors fight our battles instead of letting our women and children be killed like cattle.
      • Thrilltone, on 06/29/2008, -5/+13Except for the fact that our aggression is creating 100 future terrorists, for every one that we kill. Iraq was busy fighting amongst themselves, until we butted in.
      • zeusthemoose, on 06/29/2008, -5/+12Your blatant disregard for reality is frightening.
      • skinnyskittles, on 06/29/2008, -4/+9that argument doesn't hold up. educate yourself: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Pau ...
      • onyxcoltrane, on 06/30/2008, -4/+7Doesn't say much for your brain function if you are so easily brainwashed by an idiot like Bush.
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 06/30/2008, -9/+4Thrilltone you said, "Except for the fact that our aggression is creating 100 future terrorists" and that cannot be proven. In fact it is probably false. The United States is in Japan and South Korea as well as at least fifty other countries, many of which the United States supported in war. So "where are all the terrorists"....I'm shaking in my boots. Now go hide in your closet.
      • amightywind, on 06/30/2008, -11/+4Indeed. It is better to waste these fools by push button remote then waiting for them or their proxies to attack a city near you with a dirty bomb.
      • Thrilltone, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2> "Thrilltone you said, "Except for the fact that our aggression is creating 100 future terrorists" and that cannot be proven. In fact it is probably false. The United States is in Japan and South Korea as well as at least fifty other countries"

        The Mullahs are busy brainwashing young boys by the thousands as we speak.Before they had us to focus on, they were mostly persecuting each other.
        Korea, Japan and Germany are happy with the millions they make off our troops.
        We stopped killing them when the wars ended.
        Iraqis feel differently.
      • Thrilltone, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4> "Indeed. It is better to waste these fools by push button remote then waiting for them or their proxies to attack a city near you with a dirty bomb."

        Do you intend to annihilate all Muslims?
        Your aggression is what makes them want to build dirty bombs.
    • bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -5/+11Come on all of you big strong men
      Uncle Sam needs your help again
      He's got him self in a terrible jam
      Way down yonder in ol' Iran

      So put down your books and pick up your guns
      It's gonna be a whole lot of fun!
  • daxsymbiont, on 06/29/2008, -13/+349/11 was a major boost of the nationalist extremists of the US.

    in a few minutes of the attacks the whole of the US was screaming about revenge and destruction. nothing could be easier for a nationalist bigot.

    now that time has passed I started realizing something deeper, it's not just a boost, Americans are just in a large proportion extremists/scared compared to others. they are easily trapped in a fairy tale of their heavily centralized media and movies making them weak, scared, easily extremists.
    • sfacets, on 06/29/2008, -5/+4No, the media coverage of 9/11 was a boost to nationalist extremists (which included most of the population at some point).
  • amightywind, on 06/29/2008, -28/+12Good deal. It is time to lullaby the damn mullahs.
    • bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -9/+8Why don't you enlist to help, then?
  • Xihix, on 06/29/2008, -6/+8I heard somewhere that he obtained $400,000,000 for the groups to do ***** in Iran? Also, this isn't a surprise. There's been bombings in cities like Shiraz and random people who are held up near the borders and killed and *****... And it's hard to tell anyone, because any suspicion against the government these days automatically makes you a kooky conspiracy theorist.
  • gonzap1, on 06/29/2008, -10/+27This is really getting ludicrous. I hope everyone that wants this war (which will make THREE wars since 2001). Last time I checked, I don't think we have the money for that one. Oh wait, you say, the Fed can print it. Me: Right you are and say hello to super inflation! Can someone tell my what if anything good will become of this other than making us look subservient to Israel once again. Thanks Israeli lobby. For all I care, the whole region could kill each other, and the U.S.A would better for it. I though the US was a bit smarter than this, we could reduce the money these countries have by the high price of oil by developing technologies that would dramatically reduce the demand for oil. Yet, we just send myself and others to go use weapons instead like some dumb ***** bully at school (fyi: I served in the Marines and conducted one tour in Iraq). Where is our brains people, using it would cost FAR LESS!
    • caramba420, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1Israel Lobby?
      Lobby?
      It's not a lobby, it's every executive office that shapes foreign policy. Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Chertoff, and Mukasey, among others, are citizens of Israel. Our so called "civil servants" are putting the welfare of our country in second place behind the appeasement of the far-right nationalist Likud. Have a nice day!
      • gigibachorski, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Totally right.
        America was bought by Israel a long long time ago.
        I'm not an American, and I held a really negative outlook towards America and American people for a long time...that was of course before I visited (four times in total now). America is an awesome place full of awesome, kind, generous people, people who are unfortunately suffering at the hands of their leadership. American people by and large do not reflect the monumentally self-destructive foreign policy
        being currently imposed on the world on their behalf.



  • merlin5, on 06/29/2008, -20/+4Iranian propaganda ministers: "crap! what can we make up?"
  • HumanRecalled, on 06/29/2008, -23/+10Yet Digg somehow manages to uncover this secretive moves that are so secret .............WOW ... Yes i was being sarcastic !


    And no i'm not a Bush supporter ! Just tired of all the crap that gets on digg ....and the digg front page it's totally ***** baffling !!
    • aaryn, on 06/29/2008, -2/+7Did you read it though? There is lots of crap that gets up, but that shouldn't stop you from trying to find what has substance and what doesn't... (This is on CNN as well)
      • yojiffyskippy, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Oh, well if it's on CNN then.....
    • zeusthemoose, on 06/29/2008, -5/+5Hey, I have a solution for ya. Stop coming to digg! Obviously reality is too much for you to handle, so I suggest that you keep that head of yours buried deeply in the sand.
      • Buelldozer, on 06/30/2008, -4/+1This from a guy calling himself "zuesthemoose".

        Yes, you certainly sound like the bastion of reason and truth.
      • akamurph, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1"Obviously reality is too much for you to handle"... HAHA, wow thanks for the good laugh. Reality and Digg do NOT go hand in hand bud.
  • SwedishNinja, on 06/29/2008, -15/+1oh ok
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/29/2008, -10/+22I'd hear that the terrorist group being funded by Bush is ... surprise, surprise, a group related to al Qaeda. Iran has been the #1 opponent of al Qaeda, and even was assisting us in the early days of the Afghanistan invasion.

    So what has Bush not done for al Qaeda? And why are we allied with the people in Iraq that we used to call terrorists, while killing the people we used to be allies with? What does terrorist even mean when we support them as well?

    "
    Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to Al-Qieda.
    "

    http://forums.houmatoday.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/83 ...
    http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigativ ...
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/05160 ...
    http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/060407A ...
  • logic07, on 06/29/2008, -13/+30Now Obama, Mccain, bush all wants us in Iran. Is there no vote for peace?
    • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8clearly not. I can't believe you are being dugg down! Surely they aren't SUPPORTING these illegal and unjust wars?
    • 55mph, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6wow, someone actually dugg down your vote for Peace.

      that's fuked up!
    • unitedstatians, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6http://digg.com/users/dennisjkucinich
      Dennis Kucinich is for peace, will traditional media outlets give him any space to communicate with the American people?
    • ProfessorSYM, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Except Obama does not want us in Iran.
      • virtuousvagrant, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1But Obama promised Israel support. Whats to stop Israel from going in and us 'defending' them?
    • chadlerh, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3dugg down because last I heard obama wants to meet and talk with Iran
    • TypeEE, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1You might be right, but Obama has to do a show for the general audience that he is not weak. I don't know if is really into war in Iran
  • bclinton, on 06/29/2008, -28/+4No WAY!

    Heaven forbid that we plan to attack a country that wants all of us dead.

    I cant believe this! We should impeach Bush!

    Go Obama!
    • nblsavage, on 06/29/2008, -4/+8Wars to prevent wars never work.
    • bclinton, on 06/29/2008, -13/+6So what is your solution? Set back while they eliminate us?
      • nblsavage, on 06/29/2008, -3/+15Please feel free to show how Iran is a threat to mainland U.S.A.
      • bclinton, on 06/29/2008, -12/+3Ah - the old I cant see a threat right now excuse? Thats what got about 3000 people killed in 2001. Do you remember? Or were you born yet?
      • Jerky1312, on 06/29/2008, -2/+11Must suck to be living with such fear on a day to day basis. I would say I feel sorry for you, but its hard to feel sorry for idiots.
      • bjornski, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Why don't you enlist?
      • nblsavage, on 06/30/2008, -1/+12bclinton, what did 9/11 have to do with Iran? Or Iraq? Most of the attackers were Saudi. By your logic we should be invading Saudi Arabia. Oh, watch out, I think there is a terrorist in your closet! Booga Booga!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10Before Bush started that axis of evil talk, we were more popular in Iran than in England (80% approval vs. 50% approval in a pole taken before the Iraq war. All the young kids wanted to BE AMERICANS, and it was a horrible shock when Bush went on TV saying they wanted to kill us -- right after Iran was sending troops to help America track down al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

      So, why are we listening to lying weasels all the time who lied us into Iraq and are going to lie us into hurting a country that could have been our damn ally?
  • sfacets, on 06/29/2008, -13/+34Seriously Americans - what the hell are you doing?
    • MadOgre, on 06/29/2008, -20/+8Saving the world. Now get out of our way.
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9From what? Peace?
      • sfacets, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6He's not a troll! He's an ogre. A Mad American Ogre.
      • humptyz, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I thought his handle said warmonger at first.
    • Ebonsteel, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Praying the world is still in one piece on January 20th?
    • koft, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Bombing your ***** ass. lol
  • Maratanos, on 06/29/2008, -13/+8Damn. January can't come fast enough.
  • diggthis123, on 06/29/2008, -12/+27Saddam rejected the dollar in 2001 and wanted Euros to be the currency for oil - after he is overthrown the dollar is the oil currency or "put back" if you will.

    Ahmadinejad has rejected the dollar recently...

    Dollar Diplomacy of the 21st century? Certainly worth looking at...

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
    • solid12345, on 06/30/2008, -5/+2How could Saddam reject the dollar? Under UN sanctions he was receiving food for oil, he was not making money.
      • diggthis123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0The dollar is the global currency, and all oil transactions must be in oil.

        Saddam went to the UN and no longer wanted to conduct oil transactions in US dollars, they did not object, because they couldn't object on any real grounds, and allowed him to make oil transactions in Euros and through Oil for Food. Since the US could no longer get oil with US dollars, we would either have to convert to Euros or use other tangible trading source to get that oil - the dollar has no intrinsic value, only the Fed says it has value - in reality its just paper and has no real "backing"

        The point is that Saddam no longer accepted US dollars, which would have hurt our economy.
    • awesome01, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1buried for having the handle.... digthis
    • blackinthmiddle, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Lindsey Williams has been saying this very same thing for a while now.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk
      That's the first of eight parts. He's long-winded, but interesting, so if you're going to listen to him, do other stuff as well.
  • kansascityman, on 06/29/2008, -10/+25We're going to eliminate ourselves! Dropping one bomb on Iran will send oil prices out of sight, and our economy will be devastated. it would take years to recover. This is insane!
  • jedisushi, on 06/29/2008, -5/+8"In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

    Now, I am an Obama supporter all the way. I'm also in favor of dialogue and diplomacy. But any American who honestly believes or expects that covert operations would cease under any president, much less Obama, is terribly naive. These operations can be effective and necessary, and I think the general public knows too much about them as it is. Obama would hopefully keep his promise as President and dialogue with our 'adversaries,' but if you think the SEALs, Delta Force, Army Special Forces, and the Special Activities Division of the CIA are just going to go on an extended vacation, you're mistaken.
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4Think how you will feel when/if you find out China is doing it to New York, or Cali, or Seattle. Think of undercover opps from Russia taking place assassinating say - Michele Obama....

      Is it an act of war when America finds out?

      WTF is the diff, then? Why do you think America has the right to muck with others - when you are mucked with you so clearly see it as wrong?

      • jedisushi, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2I assume that the things you describe are already happening (save assassinations, obviously); that and America is aware of it. Foreign intelligence services are quite active in America, they always have been. For example, Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, is widely acknowledged as one of the most pervasive and hostile foreign intelligence services, despite Israel's status as an "ally."

        And again, any American who doesn't assume the above is naive.
      • TonyLocNE, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Jedi-
        I believe the point he was trying to make was that, the United States DOES assassinate leaders and other people of high position, but if another country were to reciprocate, then the United States would quite possibly declare war.
  • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -8/+18"Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution."

    What??? The mainstream media are lying yet again.... For the millionth time Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. They do not have a single nuclear bomb. The NIE, IAEA, the CIA and the Iranians themselves have been saying this over and over again! The mainstream media KNOW this - they are the ones that reported it!

    They surely can't be talking about Iran's nuclear ENERGY program, could they? The one that they have every right to continue with.
    • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9And something the mainstream media didn't point out - there are 37 countries with a nuclear energy program. 9 of those have nuclear weapons. America has more than 9,000 active nuclear warheads.

      So, who's really making the threats, then?
    • kilofox, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1797.htm
      • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2CAN produce enough uranium. And the six months estimate was how long it would take to enrich uranium. Scott Ritter says it would take 10 years for them to build a nuclear bomb.

        And even so, that would still not justify an attack on Iran.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6Having "nuclear ambitions", "nuclear weapons program", "nuclear bombs" and "nuclear Energy" are all very different. How do you know what they have, don't have and/or want? Are you one of those "remove viewer" cooks? I don't know about the NIE or IAEA but I do know two things. First of all the Iranians aren't going to tell you or anyone else exactly what their "ambitions" or capabilities are. They are not idiots. Secondly, the CIA doesn't know and also wouldn't tell you what they do or don't know. They aren't idiots either. The bottom line is it's all speculation. The Left likes to think they are peaceful people developing nuclear energy programs with no interest in nuclear weapons. The Right likes to think they're developing nuclear weapons strike capabilities. Acting like you "KNOW" is laughable.
      • ciaran036, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Well you can't justly attack or threaten a country with no proof of nuclear weapons.
        The IAEA are the weapons inspectors, so probably the most reliable source of information. The IAEA said that there is no proof whatsoever of an Iranian nuclear program.

        Please tell me you wouldn't support an attack on Iran, would you?
    • moonlessrat, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2some words of wisdom finally!
  • kansascityman, on 06/30/2008, -8/+12I wonder what the price of oil will be tomorrow?
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4I think I'm gonna fill up tonight...
  • TheLittleWitch, on 06/30/2008, -9/+14This is WW III !
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -3/+14Yep. Bad news is, I'm afraid this time we're gonna be the Germans.
      • humptyz, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3I always wondered how Germans could elect a man like Hitler. Guess we're getting a lesson with BushCo: strike fear, fear, and more fear into the populace.
      • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Thankfully, Dubya isn't as enthralling of an orator as Hitler was. If Dubya could deliver stage presence like Hitler did...*shudder* My family and I would probably already be dead and cremated in a modern-day version of Auschwitz/Birkenau.
      • moonlessrat, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I have soooo been wanting to make that comparison, but feel strangely comforted seeing it come from an American......nice to know you are not all buying into the *****, there is hope for us all yet!
    • MeatPlow, on 06/30/2008, -2/+0I was watching a cheesey WWI movie & they were calling it World War One. Pretty sure they didn't call it that until WWII.
      • fuzzybeard, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You're correct. At the time it was called "The Great War" or "The War To End All Wars." *shrug* At least they were optimistic.
  • gridbread, on 06/30/2008, -8/+40It's becoming more and more evident that everyone who said "he's almost out of office, there's no reason for impeachment" were dead wrong.
    This president has more than enough time to make another huge mistake that will cost us our future.
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6More than enough time? All he needs is enough time and another person to agree with him to send in the launch/release codes.
    • dagnome1984, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4If you think Obama will fix this you are surely mistaken. Obama has said many times that Iran must be dealt with. We need to face the cold hard fact that the American people have no say in the matter.
      • SpacePoet, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Deal with, sure. bomb and go to war with? I don't think so.
    • Vocifer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I agree, we should impeach Bush and then no problems will arise from a Dick Cheney pres... er.... nevermind.
    • TypeEE, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I agree, he is about to be out of office, and McCain's chance of winning is slim. By triggering this war, he has nothing to loose. He could either get McCain into the office, or screw up the democrats after 2009
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/30/2008, -9/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_without_repr ...
    "No taxation without representation" began as a slogan in the period 1763–1776 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the thirteen American colonies. In recent times, it has been used by several other groups and in relation to other issues.
  • emkaysmith, on 06/30/2008, -7/+14Okay, it's obvious that Bush & Co. want to start a war with Iran and thereby present the next president with a fait accompli -- no matter who gets elected. That's his bragging position: "I started *THREE* wars during my administration! No other president has ever done that!" He's been in violation of his oath of office since before the first inaugural ball. If they have any honor at all, the Joint Chiefs will refuse to accept Bush's & Cheney's insane orders to bomb Iran and have them both arrested and strait-jacketed.
  • pigfister, on 06/30/2008, -6/+11like we didn't know this was going on, the usa and uk have used this tactic for countless years, but the schools are not allowed to teach real history in the conutries that are supposedly democratic.

    Late Edition: Sy Hersh Says Attacks On Iran Happening Now
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/29/late-edit ...

  • IphtashuFitz, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4Unfortunately the only kind of covert action that would really work is something that would likely take decades to achieve. What we really should be doing is working on getting people who are opposed to the tactics of terrorists into higher & higher positions in their own countries where they can actually have the power to do something. That's not something that can be done with guns & explosives. A lot of the Islamic radicals who join groups like Al Quaeda are basically indoctrinated into a culture of anti-Americanism because they're taught that in the madrases they attend. Iran's anti-American policies are basically dictated by the ruling clerics. Working to get people with more mainstream points of views into these sorts of positions would be a very long and difficult process, but one that we should be able to influence given enough time & resources. However it would likely take a lot longer than one presidential administration to achieve that, and that's probably why the chances of it ever happening are virtually zero. If one administration starts a clandestine program like this then the next administration would likely cancel the program for political reasons, especially if the new administration is the opposing political party..
  • mrzack, on 06/30/2008, -14/+8I KNEW IT!!! INSIDE JOB = 9/11
  • krnldmp, on 06/30/2008, -4/+7A couple more weeks of the same as last week on the American stock exchange and Bush's Regime will be rowing to Abu Dhabi.
  • wright3279, on 06/30/2008, -18/+5Iran destroys Tel Aviv next year with a nuclear weapon. Why didn't the U.S. prevent it?
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Israel retaliates; wipes Tehran, Qom, and a few other places I'd rather not mention in a public forum off the map. al-Islam collectively declares holy jihad on Israel, and quite probably the US. Why didn't the US prevent the (probably) inevitable aftermath?
      • EIderofzion, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2If Mecca turns to glass and Iran and israel cancel each other out, I have a feeling the world will see "peaceful muslims" again for a generation or two, just like we did after destroying the Ottoman Empire when they supported the Germans in the First World War, and I suppose the 2 Muslim divisions of Hitlers 8 in WW2.
      • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Mecca...yeah, that'd do it. Problem is, Mecca (Makkah) is in Saudi Arabia; we don't have an OFFICIAL beef with them (Don't forget that 19 of the hijackers involved in the 9/11/01 attacks against the US were Saudi!); Qom would inflame the whole of the Shi'a sect of al-Islam for numerous reasons.

        Further information about Qom:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qom

        Further information about Shi'a Islam
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam
    • chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -10/+4Why do I care?
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/30/2008, -6/+4For the same reason they didn't stop the unicorn invasion... or at least that is what the pink elephant told me before he was carried away by the singing gargoyle...

      See you aren't the only one that can live in an alternate world....

      ;-)
    • peacepower, on 06/30/2008, -2/+14Number One: Tehran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. Number Two: Why do you think it is America's job to fund and protect socialist apartheid regime Israel? Number Three: Don't you read any posts about what's going on here? Number Four: Why would Tehran bomb Israel? It would be suicidal. Israel definitely has nukes, a lot of them, and ways to deliver them, unlike Iran.

      Wright3279: Please consider that real talks to resolve the tensions in the Middle East would be what any selection of enlightened people would recommend - Jesus, Einstein, Buddha... We all need to begin thinking and acting like the wisest of our species, and not be led into the depths of hell by Bush, Cheney, and the like.
    • EIderofzion, on 06/30/2008, -4/+1I have no doubt the next nuclear confrontation , (possibly Israel after sustaining one hit will respond in kind), will fry what's left of our Ozone Layer. The efects will be global.
      • fuzzybeard, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3There hasn't been (yet) an armed confrontation between two nuclear-armed powers where nuclear weapons were exchanged.

        Personally, I'd be a bit more frightened of biowarfare, if I were you.
  • wright3279, on 06/30/2008, -22/+4Iran destroys Tel Aviv next year with a nuclear weapon. Why didn't the U.S. prevent it?
  • wright3279, on 06/30/2008, -17/+3Iran destroys Tel Aviv next year with a nuclear weapon. Why didn't the U.S. prevent it?
    • chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -3/+8Strangely enough, I STILL don't care.
    • 55mph, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4Because it didn't happen and won't. Isreal must have 100 nuclear weapons by now.
    • EIderofzion, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I have no doubt the next nuclear confrontation , (possibly Israel after sustaining one hit will respond in kind), will fry what's left of our Ozone Layer. The efects will be global.
      • udee79, on 06/30/2008, -2/+0How does a surface nuclear explosion affect the ozone layer? do you have a link?
      • awesome01, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0what rubbish. the french test nukes all the time without doing that in the pacific off the coast of australia. the affects of your stupidity are global.
      • EIderofzion, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1NUCLEAR WINTER (by Carl Sagan)

        http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nucl ...

        "Likewise, in 1973, it was discovered that high-yield airbursts will chemically burn the nitrogen in the upper air, converting it into oxides of nitrogen; these, in turn, combine with and destroy the protective ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. The surface of the Earth is shielded from deadly solar ultraviolet radiation by a layer of ozone so tenuous that, were it brought down to sea level, it would be only 3 millimeters thick. Partial destruction of this ozone layer can have serious consequences for the biology of the entire planet. "
  • Ransack, on 06/30/2008, -12/+3Iran should just nuke Washington DC and then maybe Bush would get the hint that its not nice to play naughty.
  • storm72, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6Any bets on how much higher oil will go and how much lower the dollar will sink if the US attacks Iran? The economic chaos that would result is a far greater security threat to this country than any Iranian nuclear weapon.

    I really don't think the Iranians would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against the US or Israel knowing that the resulting counterattack would only result in their annihilation.
    • TypeEE, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Based on history, oil price go high on speculations, once the attack starts, the bubble pop.
  • Ransack, on 06/30/2008, -14/+40A Short History of Iran

    1951: Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves.

    1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. US Puppet dictator installed as leader.

    1979 The US Puppet Dictator is disposed in a popular revolution. The new leader supported by the people of Iran is understandably anti-american.

    Iranians have every single right to hate and kill as many Americans as they possibly can. America has ***** Iran out of peace and democracy for generations all to get cheap oil for America.

    Go ahead and bury this. Americans cant face the truth.

    • Gudeldar, on 06/30/2008, -10/+2"Iranians have every single right to hate and kill as many Americans as they possibly can"

      Why don't you go fly to Iran and submit yourself for execution by the Revolutionary Council in Iran. I mean you ***** deserve it don't you?

      Advocating the death of anyone from any country for the past actions of their leaders is reprehensible and when talking about your own country downright ***** traitorous. If Americans deserve to be killed by Iranians why don't you start at the head of the line.

      BTW Just in case anyone is going to call me a Bush shill, I hate Bush and wish he had never been elected (Couldn't vote in 2000 or 2004, not old enough) and I plan on voting for Obama.
      • dexter411, on 06/30/2008, -4/+1The funny part, of course, is that if he put up a diatribe like this in Iran, his home would be searched and he would be tried for blasphemy.

        It's just great how the people who end their statements with "... can't face the truth," generally have no idea what the ***** they're talking about.
    • Halsfield, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3people that stereotype americans as if they all shared the exact same views and mindset are completely unaware that america has one of the highest(if not the highest) amounts of diversity in any nation. We have more opinions and points of view from hundreds of different countries from all over the world in a melting pot here. I'm sorry we dont fit into your cast iron mold, twit.

      you cannot teach anyone anything unless you open your mind to learn something yourself.
      • gummih, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Do you speak out against those who support Bush and his ambition to invade Iran?
        Oh, and regarding your "melting pot", look at congress - a real melting pot isn't it? The fact of the matter is that the people are very diverse - but the government (the ones stirring the pot) are power hungry elitists and do not represent the American people very well.
    • m4lomb, on 06/30/2008, -8/+1I hope your peers burry you, Ransack. You are a corrupt, angry scumbag pice of crap.
      • jwalt1776, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3At least he can Pontificate in a rational manner, unlike you m4.
      • Halsfield, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2you really didnt use that word correctly.
    • awesome01, on 06/30/2008, -5/+1America secured over 50 years of resonably priced oil. I'd have to say that is a big part of global financial security. And as you stated the iranians overthrew the stable government and proceeded to ***** themselves without any help from the states. btw im an aussie.
      • GunOfSod, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Aussie, American = same difference under Howard
      • awesome01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0sounds like the reply of a dirty kiwi..... the same country without an airforce that relies on australia for their defence, but gives us a big up yours when it comes to political support
    • ForestRangerBen, on 06/30/2008, -6/+1and I say ***** you
    • e1evene1even, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5"A Short History of Iran

      1951: Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves.

      1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. US Puppet dictator installed as leader.

      1979 The US Puppet Dictator is disposed in a popular revolution. The new leader supported by the people of Iran is understandably anti-american."

      Problem solved.
  • jizzatch, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3"Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran... Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources... Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda."

    According to Wikipedia:Jundallah (Army of Allah) is a militant organization that is based in Balochistan. It is a part of the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan and in Iran's Sistan and Baluchistan Province. Jundallah claims that it has 1,000 fighters and has killed Iranian soldiers.[1] The group has been identified as a terrorist organization by Iran and Pakistan.[2]. Many believe this militant group is linked to Al-Qaeda [3].

    I can't figure out what this means.
    • gummih, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1SOMEONE is funding a terrorist group which has ties to Al-Qaeda.
  • LMControl, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2The real question here is where Democrats stand on a nuclear Iran and what they're willing to do about it once they get in office..... probably nothing.
    • chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4Why do Americans get a say in Iran's energy policy?
    • jgaba24, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1The Democrats are the Gambinos the Repugnican's are the Genoveses...Does everyone get it... Finally
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 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.