digg

Join DiggAbout

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

White House Leak: Cheney's Planned Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missiles

alternet.org — In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 7Mystery, on 10/30/2007, -15/+67 Someone should tell Israel Iran is not Syria. They will retaliate…hard!
    • DreKor, on 10/29/2007, -11/+48It's hard to tell them anything. Between a having huge persecution complex and a bunch of missiles, Israel seldom listens to anybody.
      • hiphoc, on 10/27/2007, -2/+6Nuclear missiles at that.
      • notque, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7Israel listens to the United States.

        I could see how you would have the point of view that it doesn't considering it doesn't "listen" to the rhetoric they give to us.

        An example would be that we have a law on the books that if anyone gains nuclear weapons after the nuclear proliferation treaty that it's illegal for us to give them money.

        Ok. Isreal has weapons. We know that, everyone knows that. They've admitted it.

        But their official policy is they don't have them. That allows us to not deal with the fact it's illegal. We just pretend we don't know.

        Israel doesn't control the U.S.
        It doesn't have special magic powers.

        It's simply that Israel is a pawn for U.S. interests, and we allow them to ignore our rhetoric on many issues. Like the illegal settlements.

        It's our official policy that the settlements are illegal.

        And yet, we watch it continue and give them the money to continue.

        You have to separate the grand rhetoric from leaders from the actual goals. It isn't difficult if you do the research.
        • tHePeOPle, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4You forget the painful fact that religious zealotry surrounding the supposed second coming also plays into US politics and how/why we cut so many corners and turn so many blind eyes to Israel. The rest I can sort of understand, but this... this whole "Left Behind" absurdity... it embarrasses me that my country bases policy on this nonsense.
          • notque, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3I disagree with you. I don't believe religious zealotry plays any part in decision making. If you read the documents concerning policy decisions, religious zealotry is just the game to get the population to go along with their policies.

            The policies are completely separate from the rhetoric.

            It shouldn't embarrass you that your country bases policy on it (they don't), it should embarrass you that they base their policy on controlling the world, and causing death and torture to further those policies of domination.
      • clayasaurus, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1The NWO wants to use Israel to usher in their fake messiah
    • amsterdamordeth, on 10/27/2007, -10/+12Iran will retaliate dirty, that is the scariest part. They will make Iraqi "insurgents" look like Santa Clause delivering Christmas presents.

      I don't fear Iran now nearly as much as I would fear them after we attack them. We would have to nuke the entire country to placate them, which I don't want to see, given that Russia and China would not like it, much less the rest of the world.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/29/2007, -7/+9Well, this is why we won't let them have a nuke in the first place...so they can't nuke us back after we nuke them! See, foresight!
      • Rossoneri22, on 10/29/2007, -5/+17"retaliate dirty"? are you ***** retarded? Israel would be bombing them for no reason...
        • Neiby, on 10/29/2007, -3/+16Exactly. It would simply be justified retaliation. However, our government and media will paint Iran as the aggressors and make us look like the good guys.
    • atdigg, on 10/27/2007, -6/+9and they are protected by the big bully, why would they listen?
    • TopherT, on 10/29/2007, -14/+25Sometimes I wish Iran DID have nukes, at least then no war would be possible.
      • didiman, on 10/29/2007, -35/+11you sir are a moron
      • notque, on 10/27/2007, -2/+7It's certainly easy to see why governments would want to gain nuclear weapons as protection from us.
    • ambrosious, on 10/27/2007, -3/+3I think the Israeli government would be aware of this if you tell them or not.
    • theq1, on 10/29/2007, -17/+4Well, Israel have 2 choices (after Iran's leader said he wants to wipe Israel off the map): get struck hard now with conventional ammunition, or wait until Iran has nuclear capabilities.
      Logical choice is the first one.
      • throwingks, on 10/27/2007, -3/+21He never said that.
        • weeeezzll, on 10/29/2007, -3/+5Actually he did. He quoted Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini saying "Israel must be wiped out from the map of the world." and then said "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,"
        • albie, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6The actual phrase (because the expression "wiped from the map" doesn't exist in Farsi) was "erased from the pages of history."
        • asskey, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4Ah, because I would much rather be erased from history than wiped from the map. Durr.
  • jonolan, on 10/29/2007, -16/+26hehehe...This falls under the category of "DUH"! Of course any engagement with Iran with start with a strike from Israel; that's just common sense. The now fun thing to do would be to set this up and then NOT support Israel afterwards. We could say that the US Navy - citing past dangers - would place the necessary Intelligence Gathering Vessel in the area! LOL
    • zodo, on 10/29/2007, -14/+9Yeah, it's fun causing Israelis to die! =|

      They're not people, after all.

      I'm laughing too. Right.
    • reubencm, on 10/29/2007, -3/+3hehehe..???
    • notque, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6Nuclear-armed states are criminal states. They have a legal obligation, confirmed by the World Court, to live up to Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which calls on them to carry out good-faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. None of the nuclear states has lived up to it.
    • elfofdoriath9, on 10/29/2007, -3/+4Who the hell is digging this guy up? Whether or not you like the fact that Israel exists is irrelevant. The idea of a bunch of people dying for stupid reasons isn't funny. "Oh hey, lets convince Israel to attack, then NOT help them afterwards and watch a bunch of them die! lolol". "I did it for the lulz" doesn't really work as a war strategy.
      • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4"convince Israel to attack" in this case meaning "allow Israel to launch a nuclear weapon, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people"

        Those are the ones you're worried about, right?
        • asskey, on 10/29/2007, -3/+3Because you seriously think Israel would ever, EVER use a first strike nuclear weapon. You are quite a moron.
          Iran, on the other hand would, and Israel will eventually stop them from requiring nuclear weapons once they feel threatened with or without our influence. They can fight and win that war on their own, but if just about any of the candidates running for the presidency or our current administration is in office, well then I can guarantee you we'll be right there with them.
      • jchalos, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1The parent is probably referring to this...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
  • gabeh73, on 11/05/2007, -73/+22I'm a 34 year old MIT grad, married, two kids. I work in the Energy industry. I made well over 100k this year already...not that that is a lot of money, but I am comfortably middle class and have no reason to waste my time on random theories that are probably not true.
    If I were two recommend just two things to get started with on to answer your question about why we keep bringing this issue up ...here it is:

    why do you think that over a 100 former CIA agents, FBI agents, NIST and military pilots have come out publicly to demand a reall 9/11 investigation be done? read their statements:

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

    now watch some videos of WTC 7 getting destroyed:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY

    now why trust the 9/11 commision when it was run by CFR members who are on the record as basicly hoping for a "pearl harbor event"...an yet the 9/11 commision spent zero time covering the WTC 7 demo...WHY? why not follow the money leads taht the FBI came up with regarding teh pakistani ISI sending money to mohammed Atta?....these people are lying clinton is helping them lie..of course he will get mad..he'll get hung if enough people figure this out.
    • neodorian, on 10/29/2007, -21/+52Goddammit. Always with this *****.
      Why is it so hard to believe that these guys have mismanaged and profiteered without bringing in the ***** about tower 7 and controlled demolition. That ***** has been disproven so many ways.
      Oh, also I work near DC and know many MANY people who saw the ***** plane hit the pentagon. It was not a ***** missile so go ***** off and quit wasting everyone's time that could be better spent prosecuting those who used the terror attacks for personal gain and power to exert their will.
      • mightydavefish, on 10/29/2007, -27/+13You offer zero proof of ANYTHING you claim.
        Oh, right. We are all so stupid that "I work near DC and know many MANY people who saw the ***** plane hit the pentagon" constitutes evidence.
        Nor has anything been disproven, much in the same way nothing has been proven.
        Get your head out of your ass, moron.
        • jcm267, on 10/29/2007, -11/+17Are we supposed to believe that gabeh73 has a degree from MIT? After all, he is a truther.
          • FlyingSpaghetti, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3I think he meant the other MIT. Mexico Institute of Tacos.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1@Flying
            School motto: Tacos vos liberabit
            "Tacos will set you free"
        • DreKor, on 10/29/2007, -5/+26I think his salary is supposed to give him credibility. Unfortunately, I only trust people who have made over $120,000 so far this year. Sorry.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3yeah.. gabeh73 statements seems like he's trying to sell himself just a little too much ..
        • neodorian, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3Well all I hear from truthers is bunk science and anecdotal and cherry-picked "evidence". Feel free to disregard my anecdotal evidence but when my friends and coworkers watched a plane hit the Pentagon, that's all I need to prove that it was a ***** PLANE that hit the Pentagon. Ooooh nooo the evil government must have gotten to all of them too and threatened their kitties and puppies! Give me a break. All of these arguments fail to address the necessary complexity of such a conspiracy and worse of all, they do a great job making everyone criticizing the *real* issues with our administration in regards to foreign policy, 9/11, the Iraq and Afghan wars, etc. look like complete ***** nutters who should be disregarded. Thanks a lot for diverting attention from the profiteering and warmongering we see right in front of us toward some half-baked theory about Dick Cheney getting people to fake the WTC and Pentagon attacks. Face it. Other assholes want to fight us all the time. No need to stage an elaborate conspiracy.
      • ashmael, on 10/29/2007, -7/+13"Why is it so hard to believe?"

        Because NIST, the government's own agency tasked with explaining 9/11, admitted in their official report that they had no explanation for the cause of the collapse.
      • bebop34, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Architects and Engineers are banding together across the country to prove the official story a fraud. They will prove this with science not with Hurst yellow journalism rags like Popular Mechanics. Science will destroy these criminals.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/26/2007, -6/+8How many civil engineers are in that group? How many construction or demolition professionals?
      • neodorian, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3What about all of the independent contractors that got blown up with the Death Star? ;)
        • FatherVic, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2They just wanted a railing, but noooooo
          Vader said they'd just lean around all the time...

          /fg
    • atdigg, on 10/26/2007, -8/+2after I post this I will block you.
    • didiman, on 10/27/2007, -5/+13My guess is that you have told yourself that you have a degree from MIT, wife, etc. so many times that you actually believe it. Most likely you are 34, but still live in your parents basement in your own reality.
      • geometry, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6Maybe he went to MIT in that game second life.
        • tehpwnrate, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1No, he went in Second Second Life. Dwight hooked him up. He wasn't good enough for the Second Life MIT.
      • whiskeymb, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2a degree from MIT and he still doesn't know the difference between "two" and "to". Or, he's incapable of a little proof reading.
    • 1gunners4, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3I picked my dad up from the Pentagon on 9/11 and had to walk half a mile to meet him because the roads close were closed; I saw the destruction first hand. The ground in front of the Pentagon was on fire and dented from where something obviously hit the ground and skid. The road that it crossed was nothing but rubble from the jet hitting it.

      Grow up, 9/11 was not a complex plan and could have easily been executed by most any group. The US just says it was elaborate to make itself feel better for being slighted so easily.
    • anillop, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Just because you have a good job does not make you any less of an idioit when it comes to this.
    • Modiga, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1MIT huh, intellect != common sense. I've met many a person who was really smart but either daft or gullible.
  • Vinadetta, on 11/05/2007, -37/+16Sorry, but the war drums have been beating for some time with Iran!!! The Rhetoric out of DC is at an all time high!! This was planned by the Bilderberg group earlier this year!!! The war is coming and once the cat is out of the bag, things are going to get really ugly!!!!
    WE NEED TO STOP THE CFR and Bilderberg Group!!!! 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
  • pedrovoltaire, on 10/29/2007, -10/+10he's in his own little world, that man.
  • loganhid, on 10/27/2007, -17/+47WW3 is coming
  • notque, on 10/29/2007, -9/+8http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID ...

    The task of containment is to establish “a bulwark against Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East,” Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper explain in the New York Times (July 31). To contain Iran’s influence we must surround Iran with US and NATO ground forces, along with massive naval deployments in the Persian Gulf and of course incomparable air power and weapons of mass destruction. And we must provide a huge flow of arms to what Condoleezza Rice calls “the forces of moderation and reform” in the region, the brutal tyrannies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and, with particular munificence, Israel, by now virtually an adjunct of the militarized high-tech US economy. All to contain Iran’s influence. A daunting challenge indeed.



    And daunting it is. In Iraq, Iranian support is welcomed by much of the majority Shi’ite population. In an August visit to Teheran, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad and other senior officials, and thanked Tehran for its “positive and constructive” role in improving security in Iraq, eliciting a sharp reprimand from President Bush, who “declares Teheran a regional peril and asserts the Iraqi leader must understand,” to quote the headline of the Los Angeles Times report on al-Maliki’s intellectual deficiencies. A few days before, also greatly to Bush’s discomfiture, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Washington’s favorite, described Iran as “a helper and a solution” in his country.[5] Similar problems abound beyond Iran’s immediate neighbors. In Lebanon, according to polls, most Lebanese see Iranian-backed Hezbollah “as a legitimate force defending their country from Israel,” Wright reports. And in Palestine, Iranian-backed Hamas won a free election, eliciting savage punishment of the Palestinian population by the US and Israel for the crime of voting “the wrong way,” another episode in “democracy promotion.”



    But no matter. The aim of US militancy and the arms flow to the moderates is to counter “what everyone in the region believes is a flexing of muscles by a more aggressive Iran,” according to an unnamed senior U.S. government official – “everyone” being the technical term used to refer to Washington and its more loyal clients.[6] Iran's aggression consists in its being welcomed by many within the region, and allegedly supporting resistance to the US occupation of neighboring Iraq.
  • bentman78, on 10/30/2007, -12/+17Would be halfway believable if it was from a reliable source...buried as inaccurate.
  • robbob, on 10/29/2007, -26/+4Why do people publicize this? If this is a confidential strategy, publicising it only hurts the US. These people should rot for treason, wether or not you agree with the strategy or your perceived outcome.
    • krnldmp, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3This wont have anything to do with the US. Too bad for Cheney.
    • calmeacham, on 10/27/2007, -8/+3i agree totally. why do we need to know this?
    • sockpuppets, on 10/27/2007, -0/+11Outing an active CIA agent is pretty treasonous, hopefully you're up for sending those people to prison as well.
      • calmeacham, on 10/27/2007, -3/+1Those people meaning one person? Richard Armitage. I know that you want it to be more of a black helicopter conspiracy but it really isn't.
      • FatherVic, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2let's not start pointing fingers about leaking classified information or outing the covert...

        Here is the list:

        Senate Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) On Senate Floor Referred To Judicial Nominee’s FBI File:

        “Minority Leader Harry Reid Strayed From His Prepared Remarks On The Senate Floor Yesterday And Promised To Continue Opposing One Of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees Based On ‘A Problem’ He Said Is In The Nominee’s ‘Confidential Report From The FBI.’” (Charles Hurt, “Reid Cites FBI File On Judicial Pick,” The Washington Times, 5/13/05)

        Reid: “Henry Saad Would Have Been Filibustered Anyway … All You Need To Do Is Have A Member Go Upstairs And Look At His Confidential Report From The FBI, And I Think We Would All Agree That There Is A Problem There.” (Charles Hurt, “Reid Cites FBI File On Judicial Pick,” The Washington Times, 5/13/05)

        Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Revealed Name Of Undercover CIA Officer In Senate Hearing:

        “John R. Bolton, President Bush’s Nominee To Be Ambassador To The United Nations, Delicately Referred To The Undercover Officer As ‘Mr. Smith’ At His Confirmation Hearing On Monday.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Loose Lips Let Slip Agent’s Name At Hearing,” The New York Times, 4/13/05)

        “[M]r. Kerry Mentioned [Armstrong] By Name While Questioning Mr. Bolton. The Hearings Were Televised, And Transcripts Were Widely Published.” (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Loose Lips Let Slip Agent’s Name At Hearing,” The New York Times, 4/13/05)

        Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy (D-VT) Forced To Resign Intelligence Committee Post Because Of Loose Lips:

        Leahy Was Forced To Resign From The Senate Intelligence Committee After Leaking Information On The Iran-Contra Investigation. “Sen. Patrick Leahy’s admission that he resigned from the Intelligence Committee this year for ‘carelessly’ exposing the panel’s draft report on the Iran-Contra investigation comes at a time of increased political tension over the issue of leaks to the news media.” (George Lobsenz, UPI, 7/29/87)

        Ron Wyden (D-OR), Senate Intelligence Committee Member, Revealed Information On Classified Spy Program:

        “Sen. Ron Wyden, During This Month’s Debate On Intelligence Reform, Said A ‘Major Acquisition Program’ Was ‘Too Expensive’ And ‘Unnecessary.’” (Jeff Kosseff, “Wyden Treads Slippery Slope In Intelligence Reform Debate,” The Oregonian, 12/20/04)

        “But In The Arcane World Of Intelligence Spending, Where Billions Are Doled Out With No Public Discussion, It Was The Equivalent Of Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater. Wyden Is A Member Of The Senate Intelligence Committee, Which Typically Meets In Top-Secret, Closed Sessions.” (Jeff Kosseff, “Wyden Treads Slippery Slope In Intelligence Reform Debate,” The Oregonian, 12/20/04)

        Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee, Revealed Information On Classified Spy Program:

        “Tucked Inside Congress’ New Blueprint For U.S. Intelligence Spending Is A Highly Classified And Expensive Spy Program.” (Katherine Pfleger Shrader, “Lawmaker Says Mystery Spy Project ‘Dangerous To National Security’,” The Associated Press, 12/9/04)

        “In An Unusually Public Rebuke Of A Secret Government Project, Sen. Jay Rockefeller Of West Virginia, The Senior Democrat On The Senate Intelligence Committee, Complained Wednesday That The Program Was ‘Totally Unjustified And Very, Very Wasteful And Dangerous To The National Security.’ He Called The Program ‘Stunningly Expensive.’” (Katherine Pfleger Shrader, “Lawmaker Says Mystery Spy Project ‘Dangerous To National Security’,” The Associated Press, 12/9/04)

        Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Alluded To Secret Spy Program In ABC Interview:

        “Durbin, During An Interview Sunday With ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Alluded To The Secret Dispute Within Congress. ‘Eventually Some Information Will Come Out,’ Durbin Told ABC. ‘But It Does Point To The Weakness In The Whole Process. It Takes A Leak To Understand That Billions Of Taxpayers’ Dollars Are Being Wasted That Could Be Spent To Make America Safer.’” (Ted Bridis, “Feds Urged To Probe Leaks On Spy Project Opposed By Levin,” The Associated Press, 12/15/04)

        Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger Stole And Destroyed Classified Documents From National Archives:

        “Former National Security Advisor Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger Admitted … That He Had Stolen Classified Documents, Destroyed Some Of Them, Then Lied About What He Had Done. As A Seasoned Foreign Policy Manager Under President Clinton, Berger … Had Also Been Entrusted With The Highest Security Clearance Granted By The Government.” (Johanna Neuman, “Top Clinton Aide Admits He Pilfered Documents,” Los Angeles Times, 4/2/05)

        “[H]e Pleaded Guilty To A Misdemeanor And Acknowledged In Painstaking, Often Humiliating Detail How In 2003 He Had Secretly Removed Sensitive Documents Involving Anti-Terrorist Policy From The National Archives, And Afterward Sought To Mislead Investigators And The Public.” (Johanna Neuman, “Top Clinton Aide Admits He Pilfered Documents,” Los Angeles Times, 4/2/05)

        Sen. Chuck Schumer Has Repeatedly Opposed Measures To Strengthen Anti-Leak Laws:

        Schumer Voted Against “Adoption Of The Conference Report On The Bill To Make It A Felony To Publicly Expose The Identities Of U.S. Covert Intelligence Officers, Agents, Informants And Sources.” (H.R. 4, CQ Vote #125: Adopted: 315-32: R 159-0; D 156-32; 6/3/82, Schumer Voted Nay)

        “A New Federal Policy To Prosecute Federal Employees Who Leak Certain Kinds Of Information To The Press Not Only Could Inhibit Whistle-Blowing About Government Abuse, But Also Could Pose A Direct Threat To Reporters’ Use Of Confidential Sources, Legislators And Free-Speech Attorneys Said Thursday.” (Thomas B. Rosenstiel, “Rule May Curb Press’s Use Of Secret Sources,” Los Angles Times, 8/4/89)

        Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Voted Against Law Making It Crime To Disclose Covert Agents’ Names:

        Biden Was One Of Only Three Democrats To Vote Against The Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (H.R. 4, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 81-4: R 44-1; D 37-3; 6/10/82, Biden Voted Nay)

        “By A Vote Of 81 To 4, The Senate Cleared The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Which Makes A Crime Of Disclosing The Name Of Covert Agents.” (Michael Wright, William C. Rhoden And Caroline Rand Herron, “Senate Approves Agent Protection,” The New York Times, 6/13/82)
    • tucsonwc, on 10/27/2007, -2/+10Tell it to Valerie Wilson, former CIA Agent, outed by the White House.
    • falkonv7l, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3Because it isn't real, just some conspiracy theory.
    • artvandal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7If our administration wants to plan to go to war on top of the so-called war we're in now and possibly start WW3 Bush has threatened I'd sure as ***** as an American like to know about it.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/28/2007, -7/+49Iran has never invaded another country. Iran has never used weapons of mass destruction. Iran is a theocratic oligarchy, not quite a dictatorship.
    That is what scares the United States. Iran has a reason to hate us, which is not to say they outright hate the American people (they don't), and the United States knows that Iran has no reason to be receptive to the United States at all given our history, which is in fact our fault. The United States is afraid of Iran getting more power simply because we don't control Iran, not because Iran is a threat.
    • solid12345, on 10/29/2007, -16/+2Why does Iran keep race baiting Israel?

      For 30 years their propaganda in school textbooks have called the Jews demons, apes, and pigs. They have been telling their children to prepare for the great Jihad against Israel. It is not a matter if if, it is a matter of when, question is who will strike first. Iran already struck Israel last summer with Hezbollah as their proxy force.
      • TheChihuahua, on 10/27/2007, -2/+10And you're saying the Israeli position is in any way dissimilar?
      • MadLeper, on 10/27/2007, -2/+6I think your real question is, why does the Western media keep reporting that Iran keeps baiting Israel..

        Who's best interests are served by demonizing Iran ?
      • manogamez, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1They they they.... Sure, lets lump all of Iran's civilians into one demonic target. Wait, what's that called? Dehumanization i think it was.
      • craftycorner, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Iran doesn't go after Jews. Iran goes after Israel and her Zionist government. There is a big difference. There are Jews living in Iran comfortably.
    • jsqurred, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Struck Israel? Or do you mean kidnapped some soldiers?
  • gamebittk, on 10/28/2007, -8/+16Not true. If you want anyone to believe this information, sources must be cited.
    • geometry, on 10/29/2007, -7/+11Like the sources that told us Iraq had WMD's and tight links to Al Qaede?
      • reubencm, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5i dont know why your getting dugg down, the situation you reffered to proved that the US govt doesnt need sources at all!
      • thewatchman, on 10/29/2007, -4/+1WMD are in Syria now
  • tzugidan, on 10/27/2007, -7/+5We're not going to stir up ***** with Iran...we don't have the resources to do it right now...Our military is tapped...and I don't think suppliers could keep up with the demand to guard the Pacific, and fight two wars in the middle east... And the public outrage would be incredible... Talk about a legacy that already sucks...
    • PhilGWrites, on 10/29/2007, -2/+25Unfortunately, I don't believe our President sees reality the same way the rest of the world does.
      • craftycorner, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1I wish I can give this one fifty digs!
    • falkonv7l, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4We can do it, if we wanted to, money has not stopped thus far. But you are right, alot of people would be pissed.
    • geometry, on 10/29/2007, -3/+5That's what Blackwater is for. I'm sure they can hire a bunch of third world citizens to fight on the ground for us, they're cheap. Operation poor man shield.
    • DigDugDigger, on 10/27/2007, -0/+8Your problem is that you are thinking logically. This is a foreign concept to the current administration.
    • robfis, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1he's gonna use the bomb not troops, obviously.
    • MadLeper, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1You have a huge untapped manpower resource, just need to introduce the draft..
      And as for support, Americans have proved that they'll agree to anything if scared enough
  • MBX1, on 10/27/2007, -12/+14Neo-Con-Zion-Bastards
    • FatherVic, on 10/29/2007, -8/+3anti-semite
      • ozziedog, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5Anti-Semite? Ok it's time to relegate that word to the history bin or make it more inclusive. Semite means Jews and Arabs. To use this when someone is anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish is an insult to those other Semetic people who often feel this way and is unkind to MBX1 who is in his right to be anti-Zionist without being called anti-Jewish. Anti-Semite ranks right up there with homophobic in terms of language misuse.
  • PhilGWrites, on 10/27/2007, -4/+12Perfect. Billions in debt and now we might move into Iran as well. I'm sure the President will execute this plan and Congress will passively let it slide. How much more has to happen before the members of Congress let their balls drop and do something about our President and Vice President. Can we say the same things about ourselves?
    • craftycorner, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Congress & balls are two mutually exclusive terms!
  • KaiSe7eN, on 10/27/2007, -15/+10This is ***** and anyone could have made this up. Buried.
    • pcburch, on 10/27/2007, -11/+5All of these left wing ***** need to stop watching 24.
  • blakeage, on 10/27/2007, -9/+5"He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies".

    I refuse to read ***** like this anymore. What is the writer's point??
  • skram, on 10/27/2007, -7/+2@gabeh73 you have too much time on your hands .... did you say you graduated from MIT ?
  • FaraFiro, on 10/27/2007, -7/+11Speeding up the apocalypse is the agenda...with the Christian right, Evangelicals..and the Zionists..who are causing the world to hate the middle east...In short, we are all *****...and they are unstoppable. Look at our ***** democracy---how great it is..*****!

    FaraFiro for President: ***** the world-- Invest in America.
  • gamehunter101, on 10/29/2007, -4/+41http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/

    iran helped the US and offered many options for peace but they were all turned down
    • pcburch, on 10/27/2007, -11/+3From an unbiased, politically balanced resource like PBS. Who can argue with that?
      • sgglynn, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6Stop watching fox news, and stop trying to sarcastic. PBS is pretty fair, pretty balanced, and peaceful. Unlike you, most of this country doesn't want more war.
      • rspeed, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3PBS is about as level-headed as news sources get.
    • thewatchman, on 10/27/2007, -3/+1and the Iranian govt. (like all govts) lied through their teeth
    • DigDugDigger, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4It's also said that Saddam tried to avoid the current conflict. If the military industrial complex wants war, they'll get war.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/international/wo ...
  • theinept, on 10/27/2007, -3/+8This is nonsense on par with Fox's al-Qaeda forest fire terrorism baloney.
  • uptown, on 10/27/2007, -3/+2As for timing ... if this happens, I expect it to happen after Hillary has secured the Democratic nomination. This will give whoever the republican candidate is the opportunity to use her Senate vote labeling Iran as a terrorist entity against her. This will dramatically weaken her Presidential electability since she will be portrayed as having encouraged the attack and wil be seen as not having learned her lessons from Iraq, but it will be too late for another candidate from the Democrats to come forward.
  • fejjfunklamella, on 10/29/2007, -9/+11Wow. A highly inaccurate, hyperbolic article on Dick Cheney. How refreshing...

    Buried for the blatant sensational attempt to get on the front page.
    • pcburch, on 10/27/2007, -6/+2Outstanding. Finally someone with reason.
    • bowens44, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4More like someone who has lived in a cave for the last 7 years.
  • pintomp3, on 10/27/2007, -5/+16the influence of groups like PNAC and AIPAC is bad for the US, israel, and the entire middle east.
    • colonelbuckshot, on 10/30/2007, -3/+7PNAC's membership reads like a guest-list to a Jewish wedding:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ...
      • sgglynn, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4"Main Military Mission: Secure and expand zones of democratic peace; Deter rise of new great-power competitor; defend key regions; exploit transformation of war"
        The treason charges should have started right then and there.
  • jamie939, on 10/27/2007, -3/+3It's a threat most likely authorized by Cheney. Stories like this don't get leaked by accident. Unfortunately the Iranians may not be sophisticated enough to see this as a way to apply pressure to them. They may see it as a real threat.
  • BambinosKrib, on 10/27/2007, -9/+4Have Americans forgot the art of assassination, or something?

  • soot, on 10/29/2007, -9/+9Cheney is a ***** pig.
    • pcburch, on 10/27/2007, -3/+2Who can argue with such an insightful articulation of facts.
      • Btzarro, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2Haha,Republicans and facts dont make me laugh you inbred righty.
  • solid12345, on 10/29/2007, -7/+11Iran has been threatening Israel since 1979. Anyone who thinks this is new needs to bone up on some history.

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30464650 ...

    "Groiss said all the textbooks were underpinned by the belief that Iran was a world power preparing for global "jihad", or holy struggle, with the aim of world dominance of Islam.

    "This has been a structural component of the Iranian regime since (the Islamic Revolution in) 1979. It is not a product of (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," he said of Iran's firebrand president who has called for the destruction of Israel."

    And you wonder why we don't want them to have nukes?
    • Jexie, on 10/29/2007, -2/+5And the US has been imposing its will through violence all over the world since WW2 ended, a little more aggressive than Iran's threats. I'll bet you're really worried about those US nukes too huh?
    • bowens44, on 10/29/2007, -3/+4Iran needs nukes to protect themselves from the US. The US has been threatening Iran on a regular basis for several years. Bush has backed them into a corner, they have no choice.
      • GabrielS, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3So Iran needs nuclear weapons in order to defend itself against nations taking defensive action against Iranian aggression?

        You have it backwards friend. No nation state can sit idle while another country actively seeks to kill its citizens wherever it can find them in the world. Iran, under the mullahcracy, has actively engaged in the killing of American citizens wherever they are in the world with the one exception being "on US soil". Iran has funded, trained, and supplied intelligence to groups seeking to terrorize Americans when they travel abroad.
    • Aharoni, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3Iran did and does a lot more than threaten Israel. Hizaballah = Iran's operational arm in Lebanon.
      During the war (the second Lebanon war) there were reports that Israeli soldiers heard shouts in Persian during engagements...
  • geddon, on 10/27/2007, -2/+19Taking into account that Putin has stated an attack on Iran would be seen as an attack on Russia, we're left in the midst of a waiting game for Israel to fire the first shot that begins WWIII? I realize that "WWIII started, X, Y, Z ago" but this is it. We're at the tipping point. Am I expected to sit here in my cube working on the redesign of our website, and just wait for the world to end? Insanity.
    • JonnyTrombone, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Putin is seriously just trying to start another Cold War or something, probably believing that it will allow him to solidify power and bring back Russia's economy. It would be best to just ignore him until the next Russian elections are over.
  • Krabid, on 10/27/2007, -4/+6Certain Diggers will believe anything.
  • AmonAmarth, on 10/27/2007, -4/+16So I have to ask, how do you fellow Americans feel now that we're about to engage into yet another conflict in the Middle East?

    I'll tell you how I feel, freaking scared.
    • soot, on 10/29/2007, -4/+14Disgusted and ashamed of my government.
    • geehossiphats, on 10/29/2007, -8/+3Well, since nations in the middle east are hell bent on destroying non-muslims, I say it's either them or us. which would you choose? i hate war but the war was declared on us a long time ago. children in the middle east are taght early on that americans must be killed. so, now we have what we have today. are americans supposed to just lie over and die?
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3They are tought that - places where they are, because America has ***** up their regions. That is understandable isn't it? If China bombed your homes, I don't you'd be looking at Chinese people very well - heck look what we did to all Asains just because we were at war with Japan?? Clearly, in the few places that they do hate Americans - they do so with reason. Remove that reason, and some healing may happen.

        Americans are under no threat from anyone. The idea that anyone in the Middle East can damage the US is laughable at best.
        • budfoxx, on 10/27/2007, -2/+1Gee, another Blame America liberal at work. If we just weren't so imperialist, maybe they would like us more. And maybe we can be popular again.

          When you were a kid, did you give the bully money to like you better? And did he? More like he took more from you because you were a wussy.

          The world hates the US because of what we stand for. We are an economic powerhouse because we give freedom and opportunity to anyone that is here. The rest of the world does not. And they envy us for it. We fight for democracy. If we don't, who else will. Why are people still trying to get into this country illegally?

          Your last comment is the most ignorant. America is under constant threat. To think otherwise is childish and naive. Then again, that is who I am talking to.
      • manogamez, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1There are so many facts wrong with your argument I won't even consider arguing against it.
    • GabrielS, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6We're not going to war with Iran. Watch your local news. They're trying to get you scared about everything from sharks to SARS to local gun violence.

      Read more. Think more. Feel less.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Cause it's doing us real good now. How much has the price of gas really gone down? Why are we meddling in the affairs of other countries for again? Am I missing something? We're spreading democracy with our weapons? Say it isn't so...
    • Aharoni, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4You feel scared? I'm in god damn Israel... yeepie, looks like I'm getting a first row ticket when the mayhem starts.
  • falkonv7l, on 10/27/2007, -5/+2Notice how only the countries that really really want Nucluar power are the ones who hate the US, I don't see China or India whining and bitching about the US.
    • Jexie, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4I don't know of any country in the world that does not hate the US right now, stop looking only at the countries that want nuclear power and you might notice it too.
    • GabrielS, on 10/29/2007, -3/+3Q: Why isn't the United States worried about the use of Nuclear Energy in Latin America?

      A: Latin America countries aren't threatening to kill Americans wherever it can find them. They don't have a history of doing this either.

      China and India aren't trying to actively get Americans killed.
  • franklink44, on 10/29/2007, -3/+5Did no one notice at the bottom of the article it says, "Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan". How does a german speaking author obtain all of this information and yet this has not hit American media. Hmmmm
    • GabrielS, on 10/29/2007, -0/+9Silly question. Der Spiegel is to Germany what Time Magazine is to the US. It's a well respected journal on world events.

      The alternet link is just a translation to English.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6Because American media is notorously "pick and choose"? But good catch.
    • catbeller, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5Where have you been for the last seven years? The "media" has changed since the Republicans took power in 2000. They won't report on anything that really pokes a finger in the Republicans eye. Their bosses wouldn't like it. Fast track to disgrace and unemployment is to ***** with Bush's power base. They make Scientology look like a schoolyard bully.
  • youlivnlearn, on 10/29/2007, -12/+2Good, Knock Iran off the face of the Earth. And rest of the Middle East
    • awtripp, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7Why do people say this *****? Granted there are some bad seeds (just like every where else in the world) but just because they're "different" doesn't mean the good people that are there don't deserve peace and prosperity. So going overboard with crap like that is so useless and hateful. Let's be a little more constructive.
    • catbeller, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Sieg. Heil. Death to the unclean godless hordes.
      • JonnyTrombone, on 10/29/2007, -4/+2No, the Nazis were actually allied with most of the Middle East- and installed Nazi governments in Iraq and Syria (Iraq's lasted until 2003, Syria's is still going strong). Despite what should have been an obvious animosity, the Nazis got along fine with Arab countries (As did Soviet Russia after them).
        • manogamez, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Are you joking? you need to retake history class.
  • mdman, on 10/29/2007, -7/+3The president of Iran is a hostage taker from 1979 hostage crises.. we should have already put sanctions on that country.
    • joejoesick, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Let me guess. You saw that on FoxNews?

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8442940/

      The man who was the hostage-taker was inprisoned and eventually committed suicide in jail. Or, at least that's what the CIA says.
      • stephenodotcom, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1Hey I was thinking. Since you guys are going to war with Iran and as per your last incident with Iran you needed some Canadian passports can we just sell you them to you guys whole sale?

        That was off topic and all but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was 23 years old and a civil engineer. His test score ranked him 132nd among over 400,000 participants upon entry. He later got a masters of science. Do you really think he was involved? Despite all the negative and true statements about him he has led an inspiring life considering the environment he was raised (from a poor blacksmith family.)

        Your president however, has lived a very uninspiring life. Not that it matters at all. But more to the point I'm trying to say don't just jump to conclusions because you want to beleive someone is evil. If we stopped everyone from doing that maybe we could have a rational argument and reach some agreements.

        • budfoxx, on 10/29/2007, -3/+1Nice liberal ideology on display. Afterall, the worlds problems are always based on economics and social standing according to the left.

          Don't just jump to conclusions because you want to believe someone is evil. How about listening to what they are saying? Moron.

          He had high test scores and got a masters degree. Why does that exclude him from the possibility of a crime? Osama Bin Lyin was a multi-millionaire when he threw it all away for jihad. Why couldn't the psycho in Iran be a kidnapper? Because you are using your own moral system to judge him? Hypocrite.

          You were thinking, huh? Your statements prove otherwise.
      • budfoxx, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1Wow, jojo knocks Fox News and points to MSNBC, home of Keith "unbiased" Olderman.

        Oh the irony. Too bad you cannot even appreciate it.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I wonder why they had to do that? Any thoughts on the cause of that effect?
  • MadScientist420, on 10/29/2007, -7/+8As an atheist I still feel compelled to say: "God help us all" And by that,I mean someone shoot Cheney in the face.
  • geehossiphats, on 10/29/2007, -10/+5Children in the middle east have been taught their whole lives that they must kill all non-muslims. So now we have what we have today. Are americans and jews expected to just lie down and die? If you think so, then why?
    • cryptomystic, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4Your question does not dignify an answer, what are you 10 years old?
      • budfoxx, on 10/29/2007, -1/+0Why does this question not dignify an answer? Because it actually contains facts that you cannot refute? Children in the Middle East are brainwashed on a daily basis in their homes and schools.

        Since you cannot answer a factual question, you resort to name calling. What are you 9 years old?
        • manogamez, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2I went to school in Iraq before the war started. To tell you the truth children and teachers in my school all had the idea that the US is a place where all dreams come true. Everyone had the dream of living in America. Please stop spreading this *****.
    • stephenodotcom, on 10/29/2007, -1/+5Congratulations! You're an isolated idiot! Ever been to the middle east? I'm guessing no as in order to prove your point you would be dead. A lot of non Muslim people have and continue to live in the middle east, yet they are alive?

      Just sit and stay at home with your Cheeto's being scared of the world. BTW your not safe at home either! Don't go to the inner city.. I hear they are all want to kill the white man. Oh, and stay away from reservations unless you want to be scalped. In fact, just stay away from anyone who doesn't register on the scale of whiteness from albino to tanned.


      • branjb, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Qatar is more westernized than half of the midwest is.
      • budfoxx, on 10/29/2007, -5/+0Typical liberal. Invokes racist stereotypes as he/she accuses another of being racist.

        It is even more racist to have guilt over things you cannot control. Congratulations you pompous useful idiot.
        • manogamez, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1People will respect your arguments when you stop calling them names.
    • catbeller, on 10/29/2007, -4/+4You do realize that we've murdered a million Iraqis? For no reason? Over 80 percent of our soldiers STILL THINK THAT THEY ARE KILLING THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US ON 9-11. The people who are killing random infidels is US. And Iran detests us because we imprisoned their democratically elected president for the rest of his life in 1952 and set a brutal dictator over them, to placate British Petroleum. They took hostages in '78 for a reason, not because we are infidel, but because we tortured their entire nation for over 35 years before they finally broke free. They aren't the criminals here. They've never bothered us, never shot our citizens, never stole our oil, never overthrew our government. Yet somehow through the magic of Fox News and American amnesia, they're the bad guys. Might have something to do with the other half of "our" oil Cheney wants, now that we've successfully shut down the Iraqi fields.

      How much do you think oil will go for after we blow up Iran? 200 a barrel? 300? The MONEY those fewking bastards on Cheney's team are going to make!
      • geneikillua, on 10/29/2007, -3/+1We have not murdered a million Iraqis. Even if that study's figure were accurate, it would not be the U.S. that was the killer of the vast majority of the dead. That responsibility would lay at the feet of the so-called "insurgents." If you shot a murderer and his accomplice then killed your family, could we say you murdered your family? Of course not. We could certainly say that perhaps you hadn't acted wisely, but we couldn't lay the blame entirely at your feet.
        Also, as an aside, Iraq did not attack us on 9-11, but U.S. troops are fighting Al-Qaeda currently in Iraq, and they did attack us on 9-11. Therefore, U.S. troops are currently killing in Iraq members of the same organization which attacked us on 9-11.
        • craftycorner, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1We had no business using depleted uranium! That *****'s toxic as all *****.
  • awtripp, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4Granted the article links to no sources, but the contents of the article is stuff politicians and the media have been discussing for a while. It doesn't seem too far out there, but the sensationalist headline linking the start of this war to Israel isn't really the point of the article, it is only mentioned, and the rest of the article is much more down to Earth and kind of makes sense. With how this administration has operated I wouldn't be surprised if this is what went down, but there's always more to the story and all we can do is make that ***** up in line with what pleases our own perception and desires for reality. So as usual we'll just fight and argue with each other, call each other names, and lambaste each other for our political views. Some real political discourse would be great for a change, not just here in this tiny clique, but in every outlet we have in this country.
  • mexretroshore, on 10/27/2007, -3/+4sick.. and believable.
  • gamehunter101, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2as the reformist vice president said "leaders of both countries don't just see themselves as politicians,they see themselves as carrying out the work of god"
  • GabrielS, on 10/27/2007, -5/+3I can't believe these people get paid to write this crap.

    The US Secretary of State is an expert on Russia. Why do you think she was nominated by the President to be the Secretary of State?

    Russia has been cozy with Iran and the US government has known this for at least the last 8 years. The fact that Iran wants to cause trouble for the US isn't knew either. They've been trying to get Americans killed outside of US territory since 1979. They've avoided targeting Americans on US soil because they know saber rattling would quickly spin into actual snake bites.

    These articles are far too simplistic. Even Gary Sick writes about the complexities of Iran and its relationship with Russia.

    There is not going to be a war with Iran even if it acquires nuclear power from Moscow.
    • Thuktun, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3"There is not going to be a war with Iran even if it acquires nuclear power from Moscow."

      Unless certain evangelical Christians in high places decide that antagonizing Russia via Iran, igniting WWIII, will hasten the Rapture.
  • katorga, on 10/28/2007, -3/+8"Someone should tell Israel Iran is not Syria. They will retaliate…hard!"

    Yeah right. The Iranian army will be just as feckless as any other middle eastern military force. They are only capable of small scale guerrilla actions, and almost incapable of sustained military action outside of their own nations. That is exactly why they want nuclear weapons in the first place because it mitigates their deficiencies in conventional forces and logistics.

    A more ruthless, logical and cost-effective solution for the US would be foment civil and proxy war in Iraq that draws in men and resources from each of the nations supporting the various ethno-religious groupings in Iraq and let them bleed themselves for a decade. They will happily slaughter each other.
    • GabrielS, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5Wow. This is very un-Digg-like.

      "They are only capable of small scale guerrilla actions, and almost incapable of sustained military action outside of their own nations. That is exactly why they want nuclear weapons in the first place because it mitigates their deficiencies in conventional forces and logistics."

      Bingo! Well said.
    • catbeller, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2You do realize you are a murderous racist? That you just advocated inciting slaughter for no damned reason than it would entertain you? Cost effective to DO WHAT? Take the oil?
    • manogamez, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1katorga, your argument is very rational and at the same time, quite inhumane. These are human beings we're talking about, not cattle.
  • n8f8, on 10/28/2007, -5/+1Retards.
  • floatingpoints, on 10/28/2007, -4/+3John Titor is REAL.
  • freezeout, on 10/27/2007, -4/+3token Israeli here, and I must say this scenario is highly unlikely. An Israeli missile strike would achieve nothing since the Iranians have spread their nuclear program over multiple sites and hidden them deep underground. On the other hand the Iranian retaliation strike would be quite powerful, firing missiles back on 4 fronts (Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza), they have the ability to level several Israeli cities to dust. So we have nothing to gain and alot to lose, hence - not gonna happen. oh and Cheney can go ***** himself.
  • kolobcreek, on 10/27/2007, -4/+1Sounds like a good plan. And the Israelis have nothing to lose. Its not like the Iranians could hate them any more.
    • chrisatwork, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Nothing to lose? Not even israeli lives?
  • skyfire1, on 10/27/2007, -3/+1This is a surprise to me.
  • vannasty, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Why do people say WW3 is coming in order for their to be WW3 their has to be a force equal or greater than our own (USA) that poses a threat. This is not 1953, we can crush Iran, Syria, who ever with out placing any soldiers in country. I for one thinks its about time, Iran likes to talk alot of ***** ....well lets see how big they talk when the MOABs start dropping, and our F-22 are rocking the ***** out their house and Russian MiGs if necessary. Alkbar ***** alla that ***** bitches, ***** useless camel jockey bastards. If it wasn't for us giving them back their freakin land after WW2 these sons a bitches would still be living in the desert suckin on camel *****. We should have given hitler the middle east then all these terrorist ***** heads would be lamp shades or lounge chairs maybe even biodiesel (GREEN FTW) and put to good use instead of dying for alla. ***** the Neocons!!!!!!
    Russia needs to shut the ***** up and just keep selling their women to horny losers.
    • floatingpoints, on 10/27/2007, -3/+1Real life isn't an action movie. GTFO.
    • catbeller, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Because BUSH stated days ago that Iran would spark WWIII. A ***** president casually invoked a world war. HE WANTS THAT WAR.
    • asskey, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Only problem with letting Hitler have the middle east is that he actually would have had the oil necessary to complete his invasion of Russia. And if that worked, we'd either still be in a cold war, or we'd be totally *****.
  • GrizzWolf, on 10/29/2007, -6/+6Doom and gloom... hellfire and brimstone... "we're on the brink." My GRANDFATHER used to tell me stories of how our society had feared the end of the world and pissed and moaned all the time about it since HE was a little boy in the early 1900s... It is time. It is time for our country to either put up or shut up. We either shut down Iran or we stop ***** whining about them. Iran IS... GET THIS... IS... and HAS BEEN... killing AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. THAT is reason ENOUGH for Bush to LEVEL Iraq, and I, for one, am HIGHLY insulted that he HASN'T... we CANNOT allow ANY foreign government to go about willy-nilly KILLING Americans because they don't :like" us... ever. Iran is hell-bent on damaging America AS MUCH as it can, in any WAY it can, AS SOON AS IT CAN... that's a damned fact, so why should we just sit back and WATCH them build or acquire the weapons to do it with? Are you people NUTS?

    HERE'S THE MAIN THING MANY AMERICANS fail to understand about Iran... THE PEOPLE THERE DON'T THINK LIKE WE DO. They have a totally different frame of reference on life, society, women and children, religion, HISTORY, ETC. So NO AMERICAN should EVER ASSUME anything POSITIVE about Iran because Iran because it has PROVEN otherwise and it PUBLICLY states EVIL intentions quite frequently. They are more than willing to do things the average American would never dream of and THEREIN lies the danger... most Americans don't want war with them because we LIKE peace, we LIKE stability, we LIKE freedom of religion, etc., and we LIKE our brand of "freedom." BUT THE IRANIANS DON'T FEEL THE SAME WAY... their "freedom" is oppressing women and children, HANGING people for being gay, AFTER WHIPPING THEM IN THE TOWN SQUARE... 2 or 3 HUNDRED LASHES... the Iranian "religion" consists of a crap-load of contradictions that are MISINTERPRETED by terror-loving MANIACS to mean that they must FORCE us all to CONVERT to ISLAM or KILL US. The Iranian government's idea of social stability means CENSORING the news, the internet, education... it means TAKING hostages from other countries whenever it sees fit. It means chopping off people's hands and jailing anyone who publicly disagrees with the regime. It IS time... time long overdue for us to stop Iran. To stop the Hitler that has been reborn there. To stop the next holocaust... the one that will likely hit HERE, in the US, in the form of NUCLEAR MISSILES launched from IRAN. You can hate George Bush all you want... but join us in REALITY for ONE moment... if you were him and you KNEW Iran was planning to send NUKE missiles toward us as soon as they could, or pass them off to terrorists to use them here... would you just walk quietly off into the night and have history JUDGE you as the cowardly president who COULD HAVE stopped the next holocaust but didn't because you feared public opinion? People like to say his legacy is *****... I say it will be 10,000 times ***** if he doesn't shut down Iran's ability to wipe Israel or us off the face of the earth... and if I was George Bush... I'd opt to stop Iran and have that on my legacy instead of the next holocaust.

    And to the "person" above who encouraged the murder of our Vice President: I have sent your post and all available info on you to the CIA, NSA, FBI and Homeland Security. Expect a visit from one or more of them soon. It is a FEDERAL CRIME to incite the assassination of the President or Vice President.
    • bsmang, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4The thing you FORGOT to mention is that BUSH and CHENEY make the leaders of Iran look pretty DECENT and RESPECTABLE in a side-by-side comparison.
      • nastronomical, on 10/29/2007, -4/+3bsmang is a ignorant moron of the highest beta male liberal character.
      • ralph12c41, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Get back on your Med's
    • bsmang, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3Oh, and, "Iran is hell-bent on damaging America AS MUCH as it can, in any WAY it can, AS SOON AS IT CAN... that's a damned fact"

      Please show me where I can find this damned fact.
    • catbeller, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Oh, ***** off. G. Gordon Liddy publicly advocated having a soldier assassinate Clinton when he was visiting the troops. Don't recall the right screaming to the FBI. Only Republican presidents are so cowardly they need to send in the SS whenever someone wants them dead.
    • skyfire1, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1The internet police returns.
    • caponumen, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Nice rant!
      But yes, always be aware of appearances vs truth.
      Those of you here pushing your own self-fulfilling version of the apocalypse might want to consider a similar approach.
      Least you end up drinking the cool-aid for ALL OF US just because everyone was talking AT God and it sounded like the right thing to do.
  • musntSurfatWork, on 10/27/2007, -4/+0Why is this WW3? What does Poland, Canada, Australia, Ethiopia, Brazil, Japan, have to do with the Bush puppet masters and their Jew counterparts which by the way, will be seriously Reamed far up their asses when they "pre-emptively" strike Iran? We're all gonna be clapping when your(USA) deserved retaliation hits your Bingo halls, and Annies Bumbleberry Pie houses. You're messing with the wrong kind there folks. They're gonna be weaving them carpets while you figure out how to fuel the run for poparazzi against Linday Lohan and Paris Hilton's Nymph kids.
  • bigjimslade, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2
    Drivel.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 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.