For background of where my comment comes from understand I'm a Republican, a McCain supporter and disappointed the Condi Rice had no interest in running even after the draft Codi movement that rose up within my party at the start of the primaries.
The video shows us some racist individual morons with a couple choice quotes. Beyond that, I suggest you see past what the videographer and editor is feeding you.
1. There was a crowd of pissed McCain supporters. Why so angry? Maybe because they came to a McCain rally to be confronted by sign-carrying Obama supporters. How warmly would McCain chanting supporters be welcomed at an Obama rally?
2. Were the Obama supporters shouting anything rude and provocative? Obviously not. They were silently waving their signs in slow motion to hip, upbeat music as the video shows. Opposition that shows up at a prearranged political rally would never be rude. Right.

If you are so easily lead to judge a large group of people by a small number of individuals fed to you by the media (even small indy web media manipulators can use misleading techniques) then you may be past being able to think for yourself.

Me? I'll choose not to judge all Obama supporters by a few worst examples, who would say hateful things like, "A perfect opportunity to call in an air strike," and "...and 2 days after the election they will go back to eating potatochips and watching tv."(jsut one of several snarky, urban elitist jabs in the comments at perceived hillbillies between New York and L.A.) I'm afraid of the kind of easily manipulated people who are fed a piece of video propaganda and are ready to propose opposing "ignorance" of "30-40% of the population" by "getting rid of religion to start with, or forcing some mass mandatory re-education program..." I hope they are rare as I think.

A perfect opportunity to call in an air strike.

3 days before the election israel launches a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities using low-yield nuclear weapons. Iran responds by sending dozens of Shahab-3 missiles on Tel Aviv and Haifa. Human bombs are exploding in major cities across EU and US. President Bush suspends election and declares martial law. Within 48 hours army units patrol every major city in the US and the coalition of US and NATO forces starts bombing Tehran...

Israel's negotiation will most likely be air strikes.

I'll go first with an old standby -- Israel, at the secret urging of Dick Cheney, will perform air strikes on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities.

Or, failing that, we'll get the color-coded Republican terrorist threat level go to Red for the first time, based on ficticious unsupported reports of an attack of scary but dubious nature.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's kind of dirty. They're taking each other's quotes out of context. "Obama wants air strikes in Pakistan".

"President George W. Bush on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to discuss turning over Islamic militant Osama bin Laden if the United States stops air strikes against Afghanistan.

''There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty,'' Bush told reporters as he returned to the White House from his Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland."

Source

Osama was never the objective; he was just the excuse.

This vid is about oil, how come the conversation is about nukes?

Why the concern about Iranian nukes? Why not Pakistani nukes, Indian nukes, or North Korean nukes?

Oh, oil.

Not that there isn't reason to be concerned about all countries looking to join the "nuclear club", but so far we've used diplomacy, economic sanctions, surveillance, and in extreme cases surgical air strikes to control it.

Launching a full-scale invasion w/regime change is outside the norm, and the most logical explanation for the difference is oil.

There's also defending Israel...but only presidents named Bush seem to think that requires using troop deployments.

Except the air strike target in Sudan was a pharmaceutical plant. Many innocent worker's lives were lost in the initial destruction; it has been estimated that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the following years due to the loss of affordable and accessible drugs formerly produced by that Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.

These incidents involving American troops are far too common for the fault to be evenly split down the middle in all cases.

During the first Gulf War I saw some footage of a spotter calling in an air strike on what was obviously (even through the camera) a Bradley and not a BMP (as the spotter called it). Plane came down and killed 9 American soldiers in about a quarter of a second, pilot (over the radio), "I believe that was a friendly, over." Spotter (to camera crew), "Damn I was afraid of that".

3/4ths of American combat casualties in the first Gulf War were from friendly fire.

I visited with the 17/21st Lancers in England not long after Gulf war I, some of the Scorpion crews told us a story about how when their Colonel met up with his American counterpart in the neighbouring regiment the US Colonel looked at the Scorpion and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?"

In the 2nd Gulf war the British forces refused to serve alongside American troops, which is why they had their own separate domain (Basra and surrounding area).

In my experience working with US soldiers they are barely literate, under educated, lazy and incompetent. I have no doubt that most or all of the blame in most of these cases lies with the American troops because of an overreaction to the pathetic hit ratio of ground forces in Vietnam (1 confirmed hit per million rounds expended for small arms). Now troops are trained to shoot before they think and this is the consequence.

Pop the green smoke Identify friendlies, and contacted the ACT, tell them to check their fire. Where the hell is the FO (Forward Officer)?

Should never ever be standing up when those flying tanks are rolling in for an Danger Close air strike.

By the looks of the video I don't think they needed the strike, danger close means you are about to be overrun.

Iran creating 'nuclear weapons' is a created narrative by the GOP and warhawks in Washington.

When the Iraq war was at its worst, the blame was not laid at the Whitehouse burdening the military with unrealistic political objectives while not providing the necessary manpower.

No the blame was laid at insurgents, Al Qaeda but most of all at the influence of Iran and it's Revolutionary Guard. Everything from providing arms to training.

So much so that a resolution was passed declaring the Revolutionary Guards as 'terrorist' organization, weak links were pulled claiming Iran's president was involved in the American embassy hostage crisis back in the 80s.

This narrative was present on and off for several years, because who better to blame for the quagmire of Iraq then America hating Iran? But the story wasn't solid because there was hardly any proof, the EFPs found bearing Iranian marking are only indicative of lucrative arms trade that is occurring now in Iraq not of a policy of sabotaging America by Iran's government.

But this was not enough so the case for Iran creating Nuclear weapons was pushed forward, "Surely" the Neocons thought "It worked with Iraq 'smoking-gun-mushroom-cloud' it will probably work here".

The reason being such a narrative would facilitate expansion of the war into another sovereign nation that happens to possess oil reserves and more importantly lie in a strategic location that would allow oil and gas pipelines to run from Central Asia (one of the last untapped through Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf).

Not because it would benefit America as a whole but because it would benefit the interests of those who possess power, politically it would justify scaling and prolonging the war as much they wish, it would also allow for long term control of strategic reserves and routes for years to come not because its a good idea but because people who are Neocons are already playing a fantasy military standoff between the US, Russia and China some 50 years ahead.

Not to mention it would be to Israeli wishes.

Remember a few months ago they tried to pull a Gulf of Tonkin scenario in the Persian Gulf. Notice how that story got promptly buried.

Iran is not stupid, its military and army cannot handle an American air assault, they will be destroyed. They know the Bush Administration wants them to make a stupid move to justify and invasion or rather a air strike assault, why else would they just isolate them and not even talk to them in diplomatic terms. The carrier groups are ready stationed in the Persian Gulf to strike at any time.

This policy is disastrous, because the current sanctions and political isolation is only worsening the situation in Iran, justifying the centralization of power under the current president due to the possibility of war. It also solidifies Arab distrust of the US and plays right into the hands of groups like Al Qaeda.

Achievements work best when they're virtually or entirely cosmetic but you do have to admit that unlockable content is a great way to add play-time and force players to try out different gameplay facets, which they may have otherwise dismissed all too quickly.

As for gritty realism over cartoony graphics, no thanks. I'm thoroughly sick of CoD4 but end up playing it because everyone else does. Realism in FPSs particularly, is a synonym for camp whoring. Nothing says squat and wait more than overly dense foliage, non-contrasting colour schemes and players taking 'real' damage. Game designers, if I wanted to play Where's Waldo I wouldn't be playing a videogame would I?

Frankly realism along with overt reward systems are just an allure for the console crowd, which developers have serendipitously realised they should be catering for. The problem is it ends up taking a backstage to gameplay and is further accentuated by gimmicky gratuitous rewards. Look, if my score of 60 for a CoD4 map is composed of 20 gun kills, 15 grenade kills, 15 air strike kills and 10 helicopter kills, there is something wrong.

this is actually really cute, so upvote. and alot better than the vids of soldiers throwing puppies off cliffs and teaching children to say 'i smell like shit' in english.

but you know, cute little moments could happen in USA funded orphanages or family shelters, too. With out the gunfights air strikes and artillery shellings, which are not so cute with children in them.

The real rub BRM, is that most folks who could do anything about it, either don't give a damn, or their giving of one amounts to nil...hey, worse still is Kim DUNG, and his steady brainwash of an entire culture....Why don't the sane on the planet, throw caution to the wind, with massive air-strikes against him, and people like him, until he is utterly annihilated???
Answer: Those who have the power to do so are using him to their own ends. And us....