Since "the bomb" worked so well in Japan why not blast the Middle East?

[devilgrrl]

Let's hear the endorsements - it's the solution to everything - kill them all - start over again - think of all the lives saved! Perhaps Obama - D'oh! Osama will get radiation poisoning and finally die too!

[LynnTheDem]

1. Georgie can't pronounce "nuclear", so he's been saying "bomb Iraq"

for 4 years now.

[Hekate]

2. You do know that's what Cheney wants to do, don't you?

I know you are being sarcastic, but these people are insane. :nuke:

July 2002
> Washington's interest in developing new nuclear weapons has gathered
> pace since the arrival of President George W. Bush's administration
> in January 2001. This pursuit in turn forms part of a wider
> reorientation of US nuclear policy that seeks to increase the
> relevance of nuclear weapons in US military planning and boost the
> credibility behind the threat of their use.

http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2002BBexecsum.htm

Hekate

[omega minimo]

3. how can you "joke" about hiroshima and nagasaki?

don't bother answering. you're ignored.

[devilgrrl]

4. Have you been reading that other thread???

Do you agree that nuking Japan WORKED?

Get over yourself.

[nofurylike]

5. what other thread would that be? no explanation in OP. eom

[devilgrrl]

6. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=146493&mesg_id=146493

[nofurylike]

9. thanks for the link. i presumed you MUST have been so angry at

something, that you would post a subject line that shocking - not including even (understating) sarcasm tags - without reflecting on how it would affect.

i too am furious at sickening attitudes in the thread you refer too. i empathize, but i still must let you know, and you must see from others' reactions, that your ironic tone is just too dry to offset the words of your OP. i was definitely nauseated before i understood what you were saying. and that, even KNOWING you could not POSSIBLY have actually meant what you posted.

i recommend an especially bold sarcasm tag in any future such posts. after all, you must know that many of us agree with your basic point, but can not let it go without comment such as this.


peace and solidarity!

[devilgrrl]

13. I omitted the :sarcasm: tag for shock value...

which isn't nearly as shocking as defending the use of nukes.

[nofurylike]

17. your prerogative, of course. peace. eom

[nofurylike]

18. i do always feel that if the ones who need to be moved will not

be, anyway

while those who already know all too well and painfully are the only ones who will truly be painfully shocked...


well, you know. just thoughts.


peace

[Rosemary2205]

7. maybe the OP was actually intended to be a reply in another thread?

and they accidentally started a new thread?

That's all I can figure.

Even for 50 threads on the same subject style that exists in general discussion this one seems like a misprint to me somehow.

[nofurylike]

10. "seems like a misprint" to me, too. like a fairly un-containable

fury at the horrifying attitudes in the thread the OP'er was reacting to - minus sarcasm tags that probably seemed redundant, the sarcasm likely feeling more than obvious.

i can see why the fury, but it was a horrible shock to happen upon that subject line and OP.


peace and solidarity!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. seconded. also even if somone hadnt read the other threads.

this is very clearly sarcasm.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. this is clearly sarcasm.

[DKRC]

8. OIL

:evilfrown: :evilfrown:
Vaporizing people is one thing, but the loss of all of our oil under their sand is unthinkable. Remember, one of the things Bush announced when he addressed the Iraqi people after the invasion - they were not to destroy their oil wells.
This administration is criminal and human life has no value in their pursuit of power & wealth.
:evilfrown: :evilfrown:

[Kahuna]

11. There is only one reason why the US will never nuke the Middle East..

It would contaminate the oil. Darnit!

[pampango]

12. If a tactic "worked so well" once, it should be used indescrimantely

in the future. I am trying to think of other successful tactics used throughout history that might be more helpful.

The "Trojan Horse" strategy worked for the Greeks. Might work in the Middle East. (Don't ask for details;) Poison gas was an effective strategy during WWI. Sieges and blockades have been used many times to starve an opponent out. Perhaps we could encircle the Middle East and starve them out (plenty of oil there but how much food).

The point is that tactics (atomic bombs, poison gas, starvation) which may have "worked so well" in different historical contexts are not only inappropriate now, but unconscionable.

[librechik]

16. cuz SUVs don't run so good on radioactive gasoline