HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Turn the Middle Eas...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:17 AM

"Turn the Middle East into Glass"

How many people have you heard say we we should "Turn the Middle East into Glass"?

I have heard dozens. And not all of them were republicans.

You just know Bush looked hard at that button and wanted to push it. McCain's campaign song was "Bomb Iran", and the fundamentalists are just longing for the end.

So now we are faced with a Romney as possible president. I think Romney would increase the world wide wars Bush started, even go so far as to piss off enough people who would attack our overseas forces with passion and pitchforks. And of course there is N. Korea and Pakistan that have nukes, that if used because Romney pissed them off, would make the fundies wet their undies.

"Turn the Middle East into Glass"... it's not a new idea.

21 replies, 2139 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Turn the Middle East into Glass" (Original post)
RobertEarl Oct 2012 OP
madinmaryland Oct 2012 #1
RobertEarl Oct 2012 #3
pinboy3niner Oct 2012 #2
RobertEarl Oct 2012 #4
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #8
Hugabear Oct 2012 #5
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #7
RobertEarl Oct 2012 #9
former-republican Oct 2012 #11
joelz Oct 2012 #19
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #6
RobertEarl Oct 2012 #10
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #14
RobertEarl Oct 2012 #15
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #17
former-republican Oct 2012 #12
Hippo_Tron Oct 2012 #13
AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #16
dmr Oct 2012 #18
TexasProgresive Oct 2012 #20
AsahinaKimi Oct 2012 #21

Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:33 AM

1. I remember the phrase "turn it into a glass parking lot", which was during the late 1970's.

It was directed to the Middle East and the Hostage Situation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:38 AM

3. That too

I heard it after 9/11.

The question is: How many times has Romney felt that way? Many times I'd be willing to bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:38 AM

2. When I got back from VN, people told me "We should have nuked Hanoi"

For some, that was their idea of being supportive. Different day, same old shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:41 AM

4. Those people were nuts

And there are too many such nuts still kicking. How nuts is Romney? I am not going to give him any benefit of doubt. Romney could do it. I know Obama would not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:50 AM

8. I don't think Obama would use nukes in the MidEast, either.

He's too wise and level-headed for that. RMoney, on the other hand? I wouldn't trust that guy with a pop gun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:43 AM

5. I think there could absolutely be nuclear war if the rethugs take over

Romney has already shown that he doesn't give a shit what Russia thinks, and the rethugs have been itching to "get tough" on Pakistan. I can easily see a scenario where they piss off Pakistan enough so that they push the country (and its nuclear arsenal) right into the arms of the Taliban, who likely wouldn't hesitate to use them against the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:48 AM

7. Nuclear terrorism is definitely possible.

It's had me concerned for some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:51 AM

9. Pakistan is a problem

What would we do if the Taliban did get a nuke and trucked it into say, Kabul, where we have thousands of troops?

Obama's stance on nukes is to reduce them to just a few. The republicans want more and bigger nukes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:57 AM

11. That's why we're in Afghanistan

 

"Pakistan is a problem" It's not because we want to spread democracy

We leave the taliban and foreign fighters move to Pakistan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 03:00 AM

19. thats what he says this is what he does

JAY COGHLAN: Well, right now, as weve both noted, this is the birthplace of atomic and nuclear weapons. What the public doesnt really understand is that the nuclear weapons business is very much ongoing, that funding for nuclear weapons programs within the Department of Energy is nearly 50 percent above the historic average of the Cold War. And this is within the Department of Energy, not necessarily Pentagon funding. But again, what Im attempting to underline is the very fact that, despite the rhetoric that this country and others are working towards a future world free of nuclear weapons, on the ground what is happening is that the U.S. is rebuilding the production side of its nuclear weapons complex. And specifically here at Los Alamos, it is for the future expanded production of the plutonium cores of nuclear weapons.

AMY GOODMAN: Whats your problem with that?

JAY COGHLAN: Well, you know, first of all, Im an outright advocate for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. As the president said in Prague close to four years ago, were going to have to maintain those weapons while we work towards eventual global disarmament. But whats happening through so-called life extension programs is that the U.S. is extending the service life of its nuclear weapons on the order of three decades, while endowing them with new military capabilities. And the costs, themselves, are staggering. Were ending up with nuclear weapons that just to refurbish cost more than their weight in gold
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/11/birthplace_of_atomic_bomb_new_mexico

I still the mit would much worse






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:47 AM

6. Sad but very true.

These PNAC people don't give two flying shits about innocent people, and yeah, the Fundies are a big-ass problem, too.

If we want change in countries like Syria and Iran, invasion is NOT an option. Look at what's happened in Libya for example; we didn't need to invade! And already, things have changed for the better in that country. If we leave the Syrian & Iranian people to their own devices(aside from occasional assistance of rebels, perhaps), then the aims of democracy will succeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:53 AM

10. Are you in favor of terrorism there?

You think we should assist the rebels? How? With weapons of terror?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:11 AM

14. We did okay in Libya, I think.

Or at least from what I've seen.

The real good thing is is that it looks like the Islamists are starting to get their asses kicked by the people of Libya.....don't think that would have happened if we had gone the Bush route a la Iraq. Obama made the right choice, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:17 AM

15. So, Islamists need their asses kicked?

And that after the US was doing lots of deals with Gaddafi. Then when we were done with him...

Did you hear the Muslim Brotherhood has, as president of Egypt, one of their brothers? Time for some ass kicking here, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:24 AM

17. I despise the M.B., yes, but invading Egypt would be a terrible mistake, IMO.

We need to let the Egyptian people wake up on their own.....and, TBH, some already are. But if we did pull an Iraq, I think you and I will both agree that would NOT be in our nation's best interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:02 AM

12. We have been meddling in the Middle East long before Bush

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:06 AM

13. Romney is all bluster, he's not bombing anybody back to the stone age

He thinks he can convince the Iranians that he will, hence all of Ryan's "peace through strength" talk, but he won't. The American people just don't have the stomach for another war right now, and we certainly don't have the money.

Whether or not Iran gets a nuclear weapon is up to Iran at this point. The rest of the world has made it clear that they will become a completely isolated nation like North Korea if they choose to go that route. If the Ayatollahs decide they want to do that, they will do it. But I don't see how that pays off for them, in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:18 AM

16. I have to mostly agree.

Though I'm not so sure Romney wouldn't try it anyhow.

But yeah, it won't pay off for the Ayatollahs. Even the Russians don't want them to have nukes, I think.
And certainly, I don't think the majority of the Iranian people would stand for it, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:43 AM

18. It's not so much Romney as it is the damn Neo-cons that are advising him.

Romney doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, so he'll let those crazy PNAC'ers do their thing.

To win, Romney sold his soul. I have no doubt he's made a deal with these people, just as he has with others.

Sadly, we'll all suffer for it.

I just can't bear the thought of Romney winning (stealing) this election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:24 AM

20. Who does which way Romney is going to flip or flop

This guy in electronics terms is an oscillator. That's an amplifier with positive feedback. Get enough of that an it goes into runaway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:32 AM

21. I think there has been enough

Nuking for a life time...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread