It was directed to the Middle East and the Hostage Situation

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.

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

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.

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

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.

It's had me concerned for some time.

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.

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

We leave the taliban and foreign fighters move to Pakistan

JAY COGHLAN: Well, right now, as we’ve both noted, this is the birthplace of atomic and nuclear weapons. What the public doesn’t 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 I’m 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: What’s your problem with that?

JAY COGHLAN: Well, you know, first of all, I’m an outright advocate for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. As the president said in Prague close to four years ago, we’re going to have to maintain those weapons while we work towards eventual global disarmament. But what’s 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. We’re 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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Nuking for a life time...