Cenk Uygur (Huffington Post): Why Isn't Genocide On The Table?

[Jack Rabbit]

Form Huffington Post
Dated Wednesday April 19

Why Isn't Genocide On The Table?
By Cenk Uygur

President Bush says he won't take nuclear war off the table. He reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against a country that didn't attack us - and couldn't possibly build the weapons to attack us for another 5-10 years . . . .

So, why stop with just nuclear war? I understand that the nuclear weapons we are contemplating using in Iran would - according to a Pentagon simulation -- kill 3 million people and spread radiation as far down as India, and contaminate up to 35 million people with cancerous nuclear fallout.

But why stop there? Are we weaklings not really willing to impose our will on this rogue country that refuses to listen to our demands? Let's go all the way.

I think we should keep genocide on the table. In fact, it would be weak not to. Every one of our politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, in order to appear stronger than the other should promise to wipe Iran off the map - kill every man, woman and child.

Read more.

[Greeby]

1. Cenk, I know you're being sarcastic but, don't give them any ideas

:scared:

[marmar]

2. So true...

:scared: :scared: :scared:

It's like daring a kid with his dad's gun to shoot you.

[AllieB]

3. He's truly a madman

I never thought I'd see my country even entertain such things.

[TomClash]

4. Genocide is for wimps

It's so 40s and nukes are so 50s.

Immediate Global Atmospheric Destruction (IM GLAD) is for real men. Really, why should anyone breathe?

:sarcasm: