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.
I am given to understand that the only way to appear "strong" on national defense is to promise to wage bigger and nastier wars on our enemies (real or imagined). It would seem "weak" to take nuclear weapons of the so-called table. Iran must understand that we are barbarians and unstable barbarians at that!
We will do anything against our enemies, even if they have no capacity to harm us. Hear us roar!
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.
America, fuck yeah!
Maybe we should even hunt down Persians in other countries. We could start here. There's plenty in Los Angeles. Maybe we can set up a detention camp. That would be really strong!
Someone could really campaign on that platform. I can see it now. "My opponent thinks we should use nuclear weapons on Iran, but I think he is being soft on defense. I vow to either exterminate or imprison every Persian in the world! I am the strongest politician you will ever meet!"
Listen, if we're going to be brutal, mass killers, we should do it right. What's all this soft talk about nuclear fallout, radiation and instant incineration? Let's kill 'em all and be done with it.
Only the softy, do-gooder, humanitarian, secularist, whiny liberals would disagree. All options on the table!
Someone should ask the president if he is willing to kill 3 million civilians by using a nuclear weapon, is he willing to keep genocide on the table? Or is he going to be weak on defense?