Aw, c’mon Lee; options go on the table, food goes on the family…

I bow before the superior snark.

OK, but the wingnuts are probably worse at skiing than they are at writing. And that takes some doing.

Our “ally” Pakistan is responsible for whatever recent improvements in Iranian nuclear technology that the Iranians didn’t come up with themselves.

And when various Islamic republics that nobody could even find on a map, like Kyrgyzstan, start popping up with nukes in the next ten to fifteen years, just remember when you are making out your thank you cards that it’s spelled “Pervez Musharraf”.

Oh, and as far as preemption goes between the Soviets and the Finns…is there any way to explain to Bush about how well this worked out for the Russians?

Maybe it’s just me, but if I were going to try to repeat the Russo-Finnish war at home, I’d really try to make sure that my team got to be the Finns.

You forgot India and Britian.

Maybe we should just nuke Pakistan now, to be on the safe side. You know,”the nuclear strike would be defensive as it would be defending our troops…” blah de blah de blah, ad infinitum.

See how this works? Who’s next? Ooh! I know, how about Korea? Oh, wait…they don’t have any OIL.

But, yes, these questions cannot be answered, so a poem:

The pres’dent’s the decider,
He talks straight to al-Qaider,
But ask him to read
Past the front page lede
An’ he goes right back to hard cider.

(Yes, I know it’s terrible, but I think the rhymes are not bad–someone take them and do better, please)

But does that mean that Iran’s acquisition of nukes is also defensive, as it would be defending their civilians from US aggression? But the only reason that they would need to defend themselves from US aggression is because the US needs to defend itself from Iran’s aggression, which is because Iran needs to defend itself from US aggression….

You know, between Gary and Lee’s “decider” question, my head is starting to hurt. These matters are much too complicated for my little brain. I think we should just trust the President.

We’re all going to die! For freedom! Hurrah!

Posted by: His Grace | April 19, 2006 01:02 AM

OK, this is just scary. This is the EXACT comment I had intended to make about “all options” being on the table. If two of us thunk it, it must be true!

Ron, you eedjit. When the Russkies do (or did) something like that, it was Eeeevil, because they were Eeeevil Commies.

If we do it, it’s OK, because we’re The Good Guys. Honest, we are.

It seems so long ago.

I have one question, though, for anyone who cares to answer. How does one decide whether or not they are the decide? Kind of a conundrum, huh? I mean, did Bush decide he was the decider, and if not–if he didn’t make that decision–how can he really claim to be the decider? Who decides the decider?

It gets so complex.

So if the fallout from the defensive nuclear attack on Iran blows across the border into Iraq and poisons our troops, is that still defensive? Or does that count as Iranian aggression?

(I happened to be in Italy when Chernobyl went up. Because of the wind movement, we couldn’t get fresh fruit or vegetables for weeks; beef and mutton were also really frickin scarce there for a while. And we were a hell of a lot further away than Iran is from Iraq.)

Ah, a classic.

I remember reading about when that was first used, when the Soviet Union was forced to defend itself against Finnish aggression.

It never goes out of style.

the nuclear strike would be defensive as it would be defending our troops in Iraq from Iranian aggression

So a nuclear strike from the US would be defensive because it might prevent a strike from Iran against the sovereign nation of Iraq happening at some indefinite point in the future.

Atta boy, Gary; if you haven’t logic on your side, use mindless fear-mongering.