By paddloPayday loans

What’s on the Table

“No option can be taken off the table” – Sen Hillary R. Clinton.
“We need to keep all options on the table.” – John Edwards
“we should take no option … off the table.” – Sen. Barack Obama
“I will never take any option off the table.” – US Pres. George W. Bush

Been hearing a lot recently about the US and Iran. Lots and lots of noise. The rhetoric is starting to build to a fever pitch. The war drums are beating so loud that my bones are rattling, shaking even. From the ‘liberal’ Democratic candidates all the way to the Cheneys and the Bushes who still control the power, one point has been made remarkably clear and with a chilling consistency: In these negotiations with Iran, and we are led to believe that someone somewhere is, in fact, negotiating, no option is to be taken off of the table.

What are these people talking about? I would like to think that they mean regular ole military action. But any one who has the short-term memory of an advanced Alzheimer’s patient has to know that military action is always in the cards when it comes to dealing with the US. What I find disturbing is that in the buildup to Iraq II I don’t recall hearing this refrain and certainly not with this frequency. The regular code words for military action are ‘serious consequences’. And the US has been threatening Iran with serious consequences for a while. This sounds a lot different.

No option should be taken off of the table.

What other options are there? What is on this metaphorical table? One option sitting by the salt and pepper shaker collecting dust is diplomacy. But no one in this busy age really has the time for that, and besides, this is Iran. They can’t listen to reason anyway. Why waste breath when you can shoot bullets right?

Air strikes are probably also sitting there on this table like a rabid and twitching black cat. Of course we call them ‘surgical strikes’ in this day and age.

The C.I.A. is always available for that other option, you know the one that they pulled before in Iran, where they deposed their democratically elected leader and installed a puppet dictator. Ok, alright, so that was a while ago. And that agency is probably too busy planning birthday parties in Venezuela anyway. The general rule of thumb is that you don’t turn a situation into a world crisis and then run a covert operation. Even for the US, that doesn’t make sense.

I would like to think that a ground force invasion is the final option on the table, but the troops, like the butter, are spread pretty thin. So what do they mean? What could they mean?

Could they possibly mean a nuclear strike?

Could this be the unspeakable ‘option’ that everyone says has to stay on the table? I would like to think that the world saw the nuclear bomb used in warfare for the first and last time in 1945. Surely they can’t be talking about that. Are they really that crazy?

For the love of God man, take that ‘option’ off the table!



#1 Mariam on 07.25.08 at 1:04 am

Glad to meet you friend and don’t worry
for there is a GOD above all of powers
to use your page in our website I felt I need to ask your permission
I’ll be happy to welcome you there
and again glad to meet you

#2 main slave on 07.25.08 at 10:53 am

Hi Mariam, good to meet you as well. Glad you stopped by. :)

Leave a Comment