My Next Career

I've decided to switch careers. I think I'm far more qualified to work in foreign policy. I'll get myself a couple of gigs on Stephen Colbert and Fox News, because they'd agree with me, and whoosh! up I'll go to the decision-making hilltops.

Cause see, I get why North Korea wants to develop nuclear weapons. (My schtick will be that I talk like your average Cordy.) You're not well-liked, and people who don't like you have them, and there aren't exactly nuclear-proof vests, so you want to be able to say "mess with the bull you get the horns," so to speak.

Of course, I get why everybody else (i.e. the people who already have nuclear weapons--and by the way, it's pronounced new-clear. Like it's spelled. Not New-cue-lar. Cause that's not how it's spelled) doesn't want North Korea, or other people who don't have nuclear weapons, to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are generally agreed to be bad.

So here's what I suggest: economic sanctions and whatnot don't seem to be doing the trick, especially since not being able to buy cigarettes doesn't exactly protect North Korea from nuclear attack. Cancer maybe, but that's a lesser worry. What would really protect North Korea would be having nuclear weapons without having nuclear weapons.

We need to step up and say that anybody who nuclearly attacks a country without nuclear weapons can expect retaliation from us, since we have all these weapons to spare. And yes, I'm not talking trade embargo, I'm talking Hiroshima. Only bigger, since there's been some scientific advancement in that area.

The thing is, this rule has to apply across the board. I'm sure President Bush would be plenty willing to wipe out Lebanon if they took out Israel, but we would also need to step up and say "England, we don't like Iraq either. But sorry chaps, that's against the rules. Farewell Piccadilly, goodbye Leicester Square."

So what do you think? I'm expecting Stephen Colbert to call any second now.