Tuesday, March 23, 2004
OK, I have a question...
There is disagreement across the political spectrum about whether the U.S. can strike pre-emptively in response to perceived threats. Iraq wasn't a danger at the time we invaded, but Saddam wanted to be, and perhaps, given time, could've been. Were we justified in striking first?
(Note - above question rhetorical and not point of post.)
The thing I think most everyone agrees on is when we do receive a real threat from someone with the means and commitment to carry it out, we have the right, nay...the duty to beat their asses like a #16 seed. (It's March Madness time. Get used to basketball analogies.) Everyone agrees with the Afghanistan portion of the War on Terror, whatever their political affiliation. (Which isn't how I remember it when we were discussing Afghanistan, but we're glad to have them on board in any sense).
My point is, after Sheik Yassin suffered that "unfortunate accident" (in the Sopranos sense of the term), Hamas threatened us. Given their track record, I don't think anyone doubts that Hamas means it when they threaten to blow up people they don't like (and they don't like pretty much everyone), and the statement seems pretty unambiguous that we are now at or near the front of that list.
So, it would seem to me that Hamas has just given Dubya the green-light to start blowing crap up over in the Hamas neck of the woods.
Not saying we should. I'm just saying.
There is disagreement across the political spectrum about whether the U.S. can strike pre-emptively in response to perceived threats. Iraq wasn't a danger at the time we invaded, but Saddam wanted to be, and perhaps, given time, could've been. Were we justified in striking first?
(Note - above question rhetorical and not point of post.)
The thing I think most everyone agrees on is when we do receive a real threat from someone with the means and commitment to carry it out, we have the right, nay...the duty to beat their asses like a #16 seed. (It's March Madness time. Get used to basketball analogies.) Everyone agrees with the Afghanistan portion of the War on Terror, whatever their political affiliation. (Which isn't how I remember it when we were discussing Afghanistan, but we're glad to have them on board in any sense).
My point is, after Sheik Yassin suffered that "unfortunate accident" (in the Sopranos sense of the term), Hamas threatened us. Given their track record, I don't think anyone doubts that Hamas means it when they threaten to blow up people they don't like (and they don't like pretty much everyone), and the statement seems pretty unambiguous that we are now at or near the front of that list.
So, it would seem to me that Hamas has just given Dubya the green-light to start blowing crap up over in the Hamas neck of the woods.
Not saying we should. I'm just saying.
