The Justification Of Pre-Emption

Think the U.S. is the only country that 'goes it alone' in the face of terrorism and general threats to security? Think again. Japan, disappointed by slow multilateral talk progress, is now considering taking out North Korea's guided missile bases in a pre-emptive motion. It's quite simple, really:

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

Same justification reason - among several others - used by U.S. led Coalition forces to rightly invade Iraq and kick Saddam out of power by force. International talks with an immature dictator down to UN sanctions failed in that example too. "Well, somebody's got to do something if that didn't work for some reason... it's not like the problem just went away," would be my thinking. There seems to be a pattern here... a pattern of common sense used by more nation than one.

America's stance toward enemies like North Korea isn't hard-line enough (likely because our hands are more tied than ususal at the moment one might assume), much like our stance toward 'Palestine'. So countries much closer logistically like Japan and Israel are taking matters into their own hands to step up offences to protect themselves, and at least consider pre-emption if not practice it in the present. And for politics and public relations internationally, it's a boon for The Bush Administration, Tony Blair and others, to show that we're not the only ones out there with seriously high regards about self-defence for the sake of our citizens and other people around the world. When diplomacy absolutely fails, you don't just give up. Unless you're a pansy-ass liberal, pre-emption is naturally the next step taken. Duh.

Such a strike by Japan, could actually save American lives this time around.

Chew on that...

Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea