Friday, July 21, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
Oh my!
"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," Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.A pre-emptive strike? From Japan?! Wowsers. Japan may not have the capability right now, but they could set up a missile strike in a couple months. For that matter, they have the technology and materials to drop a nuclear tipped ballistic missile on the Norks before the end of this year. If they can put satellites in orbit...
"It's irresponsible to do nothing when we know North Korea could riddle us with missiles," echoed Tsutomu Takebe, secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "We should consider measures, including legal changes" required for such an attack, he said.
Japan's constitution foreswears the use of war to settle international disputes, but the government has interpreted that to allow defensive forces. The question is whether such a pre-emptive strike could be defined as self-defense.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
What we have here is a failure to comunicate
"If you’re under the impression that the press is neutral in this War on Terror, that we’re agnostic, and you could get that impression from some of the criticism, that couldn’t be more wrong." -- Bill Keller of the NYTimes
Er, no Mr. Keller. You misunderstood us. We don't think you are neutral in this War on Terror. Not at all. On the contrary - we have come to the conclusion that you are the enemy. The New York Times is Al Qaeda's intelligence agency.
Er, no Mr. Keller. You misunderstood us. We don't think you are neutral in this War on Terror. Not at all. On the contrary - we have come to the conclusion that you are the enemy. The New York Times is Al Qaeda's intelligence agency.