|Friend or Foe?|
The Left has had a
field day protesting at Johnny (did-I-say-that) Howard's statement that it was
acceptable for Australia to undertake preemptive military strikes in other
countries if there was a direct and specific threat to Australia, and if there
was 'no other way'.
have said that military action in another country is 'unacceptable' - but
presumably regard Indonesia's invasion of East Timor was an exception
to the rule. The terrorist-friendly
south-east Asian countries - The Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand, have
jumped onto the bandwagon too, squealing about Australian aggression.
Even the ALP has tried to
lay in the boot, though Simon (how-can-I-look-important) Crean did say the
whole thing was a put-up to draw attention away from Liberal's crushing defeat
in the Victorian election. Yes Simon - you've been out-maneuvered again.
But this raises fundamental questions about defense. Apparently the Left
think that preemptive defense is always unjustified - that if
Australia could only take action after she were
attacked. Recall that Johnny (I-chose-my-words-carefully) Howard said it would
apply if there was no other way. Would they take the same position if an Australian criminal was threatening them
or their families?
Isn't it interesting that the Left consider that preemptive
defense is unacceptable against corrupt Asian nations, but that it is perfectly
reasonable against law-abiding Australian citizens who want to own guns. The
double standard is alive and well in the Left.
In fairness though, hypocrisy is also alive and well in the right - who are
outraged at the prospect of their government taking away
their hand-guns, but yet are all out for attacking Iraq - just in case Saddam has a
cache of WMDs in his presidential palace.
At least Johnny (wanting-to-control) Howard's position is consistent - he
believes he is the responsible one, and he will decide who can have weapons,
and he will take action - at least in his role as as the US's deputy sheriff.