Weird stuff. Watching the debate over the current crisis along the Israeli-Lebanese border. The outcry for Israel to stop bombing is overwhelming. But there's a huge logical inconsistency. Remember that we must be logically consistent, or we invite the charge that "we stand for nothing."
See you on the flip. . .
The world community has already agreed that Israel was justified in taking military action against Hizb'Allah in response to the attacks upon Israel.
The world community agreed that the United States was justified in taking military action against Al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan.
We have absolutely lambasted the Bush Administration for not going after Al-Qaeda in Tora Bora. We've roasted Bush on a spit over a fire for not finishing the job.
And now we condemn Israel for attempting to do exactly what we condemned the Bush Administration for failing to do.
This kind of logical inconsistency is what gets us tarred and feathered every time.
Now I know someone is going to bring up Iraq. Apples and oranges. We had no justification to to take military action in Iraq. Therefore everything we do there starts from wrong, and you can't get to right when you start from wrong.
The logically consistent argument is that Bush was wrong for failing to finish the job in Afghanistan. Israel would be just as wrong to not finish the job against Hizb'Allah.