Our Navy has been shooting little fish in a big barrel, which some take issue with, but what has inflamed the antithisadministrationalists is a recent double-tap incident, where the target was not sunk with the first blast, so a follow up was used to send the vessel to Davy Jone's Locker. What seems to have some folks upset is that the first blast capsized the vessel, with a couple of crew members clinging to the hull when the second blow was delivered.
Their outrage drips with insincerity.
Were the crew clinging to the capsized vessel any less a threat than they were when the boat was upright and they were on deck? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you are either an idiot, or suffering from TDS, or both.
Think. Just think.
Were the crew's surface-to-air missiles lost in the first blast? Of course not. Why? Because they didn't have any. How about their 50 caliber machine guns? Same here. Can't lose what you don't have. Torpedoes...yeah that's the story. No it isn't. This was not a torpedo boat.
The fact is this crew presented every bit as much a military threat to the US after the boat was capsized as they did before: nada.
So if you're on the side of "we shouldn't do that" logic dictates that the second strike is no more contemptible than the first, as the crew never presented an imminent military threat.
If you're on the other side of the equation you might argue that any drugs they might transport, and there has been no evidence presented, these drugs represent weapons of mass destruction and transporting them is a terrorist act. After all we do have a war on terror. You might even reflect back on the English giving Native Americans smallpox infected blankets as you conveniently ignore that these drugs would be for paying customers. As in "market demand." The English were very open about their intent to kill the Natives, but killing addicts is just bad business.
Not matter which side you favor, the second strike is no more an issue than the first. If you support the military action, then sinking the boats and killing the crew is justified regardless of the number of missile strikes required. Anything less is illogical. If you fall on the other side of the issue, then the second strike is no worse than the first, or perhaps it is better to say that the first strike is no better than the second, and you should be just as incensed at a one-shot kill. Anything less is illogical.
How about we spend less time with hyperbolic partisan rhetoric and exercise a few brain cells.
Posts
