Ok, I was a little concerned about this until I read Gato's link. I guess it was ok, the cooperation of the government of Yemen is what was concerning me. As long as they consented to this, then I guess its fine. Assuming there is no concent, I have a problem. It would be different if we were say at war with Yemen, I don't know, maybe we should be, but we aren't. In any event, it 'seems' justified. I too am skeptical about what governments report to us as the 'facts' but I guess its the best we are going to have to go by nevertheless.
There is really no real precedent for what is going on now, by traditional standards its going to seem strange, unusual, and most certainly dishonerable. I don't know if what we are doing is 'right' but for obvious reasons we are doing it, and we will continue to do it. I can't say I'm happy about how this 'war' is being fought, but I don't really think we have any precedents to guide our way in this one. We are setting precedents, not following them this time, for the most part, there are none to follow. It complicates the matter enormously that we are at 'war' with a nonsovereign nongovermental body. We aren't at 'war' with a state, or even a group per se, but rather we are seemingly at 'war' with an idea, a concept, terrorism. I honestly think calling it 'at war' is a bit of a stretch, but nevertheless, that is the term we are using. I would say its more along the lines of "making the world safe for democracy" than a war. But everyone uses the 'war' to decribe it, so by concensus it must be a 'war.' I worry a LOT about the precedents being set, I mean fighting this 'war' on many continents and in so many different nations. Its as though you no longer need to declare war on a nation to attack military targets with in their borders (assuming of course those targets are "against us"). I don't know, it worries me, but as long as we have concent, I guess we are probably still acting honorably. Acting without consent would be another matter.
