I have decided to take a page from George W. Bush's foreign policy. If it's good enough for the United States of America, shouldn't it be good enough for me?
Thus, I would like to announce to all of my neighbors in the Santa Monica Hills that I am reserving the right to launch a preemptive attack on any of them-should I feel threatened. The nature of the threat need not be clearly defined in order for me to initiate, at my sole discretion, this first-strike option. After all, I don't want the first warning of an attack on me to be a mushroom cloud, right? To ensure that my neighbors comply with my security needs, I will be sending a personal emissary to their homes (probably a guy named Doug) to determine that they are not armed or-if indeed they possess weapons-to encourage them to disarm.
Of course, I want to reassure my neighbors that most of them have nothing to worry about.
I would never resort to force unless it were absolutely necessary. However, like the United States, I've already been attacked once (and severely wounded), and I don't intend to let that happen again. So keep your stereos turned down, folks, stop complaining about the naked women hanging out at my pool, and I'm sure we'll all get along just fine.
P.S. Just kidding. But is the position stated above any more ludicrous than the policy of preemption adopted by the Bush Administration?