The Assertion that was made was in response what I posted here:
You asked the question as to whether we need to wait until American lives are lost to respond….To me, this means that there must be imminent danger—and that is a threshold that I believe none of our recent wars has crossed—and all other options should have been exhausted. Instead, our recent wars have been pre-emptive with no clear moral certainty that an attack was imminent.
Answer: Really?? Crossed a threshold?
- Oil is in our self-interest, like it or not. Gulf 1: Should Bush 1 NOT have rallied the world to throw Saddam out of Kuwait, especially when it looked like Saddam might be able to roll up the Saudis et al? Just or not?
- Gulf 2 – lots of UN resolutions were broken by Saddam. More importantly, if you read the Congressional resolution (of more importance than the UN resolutions to be sure), there was a whole litany of things that they found against Saddam and gave Bush 2 approval for. And yes, LOTS of countries still thought Saddam had WMDs and that they would be used against the West as he had done so against Iran and his own people. And Saddam had almost a year and a half of warning to comply. Just or not?
- We gave the Taliban plenty of advance warning – give up those that you are sheltering that trained and attacked us. Were there just reasons to go and eradicate the Taliban from Afghanistan?
My problem is that I believe that Ron Paul IS an isolationist on defense and not just a non-interventionist; and many believe likewise. I also believe that…






