“A lot of the controversy over the war, particularly in Iraq, stems from the fact that our actions were pre-emptive.

With respect to pre-emptive military action, please explain what you consider an acceptable threshold for American action. For example: Should we wait until an attack has been launched but not yet struck (re: Paul) before acting? Should we act when we have “reasonable suspicion” that another country or entity is actively planning violence against us? Should we act against any state or nation that we know wishes to cause us harm, before they have the opportunity to organize an act of violence against us?

Where do we draw that “line in the sand”?

I believe that’s an oversimplification of Paul’s foreign policy, but a) I don’t think he manages media sound-bytes as well as he should, and b) I’m not here to talk about him anyways. I’m here to debate my position against our current war strategery.

To begin with, I’m against any form of pre-crime. It’s simply too Orwellian for me. Whether it be locking people up at home, or killing them abroad, the very idea of pre-crime can only take us down the dark path towards tyranny.

But does that mean we have to be attacked prior to taking any action? Of course not. Let’s turn to John Locke for insight:

Read the rest here….

(CL in bold)

“To begin with, I’m against any form of pre-crime”:

What “crime”? Killing terrorists who we’re absolutely certain want to kill us is a “crime”? According to whom? I challenge this premise at the basest level. For pretty much the exact same reasons why KSM should not be entitled to our Constitutional criminal law protections, there is no reason why application of our criminal law standards should be extended to foreign wars. Something is a “crime” here only because we, through our elected representatives, say it is. In my humble opinion there is no such thing as a “crime” when American soldiers are defending our God-given right to exist and live as we see fit.

“…violating UN resolutions isn’t [a just reason for attacking Iraq]”:

Says who? I would agree with this only in the sense that I couldn’t care less what the UN says about anything. There is no credible argument to support a claim by anyone that we are bound by any UN resolution, for or against. By definition, doing so is an abdication of our sovereignty and therefore invalid. The UN simply should not be a factor in any decision we make to go to war.

“…we’ve built 2 Islamic States…”

This is a popular refrain but it is both misleading and irrelevant. To directly answer the question posed, the only metric relevant in deciding on a “line in the sand” is whether it is ‘more likely than not’ that a given enemy will inflict American casualties. As I mentioned in round 1, if we can “build” an Islamic state that is less of a threat to us than the predecessor nation, that’s a good thing. The goal is to build one that isn’t a threat at all and I for one would keep trying until we get it right. American lives depend on it.

While quantifying this “line” is admittedly difficult, the best analogy I can come up with is the budget reconciliation process; we need 51 “votes” out of a 100 to justly attack anyone. Those “votes” include considerations too numerous to mention here, but if collectively they add up to “more likely than not”, we are perfectly within our rights as a nation to preemptively attack. The “laws of war”, to the extent such ever really existed, have changed. Sworn enemies of the United States with access to ICBM’s and nuclear warheads must be dealt with swiftly and convincingly. Again, any resort to a corresponding American criminal justice standard is both in vain and irrelevant.

“…in the execution of our current war strategery, we’ve actively reduced our freedoms at home. Isn’t that exactly what the enemy wants?”

Read the rest of his response here…

While I did say that we shouldn’t act “pre-emptively,” and correctly compared this to a popular Tom Cruise movie, I also stated in no uncertain terms that we need not wait until actually being attacked. I also stated clearly who we should have attacked (after finishing the job in Afghanistan), and detailed why they were a much more clear and present danger as compared to Iraq.

If violating UN sanctions is reason enough for the United States to go to war, then we must accept them as our governing regime. This would include, of course, adopting their tyrannical “human rights” laws over our system of inalienable rights, and their bizarre “hate crime” laws among others. I reject all of this in favor of our Declaration and Constitution.

America first.

If you understand what an Islamic State is, then you must accept that they exist to either convert or kill the infidel. By law, an Islamic State cannot accept ours (or anyone else’s) freedoms. So unless we wish to adopt a more “politically-correct” understanding of Sharia law, building 2 Islamic States is indeed a strong gain for radical Islam.

As Lord Acton famously warned, “power corrupts.” Unfortunately, these are some of the truest words ever spoken. Yes, our government has violated our rights by abusing the Patriot Act, an Orwellian piece of legislation that was never needed in the first place.

Our Constitution may present roadblocks for those who believe in power, but in no way does the plain language of the Constitution impede anyone from taking whatever actions are necessary to protect our way of life. We know for example, that our intelligence services had plenty of advanced warnings prior to 9/11. It was not a lack of laws and power that prevented them from stopping the attack. It was mere incompetence. In other words, there was no need to alter the 4th amendment among others, which the Patriot Act does.

There is never a moment in life where compromising your principles makes sense. While one should certainly be “wise as a serpent,” one must still remain “innocent as a dove.” Nations are no different. Just look where compromising our principles has gotten us – a quagmire of war, a quagmire of debt, and a quagmire of progressivism.

And finally, as I stated in my initial answer to the question, this isn’t about Ron Paul. Anyone who thinks it is, is fighting a ghost.