Defensive militaries don't practice "pre-emption" and libertarians don't support starting wars with those who have not attacked you. The word "defense" means you don't attack unless attacked.
The things mention added together add up to zero threat to America. We had no valid libertarian reason to attack in 1991, in 2003, or any point between or since. We wait until we are attacked or are in the process of being attacked. Anything else is not defense. Anything else is offense. If we have policies of military non-intervention and neutrality in all disputes, combined with not selling or giving weapons or money to any other nation, and building a strong national defense (not an offense spread all over the world like the Roman Empire) and free-market capitalism with all nations, it might be 200 years before we had to worry about any attacks just like Switzerland. --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Given the information below, add two and two together: used ballistic > missles, had relationships with terrorists, used WMD, hated America. > > All these add up to a pattern that suggests a threat. Since we acted, > we can't say for sure if the the threat was significant enough to act. > We can also Monday Morning General and say the deposition of the > dictator was not necessary then or ever. > The real question is, how long do we wait, how great must the threat > be, before we act. Do we wait until destruction is certain? Do we > take the modern law enforcement approach and say "we can't do anything > until he comes and hurts us?" > Pre-emption is valid when the threat is great enough. Paul obviously > believes there was no valid threat. I stand at about 60/40, maybe > there was a threat, I don't think action was required in 2003. This > does not, however, mean that pre-emption is an invalid use of the > military. > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote: > > > > > No part of anything you mentioned makes Iraq a threat to America or is > > valid justification to use the United State's DEFENSIVE military > > against him. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Brian Holtz" <brian@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Saddam's hatred for America (regardless of whether some think > > > Saddam's hatred justified), and > > > * > > > > > > Saddam's support for terrorists that have targeted American > > > civilians; > > > > > > > > > > > * Saddam's record of aggression, in which he > > > > > > > > > > > > * killed over a million people, > > > > > > * invaded one sovereign neighbor, > > > > > > * annexed another by force, > > > > > > * fired ballistic missiles at two more, > > > > > > * defied UN nuclear disarmament mandates that Iraq was bound to obey > > > as a 1945 UN Charter signatory, > > > > > > * used chemical WMDs in a war of aggression, and > > > > > > * used chemical WMDs in genocidal attacks on its own citizens; > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
