[SJackson]

I posted some of the relevent whereas' in post 62, all of which I agree with.

The essential disagreement centers around preemption. Where some of us are willing to take military action to elimanate a threat to America, Ron Paul would use military force after the fact. Noting that America's military strengths will deter a potential enemy. Just as they deterred some Islamic group about 6 years ago, like most Americans the details escape me now. Preemption is immoral, after all.

[jrooney]

Ron Paul would fight terror and our enemies on defense, AFTER they have attacked us on our soil. Exactly the opponent al Qaeda and our foreign enemies would like to fight. One that can be defeated because they will not go on the offense. If Ron Paul was POTUS when Pearl Harbor was attacked, he would not have taken the fight to the Japanese because he would be busy convincing the American public we deserved it and should stay out of the fight. If Ron Paul was POTUS during WW2, the French would be speaking German today.

[CJ Wolf]

“Just as they deterred some Islamic group about 6 years ago”

this goes back to the coulda woulda argument. Pre-9/11 We knew Al Queda wanted to strike our soil, we never responded to the Cole or many other attacks. I’m pretty sure Paul wouldn’t let that stand like our other leaders did. Nor would he let future attacks stand.

[kabar]

AQ is a non-state actor. Deterrence doesn’t work.