I can't find "the question" on this thread, -- much less any isolationists who have run for cover.
Can you pose that question again?
I'm happy to...
There are only two forms of defense.
Ah, now I see. You decree there are only two ways we can defend ourselves:
a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack. b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.
Which one do you support and why?
-- Then insist that your opponent can only choose one, - which if its "hunker", -- makes him an "isolationist". -- That's not "neo-con reasoning", but it sure ain't very rational.
Rational men [lots of libertarians are rational] understand that [constitutionally speaking], we can defend ourselves against enemies, both foreign and domestic, as we see fit, - as long as we do not deny persons in the USA their rights to life, liberty, or property, - in so doing.
Oh, you think there is another option besides “offensive” and “defensive” strategies?
What are the other options?
I’ll make it simple, since you clearly have no personal experience with war, battle, fighting, even on a perosnal level I suspect.
Make it personal, so that you can’t miss the point.
Your family home is attacked daily by thugs in the neighborhood. Each day without response, the attcks get worse. You are certain that they will eventually kill your family if YOU don’t DO SOMETHING!
What are your options and label them offensive (pre-emptive), defensive (reactionary) or whatever other strategy you think exists...
“Rational men [lots of libertarians are rational] understand that [constitutionally speaking], we can defend ourselves against enemies, both foreign and domestic, as we see fit, - as long as we do not deny persons in the USA their rights to life, liberty, or property, - in so doing.”
So which do you consider the greater threat:
Islamic Fundamentalistic Terrorism?
Your own Government?