Replies

I disagree with Ron Paul that our initial actions in Iraq were an aggressive use of force as opposed to a defensive and retaliatory use of force. The principle of non-interventionism is, as with many other principles, subject to interpretation and application. Not everyone will agree with whether an act of force is offensive or defensive.

Do you agree with the principle of non-interventionism?

As to "enforcing a contract" with Saddam, I call BS on that one. You don't contract with murdering dictators. Either he had sufficient involvement with 9/11 to warrant the use of force against him (I think so), or he did not. I don't give 2 figs about the First Gulf War, its aftermath, consequences, or restrictions. None of that is worth sacrificing the lives of our military for.

As to the "authorization of force" issue, see my post above.

The contract was the terms of peace after the first Gulf War. To break an agreement is fraud and aggression. To fail to enforce an agreement is also fraud, while enforcing agreements is not “interventionist.” Libertarians like Ron Paul should understand fraud and aggression.