Um, how about something in between.
First, we have never, and will never, attack "any old country". Where do you even get that? There are hundreds of countries, and since 2001 we have attacked precisely 2 (two) of them, and with plenty of evidence in either terror complicity (Afghanistan) or violation of a standing cease-fire agreement (Iraq). "any old"?? Of course not.
But on the other extreme, if we insist on a strict courtroom-level standard of evidence before we attack any country complicit in terror attacks... we never will. (Which, of course, is the point for some anti-war ideologues.) By (in effect) insisting on such a standard, Ron Paul (as well as the left) lay the basis for making terrorism profitable: our enemies can see perfectly well that (if the Paul philosophy holds sway) all they have to do is cover their tracks pretty well, and they can attack us with impunity. Well, can't they? Wouldn't Ron Paul be on the front lines of the "hey, the links haven't been proven" movement in any such scenario?
It really makes very little sense to telegraph to one's enemies precisely (a) how they can damage you and (b) how they can do so with impunity. By declaring a priori that terrorism has nothing to do with states and that terrorists are "just" hoodlums, Ron Paul is doing precisely that, whether he knows it (or intends to) or not.
“And the alternative? Attack any old country without evidence of knowledge or complicity in terrorist attacks, but a mere suspicion?”
Without evidence?
What about the $25,000 to each homicide bomber that would blow up innocent civilians in Israel?
What about the fact that well known terrorist Abu Abbas was being sheltered by Iraq?
What about the fact that well known terrorist and Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces IN Iraq on April 15.
Iraq also harbored Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists” list for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front.
What about the fact that Iraqi intelligence officers met with Mohammed Atta and other AQ members prior to 9/11?
What about the fact that Abu Musab al Zarqawi sought medical treatment in Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan?
A second al-Qaeda operative, the Iraqi national Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, also returned to Baghdad after fleeing Afghanistan.
In the 1970s and 1980s, saddam backed the fundamentalist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood
I could go on and on with the links to terrorism since it’s been documented not only by our intelligence services but other intelligence services worldwide.
Oh and then there was the court case filed by 2 families of 9/11 victims.
“As the May 8, 2003 New York Post and other news outlets reported, Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.”
So if there was no “evidence” as you claim, then how did the plaintiffs win their case?