YOU: I do not believe in preemptive war. I do not believe that the US should be an empire.
I asked you how many Americans would you required killed before you're willing to defend America? That in no way implies a preemptive war by us. If any one preempted 9/11 it was Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. We reacted to the deaths of almost 3000 Americans on AMERICAN soil. That's NOT preemption.
I firmly believe we should defend ourselves both abroad and via the 2nd amendment.
That's what I'm talking about, Bucko...
I do not believe that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and we should not be at war there.
I don't share that belief.
I am as strongly against a Republican President trying to do the nation building thing as I was against Impeached ex-President Clinton doing it in Haiti.
Oh, give it a break. We also did it back in 1945-7 when we helped rebuild Germany, Italy, France, England, et. al. from a devastating war. What's worse; nation building, or letting those most devastated by war wallow in their adversity? Is that the Christian thing to do? And since we weren't the ones who started the war but the ones most instrumental in ending it successfully, doesn't that behoove us as a major player to do our Christian part in rebuilding? And does that really define your (and Paul's) warped idea of "Nation Building" when we're helping those countries (including Iraq, Afghanistan, or whoever...) rebuild their countries based on their rules of law and government; not ours?
You people are clueless when it comes to World affairs. You listen to this little, pompous jerk who has sufficient support to be one of 435 members of the House, but is a 9/11 Truther and nutbag, and you believe he's the best thing since sliced bread. The guy's a jerk, and so are most of his followers. When most people who show up at his rallies are 9/11 Truthers, skinheads, right-wing dirt bags, that should tell you something. But no, you just carry on. Well, Bucko, I guess that defines you.
Now go back to your sandbox and get out your toys like a good little lad... Let those who understand the World and what America and the West are up against do the job you are so clueless about.
Before castigating "nation building" as a device, one would be advised to understand why it was being done in each case.
After WW II, we rebuilt Europe and Japan -- because there was good reason to do so. We needed allies in the Cold War. And we needed trading partners who could afford to buy our goods. Worked out for everybody, wouldn't we all agree (maybe even Ron Paul).
Clinton undertook "nation building" in Haiti (and Somalia) because the Left believes we should lift poor nations into prosperity with foreign aid and guidance from Harvard. There is no record of this approach ever having worked, anywhere. We can all agree on that, too, can't we?
Bush opted for "nation building" in Iraq because effectively fighting radical Islam required a competing idea. The idea was "freedom". Iraq as a successful democratic state would serve as a positive example to all of Islam -- and a reliable ally in the very middle of the Middle East.
The Islamofascists clearly recognized the risk a successful Iraq meant to them and put everything they had into the resistance. We won't know for several years whether the gambit was successful (if the Democrats don't piss it away first) -- but initial indications are positive. Bush gets credit for his vision, even if everybody doesn't agree with the strategy.