I don’t know, but Paul’s the one making the ridiculous statements. Maybe you’d better talk to him about it.
By the way, I’m neither interventionist or non-interventionist. Simply a commonsense conservative who believes we should defend the nation when threatened or under attack. And we’re definitely under attack. In case you missed the goings on over the last couple of decades, the entire free world is under attack by Islamic fascist jihadists.
In 2007, under the current world situation, we are taking an interventionist stance. If by intervening we can stop an attack on our people by weapons than can harm more than just a few in one single instance, that is good policy.
This is not the war of 1812, it is not the "Wilsonian" era engagements and it is not the 1940s. There are real weapons out there that can inflect great harm from a great distance. Though they have been around for decades they are now coming into the purview of nations and entities who no longer value self preservation as we do.
I have seen your post about the terrorist not being able to get nukes, or if they can, just a couple. They are pursuing them, that is somewhat obvious, be it the rogue group or nations. So what if they only get a few. How many is enough that would pierce the veil of taking a proactive stance? One, maybe used in Tulsa with 350K dead? How about two and we add Atlanta and another 300K dead?
The dynamics of warfare have shifted, and to be honest we have been late in realizing that and are still mired in our ways in our active pursuit of our enemies. We will have to deal with this at some point. I would rather not be doing it from beyond the grave. I know you Paul folks say we have been scared by the administration and all that rot. Sorry, it was before that. This has been growing for years and now is the time to stop it come hell or high water. The dead could care less about the finer points of Constitutional law...