See my first answer here: Round 1: The Conservative Blogger Debate- The War On Terror – Question 2
See Russ's rebuttal here: The Right-Wing Blog Debate Dustup: Round 2
The following is my final response for this round.
While I did say that we shouldn't act "pre-emptively," and correctly compared this to a popular Tom Cruise movie, I also stated in no uncertain terms that we need not wait until actually being attacked. I also stated clearly who we should have attacked (after finishing the job in Afghanistan), and detailed why they were a much more clear and present danger as compared to Iraq.
If violating UN sanctions is reason enough for the United States to go to war, then we must accept them as our governing regime. This would include, of course, adopting their tyrannical "human rights" laws over our system of inalienable rights, and their bizarre "hate crime" laws among others. I reject all of this in favor of our Declaration and Constitution.
If you understand what an Islamic State is, then you must accept that they exist to either convert or kill the infidel. By law, an Islamic State cannot accept ours (or anyone else's) freedoms. So unless we wish to adopt a more "politically-correct" understanding of Sharia law, building 2 Islamic States is indeed a strong gain for radical Islam.
As Lord Acton famously warned, "power corrupts." Unfortunately, these are some of the truest words ever spoken. Yes, our government has violated our rights by abusing the Patriot Act, an Orwellian piece of legislation that was never needed in the first place.
Our Constitution may present roadblocks for those who believe in power, but in no way does the plain language of the Constitution impede anyone from taking whatever actions are necessary to protect our way of life. We know for example, that our intelligence services had plenty of advanced warnings prior to 9/11. It was not a lack of laws and power that prevented them from stopping the attack. It was mere incompetence. In other words, there was no need to alter the 4th amendment among others, which the Patriot Act does.
There is never a moment in life where compromising your principles makes sense. While one should certainly be "wise as a serpent," one must still remain "innocent as a dove." Nations are no different. Just look where compromising our principles has gotten us - a quagmire of war, a quagmire of debt, and a quagmire of progressivism.
And finally, as I stated in my initial answer to the question, this isn't about Ron Paul. Anyone who thinks it is, is fighting a ghost.
Must Read: And the debate continues…..