For information on the first round and for some background, please click here.
The second round’s question has been posed by Scratcher of Makes My Brain Itch:
A lot of the controversy over the war, particularly in Iraq, stems from the fact that our actions were pre-emptive.
With respect to pre-emptive military action, please explain what you consider an acceptable threshold for American action. For example: Should we wait until an attack has been launched but not yet struck (re: Paul) before acting? Should we act when we have “reasonable suspicion” that another country or entity is actively planning violence against us? Should we act against any state or nation that we know wishes to cause us harm, before they have the opportunity to organize an act of violence against us?
Where do we draw that “line in the sand”?
The Classic Liberal’s answer is here.
Russ’s response over at That’s Right, is here.
TheCL’s retort to Russ’s response is here.
Big thanks to Scratcher and Steve over at Motor City Times for devising the questions and moderating the debate.
