Tim, I would say yes in 99% of the cases
If you are saying that in 99% of the cases we need nearly incontrovertible proof that someone is definitely going to attack us, you hold the US to an impossible standard in 99% of all cases.
I would say rather we should have solid evidence (a much lower standard then "nearly incontrovertible proof") that that an attack against the US, our allies, or our strategic interests (not just the US) is likely (not just is a "foregone conclusion"), or has already happened (which is the case with Iraq).
Ted, would you say that you support, lean towards supporting, are uncertain or ambivilent, lean towards opposing, or are opposed to, the fact that the US was involved in the following 20th century conflicts
WWI, Korea, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War.
Note in all of these cases the US was not attacked before we entered unless you count a few torpedoed ships in WWI. There certainly was no "foregone conclusion" that the US faced an attack. (I left out WWII because we where attacked before we joined the war, and Vietnam because I figure you think the US should not have gotten involved).
Tim |
