Nik, at what point do the nationalist/anti-interventionists draw the line on, well, intervention. Is it only okay to deploy force to counter a direct threat to US territory? In genuine humanitarian cases? To protect a direct threat to an ally? To protect international trade routes?
Do they really think that the US should remain absolutely inactive and let the rest of the world get on with it up until the point enemy airborne are dropping on US soil? Surely there is a line somewhere between the Bush agenda of overthrowing every uncooperative foreign state and say deploying force to counter