Round 2: The Conservative Blogger Debate - The War On Terror

Turns out, conservatives don't agree on everything. One area of contention is America's handling of the War on Terror, and its effect on our foreign policy.

Today, two conservative bloggers (who happen to be great friends of this blog) will be continuing their head-to-head in what we believe is the first multi-blog, multi-round debate of its kind.

Once again... it's on.

Round 2 of the Conservative Blogger Debate begins now.

Here's our second round question:

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"?

For the initial response, please see The Classic Liberal. Rebuttal will be from Russ at That's Right. Final response, back to theCL.

Our other moderator is Steve at Motor City Times.

And for assorted commentary and punditry, please check out these other blogs which are partnered in the debate, and will be chiming in as we go along:Wyblog, Republican Redefined, Washington Rebel, Theo Spark, and Present Discontent.

Feel free to comment on any (or better yet, ALL) of these blogs.

-----------
Links from Round 1 of The Conservative Blogger Debate, for those just catching up.