Yes, I suppose that defending the US could be extended to defending her interests abroad, but where do you draw the line? If the "live and let live" philosophy the Libertarians espouse could be extended to other nations, then we might have a reasonable foreign policy.
As for "entangling alliances", should we really go it alone every time?
Yes, if needed. Iraq is a perfect example. Saddam violated every aspect of the cease fire for years and years on end. After indirectly kicking out the UN inspectors, who documented his thwarting of their inspections time and time again, we asked the UN to do something. And do something they didn't. They yacked incessantly and did nothing, while at the same time being involved in the oil for food scandal.
Conservatives like myself, wanted to Bush to simply do what needed done immediately. Instead he waited nearly two years for the UN to do what they should have done 5 years prior. I'm convinced this is why we didn't find all the WMDs our intel, and the worlds intel, said was there. We gave him two years to hide, transfer, and dispose of the WMDs before we got there.
No, the business of nation building is not something we should be doing, as shown by our latest attempt.
What's wrong with our latest attempt? We have an ally in the middle east, and a nation of people that are ecstatic to be free from a horrible ruthless dictator.
This is a picture from a demonstration in support of the U.S.-Iraq security pact, Nov, 2008. Do they seem unhappy to you? No, more like celebrating our support of them.
Is there really a scientific way to determine when life begins? Is a zygote a human life? Does life begin when the first cells begin to multiply, or when the spirit enters the body? Just when does that happen? I don't think there is any way to prove any of that.
When a egg becomes a viable human, then it is alive. The classic definition of life is simply metabolism, growth, reproduction. The egg alone does none of these. Once conception happens, all three happen. At that point it is a living human being.
Sure, taxes need to be kept to a reasonable level, but that doesn't mean no taxes at all. A substance that causes problems to the rest of us should have to pay for those problems. Why should I have to pay to lock up a drunk in order to keep him off of the streets when I don't drink and drive myself? Let the alcohol pay for the alcoholic.
What was the problem with prohibition? Supposedly the amount of crime and specifically organized crime, was oh so horrible, that they had to legalize alcohol to stop it... right?
Ok, the amount of taxes necessary to cover the cost of alcohol related social problems, would be so high, that a black market for booze would undoubtedly spring into existence. Similarly, for Tobacco, raising taxes, for even the far few social costs, would still cause a black market for the sticks.
Already in Ohio, we have a black market for imported, cheaper cigarettes. Now granted the Ohio market is smallish, and very new. In New York, which had steeper taxes on tobacco, the black market was much larger, and much more organized. However, next month, and I hear the month after, taxes on cigarettes is going up. People are going to be looking for cheap Tobacco, and already know a few that are going to be in the business of importing untaxed cigs.
The main point is this. You are still going to have the same result as prohibition.