I really don't think your post holds together very well. My point is that all wars involve damage to innocent people, and that one has to assume the outcome balances this out.

You are fogging the issue. We prosecuted WWII to defend ourselves, not to stop people from dying.

We prosecuted the american revolution not to stop people for dying, but to defend ourselves from the tyranny of illegitimate rule, and the preservation of our rights as people.

We prosecuted the Korean war to prevent the Korean peninsula from falling to communists.

What is "defending oneself" if not preventing people from dying? Or living in slavery? What the hell did we think Germany and Japan were going to do if they won? Spray graffiti on our buildings?

"Could America stand by and watch Israel destroyed, for example? How about Taiwan? South Korea? "

But none of this was happening or would have happened if Iraq was not invaded.

I was speaking of the idea of isolationism in general (remember the original thread?), not Iraq specifically, although any expert on the Middle East would tell you that Iraq was a direct threat to Israel. Not the only one, to be sure.

The only thing keeping Taiwan and South Korea free is American might, stationed overseas, and marshalled against nations that, to date, have never ever attacked the United States of America. Granted, Israel handles its own physical defense, but how much American money pays for it? During the Cold War, the same went for most of Europe, and assorted nations around the planet that were targeted for absorption by the Soviet Union.