"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "David Brooks"
writes:


Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?


There wasn't an LP then, but I expect it would be divided, just as it is
now
about Iraq.

Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force for politcal ends,
but
we have no problem with taking a war to the enemy's back yard once it has
begun.

The current division in the LP is one of world view rather than of
principle.
Some see terrorism as isolated incidents that must be addressed
individually.
LP members with this world view generally supported the invasion of
Afghanistan
but see little justification for Iraq.

Libertarian Hawks, like myself, see a larger world war, against
Islamofascism,
encompassing the whole of the middle east, and much of Africa, Asia and
Europe.
We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not just
individual
governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate strategic target. Iraq
did
not topple the WTC, but Normandy didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either. In WW2
we
went where it was militarily expedient to fight fascism and we will fight
Islamofascism the same way now. Taking Iraq first minimzes the number of
Moslems we will have to kill to win this war.

But Libertarians are every bit as opposed to losing a war once we're in it
as
we arew to unnecessarily getting into one in the first place. We would
have
been quite content to let the marketplace decide whether capitalism and
the
rule of law would prevail over feudalism and theocracy, but they chose to
use
force and we will burn them to the ground if that's what it takes.

American libertarians make Hitler and his Nazis look like a soft touch.
Says a lot for the American right.