We Are All Spaniards

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.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG