Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq.
It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period."
That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity.
Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position:"the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the
war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White
House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations
of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are
organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall
campaign..."
I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine.
Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for those with "excessive" wealth or income, they're far more statist than anyone else out there.
If the Greens were to ever to win control of the government, Washington would need nuking even more than it does now.
As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying technology, rather than using the political process.)
As for this drumbeat of "support the troops even if one opposes the war" nonsense, I say this is bullshit.
In any case, magical thinking is for christers and other superstitious persons: what one thinks of the war or the troops is not causally related to what happens to them.
I hope the war degenerates into a clusterfuck. This is not "causing" the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, just noting that if the U.S. secures a quick and crushing victory over the one-armed cripple (to paraphrase Eric Cordian), this will likely cause more adventurism and imperialism. And if the U.S. suffers heavy losses--though not defeat--it may cause Americans to think twice about trying to be the world's imperial power and beat cop all rolled into one.
(The possibility of actual military defeat of the U.S. side I do not consider plausible.)
The larger issue is the end of "principle," on either side. Congress is sitting this one out, with even the Democrats debating the role of insulating plastic washers in interstate electricity transmission instead of considering the very serious issues involved in pre-emptively starting a war. (Senator Byrd being a lone exception.)
And those who point to the heavy role of pro-Israeli war hawks in the Shrubya White House are deemed "anti-Semites."
Israel has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is in deep violation of many U.N resolutions...so why are they not taken out by some imperial power? And our strongest "allies" in the region are satrapies more repressive than Iraq...look to Saudi Arabia and compare it to life in Baghdad.
But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France.
--Tim May
