Inherent in religion is the belief that yours is the only true one and that everyone else should believe in it. I don't know about "major movement", but there's your "aim". Now if you are trying to claim "major movement" as WMD-capability (means), that's one thing. But everyone knows Iraq had no such means, and that it was OUR false premise for the invasion. Surely you are not going to use the Iraq war as the model for your military solution.
We may need you to define "cold war" since you seem to be blaming it for causing "tens of millions killed and trillions wasted" and "allowing death, destruction, and totalitarian control of people to proliferate" (for causing communism). I do not understand your reasoning. As far as the problem that I see: the bigger one is using our military to intervene in other country's problems. There are many ethical problems with your claim that we should have annihilated the soviets; one of which is that you speak from hindsight. Another is that "Libertarianly-speaking" you can't go around killing people because you think they are going to obtain bigger guns and use them against you in the future. I think the flaw in your view of libertarianism might stem from an oversight: you are forgetting the "consistent / universal" part. Libertarianism is not annihilating the liberty of others (and/or eliminating them) to gain liberty for your self/country. Nanny-state mentality is a result of religious concepts of moral weakness and sin. Just because other religions have similar moral codes doesn't mean Christian theocratic laws are not Christian by origin. --------------------------------- What are the other "lots of religions" aiming for world theocracy you claim? I can think of only Islamism? I see no major movements within Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or others currently trying to dominate the world religiously. The last major movement for world domination was atheistic communism. What should be done about political Islamism? I don't have all the answers, but it should at least be contained and opposed. In relation to Iran, Islamists should be prevented from having nuclear weapons. That was the trump card preventing the free world from annihilating the Soviets and ending communism early. Don't let the Islamists get such a capability. You see no problem in the tens of millions killed and trillions wasted on communism? Your association of "Christian elements" with "drug and consensual crime" laws is nonsensical. Almost all religions and cultures oppose drugs and personal vices. Islamic law punishes those a lot more severely. This is a nanny state mentality, not a religious one. I would say there's nothing inherently non-libertarian about military aggression. It depends entirely on the purpose of the aggression. If used to obtain or maintain liberty, then it is quite consistent with libertarianism. A cold war that allows death, destruction, and totalitarian control of people to proliferate is very non-libertarian. A hot war to stop or preempt it seems better for liberty. Again, think of the lives saved and liberty gained had the Soviets been eliminated before they had the bomb.
