Pardon my late response, as I've been out of the country for a while (and still am).
Supporters of intervention are, by default, supporters of the war. "Intervention" is a euphemism for armed invasion -- i.e. war.
Supporters of the war used government force to metaphorically hold a gun to my head, pull my credit card out of my wallet, and charge over $1,400 (so far) to support their war.
Supporters of the war used nationalist rhetoric to push the war forward.
Supporters of "intervention" had the option to voluntarily fund their own private invasion, with mercenaries, but instead used nationalist rhetoric, nationalist resources, and a nationalist taxation system -- along with the threat of violence against peaceful taxpayers who didn't pay up -- to get what they wanted.
Supporters of a "USgov troop presence" continue to steal money from the pockets of US taxpayers to support a cause that the average US taxpayer doesn't support. Rather than offer to voluntarily fund the conflict themselves -- and refund US taxpayers the $1 trillion or more that this war will ultimately cost them in direct costs and interest payments -- supporters of the war continue to rob US taxpayers to support an increasingly immoral WAR.
Not "intervention" or "police action" or "troop presence" or any other Orwellian phraseology -- it's a nationalist WAR paid for by money stolen from the pockets of American taxpayers at the end of an IRS agent's gun.
That's not Libertarian. Never was, never will be.
No worries over the promptness of your response. You are always welcome to engage in political discussions on your own schedule as far as I am concerned.
I wish you'd taken the time to address the points I raised however. If you are unsure which points I'm referring to, please ask. Please also feel free to take longer in responding next time if it will mean a more comprehensive response.
I disagree that supporters of the U.S. government intervention in Iraq "had the option to voluntarily fund their own private invasion, with mercenaries." What makes you believe that such an effort is considered legal, or would be tolerated by, the U.S. government?
You charge supporters of the intervention with "[using] government force to metaphorically hold a gun to my head, pull my credit card out of my wallet, and charge over $1,400 (so far) to support their war." Would you make a similar point to supporters of a "USgov police presence" in United States cities, or do you believe stealing money to support this police presence is somehow more justified than USgov sending troops to Iraq? If so, what do you consider to be the most important difference, and do you consider your position to be nationalist or not?
It's certainly true that supporters of USgov invasion of Iraq "used nationalist rhetoric" to bolster their position. But as I have pointed out, so did opponents of the U.S. invasion, although generally to a somewhat lesser extent.
Terms like "intervention" and "troop presence" are not simply euphemisms for "war." It would be possible for the USgov intervention in Iraq to continue, but the war to cease, or vise versa. (The latter possibility, of the intervention ending but the war continuing on a bloodier scale, relates to one of the questions I previously asked to which you did not respond.) On a similar note, USgov has a troop presence in many countries. That does not mean there is a war going on in each of those countries. I've never referred to the conflict in Iraq as a "police action" and have no plans to do so, so I won't discuss that one.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>