Here's a strong anti-war statement for you:
"War is such an abomination that I favor taking whatever steps appear necessary to limit such wholesale bloodshed and destruction wherever they may occur, including the use of military force by the United States government (USgov). In Iraq, the goal should be to stop the warfare, and USgov military forces should be withdrawn only if such an action would facilitate that goal. If the goal of reducing casualties would be better served by USgov forces remaining in Iraq, then they should remain there."
Here's an even stronger anti-war statement:
"War is good for absolutely nothing. It should never be practiced, not even in 'self-defense.' To this end, no one should be allowed to possess instruments of warfare."
I doubt many Libertarian candidates are strongly anti-war enough to support even the first statement, let alone the second. You're not really looking for candidates who are anti-war, and if you found them, you probably wouldn't support them. What you're seeking are candidates willing to make strong statements opposing military intervention by USgov outside its conventionally recognized jurisdiction in general, and continued USgov involvement in Iraq in particular.
Opposing extra-jurisdictional USgov military intervention and opposing war are clearly two separate things. Michael, I believe you said I was correct about this -- did you forget our conversation and just slip back into "anti-war" rhetoric?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
From: mark selzer
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] My Anti-War Poll
Southern Vice Chair
Please email me your name if you endorse this statement:
"In deciding which LP candidate to support for president, I would give strong consideration to the one(s) having a bold anti-war and anti-Iraq war statement on their site."
I will be contacting the Kubby campaign about this issue <www.kubby.com/issues/index.html> and I'd like to get a sense of approx. how many local libertarians support me in this.