Individualists and anti-collectivists should be opposed to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran

What makes them hate us? Your wars. Occupation. Intervention. Overextension of our government's authority into their sovereign nations. You cite some cleric from years ago -- I'll cite Osama. Our occupation of Saudi Arabia and military/financial support for Israel (funded through non-voluntary taxation) are the reasons he has cited for hating America. After defeating the Nazis (and we should defeat Al Qaeda), we took a look at the policies we had engaged in that led to the rise of Nazism (the heavy sanctions on Germany following WWI), and resolved not to allow these conditions to arise again. So, too, should we look at these root causes of terrorism, and it cannot be doubted that foreign interventionism and our government's overstepping of its constitutional bounds into the domestic affairs of sovereign nations are the primary causes. You are arguing for a perpetuation of the causes of terrorism, until what? "They" are all dead? We kill one terrorist and fifty innocents, and some of the loved ones of those innocents become terrorists -- and we then kill them along with 500 innocents, and... Ad infinitum. Of course, in your view, the Iraqi people being killed are not "innocent," and that is the immorality on which your advocacy of war is premised. This is different from the traditionalist moralist who believes the Iraqis are innocent, and we are fighting "to liberate them." The basis for warmongering is different, but the result is the same: Murder of innocents at the hands of the state. Again, to broach the subject of "rich people support the war more than average people." You were unable to provide any evidence to suggest this, so it is nothing other than an assumption you're making. And when calculating whether "the rich" could support this war, voluntarily, the military-industrialists and fiat-money fraudsters have to be excluded, because their wealth is created through expropriation of the working class's wealth, and/or government's inflation of the money supply (expropriation of savers' wealth). It is impossible to "voluntarily" fund a war with money that either would not exist in the absence of taxation, or must be created coercively, through an illegitimate government monopoly such as the Federal Reserve System. Although I admire your adherence to principle, I do believe your logic is flawed. The voters shall decide, but I believe I have demonstrated why involuntarily funded wars are inherently collectivist; indeed all wars are collectivist because they pit an "us" versus a "them." When you are willing to look at massive swaths of humanity as "collateral damage" or hold them guilty because they do not flee their property under the coercive threat of U.S. bombs being dropped on them, you are guilty of collectivism. Furthermore, I believe I have provided ample evidence to strongly suggest that, at least when it comes to Iraq and Iran, these wars could not be funded voluntarily. Thus, the question is "should individualists support the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the pending war in Iran?" While collectivists may be able to logically support them, individualists, I believe I have shown, cannot.