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

It is legitimate to use retaliatory force, either as an individual, or as an agent of the limited state on behalf of a victimized individual. It is not legitimate, however, to murder the aggressor's family or whole neighborhood, and destroy the property of non-aggressors, in pursuit of the aggressor. This is the effect that war produces. I find it chilling that Objectivists now use the same logic of neoconervative forebear, William F. Buckley -- whom Ayn Rand despised: "Buckley acknowledged that he favored 'Big Government for the duration' of the Cold War, owing to the Soviet threat. Heavy taxes and centralized power were the order of the day, and Buckley's individualism was nothing more than pleasant rhetoric." (http://www.lewrockwell.com...) You have simply substituted the Soviet menace with an even less frightening foe, and made the same rationalization for big government, centralism, and heavy taxes: "The US government, however harmful the taxes it raises are, has that antivenom; and 9/11 was one hell of a rattlesnake bite-- Obama might hate your freedom, but Osama hates it more." Do I hear an echo? QUESTION: Is it moral to support a war that could not be funded voluntarily? You suggest that the Iraq War and the "War on Terrorism" COULD be funded voluntarily, but could you support these wars if you were convinced that they couldn't? You also say "rich people support the war more than average" -- I would like some evidence to back this up. And when providing it, you will need to exclude the "rich" people who make their riches from war -- everyone connected with the military-industrial complex, and everyone whose part of the fiat-money empire. Of course they support the war -- that's how they receive their welfare! No wars, no welfare for the rich. Excluding this group of societal leeches, there aren't a whole lot of "rich" people left, and they certainly would not be able to financially support the war. Additionally, I will argue that terrorists pose no real threat to your life or liberty. GOVERNMENT IS THE THREAT. I'm certain Ms. Rand would agree. "... you're more likely to drown in your bathtub than be killed by terrorists. In fact, as many people have died of allergic reactions to peanut butter than have died at the hands of terrorists, according to government statistics. But billions of dollars are spent looking for Osama bin Laden and stringing up Saddam Hussein, while jars of peanut butter are much bigger threats . . ." SOURCE: http://www.lewrockwell.com... In response to 9/11, people who would have normally flown opted to drive instead. As a result of this increase in traffic activity, 1500 people died who wouldn't have -- almost half as many as died on 9/11! SOURCE: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... Consider the crazed school/mall shooters. Now imagine if Al Qaeda had been behind those killings. Would that have made the killings more sinister? Would we be at any more risk? If not, then why are we not as paranoid over these recent killings, as you are over the supposed risk presented by terrorism? Final question: Why do the terrorists desire to do us harm? Do Objectivists really believe the "because they hate our freedom" B.S. of the neo-Trotskyist/neocons? I though Objectivists were rational and observed objective reality -- not paternalistic and demonstrably untrue platitudes designed to propagandize and inspire irrational fear.