"even if a war increases state power it is better than the giant risk of a tyrant using the weapons he goes to great lengths to build." are you sure? what if others disagree? im not sure that a libertarian position is to force the state on people and then increase it size. im sure this has happened before...

how sure are you of this giant risk? who is being targeted anyway? assuming the threat is "real," is it entirely unrelated to the fact that America and co commit crimes of such great magnitude? and so, as a method of preventing an attack on America, should American violence in the Middle East stop, or increase?

everyone legitimises aggression as defence. why is it any different when the "defenders" are American? to ignore the consequences of America and co believing themselves to be the legitimate world police seems to me to be grossly mistaken. libertarians do not usually accept the lies told by their government.

so, why not nuke the whole of Iraq to make sure that nothing bad ever happens again? and Iran. and North Korea. and so on. this is the logical consequence of your position, is it not? "libertarians for war"?

perhaps you can give a few examples of previous interventions (mass state killings and the increase of state power) that have been both morally justified and successful. (e.g. WW2 being *all* Hitler's fault, etc)