It is preposterous to infer that all libertarians support the non-aggression pact. Making such an inference would refute all non-collectivist beliefs that are a part of the libertarian foundation.

It is also ludicrous to believe that the powerful have the "responsibility" to defend the weak. It is the individual's prerogative to do so, not his mandate. Yet it should not be forgotten that this prerogative should be exercised when necessary.

A good semi-random example is if there are thousands of people being slaughtered and their government and everyone else is doing nothing, we need to put a stop to it using the large forces that we have. Otherwise why have such a large standing army?

Don't even mention "oh, we shouldn't have such a large military in the first place, it costs too much." No it doesn't, such intervention costs only a small fraction of the U.S. budget.

This country became strong because it had a long-standing policy of neutrality, which afforded it a secure period of time in which to build up adequate forces for the purpose of protecting itself from aggressors. We should all be thankful our succeeding leaders took George Washington's advice and gave us this chance, a blessing at the least. This advice, taken by other nations, would eliminate the need for the U.S. and other "superpowers" (I despise that term) to step in over and over again in defense of peoples' rights around the world.

Unfortunately, other nations are so involved in disputes, many of them internationally intra-cultural, that it is impossible for them to take George Washington's advice and become a peaceful, strong fortress of their own beliefs. The Middle East is essentially fallen Persia, which has fragmented into a multitude of states loosely bound by a religious governing document (Koran).

Sound familiar? Here's a hint: it starts with an "A" and ends with "already happened to us." Consider the analogy: Middle East = U.S.; Persia = Great Britain; Koran = Articles of Confederation; [country in Middle East] = [state in U.S.].

The amazing Articles, drawing all together to one cause are parallel to the Koran. This, although ideologically sound, is realistically a civil war waiting to happen. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam was nothing more than a runaway governor refusing to fall into the ranks of other nations. Now, I realize there are holes in my theory, but it is not meant to be scientific, just loosely eye-opening.

The people of that region, unfortunately, do not have enough prominent men who realize this and can actually do something about it. This is a slow process, one requiring diplomatic solutions. What I am saying, in case anyone is waiting for the punch line, is the old wherever-its-from proverb, "If you give a man a fish . . .." You know the rest. Iraq was a risk to our national fortress, and I personally condoned the pre-emptive military action promised originally by President Bush. It is not necessary, however, for a couple-hundred thousand troops to be sent out. Give them the fish; don't throw it at their head.

If the people of this country believe that defending the weaker is necessary, then it is their prerogative. However, I resent politicians' propaganda of "it is our duty as a nation . . .." Because, quite simply, it's not.