Oh this is very silly Amber. You make an elementary mistake here. Your entire argument is a strawman. You defend something which isn't attacked and dthen pretend it applies to the current war.
The "If, then" statement during war-time changes to "If ___ man is to survive, then ___ he must eradicate all threats to his life."
If all you mean is that people can defend themselves then fine, although that's not what those words actually mean quite. But an individual defending themselves is not remotely like a government initiating an invasion and occupation of another country and forcing its citizens to fight other individuals so as to spread the government's power.
In fact you are turning Objectivism on its head.
Please point out which American has his or her life directly threatened such that an invasion of Iraq is a solution? And if that were so then -- occording to you -- there would be a stream of volunteers to fight. Of course there is none, because everyone knows that this is "all about oil" and no American cares to fight this war.
When America was attacked on 9-11, that gave her full moral right to do whatever she had to to save *America*
That is of course, total bullshit. American reaction was to invade a third world country over oil. It had nothing whatsoever to do with defence. In fact the action certainly made America LESS secure. There is no right to attack and kill other people because you "feel" afraid. You sound like a feminist. Genuine self-defence means that you are being genuinely attacked --- not that you "feel" insecure, still less that you simply CLAIM to feel insecure. This is exactly the horseshit that feminists have made law in family court with restraining orders.
Once again I observe that on your argument Hitler was fully justified in invading Poland. Far more justified than America was in invading Afghanistan -- let alone Iraq.
The 'ends' we want to achieve is eradicating all threats to our security. The 'means' we can use to do that are: whatever ones we have to. Whatever atrocity we commit, including killing innocents, is distinctly not America's fault
You are saying on an individual level that murder is ALWAYS a good thing if the murderer only claims that he or she felt a little insecure. The facts don't matter. Murder is always good. Do you see that I wonder? You are also saying that the terrorist attacks on America were fully justified and good -- again far more so than any justification America has. Why? Because they felt like killing and that's always justified according to you.
It comes down simply to saying that VIOLENCE IS GOOD.
This is all so ridiculous Amber. You pretend to talk about self-defence but without any element of self-defence needing to be present.
Tell me do you think Saddam would be good if he detonated a nuclear bomb in America --- in self defence? HE has a GENUINE case of self-defence of course.
Your whole essay is purile nonsense based on this dumbed-down straw man that anything America does is "self-defence" when the whole freakin' point is that America is the agressor. Now perhaps you would care to address the real issue for a few seconds? How is America justified in its unprovoked acts of agression against foreign states?