Response to some blogpost on war

I applaud you for rightly ripping into this socialist fool for clumsily shoe-horning anti 'cuts' rhetoric into such a loosely related issue.
However I feel she makes a valid point questioning justifications of war. The state manufactures false justification for its warmongering which is only ever motivated by their own interests. For instance the phrase 'defending British interests overseas' are these my interests? Yours? The soldiers'? Or those of some politically supported corporation? You fail to see or disagree with this point (a point LP has in common with libertarian thought).
You suggest we fought ww2 for our survival. That may be true of the latter and larger part of the war after our overlords dragged us in but it is not true of why our overlords dragged us into the conflict initially. Germany had no intention to fight or invade Britain when it annexed its neighbours. Germany fought us back when we tried to uphold our promises to Poland. Then when it was clear our overlords would not allow Germany to exist in such a form as long as we existed then Germany began to fight for its survival by challenging our continued existence. So our entry to ww2 was never, as our overlords have since painted it, about survival or even about defeating a totalitarian regime.
Same with Afghanistan, Iraq, ww1 - there was no direct threat to us the British people within our sovereign territory until we intervened and stirred it up. Some 'noble cause' is always invented post facto in justification. Women's rights in Afghanistan for example.
Interventionist and preventative militarism causes problems which justify perpetual increasing militarism. See how British involvement in the middle east where no British citizens were under threat generated hatred that lead to the London bombings that actually did kill British citizens. Protecting Poland led to the blitz. Whupping the kaiser led to versailles which led to facism.
Libertarians should always oppose extra territorial war. It fucks the liberties of those being bombed, those in the bombers shot down and those forced to pay for the whole fuck up.
The state always grows during war at the expense of liberty.
I've posted variations on this argument several times on several libertarian blogs. I've been told 'you can't defend from the goal line' well I know you can. To continue the footballing analogy imagine all 11 players filling the goal then try and put it past them. In real terms look at Switzerland - it doesn't play by the statist rule book of its neighbours yet everyone knows it would be a right mess to invade. Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden etc all play nicely with everyone and don't get any trouble. No Belgian involvement in the greater middle east and no Belgian 7/7. So whose 'defence' forces are better defending their own territory us or Belgium? Us flying all over the world pissing everyone off with the US imperialists or the swiss staying at home sharpening their bayonets and mining their bridges?
The point I have clumsily tried to make is that war is un-libertarian. Extremely violent self defence is libertarian. The begining of the LP article suggests that the state dupes us into going to war. It is therefore immensely important to disconnect the compassion for soldiers as individuals from the pomp and circumstance of pro war propaganda. The money you donate when you buy a poppy is the compassion and the parades and glorious sacrifice bullshit is the crap that keeps war increasing and liberty decreasing. Those individual we are told made sacrifices were duped by the state into dying for something that had nothing to do with them and never would. That's why I donate and remember and why I don't wave the flag and swallow the glorious sacrifice bullshit.

A clarification I posted in answer to various comments;

Just to clarify - I wholeheartedly disagree with the main point of the LP piece.
I fully agree with your post TNL and the comments of jackart and longrider. I subscribe to this blog and have a lot of time for the ideas posted on the blog and in the comments.
Apologies for diverting discussion from the  main point (nasty habit of mine when I get distracted by a related detail).
I was trying to draw attention to the brief and easily missed point at the beginning of the LP article that the language of 'sacrifice' should be watched as emotive propaganda. I feel this should be highlighted and libertarians be more strongly antiwar.
I did not mean to indulge in hindsight or revisionism (neither necessarily bad) but was trying to argue that the  compassion for victims of the tragedy of war has been hijacked by those who initiate and benefit from war.
Politicians and military and religious leaders will all call on us to remember absract nonsensical ideals such as sacrifice that are far from the truth of why those individuals died. Sacrifice will be used as a euphemism instead of death. These individuals were killed. They were the recipients of lies and then violence not the much more positive givers of sacrifice. In other words the state actively encouraged or forced them into harms way where someone actively killed them. Do you see the huge difference this active/passive positive/negative give/receive linguistic swap makes?
As LP said right at the begining before all the other rubbish
"'Sacrifice' is the word usually used to associate this cynical and endless carnage with public nostalgia for the glory of past victories."
This age old linguistic deception will continue to form the basis for future state warmongering and taking of liberties.
We must be aware of it and disconnect it from our compassion for the dead.
There is little talk of glorious noble sacrifice in the works of Sassoon or Owen.