So I'm sure everyone has now heard about Ron Paul tweeting "Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense"
I don't entirely disagree that it might not be a great idea to go to a shooting range with someone struggling with PTSD, but the first part of that tweet is insulting BS. But the paulbots, who have a habit of bumrushing online polls and comments sections, have made it clear that they think Kyle was a murderous, sadistic criminal who got what he deserved.
The nub of what bothers me about their puerile argument is this assertion that he was only in Iraq because of imperialistic aggression, and therefore anyone who went there and killed an Iraqi is a murderer. Since when is this the litmus test for justifiability? What, is an army's leadership obligated to share every bit of material intelligence they have with the lowest Private in order to provide proof that the war is justified? Otherwise an individual should flaunt his moral superiority and refuse to go? And that everyone who does go and fight is somehow no different than the Nazis at Nuremberg who protested that they were merely following orders?
Did anyone in 2003 really doubt the premise for attacking Iraq? It was said that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons (and we knew he had used them before) and was actively trying to put them into the hands of terrorist organizations. Whatever part of this was later shown to be untrue, did it not seem perfectly plausible in 2003? This is where the Ron Paul breed of libertarian just paints themselves into mental corners of their own creation and why they can't really be taken seriously.