One of the main Libertarian positions is non-interventionism, so it isn't really surprising that a Libertarian would side with a Democrat on anti-war issues. The thing is, non-interventionism has its limits, and its hard to know where that limit is until the country is attacked or invaded outright. I think that must be one of the dilemmas of the non-interventionist: How far is too far?Personally, I agree with most Libertarian views and with non-interventionism in general. However, I think nations with Muslim theocracies are especially dangerous and should be watched carefully. Once they've become agressive, or contain internal organizations that have become agressive without strict control by the Muslim nations where they reside, I would consider that to be "the limit" and would oppose them with the strongest military might available. I would feel the same way about any other aggressive governments or organizations, be they fascist, socialist, theocratic, monarch, republic or democracy.