2) An oath is a pledge is a statement of agreement. No honorable person makes a distinction between these, your desire to pick nits notwithstanding. If you don't feel bound by your "statements of agreement," that's a personal problem, not a debating point. It is an oath, and no sensible person should take it, since it represents 1/2 of a sustainable position. I'm sorry I took it, once. I've renounced it, and don't belong to the LP any more.
The origin of the first part is indeed Locke. But the very omission of the second part is a perversion both of Rand and the proper understanding of Locke, who very much did argue that humans have a right of self-defense.
Since there is no sensible comparison between the war on terrorism with global reach and Vietnam, there is no logical consistency to the LP position either--if your claim is that this consistency is somehow justifying. The fact that the LP has opposed war as a practical matter in all instances in my lifetime stamps the LP as a pacifist party, which indeed it is. You can chase your own tail claiming that the LP isn't a pacifist party, but the purely theoretical "activism" of a party which declined the use of force when America herself was attacked is meaningless posturing, and nothing more. The LP is a pacifist party. Embrace your inner coward. With acceptance comes peace. At least, the kind of peace the LP is willing to accept.
You're right about one thing: Harry Browne's post 9/11 position was every bit as ridiculous as Badnarik's. According to Harry we should have "applied the pressure of international law" to bring bin Laden to justice. Yeah, that's not a pacifist party. Like most libertarians I've found my home in the RP. It's not perfect, but it is willing to defend the country, and it knows how to take and keep political power, three things the LP will never do.
Proud to remain a libertarian, sorry I ever was a Libertarian. And not, despite your sneering, afraid to embrace the patriotism of Patrick Henry.
Your bragging about your inability to distinguish a difference between the words "aggression" and "initiation" are only surpassed by your inability to distinguish a difference between an oath, a pledge and a statement of agreement. As one of those who on more than one occasion has taken a serious important long lasting oath with full understanding of its significance, your belittling it as nothing more than a pledge or worse, a statement of agreement, I find quite distasteful. There are those who attach a special meaning to an oaths that reach far beyond any petty domestic political differences. When you choose to try to dishonor the value of an oath, you only show off your own dishonorable character.
The fact that you considered your LP pledge to be an oath, say that you have never taken a serious oath, or if you did, you didn't take it seriously. In either case, I would never put any trust in you as an honorable person.
The way in which you exaggerate and misrepresent libertarian positions, show you to be a person who lacks honesty as a personal virtue. It also shows you to be a person who fears the truth battle. As for me, I'm glad you are out of the LP, it currently has far to many chickenhawks.
Have a nice life - good night.