Browse > Home / Civil Liberties, International Politics, US Politics / Anti-war what it is good for?

| Subcribe via RSS

Anti-war what it is good for?

Sadly, only for making partisan political points it seems. A theme of foreign policy debates recently has been: ‘where did the anti-war movement go?’. The protests and venom aimed at George W. Bush’s foreign policy have all but nearly disappeared. The anti-war movement was political motivated, however, just because an action is politically motivated doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. ReasonTV makes an interesting point:

7 Responses to “Anti-war what it is good for?”

  1. Tommy Judd Says:

    How “Lib Dem” is this site? I was a Labour Party liberal who supported the war and particularly loathed the Campbell-Kennedy position (opposition to war unless sanctioned by Chirac, Putin and Hu). Do I deduce from this post Liberal Vision took the more liberal internationalist line of the “Decent Left”?

  2. Sara Scarlett Says:

    Well, sorry if I didn’t make it clear but I am vehemently anti-war in practically all circumstances. So no, Liberal Vision did not take the liberal internationalist line. As far as I’m concerned the Campbell-Kennedy position was not anti-war enough. I would have opposed the war even if it was sanctioned by Chirac, Putin and Hu.

    I think it is a great tragedy the anti-war movement has disappeared and I sincerely hope Libertarians re-ignite it with even more gusto than before 2008.

    How George W. Bush’s foreign policy can ever be described as akin to that of the “Decent Left” is a mystery to me…

  3. Sara Scarlett Says:

    As to how “Lib Dem” this site is…? Define Lib Dem and I’ll tell you!

  4. Tommy Judd Says:

    Supporting “George W. Bush’s foreign policy” is not the same thing at all as – when it came to a point of yes or no – supporting the overthrow of Saddam’s tikriti mafia by any means necessary. This was the view of Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Christopher Hitchens, Bernard Kouchner and others on the left and it was also mine. It is entirely possible to be a liberal and advocate the export of freedom even if the means chosen are not optimal. A Tunisian overthrow would have been preferable but not possible. I also supported the removal of Idi Amin and Pol Pot even though both were the incidental result of venal invasions.

  5. Sara Scarlett Says:

    Well, I’m not on the ‘left’ or ‘right’ – I’m Libertarian. I’m also not a ‘the means always justify the ends’ kinda gal. So you’re entitled to your opinion. If you want to call them ‘decent’ then so be it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

  6. Tommy Judd Says:

    Are you a Libertarian pacifist or are there uses of force you and others here would support? I’m asking these questions because I’m looking for a new political home and want to know if it’s with the right of the Lib Dems which you may or may not represent. Regarding “Decent,” it’s become a political label for the likes of Cohen and Aaronovitch even used by their enemies so my use of it didn’t mean anything except that.

  7. Sara Scarlett Says:

    I, personally, wouldn’t use the word pacifist – I don’t think ‘Libertarian’ needs to be clarified in this respect and I can’t speak for any other members of LV. We operate as individuals but share this blog as a platform. I wouldn’t judge the right of the LibDems by this policy alone. However, one of the issues that the left and right of this party often agree on most is the war in Iraq. I’m not familiar with Nick Cohen or his ilk so I can’t really comment.