Afghanistan: David Kirwan vs Sound Money Man

My position on the occupation of Afghanistan is that War Is A Racket.

War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

-US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1933)

My position can be summed up with the words "armed neutrality". Think "Switzerland without conscription" and you're already there.

Prospective independent parliamentary candidate David Kirwan apparently wants to have his cake and eat it too.

He seems to think that British forces must continue to occupy Afghanistan and kill those who oppose it if the US forces remain there. No unilateral withdrawal!

He even trots out the establishment talking point of "better kit for our boys".

It saddens me to report that the LPUK has officially endorsed independent candidate David Kirwan for the 2010 general election.

Clearly, I don't.


Reply by Stuart Heal

Sound Money Man has not been a member of the Libertarian Party for several months, and has today requested that his status as a guest blogger be removed, which I have done.

The official Libertarian Party position at this time is for a policy of armed neutrality - a policy which I personally disagree with, however I continue to be an active member of the Party because I agree with most of the rest of the manifesto and I want to do what I can to make Britain a better, more liberal country to live in.

David Kirwan - although not a member of the Libertarian Party - seems to have similar motivations, and has therefore been endorsed by our National Coordinating Committee.

On the particular subject of Afghanistan, I suggest that anyone interested visit David Kirwan's website, and look down the list of manifesto podcasts on the right of the page, and click on "War in Afghanistan". Listen to what Mr Kirwan has to say and make up your own mind as to whether what he's saying matches Sound Money Man's characterisation of him as some kind of war monger. Personally, I though what he was saying made a lot of sense.

The Elephant in the Armoured Personnel Carrier

Just as a complete ignorance of economics is practically a requirement for anyone appearing on British TV or Radio News, there is one thesis on armed conflict between states that will never even get a mention on the mainstream media.

That thesis was outlined in a pamphlet called "War Is A Racket". It was written by US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler before the outbreak of World War Two.

Apparently, John Humphries hasn't read "War is a Racket". Neither has Jeremy Paxman. Actually, no-one on TV or Radio is willing to ask about the "Elephant in the Armoured Personnel Carrier". I wonder why?

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Do "our boys" need some new expensive kit? To fight the terrorists and keep the world safe for democracy so that Afghan girls can go to school? Money is no object. Hang the cost. Sacrifices must be made. Shut up and keep paying!