Comments on: Why the New Anti-War Right is Wrong http://www.ldsliberty.org/why-the-new-anti-war-right-is-wrong/ Advancing the cause of liberty in light of the restored gospel. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:55:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jason Bentley http://www.ldsliberty.org/why-the-new-anti-war-right-is-wrong/#comment-171 Jason Bentley Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:19:40 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1394#comment-171 You definently know a lot about the old right, so I found it odd that you didn't pick up the similarities between Congressman Chaffetz and Senator Taft. In fact their positions are virtually the same. Taft believed that no war should be fought unless real American interests were at stake which is why Taft opposed entering World War II until after the US was bombed at pearl harbor and in many ways actaully advocated a more agressive Korea strategy than Harry S. Truman (Taft complained that Truman's strategy was like playing a football game where the U.S. would make it to the 50 yard line and voluntarily punt) I was quite pleased with Congressman Chaffetz analysis of the situatuion in Afghanistan as well as his view of world affairs in general, such as the securty risk Iran is becoming. Although you are correct in asserting that many aspects of the old right were anti-war and non-interventionist you fail to point out that leaders such as Taft had much more complex views (which are suprisingly very close to those expressed by Chaffetz) than simply "no we won't go to war." You're article critisizes Buckly for kicking anyone out of the conservative movement they didn't like and then you yourself attempt to do the same thing. You definently know a lot about the old right, so I found it odd that you didn’t pick up the similarities between Congressman Chaffetz and Senator Taft. In fact their positions are virtually the same. Taft believed that no war should be fought unless real American interests were at stake which is why Taft opposed entering World War II until after the US was bombed at pearl harbor and in many ways actaully advocated a more agressive Korea strategy than Harry S. Truman (Taft complained that Truman’s strategy was like playing a football game where the U.S. would make it to the 50 yard line and voluntarily punt) I was quite pleased with Congressman Chaffetz analysis of the situatuion in Afghanistan as well as his view of world affairs in general, such as the securty risk Iran is becoming.

Although you are correct in asserting that many aspects of the old right were anti-war and non-interventionist you fail to point out that leaders such as Taft had much more complex views (which are suprisingly very close to those expressed by Chaffetz) than simply “no we won’t go to war.” You’re article critisizes Buckly for kicking anyone out of the conservative movement they didn’t like and then you yourself attempt to do the same thing.

]]> By: Jeremy Ashton http://www.ldsliberty.org/why-the-new-anti-war-right-is-wrong/#comment-170 Jeremy Ashton Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:51:18 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1394#comment-170 The current edition of “Reclaiming the American Right” has an essay at the end by David Gordon that discusses the views of J Reuben Clark regarding a non-interventionalist foreign policy. I was very pleased to see that his views are still appreciated by those of the Old Right tradition. It’s a shame more Latter-day Saints don’t appreciate his teachings… The current edition of “Reclaiming the American Right” has an essay at the end by David Gordon that discusses the views of J Reuben Clark regarding a non-interventionalist foreign policy. I was very pleased to see that his views are still appreciated by those of the Old Right tradition. It’s a shame more Latter-day Saints don’t appreciate his teachings…

]]>