mormonsforwar.blogspot.com

(lol)

Ok, OK, I *am* smiling. But it’s not smug, just sincerely happy to see you taking a more careful consideration of this side of things.

Plus, I know I can’t take any personal credit for it lol. :)

Now, the real question, I suppose, is what on earth can we do about the state of American foreign policy . . . not to mention our domestic. (I don’t think you’re being reactionary when they’re nationalizing the banks today and the supposedly ‘conservative’ Presidential candidate is proposing a ‘state owned home on every lot’ as our modern equivalent of a ‘chicken in every pot’)

Here I sit after a day of intense introspection and thought regarding this topic. Doug can attest that it’s been a long-held view of mine (well, so can Carissa… :) ).

That said, I appreciate the thoughtful and engaging comments. And I have to say that I am undergoing a serious change of heart… odd to say, but there it is… I think I am beginning to agree with you. I mentioned this to my wife yesterday and she was completely caught off guard, even using some of my arguments that I’ve used with her. She doesn’t understand it yet, but I have to finalize my own thoughts before I can establish this.

The problem with this whole argument is that the premises given in 99% of the arguments against the war are incorrect at best, and most are flat out misleading. Second problem with this argument is that you almost have to be LDS (or accept the Book of Mormon and other Church authors) in order to really grasp it. Truth be told, I think I’ve allowed myself to be somewhat misled.

And yes, Connor, I’m with Washington on foreign policy. I don’t know how we get there from here… we have a serious problem with education and the infiltration of socialist/communist agendas. As reactionary as that sounds… and I’m not even McCarthy.

So… for those that have read my posts as a rallying cry… I’d suggest some introspection as well. Though i don’t know how to proceed, I think Connor et. al. are largely correct in principle, even if the presentation doesn’t necessarily work. Kudos to Carissa for the link to the Nibley article. Really well done.

And Doug, wipe that smile off your face.

And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; and if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle atgainst that nation, tongue, or people. And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their chidren’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord you God, for justification before me.

August 6, 1833

Give me constitutional grounds for your argument

President Benson explained it well. It is quoted in comment #22

Pre-emptive war actually is scriptural

So then, since God commanded Nephi to kill Laban, murder can be justified as scriptural? Have you ever read Hugh Nibley on the subject? He points out that:

1. “[Moroni's] military preparations are strictly defensive”
2. “He is careful to do nothing that will seem to threaten the Lamanites”
3. “All of his battles are fought on Nephite soil”

He says, “any thought of preemptive strike is out of the question” and “not only is a preemptive strike out of the question but Moroni’s people have to let the enemy attack at least twice before responding, to guarantee that their own action is purely defensive”.

How could the Lamanites hunting down the Gadianton Robbers be considered pre-emptive? Gadiantons were committing crimes of theft and murder and trying to gain power within the Lamanite and Nephite societies. They were perfectly justified in retaliating and stopping them.

Is there Al Qaida in Iraq? Yes, it’s been proven

Before we arrived you mean? Where is the actual evidence of an operational relationship? Because this is what I understand:

“While some contacts between agents of Saddam’s government and members of al-Qaeda have been alleged, the consensus of experts and analysts has held that those contacts never led to an “operational” relationship. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that there was only one actual meeting between representatives of the Baathist regime and representatives of al-Qaeda. This single meeting took place in the Sudan in 1995, and the Iraqi representative, who is in custody and has been cooperating with investigators, said that after the meeting he “received word from his IIS chain-of-command that he should not see bin Laden again.” The Panel found evidence of only two other instances in which there was any communication between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda members. On the other two occasions, the Committee concluded, Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq.” Wikipedia

“We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.” former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet

The fact that power is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution to prop up foreign governments means that it is denied that power.

The terrorists became a problem in the country because before we went in they were being supported and encouraged by a tyrant who mass-murdered his own people!

So you’re arguing that Saddam had connections with Al-Qaeda? I’d love to see your evidence. The Bush administration hasn’t even been able to prove that one…

Madeline Albright was not describing the current situation, and they are not moral equivalents.

I didn’t imply that she was commenting on the current military action in Iraq (though it is simply an extension of the one she was commenting on). I only meant to imply that you, like her, seem to feel that so much collateral damage (innocent lives) are “worth it” (it being an interventionist foreign policy).

…the claim was made that we are responsible for all strife in Iraq, and we are responsible for all deaths.

Nowhere have I or others claimed that all strife and death in Iraq or elsewhere is caused by Americans. But yes, we are the largest culprit, without a doubt.

Terrorists chose us as a target long before the war.

Depends on which war you’re referring to. Our intervention in the middle east long predates the current Iraq conflict.

I’m a proponent of George Washington’s foreign policy. I’m also a realist, though, and nothing is going to happen quickly.

This sounds to me like George Bush promoting the bailout last week: “I love free markets, but the bailout is necessary”. You can’t be for Washington’s foreign policy if you’re advocating supporting foreign democracies.

And death and destruction were there long before we got there, as you pointed out.

So that justifies our participation in the bloodshed? Simply because it’s been going on prior to our involvement?

That was not out of context. In fact, I think the context is pretty darn accurate.

I could challenge your contextual claims, but instead I’ll simply repeat the other part of my argument you chose to ignore: the fact that you are failing to reconcile your claim with the several other scriptures which explicitly advocate against preemption.

As you and others here have pointed out, there were violently opposed factions in Iraq and Afganistan before we intervened and thus my assertion that “We have indisputably caused the civil wars and mortal strife in that nation.” is demonstrably false and irresponsible — so I apologize.

I guess what I was trying to say is that previous to our intervention the violence was dialed down to less than .01% of what it is now. Yes, Saddam and his sons were truly evil; but in their place we have allowed 100 such ruthless territorial warlords to rise up. Our shifting alliances in-country cause us to fund them, arm them, and goad them to violence against each other when we believe it serves our endgames.

Yes Sunni and Shia (and Kurd and more) have millenia of differences between them but they were not fighting in the streets of Baghdad. There used to be hospitals and electricity and doctors and schools and commerce. Far more than half of the educated health personnel have fled — never to return.

Before we invaded, it was the case that if you stayed clear of the Husseins you had a modicum of peace and security in *most places* in Iraq. Now it is like that *no place* in Iraq — save maybe in the Occupiers’ Green Zone. There simply was not the chaos, violence, suicide bombers, al Qaida, hatred, and warfare that is the reality on the ground as a direct result of our intervention.

There are many unique sovereign governments and regional issues in the Middle East and yet our current administration wants to myopically conflate them and treat them all the same: “MidEastern extremist enemy hotbeds”. Much of Pakistan and Afghanistan were filled with violently warring factions before we entered, but Iraq (and Syria and Iran) are/were not in exactly the same situation.

We are certainly not the cause of *all strife* in the middle east — that is a pointless ‘straw man argument’. But far too often — when we do get involved — our actions do not have pure intent or peaceful consequences.

I would challenge you to read this recent article about Afghanistan — and the proposed surge that both Presidential candidates are suggesting — and let me know your take on the issues discussed therein.

We’re facilitating a democracy to maintain its hold against terrorists and insurgents.

On what Constitutional grounds? What gives us the authority to prop up foreign governments? And your proposed reason does nothing to explain why we went into Iraq in the first place. The terrorists and insurgents only became a problem in Iraq after we went into that country. So you’re promoting a self-fulfilling cycle of carnage.

Constitutional grounds? Are you serious? Give me constitutional grounds for your argument, Connor… I’d like to see that. Personally, I think that the constitution allows for a lot of leeway – it’s not intended to have every answer to every problem, it’s intended to give the guidelines for a free and moral people.

The terrorists became a problem in the country because before we went in they were being supported and encouraged by a tyrant who mass-murdered his own people! Why would they attack there? But to suggest they weren’t there, and were only there because we were…. wow. Say what you like, they were there before.

There will be casualties on both sides, and the number will almost certainly go up if we pull out. So let’s take that and put it up against the genocidal actions of the former terrorism-supporting dictator…. is it worth it? I’m inclined to lean toward “yes”.

You sound like Madeleine Albright.

Wow, that was offensive. I noted your “taking things out of context” bit later on in the comment. Kudos on that. Madeline Albright was not describing the current situation, and they are not moral equivalents.

It is simply this; we will never forget that we can be attacked, and will not be lured again into complacency.

What a farce! That is not the meaning that 99% of individuals believe the slogan means. Pasted all over photos of the Twin Towers, it clearly means: we will not forget who did this, and we will not forget the lives that were lost. Spin it all you like, but that’s not the conventional interpretation.

No, that’s not YOUR interpretation. I just don’t see it like you do, and I don’t think most of my friends that agree with me do either. I don’t see how you pull your 99% out, but just because you see it one way doesn’t make you the majority of Americans. That’s a straw man argument, and I suppose I should be offended by it.

We need to fight against the haughty attitude that we are the only reason anything happens.

Who claims this argument? It’s absurd.

It most certainly is not absurd, it is precisely what was going on with the last few posts in which the claim was made that we are responsible for all strife in Iraq, and we are responsible for all deaths. That is the root of the argument, imho.

We are not the only ones in Iraq.

Yeah, after we bullied and pressured a bunch of other countries into joining our “coalition” (which largely devolved into a one-man show, supported by a sprinkling of soldiers here and there).

Whoa, you misunderstood. I’m referring to the Iraqis. They’re there, the argument refers to them.

We are not the only ones fighting. They unfortunately are fighting each other, insurgents fighting against a fledgling democracy.

Right, there’s been civil war and strife in that region for centuries. We’re now in the middle of it, and it will continue long after we leave (if that ever happens). We’ve just given them a new target to shoot at: us.

Not so. Terrorists chose us as a target long before the war.

I’d be extremely surprised if any of your numbers took that into account, yet you claim the innocence of all – and lay all Iraqi deaths at the hands of our “fearmonger” Republican administration.

It’s asinine to blame this all on Republicans: the Democrats have their fair share of responsibility as well, though they like to wash their hands of it and point at the other party.

Agreed.

Unless you’d like to lock down the US, or if you choose to simply wait until we’re attacked again, the only other alternative is to stop them.

Proper defense does not mean “waiting until the last minute”, nor does it necessitate offensive war, either. Our defense has been neutered by spreading our armed forces across the world. Military interventionists and their supporters (of which you seem to be one) refuse to admit this simple fact: that our defense would be much more solid if we withdrew our troops from the 130+ countries we’re in.

Could not agree more. I’m a proponent of George Washington’s foreign policy. I’m also a realist, though, and nothing is going to happen quickly.

Is there Al Qaida in Iraq? Yes, it’s been proven.

Agreed, yet you refuse to acknowledge that they didn’t enter the country until the “great Satan” invaded. They are there because we are there.

I don’t acknowledge it because I don’t believe it. Simply because it isn’t documented by the AP doesn’t give it legitimacy.

My opinion, it’s about time we did something. Good heavens.

And thus the interventionist shows his true colors. Death and destruction are indeed “something”. But it is the right thing? Absolutely not.

The interventionist? I haven’t resorted to name calling, have I? Again, straw man argument. It isn’t what I’m proposing. And death and destruction were there long before we got there, as you pointed out.

Pre-emptive war actually is scriptural.

Sorry, but citing one scripture out of its proper context will not justify your position. If you want to claim scriptural support, you have to reconcile your claim with the numerous scriptures that oppose preemptive warfare.

Excuse me? That was not out of context. In fact, I think the context is pretty darn accurate.

I feel we could exercise both with much more wisdom and Christianity than we are now doing.

Through war?

It was Doug that said this, not me. Though I agree with him on that point.

On what Constitutional grounds? What gives us the authority to prop up foreign governments? And your proposed reason does nothing to explain why we went into Iraq in the first place. The terrorists and insurgents only became a problem in Iraq after we went into that country. So you’re promoting a self-fulfilling cycle of carnage.

There will be casualties on both sides, and the number will almost certainly go up if we pull out. So let’s take that and put it up against the genocidal actions of the former terrorism-supporting dictator…. is it worth it? I’m inclined to lean toward “yes”.

You sound like Madeleine Albright.

It is simply this; we will never forget that we can be attacked, and will not be lured again into complacency.

What a farce! That is not the meaning that 99% of individuals believe the slogan means. Pasted all over photos of the Twin Towers, it clearly means: we will not forget who did this, and we will not forget the lives that were lost. Spin it all you like, but that’s not the conventional interpretation.

We need to fight against the haughty attitude that we are the only reason anything happens.

Who claims this argument? It’s absurd.

We are not the only ones in Iraq.

Yeah, after we bullied and pressured a bunch of other countries into joining our “coalition” (which largely devolved into a one-man show, supported by a sprinkling of soldiers here and there).

We are not the only ones fighting. They unfortunately are fighting each other, insurgents fighting against a fledgling democracy.

Right, there’s been civil war and strife in that region for centuries. We’re now in the middle of it, and it will continue long after we leave (if that ever happens). We’ve just given them a new target to shoot at: us.

I’d be extremely surprised if any of your numbers took that into account, yet you claim the innocence of all – and lay all Iraqi deaths at the hands of our “fearmonger” Republican administration.

It’s asinine to blame this all on Republicans: the Democrats have their fair share of responsibility as well, though they like to wash their hands of it and point at the other party.

Unless you’d like to lock down the US, or if you choose to simply wait until we’re attacked again, the only other alternative is to stop them.

Proper defense does not mean “waiting until the last minute”, nor does it necessitate offensive war, either. Our defense has been neutered by spreading our armed forces across the world. Military interventionists and their supporters (of which you seem to be one) refuse to admit this simple fact: that our defense would be much more solid if we withdrew our troops from the 130+ countries we’re in.

Is there Al Qaida in Iraq? Yes, it’s been proven.

Agreed, yet you refuse to acknowledge that they didn’t enter the country until the “great Satan” invaded. They are there because we are there.

My opinion, it’s about time we did something. Good heavens.

And thus the interventionist shows his true colors. Death and destruction are indeed “something”. But it is the right thing? Absolutely not.

Pre-emptive war actually is scriptural.

Sorry, but citing one scripture out of its proper context will not justify your position. If you want to claim scriptural support, you have to reconcile your claim with the numerous scriptures that oppose preemptive warfare.

I feel we could exercise both with much more wisdom and Christianity than we are now doing.

Through war?

What I find haughty is the idea that we are somehow the entire cause of all strife in Iraq.

The only way I could accept that is a willing suspension of my observation of reality. There has been genocidal strife within Iraq. They’ve had wars and major issues between Sunnis and Sheites, not to mention the Kurds. So how is it that just because we’re there, somehow, we caused the strife?

I feel to remind you that these terrorists not only feel patriotic attacking us, but attacking these targets within their own country; and it has happened before the war, and it will continue. They hate us (imho) because they can’t control us like the other governments that they have effectively cowed by their terrorist activities. They are a ruthless bunch, not a great deal different from our mafia.

I don’t disagree that we need to be thoughtful in what we do, that we should indeed find the beam in our own eyes. I enjoy reading others viewpoints; it enlightens me and modifies my perspective. What bothers me having it suggested by my association that I believe in something “satanic” (thanks, Kelly), or that I am also a “fearmonger Republican” (thanks, Connor). I don’t believe that of myself. I understand the desire to make ones arguments appear more strong than they are, but it isn’t convincing.

To Carissa:

I don’t claim that individuals within Iraq’s government are responsible direcly or indirectly for the 9-11 attacks. I don’t think that assumption has ever really been made, but it’s been mischaracterized on the other side of the argument. The basic question is “Who did it”? And the answer is not “Bin Laden”, the answer is “Al Qaida”. Is there Al Qaida in Iraq? Yes, it’s been proven. Did Saddam Hussein have the capability to produce WMD’s (and I still believe he had them and either has shipped them off or hidden them well enough – and no, he wasn’t working alone… but that’s my opinion)? Yes, it’s been proven. Did he support terrorism? Yes, that’s been proven as well. Does the US have the authority to police other countries for its own purposes? No. Does the UN? If they’ve agreed to the UN charter and are members of its association, yes. Did the UN issue ultimatum after ultimatum without backing any of them up? Yes. Did Saddam thumb his nose at the UN’s mandates? Yes. Should the UN have done what it said it would do? Yes. Who is the military of the UN? Well, that’s disputable (ha) but in truth it’s the US.

My opinion, it’s about time we did something. Good heavens.

To Kelly:

Joshua 6:17. Joshua 8:26. Just pointing out a couple of scriptures describing not only a pre-emptive war, but one ordered by God in which God commanded complete destruction of a people, men, women, and children. And their animals, and all the spoils of the city. The only point I’m making with this is to claim because there are children involved hence the war is satanic is to declare that God is satanic. Not valid.

Pre-emptive war actually is scriptural. Helaman 6:37 describes the Lamanites as hunting down the Gadianton Robbers – and the Lamanites were becoming more righteous than the Nephites at the time. Again, stating that the Bush Doctrine is satanic is a little presumptuous. And we didn’t take over the stewardship of the country, it was never the intent. We managed while they got themselves together, but it was always the Iraqi’s country.

Regarding the idea that if we’re in a country, we are responsible for “all those innocent deaths”, that is patently absurd. There are Iraqi’s here – also known as occupying territory – therefore any murders that happen here are their fault too? Come on. That’s the logic you’re suggesting, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

And yes, the situation in Iraq is partly our making. Great! I’ll take that, considering that there is no longer a government in power that is mass murdering men, women and *ahem* children in an act of social cleansing. They have an established democratic government! Oh, the horror! The situation is at least such that the average Iraqi can actually go about his business without worrying if one of Saddam’s lustful children is going to drop by and pick up one of his daughters, or his wife, rape and then murder them. They don’t have to worry about being fed into a wood chipper. For the first time, they have the strength and the ability to fight back against the terrorists that routinely bomb, murder, kidnap, sabotage and otherwise wreak havoc in their country… and you call that a bad thing?

I think perhaps the failure of this government to fully establish the reasons for the Iraq war is exemplified in these postings. The Iraq war was justified for more than just the 9-11 attacks.

The simple fact that you are willing to read different points of view and leave thoughtful and polite comments speaks well of you.

I’m wondering about this assertion: “We need to fight against the haughty attitude that we are the only reason anything happens.”

Is it “haughty” to do self-assessment and ‘consider the beam in our own eye’ as pertaining to the conflicts in the middle east?

Or is it more “haughty” to assume that each soul in Iraq is worth less than each American soul — especially when the basic reasons we are even pitting them against each other at all is because we are valuing American commercial and energy interests above Iraqi sovereign interests. [in this I mean with regards to our continued occupation . . . all arguments about entry into the war aside, President Hinckley warned quite strongly about the evils of Empires like the British and yet 'Empire' is precisely the reason the 'green zone' is designed for centuries of occupation and not months -- and the reason neither Obama or McCain is talking about complete withdrawal]

We have indisputably caused the civil wars and mortal strife in that nation. You may be currently convinced we were justified in doing so, but much evidence suggests that we were not. The Iraqis did not attack us.

You cite the problems of ‘insurgents’ sabotaging the restoration of power in the country but the grid needs rebuilding only because we aggressively destroyed key components in the first place. I have read many accounts of interviews with various “insurgents” who feel that they are as patriotic as our own soldiers as they fight against the “haughty Westerners” who have [indisputably] taken over their once sovereign nation. In other words, our mere presence in the nation creates many of these targets.

The USA is certainly not the *only* reason anything happens in the world, but neither are we without responsibility and influence. I feel we could exercise both with much more wisdom and Christianity than we are now doing.

Pre-emptive war is not scriptural. The Bush Doctrine is satanic. You cannot say that we will take over the stewardship of a sovereign country just because we don’t like what their ruler is doing without taking some of the blame on yourself. You take over the country and occupy it, and you share in the blame of all those innocent deaths, whether that number be large or small.

You blame Saddam and the Iraqi insurgents for the deaths. But, the total situation in Iraq is now partly our own making, whether a US troop killed a child or not. Had we stayed out of Iraq, the total blame would have been on the Iraqis themselves.

The justification for the pre-emptive shock and awe bombing and subsequent occupation has been the attacks of 19 Saudi hijackers. But, all proof shows that the 9/11 attacks were an elaborate false-flag attack, having nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Surely you recognize we had no hard evidence that Iraq had plans to attack us or had anything to do with 9-11. The president is very clear about this (now). So are others like Colin Powell. Iraq did not attack us. Our government wanted to advance the “freedom agenda” in the Middle East. This was a desire long before 9-11. Great goal, bad way (and unjust way) of doing it. Our government has no authority to be involved in regime change, even when it’s for the better. I don’t see how it can possibly be justified. Please enlighten me.

I’ve seen the death toll too. i’ve read about it on other websites. I’ve seen it in our ever-so-unbiased news. Let’s have the other side of the story of the iraqi war.

I noted that you said “500,000 to 1 million INNOCENT Iraqis have died.”(Caps added). Interesting judgment call, that you know for a fact that all of those deaths were innocents. Regardless of that fact, you’re dealing with a much more complex situation in a very simple way. Is it not the case that we have Iraqi insurgents fighting Iraqi defense forces, as well as the Iraqi military? So if either side has a casualty, it pads your number and you get to declare that it was yet another innocent Iraqi life. Seems a little naive to me. Iraq has essentially a fight for survival going on. We’re facilitating a democracy to maintain its hold against terrorists and insurgents. There will be casualties on both sides, and the number will almost certainly go up if we pull out. So let’s take that and put it up against the genocidal actions of the former terrorism-supporting dictator…. is it worth it? I’m inclined to lean toward “yes”.

Ditto for displacement of Iraqi citizens.

And are you even aware of the power problems the country faces, beyond blaming your own country for the issues? In January of last year, a report about the power situation by a reporter noted that in the past year 15 out of 17 high-voltage power lines feeding Baghdad had been sabotaged by insurgents. The comment was made that by Mr. Shimari, a spokesman for the electricity ministry said “When we fix a line, the insurgents attack it the next day”.

“We will never forget” is an excellent maxim; you’ve misunderstood and mischaracterized it due to your own jaded perspective. It is simply this; we will never forget that we can be attacked, and will not be lured again into complacency. We will never forget those that died, not just in the attacks but those first responders who willingly gave up their lives to save others. We will never forget that we were united as a country when it really mattered.

So we can be clear on this point as well; we are not trying to catch “the man responsible”, because there isn’t just one. Suggesting that if we caught Bin Laden that the rest of the network that successfully attacked us would fall apart, or that only Bin Laden is responsible just makes no sense at all.

I’ll close by saying this. We need to fight against the haughty attitude that we are the only reason anything happens. We are not the only ones in Iraq. We are not the only ones fighting. They unfortunately are fighting each other, insurgents fighting against a fledgling democracy. I’d be extremely surprised if any of your numbers took that into account, yet you claim the innocence of all – and lay all Iraqi deaths at the hands of our “fearmonger” Republican administration.

I can appreciate the point of view, it keeps us in balance… but I hope the feeling is mutual.