Warmongers!

[Jason]

I am asking a sincere question here Bro. I am not interested in a spitting contest. I want someone here to give me an example of a proper defensive action as specified by Pres. Hinckley outside of an unprovoked attack on our country. Pres. Hinckley seemingly approved of defending the liberties of innocents against forces of evil or repression around the world. Do you believe that can be justified in the case of tyranny against the defenseless.

Right....see my response above. Obviously you are hinting that this action is justified.....and we are the good guys or good "cops".

If your hypothesis is correct.....why the discrepancies?

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good bfruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.

For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is it not the same with the nation or the government? How can a government which is supplying addictive substances to its citizens also be engaged in saving people around the world from dictators? Or supporting one dictator like Pinochet while taking out another?

This all goes back to the facade that people want to believe in - that the government is still basically good and looking out for their interests. We want to believe we are being charitable and courageous while eating our bread while others around the world starve as a result of our policies.

[larsenb]

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

It's not the responsibility or calling of the Brethren to make people aware of this. The ignorance of LDS members concerning this subject is not on account of the brethren not speaking up about it, it's because the ignorant members don't educate themselves and seek after the proper education and knowledge on their own. The ignorant are ignorant because they choose ignorance and do not seek enlightenment.

n8-4, I'm talking about the philosophy of what constitutes a just war as embedded in the Book of Mormon. The subject is especially relevant in our day because of all the wars we're entering into and are still involved in.


I read the Book of Mormon for years without really realizing how complete and consistent its position on preemptive wars was. It was only after reading Hugh Nibley's comments on this subject that I felt compelled to go back and ferret out all the relevant passages. You can easily miss the key ideas and warnings because of how scattered and brief they are. So it doesn't surprise me that most BofM readers have missed them as well.

I still think the subject is worthy of some powerful discourses to come, in order to help wake up believers in the Book of Mormon to this important concept. Meanwhile, it remains dismaying to me to see how war-like and actually blood-thirsty so many of my fellow believers are.

[larsenb]

This quote from President Kimball was referenced I thought I would produce it, for everyone's contemplation.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

Thanks, Silas. That's exactly the passage I mentioned.

[larsenb]

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

It's not the responsibility or calling of the Brethren to make people aware of this. The ignorance of LDS members concerning this subject is not on account of the brethren not speaking up about it, it's because the ignorant members don't educate themselves and seek after the proper education and knowledge on their own. The ignorant are ignorant because they choose ignorance and do not seek enlightenment.

Actually our Church leaders did talk about these things for many years, but only a handful of crackpots, cranks and nut balls paid any attention to them. So now they shut up and hope we will figure these things out on our own. Fat chance!

PL, can you remember any specific instances of them talking about the anti-preemptive warfare philosophy espoused by the Book of Mormon? I'm actually getting serious about doing an article

Does anyone know if all the Conference talks and/or Ensign/Improvement Era talks are digitized and made available in a way where you can do word searches on them??

[mes5464]

Thank you for finding this and sharing.

This quote from President Kimball was referenced I thought I would produce it, for everyone's contemplation.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

[oneClimbs]

For some odd reason, the very strong case AGAINST preemptive warfare made in the Book of Mormon seems to be overlooked as a sermon or discourse in any Church forum that I'm aware of. Elder L. Tom Perry skirted the issue when he called attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon has excellent teachings on the philosophy of what constitutes a just war, but he didn't really elaborate beyond that.

President Kimball was more direct in a powerful sermon back in the '70's when he warned about how warlike we as a people seem to be and how it was a mistake to put our trust in our weaponry and not in God, or words to that effect.

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

I've recently been thinking that I would like to try my hand at writing an article that delves into defensive vs. preemptive warfare from both an historical perspective and from the perspective found in the Book of Mormon, D&C and from talks from the Brethren.

That would be awesome, if you write the article I'd love to see it.

I second this.

[GeeR]

Here is one sharp L.D.S. blogger on the subject of warmongering
http://www.awakeandarise.org/blog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christian Warmongers, They Are Not of Christ—Response to Lawrence M. Vance, Columnist for LewRockwell.com

Delighted at Lawrence M. Vance, columnist of the much beloved LewRockwell.com newsletter, arguably the best subscription one can make to their daily inbox helping them keep abreast of world events, I thought to compose him a quick note, now turned Blog Post. Here goes.
I’m born and raised a Mormon, live here in Utah, and absolutely enjoy reading your articles.

You’re critique of these so-called Christians rings true most forcefully in Utah as well, as there are those Mitt Romney devotee’s who are just as screwed up in their theology as any of the groups you reference, such as: “armchair Christian warrior, Christian Coalition moralist, Religious Right warvangelical, Reich-wing Christian nationalist, theocon Values Voter, Red-State Christian fascist, and God and country Christian bumpkin.” When in one of the Presidential Debates in 2007, Romney did not reject nuclear bombing of Iran, Mormon’s with any clue of their theology should have been in an uproar. Unfortunately, most follow along the same path of empire worship as their evangelical critics who claim they aren’t even Christian—and they might just be right! Warmongers of any stripe cannot be counted as Christian. Let them not profess so to be.
It’s been fascinating to me to see how ignorance feeds into this propensity to accept propaganda and champion war. When the first Gulf War broke out in 1990, I was in high school. I remember, as a bleating sheep, decrying protestors with signs who had shut down bridges in San Francisco which read “No Blood for Oil.” I, for one, would have backed my righteous, conservative President, George Herbert Walker Bush, with fervor. Not then had I known he was the son of a Nazi war profiteer, nor was I quite up to par with his constant invocating the term “New World Order.”

Fortunately, some truth began to take hold in subsequent years. The reading of books, the right kind of books, including the Bible had a great impact. The highly anti-war Book of Mormon was my greatest teacher on the doctrines of just war—and it is a hated book by many because of it’s very Christ centered, very much anti-war doctrine. Warmongers are usually not keen on liberty and freedom either. Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said this of the Book of Mormon and his own church membership:
“If you use the scriptures as a guide, you know what the Book of Mormon has to say regarding murderous conspiracies in the last day and how we are to awake to our awful situation today (see Ether 8:18-25). I find certain elements in the Church do not like to read the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants so much—they have too much to say about freedom.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 81; see also p. 42.)
We would also say, these folks do not like to read or quote from these books of scripture too, because they condemn preemptive war, and always war accept under very narrow circumstances of self defense.

Only now in this last decade have I grasped just how interesting it is to find that not only did Christ not champion all this butchery that many attempt to put in his name, but a history of my own religions leadership at the top have been anti-war, yet the people would have little counsel from such leadership. And, Christ himself spoke of the sheep fleeing from the good shepherd. This the warmonger loving sheep in the flock do, they flee the shepherd who condemns their propensity to champion violence, murder, and death.

J. Reuben Clark Jr., is said to have had a major impact on defeating the League of Nations as he was a speech writer for two prominent Senators at the time. He was later Secretary of State and served after that as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, ending in 1933 when he was called into the LDS Church’s First Presidency as a counselor to President Heber J. Grant. In 1937, two years before Hilter invaded Poland, he uttered this prophetic warning, which ticked off the phony warmongering so-called “Christians” within the very church which professed to sustain him as a church leader:
“The power people are now planning another war for you. They have made this depression last many more years than it would have ordinarily lasted. They got stock down to 14 cents on a dollar. They just bought up everything at 14 cents on a dollar, and they’re now ready to make additional billions as they put you through another world war.

“They’re going to have you pay for it. You’re going to be involved in it. You don’t think you’ll get involved, but they’ll say that for the peace of the world, you must come in, and you’ll feel so soft-hearted about it, you’ll come in. It will be just as big a mistake as World War I.” (The Life of J. Reuben Clark, Jr. September 1, 1992 Delivered at the Grantsville High School, Grantsville, Utah; The works of W. Cleon Skousen. (a Folio Infobase) published by Verity Software)

The foremost statement and quotation to be shared on this theme would be that of the 12th President of the LDS Church, Spencer W. Kimball, who in 1976, the Bicentennial celebratory year of the nation, he spoke out in June of his dismay at not only the nation, but the LDS people particularly:
“When I review the performance of this people…..I am appalled and frightened…..We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel – ships, planes, missiles, fortifications – and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-Kingdom of God; we train man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven’.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The False Gods We Worship”, Ensign, June 1976, 3.)

Very much famed LDS Scholar, Hugh Nibley stated of that address, that it was “given the instant deep freeze” by Mormon’s and ignored. The warmongering prone Latter-day Saints didn’t want to hear condemnation of their worshiping the false god of militarism. They “mentally stoned” their living prophet, something seen again, and again, and again, a chronology of such examples I won’t expand on here.
Back to World War II, The LDS First Presidency knew and expressed dismay that their own membership acted clueless and unable to accept the truth of the facts even from them, as evidenced in this letter, a response from an inquiry of the Secretary to the US Treasury seeking consolation in the alarming trends he saw in the nation. This quoted from H. Verlan Anderson’s “The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil”:
Letter to the U.S. Treasury, September 30, 1941

“…the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the “New Deal”…
…unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions…

…We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe…

…We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about.”
(Heber J. Grant, also J. Ruben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay signed as the First Presidency, written during World War II Letter to the U.S. Treasury, September 30, 1941)

And some other fun quotations of church leaders condemning useless war. Again, these contemporaries of FDR and Truman.
“[Satan] plans to destroy liberty and freedom—economic, political, and religious, and to set up in place thereof the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed men. He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize either him or his methods. There is no crime he would not commit, no debauchery he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Without their knowing it, the people are being urged down paths that lead only to destruction. Satan never before had so firm a grip on this generation as he has now….
“We condemn the outcome [of the war] which wicked and designing men are now planning; the world-wide establishment and perpetuation of some form of communism on the one side, or some form of Nazism or Fascism on the other. Each of these systems destroys liberty, wipes out free institutions, blots out free agency, stifles free press and free speech, crushes out freedom of religion and conscience. Free peoples cannot and do not survive under these systems.” (CR, Oct. 1942, pp13, 15, Messages of the First Presidency, comp. James R. Clark, vol. 6 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1975), p. 179.) (quoted also in The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil by H. Verlan Anderson, p. 157.)

David O. McKay who would later himself lead the church for nearly two decades:
“Today, freedom – political, economic, and individual freedom – lies destroyed or is in the course of being destroyed over great areas of the globe. And it has been destroyed and is being destroyed in the name of freedom…..A ruthless dialectical battle is being waged against the Christian way of life, against political liberty, against individual freedom, and it is being waged in the name of Freedom. Black becomes White; Tyranny becomes Freedom; The Forced Labor Camp stands for Liberty; The Slave State is represented as Democracy. This is the deadly challenge of Communism” [i.e. Fascism, Socialism, etc…] (LDS Church President David O. McKay, Conference Report Oct. 1962, pp. 6-7.)

Then we had the very much beloved Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the Church noted this of the warmongers (most professing Christians and Mormons) who are prone to worship empire, few acknowledging, if American, that their nation with military bases across the globe is indeed an empire by definition:

“We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression,and an astronomical cost in life and treasure.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Ensign, May 2003, 78)
In October of 2006 President Hinckley then said:

“I have walked with reverence through the British cemetery on the outskirts of Rangoon, Burma (now known as Myanmar), and noted the names of hundreds and thousands of young men who came from the villages, towns, and great cities of the British Isles and who gave their lives in hot and distant places…

“All who have lived upon the earth before us are now gone. They have left all behind as they have stepped over the threshold of silent death. As I have visited these various cemeteries I have reflected, first, on the terrible cost of war. What a fruitless thing it so often is, and what a terrible price it exacts.” (BYU devotional, Oct. 31, 2006)

Then again Gordon B. Hinckley:

“I was on a mission in the British Isles more than 70 years ago. Part of the British Empire was still intact. That empire was the most widely extended political family of nations on the face of the earth. It was said that the sun never set on the British Empire. The Union Jack flew around the world.

“Great good came of that empire in many areas. But there was also tremendous suffering. It came as a result of conquest, oppression, war, and conflict. The remains of British soldiers were buried in graves around the earth.
“Now it is all gone…” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Opening Remarks,” Ensign, Nov 2005, 4) (Italics added.)

Another:
“No one can ever estimate the terrible suffering incident to these wars across the globe. Lives numbered in the millions have been lost. The terrible wounds of war have left bodies maimed and minds destroyed. Families have been left without fathers and mothers. Young people who have been recruited to fight have, in many instances, died while those yet alive have had woven into the very fabric of their natures elements of hatred which will never leave them. The treasure of nations has been wasted and will never be recovered.

“The devastation of war seems so unnecessary and such a terrible waste of human life and national resources.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “An Unending Conflict, a Victory Assured,” Ensign, Jun 2007, 4–9)

And so will too be gone the American Empire. It’s coming to an end. And one day too, warmongers professing the name of Christ will cease to be as well. Those that live by the sword surely shall die by the sword and will not be celebrating peace with the Prince of Peace when he comes in glory to usher in that glorious millennial reign when men shall beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war any more.

[GeeR]

I'm actually getting serious about doing an article

Are you familiar with this articel by Nibley?

Hugh Nibley: The Last Days—Who will survive?
http://api.ning.com/files/Dd6PCK33j2fMy ... ibley1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[creator]

I don't think any of the wars the U.S. is involved in, including Libya, fall under just and proper principles of war... I say this based on the standard taught by the prophets and the scriptures.

Here are a few of the relevant sources:

Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands. (3 Nephi 3: 18–21)

And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them. But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are bpunished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. (Mormon 4: 4-5)


What do the scriptures teach us about war? (Article)

United States Foreign Policy by Ezra Taft Benson

Preemptive War & The Book of Mormon As a Record of Military Strategy by Hugh Nibley (Audio)


"In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.
"We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

"“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

"“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

"We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us..." (The False Gods We Worship by Spencer W. Kimball)

[HeirofNumenor]

At Texas Roadhouse tonight

That is such a great restaurant! I went to the one in Lehi last month...that food was delicious! =p~ Didn't like the loud country music though. :ymcowboy:

[HeirofNumenor]

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

It's not the responsibility or calling of the Brethren to make people aware of this. The ignorance of LDS members concerning this subject is not on account of the brethren not speaking up about it, it's because the ignorant members don't educate themselves and seek after the proper education and knowledge on their own. The ignorant are ignorant because they choose ignorance and do not seek enlightenment.

And yet IF the leadership of the Church spoke clearly and frequently on this - you'd sure see a lot of angst, and a lot of goats leaving the flock of sheep. Happened after Polygamy was ended, blacks got the priesthood, Mark David Hoffman was proven to be a murdering fraud, prevent gay marriage, etc...

[HeirofNumenor]

Since someone mentioned Pres. Hinckley's talk(s) and how this fits:
DISCLAIMER
Before anyone complains that I am cherry picking parts, taking things out of context, I have used this same talk before to demonstrate that Pres. Hinckley was NOT beating the drums of war, but was rather a call to look at the "enemy" as our brothers and sisters under God, and to remember that soldiers on each side are merely tools of their leaders. I note that he states part of his comments are governed by his personal feelings. I would also note that while he mentions the Nephites and Captain Moroni defending their OWN families, he also states there are justifications that apply to the present situation (Iraq, tyrants that threaten the world, etc.)

http://lds.org/ensign/2003/05/war-and-peace?lang=eng
War and Peace

President Gordon B. Hinckley

Gordon B. Hinckley, "War and Peace", Ensign, May 2003, 78–81 (April 2003 Gen Conf. - after Iraq War started)


In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle.

...

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

“And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

For about 400 years, there has been something called the Just War Theory. Developed by Catholic scholars, this has been held by Christendom to be our duty, to go to war when:
1) Our nation/territory, military forces wherever they are when attacked. (Pearl Harbor - forget FDR's manipulations for the moment, 'k?)
2) Our national interests/property, or people are attacked elsewhere in the world (Iranian hostages, embassy bombings, etc.)
3) In defense of a smaller weaker nation attacked without provocation (presumably Poland 1939, Kuwait 1990 -aside from being lied to about atrocities).

Each nation must decide when it can and cannot fight, or if it should.

To me, starting from Oct 2001 http://lds.org/ensign/2001/11/the-times ... e?lang=eng,
President Hinckley was admitting that War is a sticky situation - it is not black and white, but has many facets of gray...many angles, many sides to the equation. As the decade wore on, he became more direct against war, more sorrowful, as evidenced by his Aug 2005 Ensign First Presidency message http://lds.org/ensign/2005/08/a-testimo ... e?lang=eng,

“I was on a mission in the British Isles more than 70 years ago. Part of the British Empire was still intact. That empire was the most widely extended political family of nations on the face of the earth. It was said that the sun never set on the British Empire. The Union Jack flew around the world.

“Great good came of that empire in many areas. But there was also tremendous suffering. It came as a result of conquest, oppression, war, and conflict. The remains of British soldiers were buried in graves around the earth.
“Now it is all gone…” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Opening Remarks,” Ensign, Nov 2005, 4)


“I have walked with reverence through the British cemetery on the outskirts of Rangoon, Burma (now known as Myanmar), and noted the names of hundreds and thousands of young men who came from the villages, towns, and great cities of the British Isles and who gave their lives in hot and distant places…

“All who have lived upon the earth before us are now gone. They have left all behind as they have stepped over the threshold of silent death. As I have visited these various cemeteries I have reflected, first, on the terrible cost of war. What a fruitless thing it so often is, and what a terrible price it exacts.” (BYU devotional, Oct. 31, 2006)

In conclusion:
Is it right to go to war to defend a smaller nation such as Libya? YES
Should we? PERHAPS -though the EU nations should do most of it as it is more their sphere of influence.
Is it UNConstitutional? NO - the Constitution does NOT specifically restrict the military from fighting anywhere other than on America's own soil, or other than a direct attack. This is something for the Commander-in-Chief to decide...BUT He better make a dang good case of it, and Congress better issue a declaration of war.

Sorry if this assessment doesn't come down squarely in anyone's corner, but hey -nothing rarely does. That is life....

[mes5464]

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

I posted the above quote of Facebook. Below is what one of my oldest childhood friends had to say in response.

Now I get it. We can all breath a sigh of relief, disband the entire US military, bring all the troops home from every country, destroy every weapon, recycle what materials we can from all weapons systems, eliminate the department of defense, and turn the Pentagon into a museum and science center.

Willful ignorance and faithlessness. That is the only terms that come to mind to describe what I think of his remarks.

[mes5464]

For about 400 years, there has been something called the Just War Theory. Developed by Catholic scholars, this has been held by Christendom to be our duty, to go to war when:
1) Our nation/territory, military forces wherever they are when attacked. (Pearl Harbor - forget FDR's manipulations for the moment, 'k?)
2) Our national interests/property, or people are attacked elsewhere in the world (Iranian hostages, embassy bombings, etc.)
3) In defense of a smaller weaker nation attacked without provocation (presumably Poland 1939, Kuwait 1990 -aside from being lied to about atrocities).

In conclusion:
Is it right to go to war to defend a smaller nation such as Libya? YES

I disagree with this conclusion on the grounds that your justification comes from the "Just War Theory" and, in my opinion, contradicts scripture and modern teachings on the subject.

My 2 cents.

[Original_Intent]

For about 400 years, there has been something called the Just War Theory. Developed by Catholic scholars, this has been held by Christendom to be our duty, to go to war when:
1) Our nation/territory, military forces wherever they are when attacked. (Pearl Harbor - forget FDR's manipulations for the moment, 'k?)
2) Our national interests/property, or people are attacked elsewhere in the world (Iranian hostages, embassy bombings, etc.)
3) In defense of a smaller weaker nation attacked without provocation (presumably Poland 1939, Kuwait 1990 -aside from being lied to about atrocities).

In conclusion:
Is it right to go to war to defend a smaller nation such as Libya? YES

I disagree with this conclusion on the grounds that your justification comes from the "Just War Theory" and, in my opinion, contradicts scripture and modern teachings on the subject.

My 2 cents.

I also disagree with the conclusion, but for different reasons. I largely agree with Just War Theory. The reasons I disagree witht he conclusion:

1) Defending a smaller nation such as Libya....um the fight that is going on in Libya is a civil war, this is not about defending a smaller country against a larger.
2) Just war would not support defending a nation only based on its size or power. Other factors would need to be considered, such as did they do anything to provoke the war.

We have spent trillions in the past 2 decades on stupid foreign adventures, we are the most indebted nation on earth, and we lack the common sense of even being able to discern as a nation when we should go to war or not. And there is NO QUESTION that it should be decided by Congress, not the president. (Same could be said of every war or police action since WW2.)

[Teancum]

kenssurplus, the only problem I have with your post is that our need for oil isn't as much a problem as where we get it. Yes, I really believe in alternatives to oil. But how practical is that for most of us? I care for a semi-invalid husband as well as my father (who will be 95 in June.) My only vehicle is a '99 Honda Odyssey. I can't afford to change it over to a hybrid or even to change the type of fuel the Odyssey uses. I wish I had a home that could be powered with wind power, but my yard can't be zoned for that. Nor do I have the capability to do it. It's great for those who can use other options, but for some of us, it isn't possible.

Do you have some ideas for people like me?

Use less gas by driving less. Of course if 100 percent of your driving is essential, then this counsel is not helpful. But most folks could not say that all of their driving is essential. They could effect significant savings by cutting out all or most of their nonessential driving. Perhaps we could all find work closer to our homes or buy our homes closer to work. Maybe if we stayed home more and went out less we could save on gas. Compared with the food shortages common in other parts of the world where people are actually starving to death, high gasoline prices is a minor problem that could be easily solved.

Kathyn, you bring up very valid questions and it can become overwhelming and discouraging.

I have pondered and prayed about what to say to you in response. The thing is to start small, there are other options besides windmills. One of my friends stuck a small solar panel on the side of his house and runs a small inverter as a backup. If your husband is on oxygen, needs a CPAP, anything that needs power, you need to think of what can be done to keep them going. Starting out small means just that, find something as back up to keep the Essentials going.

PL, I agree that cutting down on your driving will help, but depending on where you live and what your doing, sometimes that becomes impractical. There are also other alternatives to fuel (such as adding small aerodynamic fins, fuel additives that stretch your fuel, and other efficiency increasing measures), but they do take study, time and effort and most importantly, a firm resolve. Getting out of the warmongering system is very much a group effort, in the sharing of resouces and talents to achieve this, and one that I desire to help others do. Please consider reading this fine E-book by Patrick Kelly:
http://free-energy-info.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Silas]

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

I posted the above quote of Facebook. Below is what one of my oldest childhood friends had to say in response.

Now I get it. We can all breath a sigh of relief, disband the entire US military, bring all the troops home from every country, destroy every weapon, recycle what materials we can from all weapons systems, eliminate the department of defense, and turn the Pentagon into a museum and science center.

Willful ignorance and faithlessness. That is the only terms that come to mind to describe what I think of his remarks.

I know its sad. When people mock at God's promise to protect us if we are faithful then we have some trouble. We need to exercise faith, no matter how powerful our military is it will never be strong enough to protect us from our own wickedness.

[HeirofNumenor]

For about 400 years, there has been something called the Just War Theory. Developed by Catholic scholars, this has been held by Christendom to be our duty, to go to war when:
1) Our nation/territory, military forces wherever they are when attacked. (Pearl Harbor - forget FDR's manipulations for the moment, 'k?)
2) Our national interests/property, or people are attacked elsewhere in the world (Iranian hostages, embassy bombings, etc.)
3) In defense of a smaller weaker nation attacked without provocation (presumably Poland 1939, Kuwait 1990 -aside from being lied to about atrocities).

In conclusion:
Is it right to go to war to defend a smaller nation such as Libya? YES

I disagree with this conclusion on the grounds that your justification comes from the "Just War Theory" and, in my opinion, contradicts scripture and modern teachings on the subject.

My 2 cents.

And that is your right to disagree...so we agree to disagree - but I hope you read carefully what Pres. Hinckley was saying, and consider what he appeared to be implying.

[creator]

First, I hope you all (at least those who haven't read it all before) have read my previous post giving solid evidence from the scriptures and the prophets regarding when war is justified and when it is not.

Despite all that's been said and written regarding the justifications of war, and the Book of Mormon clearly illustrating that only defensive war is just, and defensive being defined as the enemy coming to your land to attack you, it seems people like to try to define President Hinckley as having supported the Iraq war. I personally don't believe that was the case and I'll present a few pieces of evidence, some of which I am sure most of you have not seen.

1. They met this morning without the cameras, but ever the newsman, Wallace asked the president how he felt about the war in Iraq.

Mike Wallace: “He’s (President Hinckley) unhappy about what has happened there, what continues to happen there. He deplores what is going on there.”

The next day Salt Lake Tribune’s Peggy Fletcher Stack recognized the news behind the news, starting her report with:

LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley “was not and is not happy with the war in Iraq,” CBS newsman Mike Wallace said Friday. “He deplores what’s going on there.” The longtime reporter, who interviewed Hinckley for “60 Minutes” in 1995, was in Utah to participate in Hinckley’s 95th birthday gala at the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City.

“It wasn’t an interview situation, so I didn’t press” Hinckley, Wallace told a half-dozen or so reporters. “But I was sorry I didn’t have a camera.”

(Source: online KSL link no longer active. Transcript of a July 22nd 2005 KSL broadcast reporting on the attendance of Mike Wallace, at the 95th Birthday celebration of Gordon B. Hinckley)

2. While I was studying the "Five Thousand Year Leap" with W. Cleon Skousen he made a comment about President Hinckley not actually being in support of the war. Unfortunately I never got the opportunity to ask him more, and Brother Skousen has since passed away.

3. In President Hinckley's Ensign article in August 2005 it states:

"The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today's society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.

"I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras."

Try as you may to pinpoint the conclusions of President Hinckley based only on one talk titled "War and Peace"... many people have concluded on either side, for or against the war, but the scriptures are clear, the prophets are clear, such overseas, offensive, preemptive wars are not just. Don't just try to guess what Pres. Hinckley was saying, do your homework, read the resources I have pointed out in this and my previous post, and keep researching, there is much more.

[Silas]

I was looking for a like button for your comment Brian but then I realized this isn't Facebook.

[GeeR]

Now I get it. We can all breath a sigh of relief, disband the entire US military, bring all the troops home from every country, destroy every weapon, recycle what materials we can from all weapons systems, eliminate the department of defense, and turn the Pentagon into a museum and science center.

You should write him back and say: yea, its called "beating our swords into plow-shares", ever hear of the concept? (II Nephi 7:11; Isa.2:4)

[EmmaLee]

I was looking for a like button for your comment Brian but then I realized this isn't Facebook.

Ditto that. Thanks for the quotes and info, Brian.

[Jason]

We’ve seen this movie before: Spectacular photos of Tomahawk Cruise missiles being launched from American navy vessel, B-2 bombers piloted by amazing American crews making nonstop trips from Missouri to the Mediterranean…. And Americans of all political stripes asking: What’s the plan?

Make no mistake. Muammar Gaddafi is a very bad guy. He has been a bad guy for 40 years, and he has brazenly killed Americans on several occasions in attacks that fit any reasonable definition of terrorism. The world would be better off without him.

But, at the same time that our courageous and incredibly skilled military is again being asked to destroy a military headquarters in Tripoli without damaging the civilian building next to it, the White House is saying “Gaddafi must go”, but these attacks are not about “regime change”. They are saying the mission is to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi’s madness, but that we aren’t going to send troops in to do the protecting. And yes, they are once again assuring us that the U.S. commitment is limited and we are just doing our part as a coalition of the willing.

When are we going to learn? Injecting American military right into the internal strife of other nations with no clear definition of a successful outcome doesn’t work. Our service men and women who are putting themselves at risk, the taxpayers who are paying $600,000 for every Tomahawk missile launched, and yes, the people in Libya we are supposedly trying to help, all deserve to know what the plan is. That really isn’t too much to ask.

Sometimes it appears our political leaders doubt that we can handle the truth.

If the objective in Libya is to replace Muammar Gaddafi – then why don’t we just say it, and do it? Or at least have an honest debate about it. If that is the idea, it is perhaps worth noting that the guy has hung on to power for decades and just bombing his missile defenses may not do the trick. It is also worth pointing out that we went into Afghanistan to get rid of Osama bin Laden and his cronies, and almost ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars and too many American lives later, we are still there – and bin Laden isn’t.

If the plan were to somehow level the playing field in Libya so that Gaddafi’s opposition has a fighting chance of toppling him, it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to do that 3 weeks ago – before he was on the verge of crushing them. And then there is the whole question of who will replace him, will they be any better for U.S. interests than Gaddafi, and how many of those people we are trying to protect will die in the process?

It has been observed that, by weakening his military capabilities, perhaps we will encourage dissension and defection among his own leadership and commanders. If that is the plan, it would be cheaper and a whole lot safer to just give each of them a check for a million dollars and a condo in Florida.

Or, if there is some hope that Colonel Gaddafi will back down, see the handwriting on the wall and turn over a new leaf, it really must be remembered that we have tried that a couple of times already. The result: He is still in power and killing people, and the Presidents who “backed him down” are not Presidents anymore.

For the cynical among us, let’s even try the theory that we care about what happens in Libya because it is the source of 1.3 million barrels of oil per day – and we need imports like that for more than half of our oil needs. If we are worried about oil, we should be a lot more concerned about what is going on in Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries that are in fact much more important to our energy security.

Mr. President, or someone, PLEASE, tell us what the plan is. Otherwise, just stop. At the end of the day, what is happening in Libya is a civil war against a clearly bad leader. The world is full of clearly bad and evil leaders, and millions of people being victimized by them. What makes Libya special? Simply enforcing a no-fly zone will cost American taxpayers as much as $300 million a week, and that doesn’t include all those Tomahawk missiles and B-2 round trips. More importantly, those are American crews risking their lives. If there is some compelling reason to be doing what we are doing, tell us what it is.

If, on the other hand, we are once again playing cop to the world, we can’t afford it.

In Liberty,

Gary Johnson

Gary:

There is a very precise plan. It was drawn up years ago. Who sees the plan is the only issue.

"The Plan" is not for public disclosure or comprehension.

You see "The Plan" started in 1943.

"The Plan" was to create a unified corporate world government whereby all would prosper (especially those calling the shots)

The population and the resources were to be managed under one globalized corporation standard.

The countries that were "independents" from around the globe were to be converted or in the alternative eliminated.

Over the last 50 years conversion of the three largest, India, Russia, and China was accomplished.

In the last ten years the hold-out independents were targeted starting with those that held the most valuable resources. Afghanistan (a weakened country) was taken first as a launching grounds to take Iraq. (a taking that resulted in the deaths of over three-million locals, a number of loss of life in perspective that can only be compared to a Hitler takeover of a comparatively sized country) The people's reaction in the USA? Masterfully entertained into distraction and mesmerized complicity.

Come 2011 the closing game of a ten year plan goes into full swing. CIA orchestrated collapses of "other" MID-Eastern countries to weaken and put into dis-ray so that when the final takeover game goes into effect (Iran) the possible support Iran may receive will have been neutered. First Tunisia, then Egypt, then Libya (not an easy go there due to lack of cooperation from the ruling party)

Why commit military might when you first can trigger a mob mentality in the direction and for the cause you wanted to accomplish in the first place, the takeover of that country. Then if opposition sticks its head up, the word of the day becomes "You are helping the liberation forces" Hitler played out that one very effectively at the beginning of WWII with Belgian, Poland, and even France. (didn't work too well in Russia though)

Oh yes, there is a definite plan and the time-lines have played out step by step since September 11, 2001. Steps that were put with crystal precision on the drawing board from well before June of 1997.

End result: One corporate global governance controlling the global population and world resources without any opposition from any independent players of consequence. Reality is based on the end result of the big picture in play. It has always been due to the massive wealth involved for conversion spoon fed propaganda designed to accomplish conquest and conversion of resources.

The general public that may have ethics and a strong will not agreeing to meet the terms of the end game plan of the controllers are thus masterfully entertained with distraction as the end game fulfills its destination unabated or in most part even without outside comment or cognitive thinking in general from the population for intervention.

What must we all diligently do?

Well, we all must focus on the big picture of the end game intended result of our corporate government controllers. You can not modify or change something unless you can clearly see it in the first place. With that in mind, that is exactly why we are all saturated and spoon fed massive distractions on a daily basis. It keeps us from focusing on or influencing the outcome of the fundamental reality taking place before us. The controllers win by selective presentation and intentional omission, and in their viewpoint they win by having absolute ownership and control "of it all". And PS, that includes you and me also.

It is very important to stop the car of nationalism we are all driving immediately and look to see where we are in the first place. Would also be a good idea to scrape that road kill off our bumpers, it is building up a little to thick you know..


Walter Burien - CAFR1

[fps.sledge]

I'll be honest, I havn't completely read the entire thread. However, from what I have read I agree with most opinions.

I'd like to pose I question I haven't typically seen addressed. What are appropriate ways of helping the oppressed in other nations, such as Libya? Just pray for them? Volunteer militias to train, arm, and fun the locals?

I personally believe standing up against oppression in my own country is a virtuous cause. What would be the appropriate ways to help other nations?

[larsenb]

I'll be honest, I havn't completely read the entire thread. However, from what I have read I agree with most opinions.

I'd like to pose I question I haven't typically seen addressed. What are appropriate ways of helping the oppressed in other nations, such as Libya? Just pray for them? Volunteer militias to train, arm, and fun the locals?

I personally believe standing up against oppression in my own country is a virtuous cause. What would be the appropriate ways to help other nations?

fpss, I think the first thing that has to be done is to thoroughly understand the situation regarding the "oppressed in other nations". Just how accurate is the information are we getting through the 'normal' or usual channels? Do we REALLY understand all of the ins-and-outs of a given 'oppressed' situation?


Taking Libya as an example, how many know that Libya consists of 3 disparate provinces that have been quite separate historically even to the point of antagonism; and that it was Italians who cobbled the 'country' called Libya together out of these provinces. Apparently, a lot of what is happening there is driven in part by fault lines between these three groups. See an article on the subject by Justin Raimondo, title: Libya Does Not Exist, at:

http://www.etherzone.com/2011/raim031511.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I personally have learned through the years to be very leery about what I see or hear in the corporate media about such things, especially when they start beating the drums of war and come up with stories why war is justified or desirable.

In the case of Libya, Obama hasn't even waited for the media to pave the way or catch up; nor has he waited for Congressional approval. Apparently, a UN sanction/mandate is now enough for the Executive Branch (read, Obama) to wage war on countries that are not attacking us.

Taking my cue from the concept of a just war outlined in the Book of Mormon, it has occurred to me that a good test of whether I as an individual should support whatever war is offered, should be: AM I WILLING TO LAY MY LIFE ON THE LINE in this or that war? If I come to the conclusion that I am not willing to do this, then it seems hypocritical for me to expect others to do so (i.e., fight the war for me), unless they are actually defending their homes, families and their country from direct attack. It also follows that unless I'm willing to do this, I have no real business supporting the war in question.

But when are most people willing to LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE? Exactly, when their families, their communities, on up to their country, come under direct attack. This dovetails nicely with what the Book of Mormon defines as a just war. When you hew to this tack, so, so, so much blood and horror and the spilling of innocent blood is avoided. AND, you are certain to make very few mistakes in your initial reason for taking up arms.

Back to your original question. I think countries by and large (you can maybe think of exceptions where you might want to violate the principle, e.g., Hungarian uprising), have no business taking up arms against other countries, no matter how oppressive they may be to their own people. Think of how Alma and his group were able to bear up under their oppression and eventually get away from Amulon, or how King Limhi bore up under similar burdens to eventually escaped the direct oppression of the Lamanites.

The reason why countries as a group should not attack other countries, even to free oppressed people, falls back on the unjustness of expecting and maybe even forcing people of your country to put their lives on the line for people outside of their group or country, probably well removed from them geographically, ethnically and religiously. This would be especially true if the oppressed people were not being directly attacked and killed en mass by the oppressor.

Doing so violates the concept that the only time a people are justified in going to war is when they themselves are being directly attacked in their persons, families, municipalities, states and even country.

Now for you as an individual, I believe if you feel strongly enough about helping oppressed people (i.e., you are willing to lay your life on the line for them) in a foreign country, you should be perfectly free to go join them and potentially shed your blood with them. But you better be darn sure you thoroughly understand what is going on, that what you are doing is really helping truly oppressed people, and not relying on just a single source of information or the MSM in general. And you should be aware of what might be legal consequences for doing so. I could even see you helping their effort in some other way: contributing money, boycotting, providing direct support and refuge, etc., etc. But that would be your individual choice.

For me, coming to this understanding seems very right and very logical; and I'm a Vietnam vet. The one piece missing from this stance, however,is the additional requirement that you should put your trust in the Lord for your protection. When you do this, it is easier to hold in check what might be your natural, war-like tendencies. AND, it becomes easier to see through the lies of the media and even your own government.