Cleon Skousen "F. Fathers warned against" Iraq War

Discussion of principles relating to God's Law, Agency, Freedom, Liberty, the US constitution, and the Proper Role of Government.

Cleon Skousen "F. Fathers warned against" Iraq War

Postby BrianM » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:27 pm

Earlier this year I was having a discussion on the FreeCapitalist Forum about the Iraq war and the fact that W. Cleon Skousen said, regarding the war in Iraq, “we’re in a war that the Founding Fathers warned against.”

The "FreeCapitalist" and followers generally look up to Cleon Skousen as an expert in the political realm - though some of them couldn't comprehend why Dr. Skousen would have been against the Iraq based on principles... even Dr. Skousen's own relatives didn't believe that he taught against the Iraq war, or rather taught in support of peace...

The reason for this extra-long post here is to preserve that discussion, because for some reason the FreeCapitalist Forum is setup to delete old posts... so here it is: (on my next post.)
Last edited by BrianM on Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data...

The Matrix is real...
BrianM
The Creator (of the forum)

User avatar
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:37 pm

Cleon Skousen "F. Fathers warned against" Iraq War

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

here it is:

Postby BrianM » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:04 pm

Latterdayconservative -Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
Here is an excerpt of a meeting with Cleon Skousen on August 18, 2005:

“This is the beginning of the fall of the United States of America. . . It will most likely take an intervention from the Lord to save us.”

A great source of up to date information and truth can be obtained from Howard Phillips and the Conservative Caucus.

Regarding Iraq, “We’re fighting a war that will never end, the way it’s going.” We’ve been in Iraq for over 2 ½ years, supposedly giving them freedom and democracy. Iraq will soon have a new Constitution; regarding this, Dr. Skousen said that in Iraq they will “not get a stable government” but rather “civil war.”

The socialists have been in charge for over 60 years, and according to FDR, “it doesn’t matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in power, the Socialists are still in charge.”

source - http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... blog_id=20

He also said on August 25, 2005:

“we’re in a war that the Founding Fathers warned against.” (regarding the Iraq war)

President Ezra Taft Benson warned the Saints. He told them to become well informed on the Constitution. “The Saints are not doing this,” Skousen said. “Only small groups are.” The Saints ignored much of the prophet’s counsel. Both President Benson and McKay requested that W. Cleon Skousen teach, meet, and have discussions about the Constitution, with all who have ears to hear.

Dr. Skousen informed us that we also need to learn about Government and Economics. The “Free Trade agreements have all been unconstitutional, and hurt our economy.” The majority of Americans don’t understand this, and have been misinformed by those in power whom promoted these Trade Agreements.

We are losing our Constitutional Rights. “The
Butler Case did more to destroy the people’s rights than any other case.” That was the end of the Constitution.”

Regarding the Republicans and Democrats, Skousen said that “they are enmeshed in the Secret Combination.” Many of the Saints “are sound asleep” and have not yet waken up to this awful reality. “It is important that you [the informed] get the people awakened in an intelligent and careful way.”

http://latterdayconservative.com/module ... blog_id=23


bdupuis Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:23 am
This doesn't address the issues above regarding Dr. Skousen, but it is on a similar topic.

I would like to point out the problem raised by America's "Blame the Victim" mentality, which was the subject of a recent article linked on Free Capitalist.com. A great paragraph from this article is this:

Quote:
I have a constitutional right to go skydiving without a parachute. (If I end up looking like a pressed flower, am I a victim of gravity?) You have a constitutional right to go away for a week and leave your house unlocked, with a sign on the door -- "Valuables inside; doors open." Angelina Jolie has a constitutional right to walk into a bikers' bar in a sheer negligee.

In certain circumstances, the exercise of your constitutional rights can be lethal.


We need to apply the idea of this article to American foreign policy. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility over foreign affairs, including the power to declare war, however this grant of power gives no guidance as to the correct use of these powers. On FCR, Rick has stated that we (America) didn't start the war with Iraq. I would argue that nothing morally justifies the jihadists when they kill Americans abroad, but here the article applies again:

Quote:
Although it shouldn’t be necessary, we will willingly stipulate to the following: 1) St. Guillen did not deserve to be raped and murdered. 2) Her death was horrible and tragic. 3) Her killer is an animal who deserves to be tossed out of a plane over Gaza, naked, with an American flag tattooed on his chest.

Still, honesty compels us to admit that St. Guillen's actions contributed to her death. If you can’t deal with that, then you can't deal with reality -- which would make you a liberal.


This applies to America's interventionist foreign policy throughout the world for the last 100 years (led by socialists), which I would argue in great measure helped lead the Arab (and other) countries toward socialism and tyranny. Again this doesn't justify attacks by the extremists on innocent people, but it does question why we are "wandering around drunk in downtown Boston at 3 AM" and then complaining when the criminals rape and kill us (read the article if you don't get this allusion). In this I'm addressing the larger issue of interventionist foreign policy, in which one intervention necessitates another, and another, and another, starting (in this century) with Woodrow Wilson's crusade to "make the world safe for democracy".

As Pat Buchanan recently said: (again, he's not always right, but here I think he makes a valid point)

Quote:
So it goes. We hail the fall of Czar Nicholas and get Lenin. We go to war to hang the Prussian Kaiser and get an Austrian corporal named Hitler. We cut off aid to the "corrupt" regime of Chiang Kai-shek and get Mao Zedong. We denounce Lon Nol and get Pol Pot. We destabilize the Shah and get the Ayatollah.


To this I would add that we got rid of Saddam Hussein (whom we originally propped up against Iran), and I'm personally afraid that the above-mentioned historical outcomes will be repeated in Iraq. We have to take responsibility for the consequences our actions abroad for the past 100 years, and those actions have had both positive and negative consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen. That being true, I must question whether true principels led us into our first intervention in WWI, which essentially "necessitated" so many subsequent interventions. Dr. Kimber recently mentioned a report put out by people including Henry Kissinger, who decided that what was needed was a perpetual state of war somewhere in the world. (sorry, I'll have to research the reference). Les mentioned how dark the motives of socialists are, and their willingness to resort to secret, hidden means to advance their agenda. I would say this includes fomenting war and conflict. Rick said that the most recent invasion of Iraq was (at least partly) due to the violation of a cease-fire agreement from the 1991 war. He further stated that "we" (the U.S. as a whole, I suppose) decided that the defense of Kuwait was justified from the perspective of furthering our (U.S.) interests in 1991. As far as I can tell, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would have been seen by the Founding Fathers as a purely local affair, in which we should not meddle. The fact that the modern state of Kuwait was indeed a historical province of the state of Iraq, which the British colonial forces carved out unilateraly, reinforces this view. So again, one ill-advised intervention in 1991 eventually led us to another in 2003. As the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right". This is not a blanket anti-war statement. It does however, reflect my opinion that war should be for defense, not merely "interest", particularly economic interest.

Well, I have a tendency to ramble, and so I'll end here. I'd love to further this discussion. I think constitutionalists in the tradition of the Founding Father's will agree all day long on most domestic policy, particularly regarding government intervention in the free market, but we have a long way to go to reach a consensus on many aspects of foreign policy. It is to this end that I write.

Brandon Cool

P.S. To quote Vizzini from "The Princess Bride"

Quote:
I've hired you to help me start a war here. It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.


not1word Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:18 pm

To the preceding excellent posts, I add John Quincy Adams' observation:
Quote:
“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”


There are methods of thinking in foreign countries and cultures that the American mindset will never comprehend or fathom. Slights and ills are remembered for generations in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, yet many Americans find it difficult to recount the list of offences which led our founders into breaking with England. It is time to mind our own borders, and care for our own flagging republic. We need to spend some significant attention fixing our own broken system, and let the rest of the world's countries mind their own governments, as well, free of the enslaving shackles of U.S. foreign aid and intervention.

latterdayconservative Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 am

Well said not1word.

I agree, and the Founding Fathers also agreed that the United States should not be involved in entangling alliances and foreign wars all across the globe. If there is a threat in our homeland we should defeat it, but we don't need to fight overseas.

The Book of Mormon also teaches this principle. The Lord was with the Nephites while they were fighting to truly defend their land. The Lamanites would sometimes take Nephite cities and then the Nephites would fight to regain them... but once the Nephites decided to wage an offensive war and go into the Lamanite land the Lord did not protect them, and from then on the Nephites began to be destroyed.


Freeagency - Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:58 pm

The Free Capitalists argue that the Irag war is justified because it is an extension of the Kuwait War and UN sanctions against Iraq. The Joint Resolution by Congress lists two reasons for authorization for the use of United States armed forces against Iraq. They are to "defend the national security of the United Startes against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq". The security of the US was never threatened by Iraq. Suposedly one person from Iraq was involved in the goverment's version of 911. This was known before we attacked Iraq and was not justification for a war. The leap of facts for support of the idea that the US is responsible for enforceing UN resolutions against any nation (Iraq) can not be supported. What nations were behind us and what authorization did we recieve from the UN to make us the UN Enforcer. Most of the UN members opposed our invasion of Iraq and now almost all oppose our involvement in the war.
There is also the little matter of the Constitution, which does not allow our leaders to sign our alegance or to be involved in international treaties that superceed our Constitution. If you support the Constitution you cannot support the UN. How can so called LDS Church members support politicians that champion the UN. George Bush and other globalists have not intention in protecting the soverinty of the US.
W. Cleon Skousen will be shown to be prophetic as the nation of Iraq will soon be in civil war. This was never a righteous war and I do not believe President Hinckley supports the war as a moral war, but as citizens of the country we are subject to the law.
Freeagency


hendog - Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:58 pm

Yes, we may be subject to the laws of the land but remeber that it is our elected officials that make the laws. Truly the power of this country lies in the people. It was the intent of the founding fathers for the people to ultimately hold the power of the government. This being said, I would challenge the people to understand, not only their Constitutionally protected rights, but to exercise these rights. Parties are not the solutions. People are the solutions. Turn your brain ON.


rithban - Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:18 pm

hendog wrote:
.... Parties are not the solutions. ...

There's interesting information about parties in the Federalist and Democracy in America. De Toqueville provides some interesting ideas on two different classes of parties, one good and short-lived, the other troublesome and long-lived. He suggests that the Revolution was aided by the former, but stated that politics degenerated quickly into the latter, which is human nature.

I'll not rehash here the material in those two books, but throw it out for those that are interested.


RustyB - Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:25 pm

You know whatever is happening right now in this country is a direct result of something very easily explained . . .

1) Ideas have consequences. Whatever ideas are being spread, be it war with Iraq, or the decision to go to war with Iraq, is a direct result of the ideas in the minds of our elected and appointed officials.

2) Ideas (the ones mentioned above) came from what they were trained, taught and educated.

The only way we will really ever make change in the future is to spread ideas. True ideas. Principle-based ideas.


hendog - Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:52 pm

In light of what we have been trained, taught and educated with, I turn to the farewell address of Washington and his expressed fear of parties. "The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty" (farewell). Washington was referring to the spirit of a party with the party leader beginning to think for the individuals. Thus, such a leader could lead to the ultimate demise of the individuals.

George W. Bush has this to say;

Twisted Evil "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000 Twisted Evil

Farewell Address Available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm


Freeagency - Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:34 am

Those entering comments on this thread are generally on target. Too bad the rest of the nation is not awake. The Neocons are usurping power for their own purposes and the masses in blind support follow Bush. We are headed for big trouble.


Freeagency - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:01 pm

Free Capitalist Rick,
The need for a "new Pearl Harbor" can be found at http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf
Word search Pearl Harbor or go to page 51 first paragraph then check Project Participants on the last page. Further check out Constabulary Duties on page 6. I did not see in the Constitution where the US is to be the constabul of the world? Who appointed us? Check out page 75 where America needs forces to "meet the demands of the world's sole superpower." If we are to become the sole superpower we may have war with China. There is nothing like poking a country in the eye with statements like this, but this is what Neocons want, global war to impose a one world goverment. And don't throw in the Constitution to stop Bush, "it is a G-- D--- peice of paper" says Bush on his way to be the constabul (sherrif) of the world.


bdupuis - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:06 pm

Freeagency:

I invite you to read my post on the "new Pearl Harbor" portion of that report, posted under the Radio Show Comments for today (Friday the 24th), and post a response, either in this thread or that one.

Brandon


Freeagency - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:07 pm

I should add to my last post that Bush needs the Patriot Act in case the Citizens try to stop him. He has the threat of unrestricted survailance and he can just claim we are terrorists and lock us up with no trial required.

Sounds almost like a conspiracy. Thank you Ssenator Hatch and Bennet.


Freeagency - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:09 pm

I should add to my last post that Bush needs the Patriot Act in case the Citizens try to stop him. He has the threat of unrestricted survailance and he can just claim we are terrorists and lock us up with no trial required.

Sounds almost like a conspiracy. Thank you Senator Hatch and Bennet.


latterdayconservative - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:03 pm

I heard that Free Capitalist Rick said on his radio show that he was going to respond to this post about Skousen not agreeing with the Iraq war, but I don't see a response from Rick yet.


Brainstewn - Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:35 am

Know your enemy

“Murderous and disruptive as Osama bin Laden and his ilk are, they are just symptoms of a larger problem: a totalitarian ideology.” Now know as Islamofascism.

“In the mid-18th Century, Islamofascism became institutionalized. The theories advanced by the radical cleric of the Arabian Peninsula, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Wahhabism, as this creed came to be known be is the State religion of Saudi Arabia."

“Wahhab’s version of Islam represents an outright falsification of the Muslim faith.”

“By 1746 just two years after Ibn Saud embraced Wahhabism, the new Saudi-Wahhabi State proclaimed jihad against all neighboring Muslim tribes that refused to subscribe to the new religion.”

The “War on Terror” is not only a terrible slogan it is a quandary of rhetoric and actions that have no real end in sight. I’m developing a much better understanding about the good intentions of our President and simultaneously developing contempt for all branches of our federal government’s incompetence.

Not once have I heard our leaders or any leader inform us of Wahhabism, let alone use the word at all. Is this ignorance or intentional? All we hear is Terrorists, then we equate Terrorists with Islam. Worldwide people think Mormon's are polygamist, which couldn't be further from the truth. Wahhabi’s are cannibals, murderers and totalitarians. Our government leads you to believe that Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally. Balderdash! They are Wahhabist of the worse kind. They use their oil revenue to propagate Wahhabism to youth all over the world. Let's call a spade and spade and expose Wahhabism by replacing the word "Terrorist"with Wahhabist.

The above quotes were taken from the book “War Footing”, authored by Frank J. Gafney Jr. He held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department and will be on K-Talk this Tuesday March 28th from 7:30 – 8:30 am.


capnregex - Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:24 pm

I would disagree that calling it a war on Wahhabism. It is not a particular religous group that we need to fight.
It is the idea that terrorism is an acceptable means to achieve their ends that we need to disuade them of.
Terrorism is based on deception and cohersion.

Alma 1:12 wrote:

But Alma said unto him: Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people. And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/1/12#12


From your description Wahhabsim is priestcraft that attempts to enforce itself by the sword (terrorism).

Joseph Smith wrote:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


We cannot condem them because of their beliefs. But when they attempt to enforce those beliefs by means of violence, we can condem their actions. Thus IMHO it needs to be a war on terrorism ( their actions ) rather than their beliefs ( Wahhabism )


Brainstewn - Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:57 pm

Thanks for reading my post, you did bring up an excellent point which was inferred but not intended in my post. I want us to call Terrorist practicing Wahhabism Wahhabist first Terrorist second. “A Wahhabist suicide bomber exploded a bomb in the terror filled town of Selah killing 9.”

capnregex wrote:
It is the idea that terrorism is an acceptable means to achieve their ends that we need to dissuade them of.


There is absolutely no dissuading a Wahhabist. Since inception in the mid-18th century, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab has taught that other tribes shall concede or die. Infidel’s must die! A well funded Wahhabist movement will not be dissuaded. Their free agency is free until they inflict terror. Then they must pay for their actions accordingly.

My point is that Terrorism is becoming diluted and if we don’t make the practice of Wahhabism a household name, their movement continues to grow in the shadows of the ignorant.


latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:37 am

Just because there is terror going on in the middle east, doesn't mean we need to be involved... we are just creating more terrorists... 95% of terrorists have emerged since we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq, which means that an overwhelming majority of terrorists exist only because the US invaded them.

We need to stop meddling with the affairs of other countries, and start following the wise words of the Founding Fathers who taught against Foriegn Wars (see W. Cleon Skousen's teachings/writings for proof of that)

I think if we stop terrorizing the middle-east they will stop terrorizing us...

The US should focus on defense - defending it's borders at home, so the terrorists will stay home. When W Bush says "we're fighting the terrorists there so that we don't have to fight them here" doesn't anyone realize how rediculous that is? Are the American people so ignorant and "brain-off" that they buy into that lie?

I like the examples from the Book of Mormon. The Nephites were always prosperous in war when they kept it to defense and protecting their home land AT HOME... as soon as they decided to go into the lamanites land and fight them there (so they didn't have to fight them at home), that is when the Lord stopped helping them and this led to the destruction of the Nephites.

The Book of Mormon also has good examples of how they defended their home land against terrorists, or rather the Gadianton Robbers, who came into and around their lands. They used strategies to starve them out, to keep resources from them, etc...

I sure hope we don't go to war with Iran. We must be a nation of peace.


rkoerber - Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:08 pm

I posted this on today's radio show as well.

In response to latterdayconservative regarding "why" I don't respond.

1) I do often respond on the radio.

2) The 9/11 topic I agreed to research. I mentioned it on Monday's show. I've begun that research. I am not to a point of concluding on any particular element of the discussion. I find much of the information less than convincing, but I find some of it highly informative and interesting. I think it is quite possible there is more to the story and that explosives could have been involved. But, I made no commitment to post by a specific time nor did I promise a particular conclusion. I committed to keep my brain on. I am reading, researching, discussing, learning.... More people should try this process... But I understand it is quite different than the BOC membership manual's recommendation.

3) Regarding Dr. Skousen. I have spent some time considering my response.

First, I think it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY, inappropriate and ignorantly disrespectful the way Dr. Skousen's name gets bantered around in support of this or that issue. How individuals claim to have respect and admiration for him and then to treat his comments so casually is so disappointing to me.

Second, I spent many hours both one on one and in small groups with Dr. Skousen and his family. I have discussed the Iraq war and the war on Terror with him at length. I would consider my relationship with him personal. I have the highest respect for him, his integrity, his intellect, and his stated opinions on political issues (and many other types of issues as well.)

Third, I think one problem is that some who call HIM a FRIEND, casually use his name in uncritical, sensational, out of context quotes to make meaningless points in inconsequential ways.

The problem is that these individuals can not understand what I mean here AT ALL. THESE are usually the Patriotic Sheep I talk about in my "Brain Off Conspiracy" article today. Now, I want to be clear I am not accusing latterdayconservative or any other particular person of this behavior. I am making a common observation to provide context for my remarks.

My brief, but more specific response to latterdayconservative's remarks are:

1. I don't think Dr. Skousen and I disagreed in principle on this matter (RE: the war in Iraq).

I talked with him personally and in front of the group you mention on the subject. I do believe that Dr. Skousen had issue with among other things Pres. Bush's timing, war strategy and with the process of nation building. I believe he and I also agreed on this topic. But these are two different topics that seem to get blurred together in your's and Tom's criticism.

2. Along that same line, I think your arguments [claims] are lacking context, imprecise, and generally using Dr. Skousen's 'sentiments' distorts the method of argumentation and undermines your conclusion.

I'll be more specific below. However, I want to point out in advance that I recognize this is an Internet forum, not a scholarly journal.

3. I have taken a few days to respond in order to prepare a more thorough response.

I was determined to make a meaningful response out of respect to those who were sincerely concerned on the topic (and I promised to do so) that I have resisted the banter that is so common on this forum in favor of a more deliberate written response. I will post it or publish it when its complete.

4. You quickness to judge is telling.

I find it HIGHLY disappointing when patriotic individuals get so impatient with the process of actually developing a well thought out opinion that they prefer to judge another as either subscribing to dogma or rejecting it. This reminds me of the socialist approach to public policy. Throw info at the mass media, take a poll, and react.

To say to another person publicly that "I don't think you'll get an answer from Rick on that" implies I lack integrity and shows an over anxiousness that is EXACTLY what motivated me to write the "Brain Off Conspiracy" piece I published today. This by the way was the beginning of a response to you, Tom and a few others. Unfortunately, by being less than direct it appears that a few of you didn't see that THAT publication is a response to much of what is being discussed here. Though I again state, that a more specific response to the Pres. Bush, Iraq War and the War on Terror topic will be made in the future

5. I have stated my position repeatedly. Yet you haven’t addressed it, only the general notion of the issue.

As I have publicly stated many times, my position is that I reject the dogma of the ANTI-WAR crowd that increasingly floats through so-called conservative circles. This however is not the same as you have represented my stand.

For example, you state:

Quote:
One thing that we don't understand is how Rick Koerber can be so pro-bush and so pro-Iraq-war, when W. Cleon Skousen taught completely the opposite about the war...


How would you quantify my position as being "so pro-Bush?" and “so pro-War?”

I think this is disingenuous at best. I have stated over and over that I am not a person who supports personalities. I have also suggested that the war could be conducted with a more effective strategy.

I have argued over and over that personalities and issues are subject to the consideration of principle and facts. I have said that I think President Bush is dead wrong with some of his views regarding the role of government (especially domestically) and I have repeatedly said that I think we have not executed the best strategy in Iraq.

[bold] But what I did say is that I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was a principled decision and that I support that decision. [/bold]

You seek to "sensationalize" my argument by saying I'm "so pro-Bush" well you appear to be on the same side of the issue with regard to your war protest as John Kerry and Michael Moore and the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri but I would not say that you are "so pro-Zawahiri" or that you are so “pro-Kerry.” That would be irresponsible, disrespectful, distorting the point of your statement and disingenuous on my part because I can obviously tell that is not the case.

6. Your Representations of Dr. Skousen are not credible.

You claim in multiple places to be well informed about what Dr. Skousen taught. You even state for example:

Quote:
I took notes at the meetings during Skousen's classes, most of them are on my site (except the most recent): http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... p?cat_id=5 - anyone who wants me to e-mail a document containing all these notes can request it here: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/contact


I have to say that I think it is highly unfortunate that you think it appropriate to take your private notes of what Dr. Skousen said in his basement (often late at night and off the cuff) when he was well over 90 years old and proclaim that as essentially his final judgment of the matter. I would never feel comfortable taking advantage of him in that way. But the worst part about it is that I think you get it completely wrong. [bold] You are repeatedly out of context and incomplete in your summaries of his teaching.[/bold]

For example you state:

Quote:
Here is an excerpt of a meeting with Cleon Skousen on August 18, 2005: “This is the beginning of the fall of the United States of America. . . It will most likely take an intervention from the Lord to save us.”


What is the context? What was the question posed? What is the elipsed part of his comment? What is the rest of his statement? Did he know you were going to be publicly reporting this as his final judgment of the war effort? Did you get permission to represent him that way or present yourself as part of the press?

Why not explain that Dr. Skousen for at least 30 years has been teaching about the pre-conditions for the Fall of America. Why not quote from Behind the Scenes in Washington, Behind the Scenes – March 1987 under the title of “The Soviet Formula for Conquering America.” When Dr. Skousen actually explains that:

Quote:
It is significant that the story line for "Amerika" was the assumption that the traditional Soviet formula for the conquest of America had worked. The Soviets have said the United States would fall when three things happened: (1) encirclement externally, (2) demoralization internally, and (3) capitulation with little or no resistance.


It seems to me that Dr. Skousen was well aware of many items that could contribute to the potential fall of America, I could quote many more. The last quote though makes clear that one of the ways the enemies of the U.S. work to contribute to our fall is demoralization which is what I think happens with arguments like the one you’re making.

Similarly in Chapter 9 of “The Naked Communist” Dr. Skousen writes:

Quote:
In spite of public indignation, however, American feelings were somewhat compromised at this particular moment by a rapidly growing desire on the part of many citizens to forget the whole foreign "mess" and get on with home-front developments which promised to provide an all-time record of American free enterprise prosperity.


Does this sound familiar. It seems to me like the context for your arguments. Dr. Skousen continues,

Quote:
Mao Tse-tung accurately diagnosed this national feeling as an anti-war sentiment, and he therefore accelerated his campaign of propaganda throughout Asia by representing the United States as a "paper tiger." He taunted the United States with additional disclosures of illegally-held American prisoners of war and by open implication boastfully defied the United States Government to try and do something about it.


Now, putting this in context I think it would be hard pressed to argue that Dr. Skousen misunderstood the thread of such anti-war, and demoralizing propaganda. It has been my experience that Dr. Skousen know quite well that it was not President Bush who was bringing about our demise.

You continue to make the same errors as you quote:

Quote:
Iraq will soon have a new Constitution; regarding this, Dr. Skousen said that in Iraq they will “not get a stable government” but rather “civil war.”


But, I am quite sure that Dr. Skousen was concerned about the role of the United States as a nation builder who then proceeds to help draft a Constitution that is much different than our own. You don’t include that context.

[bold] Perhaps most telling you state:[/bold]

Quote:
President Ezra Taft Benson warned the Saints. He told them to become well informed on the Constitution. “The Saints are not doing this,” Skousen said. “Only small groups are.” The Saints ignored much of the prophet’s counsel. Both President Benson and McKay requested that W. Cleon Skousen teach, meet, and have discussions about the Constitution, with all who have ears to hear.


The problem is that you seemed to miss the point. Why are the Saints not doing this? I think I am teaching quite a few Saints in quite large numbers and am doing so with the help of Dr. Skousen’s family and friends. But, your group my friend, will I think remain small, because you haven’t internalized what Dr. Skousen broadcast in Program #21 of his Freedom University of the Air. In part it explains,

Quote:
Many, many loyal Americans, and some of them I know as my personal friends, are much opposed to what we are trying to do here, and this seems a strange paradox, and it is on that theme that I want to talk today, because these are not disloyal Americans. They are as loyal as any of us, and yet they are at odds with us, and that's our challenge. It isn't just enough to be against our enemies. It's more, even, to win our friends, not to oppose them, not to drive them into the enemy camp….because we make a mistake if we, in trying to help Americans, drive Americans away from the truth.


This is precisely what I judge your style of argumentation to do.

7. Your Method of Responding to My Position.

I think that I do more than enough each day (radio, magazine, internet form) to provide a forum for this kind of discussion for any honest person who truly wants to engage in a dialogue to clearly judge that there is a difference between your rhetorical posturing and real substantive interchange. You seldom quote sources (other than your notes) you seldom elaborate on arguments, and you repeatedly seem to be on the negative side of the contemporary American cause.

I would just summarize my post with the following. Look, I think latterdayconservative and many others are great folks, well intentioned, and very valuable in the fight for freedom. However, it is important that we do more in this battle than make claims, and pigeon hole ourselves at the expense of civil dialogue. Being opinionated is not the same as being informed. AND, being informed means more responsibility than RASH or HASTY judgment.

Principle is more important than the issue, and facts are more important than the perspective when seeking truth. So, brain on to all of you fact finding, principle based free capitalists, lets address topics like the Iraq war in meaningful ways rather than hollow dogma and castigating rhetoric.

Happy Tuesday, The Free Capitalist.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data...

The Matrix is real...
BrianM
The Creator (of the forum)

User avatar
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:37 pm

and some more...

Postby BrianM » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:32 pm

Latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:37 pm

Rick,

I will eagerly await your response, especially regarding what principles do or don't justify the Iraq war. I admit that because of limited time I have mostly used quotes to make my point. I believe that if anyone understood the principles behind what has been discussed here it was Cleon Skousen, that's why I quoted him... but you will see shortly my response using principles to back up my statements. In the mean time I'd like everyone and anyone's input, based on principle, how the iraq war is or is not justified.


Latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:00 pm

Rick,

when you formulate a response about the Iraq War could you first consider this:

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/au ... 9_2005.mp3

The first 15 minutes is about you Smile

will you please listen to the part where skousen discusses the Iraq war, starting at about 23:30 minutes. I'd like to know what you think about Cleon Skousen's feelings about the war, and how he said the Founding Fathers felt about wars like this.

I know you said you are going to prepare a response and I hope you cover this in the response or in a post on the site. Do you agree with skousen that the international bankers ordered the war?

I may have missed hearing you talk about this on your radio show but from what I have heard I am confused about your stance on the Iraq war, my question is do you think that there are certain principles that justify the Iraq war?

I refer to Cleon Skousen because he was such an expert and from all Cleon Skousen taught me, and all I can find based on principles (from the teachings of the Founding Fathers and others) is that the Iraq war and other wars are not justified. I am just looking for further knowledge, with my brain turned on, open-minded and wanting to learn.

(My response to what you said above will come later)


latterdayconservative - Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:49 pm

on the show today Rick mentioned that maybe the people who aren't posting on this forum are just too lazy, but I wonder if maybe we're the lazy ones posting on the forum and the others are busy being prosperous capitalists. (I am doing both) Or maybe they just don't know how to use computers


latterdayconservative - Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:28 pm

My response to Rick… (previous discussion in quote box)

Quote:
I posted this on today's radio show as well.

In response to latterdayconservative regarding "why" I don't respond.

1) I do often respond on the radio.


Now I know… I really didn’t think you were going to respond regarding the Iraq War, Skousen, and 9/11. I was wrong.
Quote:

2) The 9/11 topic I agreed to research. I mentioned it on Monday's show. I've begun that research. I am not to a point of concluding on any particular element of the discussion. I find much of the information less than convincing, but I find some of it highly informative and interesting. I think it is quite possible there is more to the story and that explosives could have been involved. But, I made no commitment to post by a specific time nor did I promise a particular conclusion. I committed to keep my brain on. I am reading, researching, discussing, learning.... More people should try this process... But I understand it is quite different than the BOC membership manual's recommendation.


I am glad you have agreed to research 9/11. I recommend you watch some Alex Jones Documentaries… I’ll give you some if you’d like. It’s hard to form a solid conclusion from most of the information about 9/11… but watching building 7 collapse and reading the data on building 7 just makes the whole things so suspicious. Some people, like Ken Bowers, have hinted that the there may have been Rockefeller/Rothschild involvement; that maybe it was a Rockefeller attack on the Rothschilds, but this online forum is not the place for that specific discussion. I prefer not to make the source of that info public, though I would discuss it in private.

The problem I have with this whole 9/11 Truth Movement is if our suspicions are found to be true, then what? My hopes would be that the American people would demand the restoration of Constitutional government, but it seems that most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are just against Bush & Republicans and their solution is to put a Democrat in power and introduce more socialism into government.… this is why I don’t focus on 9/11… I’d rather focus on learning and teaching about the proper role of government so that we can set things straight.
Quote:

3) Regarding Dr. Skousen. I have spent some time considering my response.

First, I think it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY, inappropriate and ignorantly disrespectful the way Dr. Skousen's name gets bantered around in support of this or that issue. How individuals claim to have respect and admiration for him and then to treat his comments so casually is so disappointing to me.


I disagree with you on this issue. You often quote Skousen, the Founding Fathers, and others on your radio show, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with quoting people. Elder Hartman Rector called Skousen an honorary Founding Father, and I agree. That is why I regard his teachings so highly. I quote him regarding many issues because he was an expert. According to one story Skousen related to us, even the Founding Fathers (in the spirit world) are reading Dr. Skousen’s books. I have the greatest respect for W. Cleon Skousen.

Quote:
Second, I spent many hours both one on one and in small groups with Dr. Skousen and his family. I have discussed the Iraq war and the war on Terror with him at length. I would consider my relationship with him personal. I have the highest respect for him, his integrity, his intellect, and his stated opinions on political issues (and many other types of issues as well.)


I also spent many hours one on one and in small groups with Dr. Skousen. I have also discussed the Iraq war and war on terror with him… I spent hours and hours picking at his brain for as much information as I could, regarding political and religious topics. I am eager to learn what he told you, perhaps he went into more detail with you? I don’t know. I think I understand his stance on the Iraq war, and principles behind it. When he discussed the 25th principle in “The Five Thousand Year Leap” with us he went over that issue on war, and he talked about it on other occasion as well. I would love to discuss this with you, along with many other issues.

Quote:
Third, I think one problem is that some who call HIM a FRIEND, casually use his name in uncritical, sensational, out of context quotes to make meaningless points in inconsequential ways.


My quoting of Dr. Skousen were not out of context, so maybe you’re referring to statements by someone else.

Quote:
The problem is that these individuals can not understand what I mean here AT ALL. THESE are usually the Patriotic Sheep I talk about in my "Brain Off Conspiracy" article today. Now, I want to be clear I am not accusing latterdayconservative or any other particular person of this behavior. I am making a common observation to provide context for my remarks.


Though some of my posts may not seem to reflect this, I am in the brain-on mode, looking for further knowledge regarding the principles of proper government and prosperity. I would consider myself a "Free Capitalist" according to your recent article The "Brain-Off" Conspiracy"

Quote:
My brief, but more specific response to latterdayconservative's remarks are:

1. I don't think Dr. Skousen and I disagreed in principle on this matter (RE: the war in Iraq).


Like I stated before I am eager to hear your response, maybe I misunderstood you’re your stance, or maybe Dr. Skousen said some things to you that I didn’t hear.

Quote:
I talked with him personally and in front of the group you mention on the subject. I do believe that Dr. Skousen had issue with among other things Pres. Bush's timing, war strategy and with the process of nation building. I believe he and I also agreed on this topic. But these are two different topics that seem to get blurred together in your's and Tom's criticism.


I’ve found that “The Making of America” in the chapter about “The War Powers and the Remaining Enumerated Powers” is a great chapter to read about principles and powers of war.

Quote:
2. Along that same line, I think your arguments [claims] are lacking context, imprecise, and generally using Dr. Skousen's 'sentiments' distorts the method of argumentation and undermines your conclusion.

I'll be more specific below. However, I want to point out in advance that I recognize this is an Internet forum, not a scholarly journal.


You’re right, and had I put more time into my statements, maybe you wouldn’t have a problem with the way I have quoted Dr. Skousen.

Quote:
3. I have taken a few days to respond in order to prepare a more thorough response.

I was determined to make a meaningful response out of respect to those who were sincerely concerned on the topic (and I promised to do so) that I have resisted the banter that is so common on this forum in favor of a more deliberate written response. I will post it or publish it when its complete.

4. You quickness to judge is telling.

I find it HIGHLY disappointing when patriotic individuals get so impatient with the process of actually developing a well thought out opinion that they prefer to judge another as either subscribing to dogma or rejecting it. This reminds me of the socialist approach to public policy. Throw info at the mass media, take a poll, and react.

To say to another person publicly that "I don't think you'll get an answer from Rick on that" implies I lack integrity and shows an over anxiousness that is EXACTLY what motivated me to write the "Brain Off Conspiracy" piece I published today. This by the way was the beginning of a response to you, Tom and a few others. Unfortunately, by being less than direct it appears that a few of you didn't see that THAT publication is a response to much of what is being discussed here. Though I again state, that a more specific response to the Pres. Bush, Iraq War and the War on Terror topic will be made in the future

5. I have stated my position repeatedly. Yet you haven’t addressed it, only the general notion of the issue.

As I have publicly stated many times, my position is that I reject the dogma of the ANTI-WAR crowd that increasingly floats through so-called conservative circles. This however is not the same as you have represented my stand.

For example, you state:

Quote:
Quote:
One thing that we don't understand is how Rick Koerber can be so pro-bush and so pro-Iraq-war, when W. Cleon Skousen taught completely the opposite about the war...




How would you quantify my position as being "so pro-Bush?" and “so pro-War?”

I think this is disingenuous at best. I have stated over and over that I am not a person who supports personalities. I have also suggested that the war could be conducted with a more effective strategy.


I am not able to listen to all of your show because of my work schedule (working for the man!) so I must have missed hearing some of what that you’ve said about the war. I suppose since we are already at war with Iraq it would be pointless to argue whether or not we should have gone in the first place… so then my question would be, what about Iran? Or North Korea? Or any other potential place the US might invade? I am curious as to your thoughts regarding offensive/pre-emptive war


Quote:
I have argued over and over that personalities and issues are subject to the consideration of principle and facts. I have said that I think President Bush is dead wrong with some of his views regarding the role of government (especially domestically) and I have repeatedly said that I think we have not executed the best strategy in Iraq.

[bold] But what I did say is that I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was a principled decision and that I support that decision. [/bold]


and that so-called “principled decision” about going to war with Iraq is where I think we don’t agree. And I don’t think Skousen agreed with you on that principle, but if you heard differently from him that’s what I would like to know, because all of his statements to me and statements I’ve found in his books and speeches seem to contradict you on this one. I am open to discussion on this. From what I’ve read regarding the principles of war we shouldn’t be involved in entangling alliances, most foreign/overseas wars, pre-emptive wars, and nation building/world policing. I’d like to know/ your thoughts on that.

Quote:
You seek to "sensationalize" my argument by saying I'm "so pro-Bush" well you appear to be on the same side of the issue with regard to your war protest as John Kerry and Michael Moore and the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri but I would not say that you are "so pro-Zawahiri" or that you are so “pro-Kerry.” That would be irresponsible, disrespectful, distorting the point of your statement and disingenuous on my part because I can obviously tell that is not the case.


I assure you I am not on the side of John Kerry and Michael Moore and the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Quote:
6. Your Representations of Dr. Skousen are not credible.


Your claim that my “Representations of Dr. Skousen are not credible” is not credible

Quote:
You claim in multiple places to be well informed about what Dr. Skousen taught. You even state for example:

Quote:
Quote:
I took notes at the meetings during Skousen's classes, most of them are on my site (except the most recent): http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... p?cat_id=5 - anyone who wants me to e-mail a document containing all these notes can request it here: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/contact




I have to say that I think it is highly unfortunate that you think it appropriate to take your private notes of what Dr. Skousen said in his basement (often late at night and off the cuff) when he was well over 90 years old and proclaim that as essentially his final judgment of the matter. I would never feel comfortable taking advantage of him in that way. But the worst part about it is that I think you get it completely wrong. [bold] You are repeatedly out of context and incomplete in your summaries of his teaching.[/bold]


Wow, I can’t believe you are saying this! Time of day and age are not relevant to this argument. Dr. Skousen’s brain was still there! He was still a great thinker/teacher even at 92. I never said it was his final judgement on the matter, but you can’t say it wasn’t, because it may have been. I think it’s highly unfortunate that you believe I took advantage of him! That’s absurd! Also, I am not out of context in my summaries of his teachings, rather you are taking my notes out of context. They are not meant to be a complete representation and commentary of his teachings, rather “tidbits” that go along with the textbook chapter and discussion of each lesson.

Quote:
For example you state:

Quote:
Quote:
Here is an excerpt of a meeting with Cleon Skousen on August 18, 2005: “This is the beginning of the fall of the United States of America. . . It will most likely take an intervention from the Lord to save us.”



What is the context? What was the question posed? What is the elipsed part of his comment? What is the rest of his statement? Did he know you were going to be publicly reporting this as his final judgment of the war effort? Did you get permission to represent him that way or present yourself as part of the press?


This statement by Dr. Skousen was a general statement regarding the current status of the nation with all its corruption and wickedness. Regarding his permission... Dr. Skousen allowed me to film him, which I did film him on one occasion. During the weekly meetings he didn't mind us posting our notes to the internet, but there were times when he would tell us things that he said he didn't want posted on the internet, and I respectfully honored those requests.

Quote:
Why not explain that Dr. Skousen for at least 30 years has been teaching about the pre-conditions for the Fall of America. Why not quote from Behind the Scenes in Washington, Behind the Scenes – March 1987 under the title of “The Soviet Formula for Conquering America.” When Dr. Skousen actually explains that:


Why? because the notes are just “tidbits” of our meetings with him. Those who read the notes are encouraged to read Dr. Skousen’s books to get the full context of his teachings. I am not going to re-write his books when I can just refer people to them instead. I am just offering interesting quotes from his meetings. Many people from across the nation have thanked me for the valuable notes I took, you are the only one who has not appreciated this.
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
It is significant that the story line for "Amerika" was the assumption that the traditional Soviet formula for the conquest of America had worked. The Soviets have said the United States would fall when three things happened: (1) encirclement externally, (2) demoralization internally, and (3) capitulation with little or no resistance.


I am also aware of this and many other statements.

Quote:
It seems to me that Dr. Skousen was well aware of many items that could contribute to the potential fall of America, I could quote many more. The last quote though makes clear that one of the ways the enemies of the U.S. work to contribute to our fall is demoralization which is what I think happens with arguments like the one you’re making.

Similarly in Chapter 9 of “The Naked Communist” Dr. Skousen writes:

Quote:
Quote:
In spite of public indignation, however, American feelings were somewhat compromised at this particular moment by a rapidly growing desire on the part of many citizens to forget the whole foreign "mess" and get on with home-front developments which promised to provide an all-time record of American free enterprise prosperity.


Way to go! In my notes I provide many quotes and you have taken the initiative to look further into some of them. This is exactly what I hope people will do. Kudos to you for that.

Quote:
Does this sound familiar. It seems to me like the context for your arguments. Dr. Skousen continues,


This is definitely the context of that particular statement.
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Mao Tse-tung accurately diagnosed this national feeling as an anti-war sentiment, and he therefore accelerated his campaign of propaganda throughout Asia by representing the United States as a "paper tiger." He taunted the United States with additional disclosures of illegally-held American prisoners of war and by open implication boastfully defied the United States Government to try and do something about it.


Now, putting this in context I think it would be hard pressed to argue that Dr. Skousen misunderstood the thread of such anti-war, and demoralizing propaganda. It has been my experience that Dr. Skousen know quite well that it was not President Bush who was bringing about our demise.


As you may or may not have noticed, those statements were not all about war. Sorry if you thought I was implying that all of those quotes were related to the war in Iraq. And you’re right Dr. Skousen said there are people in higher position than W Bush who ordered him to go to war.

The statement about “the beginning of the fall of the United States of America” was not related to the Iraq war.

Quote:
You continue to make the same errors as you quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Iraq will soon have a new Constitution; regarding this, Dr. Skousen said that in Iraq they will “not get a stable government” but rather “civil war.”


The socialists have been in charge for over 60 years, and according to FDR, “it doesn’t matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in power, the Socialists are still in charge.”

But, I am quite sure that Dr. Skousen was concerned about the role of the United States as a nation builder who then proceeds to help draft a Constitution that is much different than our own. You don’t include that context.


Actually there are no errors in those quotes. And yes Dr. Skousen was concerned about the role of the United States as a nation builder who then proceeds to help draft a Constitution that is much different than our own, and he told us that. Like I said, those are select tidbits, not a transcript of the entire meeting. You’re jumping to many incorrect conclusions about my quotes.

Quote:
[bold] Perhaps most telling you state:[/bold]

Quote:
Quote:
President Ezra Taft Benson warned the Saints. He told them to become well informed on the Constitution. “The Saints are not doing this,” Skousen said. “Only small groups are.” The Saints ignored much of the prophet’s counsel. Both President Benson and McKay requested that W. Cleon Skousen teach, meet, and have discussions about the Constitution, with all who have ears to hear.



The problem is that you seemed to miss the point. Why are the Saints not doing this? I think I am teaching quite a few Saints in quite large numbers and am doing so with the help of Dr. Skousen’s family and friends. But, your group my friend, will I think remain small, because you haven’t internalized what Dr. Skousen broadcast in Program #21 of his Freedom University of the Air. In part it explains,


Actually I didn’t miss the point. I just wrote down what Skousen explained to us. Just because I didn’t explain “Why are the Saints not doing this?” doesn’t mean I missed the point. I also think you misunderstand the group I meet with, weare definitely not part of what you call the “Brain-Off Conspiracy.” We sometimes have nearly 100 people present at our meetings, I don’t think you can call that small. I heard that you started up a Constitution class studying “The Making of America”? and there weren’t enough people so you stopped doing it? Is this true? And your trying to put my group down! Dr. Skousen told us that you (or was it Glen Kimber) wanted to have Constitution courses going on in every temple district, is this something you still plan on doing? If so, I’d like to know if you’re planning on doing one in Salt Lake City and when? I’d like to attend. The people coming to the class I go to are all people who used to attend Dr. Skousen’s class, we continue meeting because we don’t want to stop learning what Dr. Skousen started teaching us. Maybe you and I could discuss organizing a class here in Salt Lake City? We do have a few constitutional scholars who trade off teaching each week. I am not the teacher, I am just the person who has been organizing the meeting, sending out e-mails and providing a meeting location.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Many, many loyal Americans, and some of them I know as my personal friends, are much opposed to what we are trying to do here, and this seems a strange paradox, and it is on that theme that I want to talk today, because these are not disloyal Americans. They are as loyal as any of us, and yet they are at odds with us, and that's our challenge. It isn't just enough to be against our enemies. It's more, even, to win our friends, not to oppose them, not to drive them into the enemy camp….because we make a mistake if we, in trying to help Americans, drive Americans away from the truth.


This is precisely what I judge your style of argumentation to do.


I have read that (Program #21 of his Freedom University of the Air) and I don’t think I am part of that group that Max Skousen was describing there. But I do understand the argument he’s making there because I have sometimes had to be careful that I don’t become one of those people who drives others into the enemy camp, or keeps someone from waking up to the truth. Dr. Skousen tried to teach us that the best way to help people wake up is to start with the basics, the basic principles of the Constitution and proper role of government.

Quote:
7. Your Method of Responding to My Position.

I think that I do more than enough each day (radio, magazine, internet form) to provide a forum for this kind of discussion for any honest person who truly wants to engage in a dialogue to clearly judge that there is a difference between your rhetorical posturing and real substantive interchange. You seldom quote sources (other than your notes) you seldom elaborate on arguments, and you repeatedly seem to be on the negative side of the contemporary American cause.

I would just summarize my post with the following. Look, I think latterdayconservative and many others are great folks, well intentioned, and very valuable in the fight for freedom. However, it is important that we do more in this battle than make claims, and pigeon hole ourselves at the expense of civil dialogue. Being opinionated is not the same as being informed. AND, being informed means more responsibility than RASH or HASTY judgment.


This Free Capitalist forum doesn’t represent my views fairly. You are judging my methods and intentions based only on what I have posted here. This forum only represents a small portion, less than 1%, of my involvement in the fight for freedom. I think if we actually met and discussed the issues we would find that we are both on the winning side in the battle for freedom.

Quote:
Principle is more important than the issue, and facts are more important than the perspective when seeking truth. So, brain on to all of you fact finding, principle based free capitalists, lets address topics like the Iraq war in meaningful ways rather than hollow dogma and castigating rhetoric.

Happy Tuesday, The Free Capitalist.


I look forward to meeting you one of these days. I can’t come to your Thursday event because I am already committed to the Skousen Group that meets on Thursday’s. But I will come to one of your events in the future. Do you or Glen Kimber, or anyone else have any plans for continuing with Constitution classes, like what Skousen was teaching?

This discussion has been interesting, I’ll await your response about the Iraq War.

(By the way, Dr. Skousen had a lot of great things to say about you and you can hear 15 minutes of that in this recording: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/au ... 9_2005.mp3 - I also think you're great, I am just trying to figure you out some more Smile )[/url]


latterdayconservative - Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:06 pm

In some previous discussions, some individuals on this forum tried to cast doubt on my statements that W. Cleon Skousen taught that, based on principle, we should NOT have gone to war in Iraq.

I happened to film a meeting in which Dr. Skousen spoke to some of his relatives and they spoke a little bit about the war. These are Dr. Skousen’s exact words:

(This is from a filmed conversation between Dr. W. Cleon Skousen and some of his relatives)

Richard Bentley: What are your feelings about the Iraq war?

Dr. Skousen: The Founding Fathers never would have done it. The Founding Fathers said don't ever invade another country to straighten it out. Because it will fail, and all you'll do is drain our blood and treasure out, and it will not succeed. And so, I wanted President Bush to be a success and the next thing I know he's declaring war on Iraq!

Richard: So, do you feel it was kind of an unconstitutional war?

Dr. Skousen: oh ya, ya. I knew that he [W. Bush] had orders from somebody to start that war. Because he announced that we were gonna go in, and it was very unpopular. And we have a controlled press and they just kept hammering "this is the thing to do" and "this is important, we gotta pull Hussein down," and He was, he was just a horrible bruit, BUT! The Founders said don't go into other countries to solve their problem, make them solve it themselves. And let everyone know that they've gotta solve it themselves...


Dr. Skousen: ...they are wicked men, and the ones that ordered the war, which is the International Banking Group.

Richard: They ordered the war?

Dr. Skousen: ya! sure, oh that's where they make money, gotta build planes, gotta build tanks; gotta spend money like it was water. and that's what we've done, going deeper and deeper into debt, and we're not even blinking about it! people say "oh, it's a war so we gotta spend it" that's what these international bankers thrive on.

Richard: So they were the ones that ordered the war.

Dr. Skousen: They always do.


Dr. Skousen: Think of the boys that have died.

Richard: Ya, that makes me sad.

Dr. Skousen: It's unnecessary, It is absolutely unnecessary! because there are two religious groups in Iraq and now that their dictator is gone they can fight again, like they have been for hundreds of years.

Richard: Now it's a civil war.

Dr. Skousen: And each one of them wants to annihilate one another; that's part of their religion. This damnable religion that was dreamed up by Mohammed, uninspired in every respect, it makes murderers out of people and suicide bombers out of people. It's a terrible religion.

(From there Dr. Skousen went on to discuss some very wonderful things about the Church, and the Saints in these lasts days, and Christ… to listen to the complete discussion download it here: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/au ... nement.mp3 )

I am anxious to see what principles Rick, the Free Capitalist, is using to show why he supports the US going into Iraq. No doubt that Dr. Skousen was against the war in Iraq, and he based this on correct and true principles.


Cookiemonsterette - Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:21 pm
latterdayconservative wrote:
Here is an excerpt of a meeting with Cleon Skousen on August 18, 2005:

.
.
.
source - http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... blog_id=20

He also said on August 25, 2005:

.
.
.

http://latterdayconservative.com/module ... blog_id=23


Your quotes lose credibility when you site yourself as a reference.

Your post certainly caught my attention, but I've learned that I need to know the motive of the person whose ideas I am entertaining.

What's your motive? Or rather, what are you trying to acomplish by promoting these ideas?


Latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:47 am

Quote:
Your quotes lose credibility when you site yourself as a reference.


Did you read my last post? There is 100% credibility backing that up! You can download the mp3 and hear it for yourself, I filmed it and have the video... how is there no credibility in that?

My motive is to spread truth. I post these quotes and transcripts of Cleon Skousen because there are so many people who are misinformed about the Iraq war... Too many people justify it, when in reality it is not justified based on true and proper principles taught by the Founding Fathers and other great patriots. Also, I am open to other insight on that, I have yet to see anyone show how this war could be justified using principles taught by the Founding Fathers and people like W. Cleon Skousen


Bdupuis - Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:21 am

latterdayconservative wrote:
This Free Capitalist forum doesn’t represent my views fairly. You are judging my methods and intentions based only on what I have posted here. This forum only represents a small portion, less than 1%, of my involvement in the fight for freedom. I think if we actually met and discussed the issues we would find that we are both on the winning side in the battle for freedom.


Last I checked, this forum hasn't censored any of your posts, and you have put out a great deal of information. Nothing prevents you from putting out even more. If your "methods and intentions" haven't been made clear here on this forum, you have no one to blame but yourself. Don't be a victim, just make yourself more clear. No one else can do it for you.

Brandon
All my opinions are tentative pending further data...

The Matrix is real...
BrianM
The Creator (of the forum)

User avatar
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:37 pm

and the last page...

Postby BrianM » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:51 pm

Latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:53 am

Quote:
Last I checked, this forum hasn't censored any of your posts, and you have put out a great deal of information. Nothing prevents you from putting out even more. If your "methods and intentions" haven't been made clear here on this forum, you have no one to blame but yourself. Don't be a victim, just make yourself more clear. No one else can do it for you.


Actually I am not being a vitcim! and I know my posts have not been censored. I blame only myself if my methods and intentions aren't clear. I was just making the statement that you can't judge a person for only what they have posted on this site. I feel it a waste of time to spend too much time on the internet, there are more important things in life.


Rithban - Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:50 pm

latterdayconservative wrote:
... you can't judge a person for only what they have posted ... it [is] a waste of time to spend too much time on the internet, ...

No? By what means, then, do you propose others determine how seriously to consider your message? Others can only appraise your assertions based on the information you present, which you have done in spades both here an on your personal web site. Considering the time investment on your personal site, surely any time here represents a trifle.

I would suggest that if you bemoan the medium, then quit it in favour of one better suited to your unique ability; or invest in yourself so that the 'Net may be a medium by which your profundity may illuminate others. To chastise us for misunderstanding your mind despite your volumes may indicate frustration, but let it instruct.

Quote:
My motive is to spread truth.

Many in history have likewise put forth this as their sole reason for impinging upon humanity. I would, therefore, suggest carefully guarding your company lest others err and mistake them for your bedfellows.


Latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:17 pm

Quote:
By what means, then, do you propose others determine how seriously to consider your message?


I like to refer people to the words of others ("the experts"), like I have done on my website.

To understand how I feel about politics, government, war, etc... read articles and books such as "The Proper Role of Government," "The Majesty of God's Law" "The Making of America" "The Five Thousand Year Leap" "Hiding in Plain Sight" "God, Family, Country" "Prophets Principles and National Survival" "An Enemy Hath Done This" "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner" Ezra Taft Benson & W. Cleon Skousen Book, these are the kind that reflect my message...

Now back to the topic of this thread...

I am patiently waiting for Rick Koerber's response regarding the Iraq War. Also, I would like input from others who believe that the US was justified in going to war with Iraq, and why, based on what principles?

Rithban - Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:01 pm

latterdayconservative wrote:
Quote:
By what means, then, do you propose others determine how seriously to consider your message?

I like to ...

Ah... so you'll continue to struggle for a while. My best wishes to you in the mean time.


Latterdayconservative – Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:56 am

Rithban,

This thread is about discussing the Iraq War and principles taught by W. Cleon Skousen. Instead of directing your comments towards me, why don't you give your opinions on the topic being discussed.


Cookiemonsterette – Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:33 pm

latterdayconservative wrote:

I am patiently waiting for Rick Koerber's response regarding the Iraq War. Also, I would like input from others who believe that the US was justified in going to war with Iraq, and why, based on what principles?


I started drafting a response a couple weeks ago but lost interest after the second page of rehashed history and abandoned it. There is only so much time I am willing to dedicate to a relatively unproductive exercise. If you listen to the archives on November 3rd, 2005 Rick covers all the historical facts relative to the war.

The principle is: "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. ....to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion." Alma 43:47


Latterdayconservative - Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:06 am

Quote:
The principle is: "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. ....to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion." Alma 43:47


That principle is just fine in terms of DEFENSIVE wars at home, but not OFFENSIVE or PRE-EMPTIVE wars such as the one we are engaged in with Iraq.

The Book of Mormon is full of examples and principles showing that the Lord was often with the Nephites when they were defending themselves from the Lamanites who came into their land. While they were waging a defensive war the Lord often protected them, but when the Lamanites decided to go unto the Lamanites (OFFENSIVE/PRE-EMPTIVE) that is when the Lord stopped helping them:

from Mormon Chapter's 3 & 4:

"...the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us; and it came to pass that in that year we did beat them, insomuch that they did return to their own lands again... because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies.

"....they did aswear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies...

"...I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination...

"...I [Mormon] utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard, according to the manifestations of the Spirit which had testified of things to come.

"...the Nephites did go up with their armies to battle against the Lamanites, out of the land Desolation... the armies of the Nephites were driven back

"...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.

"...from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun."


Cookiemonsterette – Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:29 pm

latterdayconservative wrote:

That principle is just fine in terms of DEFENSIVE wars at home, but not OFFENSIVE or PRE-EMPTIVE wars


I agree. Listen to the archive: Nov 3, 2005.

"Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget..." Alma 46:8


naegleb - Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:26 pm

It is priceless to not fear being raped, murdered and tortured. Many Americans have paid the price for that. It is concerning that some people complain about others sacrificing. Every American fighting in Iraq is there voluntarily. They have stepped up to the plate and voluntarily accepted personal responsibility to defend freedom and democracy around the world. Some people sit in homes that are made safe by sacrifices of others and complain about it.

Brent Naegle

Freeagency – Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:55 am

Freedom isn't free.

The claim can always be made that in a preemptive war that the fighters are defending their home land. Read the conditions for defending ones country as defined by the Lord in 3 Nephi 20-21. These verses are not about suspected terrorists as in Iraq, but admitted 100% terrorist Gadianton terrorists. Even so the Nephites were directed to not attack them. Iraq had no potential to attack the US and had not attacked us. Bush justified the attack on Iraq by saying we were enforcing a UN sanction. We also had no authority to enforce this UN sanction as we are not the UN enforcer and according to past church leaders should not be a party to the UN. Pride is a hard thing to over come. As hard as it is to believe President Bush and others are not acting for the good of America. He has his own agenda and yes it is a conspiracy. This is why our country is decending. Bush is targeting Iran. Under the Constitution and God's Law he has no cause. He is not the sheriff of the world and will cause further demise of the US. I will not support him just to be in the center of a flock of sheep so I can avoid contention.

Free Agency

Bradgreen - Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:18 pm

I've been following this forum for only a few days. However, I've read it from start to finish several times. I've agreed with some statements and disagreed with others. I've turned my brain on and changed some of my views on different posts Shocked . Here are some thoughts I felt inclined to add to this topic:


What would I do if I overheard someone claiming that they were going to cause harm to come to a friend? I would probably call the police and tell them about it, then let my friend know about it. The police would probably inform me that they couldn't do anything about it until there was actually a crime committed. They might commit to having an officer pass by the house a few times a day and look for abnormalities, but they probably wouldn't have much else they could do (within their legal capacity).

What then would I be expected to do if I saw said someone approaching my friends house?
Call the police? Yes.
Then what? It would take the police 10 minutes to get to the house. It might be way too late.
What would a brain-off person do in this case? Nothing.
And a brain-on person? A Producer? I would hope that a brain-on person would do anything in their power to produce favorable results from this bad situation.
What would this entail? Going over and helping your friend defend his house, enlisting the help of others, if possible

Now, what if it was not a friend but just someone you know? How could it possibly be in your self-interest to endanger your own well being to help someone out?


Let me make a point here. IF you let this person do their harm and THEY get away with it, are YOU safer or less safe now? How are you to know that this break-down of assistance will not be repeated (by the same or different people)? WHO might become the victim now? If you think you will not be a victim because of your "non-victim" mentality, you'd be wrong. Mentality will never stop OTHER PEOPLE'S actions. Only the way you veiw/deal with them.


Do we remember the cease-fire agreements made after Desert Storm? They included: Sadam Hussein agreeing to stop trying to invade Kuwait, stop his military build-up, accept trade sanctions, and allow UN inspectors to monitor the integrity of this agreement (making sure he was keeping his end). The UN (the US by association) agreed to stop destroying Sadam's military.


Fast forward a few years. Sadam had stopped allowing UN inspectors to verify if he was keeping his end of the deal. We "overhear" via intelligence sources that he is building his military back up and violating trade sanctions. He has even claimed possession of WMD (which we now are told was a lie to profit off neighboring countries' fear of common enemies – believe what you want).

What did we do? We called the police. The president tried to convince the UN (world police officers - poor ones at that - another topic, sorry) to keep their end of the post-war agreements: ie... Stop the cease-fire on Iraqi Military. Or in other words, if you don't keep your end of the deal, it is terminated and we are not bound to our end of the deal. You break post-war agreements and the consequence is you get war back. This is the preemptive action for war. The UN, however decided not to fulfill their obligations to follow through on the agreement. President Bush (with what we all believed was credible intelligence – again you decide) asked Congress for permission to show the world what happens when you break a cease-fire agreement. You lose the protection the contract granted you. Congress agreed that unless we wanted everyone to think it was okay to ignore international agreements, we had to do something. CONGRESS declared war on Iraq.

Has the handling of the war been perfect? Far from it. The BOC has helped corruption exist in every aspect of our government. Does the handling of the war have anything to do with the principles that were used to decide that it was the right thing to do to go to war? No. Even if I didn't know any form of martial arts or had any experience in fighting; I would be obligated to TRY to help my neighbor.


I have a very personal experience to relate to this subject. At the end of my mission in Rio de Janeiro, my parents flew down to tour Brasil for a few days. One evening we accidentally turned our car into a bad neighborhood. Almost immediately we were stopped by another car full of hoodlums. It became obvious very quickly that their plan was to make an example of us, what would happen to outsiders that came into their turf. They started shooting. A tech 9 is a 9mm sub-machine gun that is capable of going through a lot of ammunition very quickly. My dad was driving and was brain-on enough to know that if we wanted to live, it was up to us. He stomped on the gas and got us out of there.

We were both hit three times each. After frantically driving through an endless maze of streets, my dad passed out because of lack of oxygen (he took a bullet through the top of his right lung and the blood filled up both lungs). We crashed into a small electronics store. I got out of the car, stumbled into the store and demanded that someone call an ambulance. One guy grabbed a phone and called the hospital. He informed me that all of the ambulances were out on call and he couldn't help me. I could tell the fear in these people's eyes. They knew exactly what was going on, and were afraid to do much themselves lest they become victims also. One brain-on individual named George decided it was in his best self-interest to help us. He rushed us to the hospital in his van and made sure the doctors would take care of us.

After later talks with George, we realized that if those people got away with this despicable act, their power would increase and his family would soon be inside these hoodlums "turf"; making him more vulnerable to further violence, possibly even against his family.


No one attacked George. He was just an innocent bystander. I know for fact that if the hoodlums were to have tried to finish the job, George would have defended us by all means necessary to his and our death; or to the death of those who opposed us.

Someone has to stand up against tyrants. Otherwise, it will be as the beginning of WWII. Hitler decided to break Post-WWI agreements by building up Germany's army. Nothing was done by bystanders. He figured if he could get away with THAT, maybe he could take over a country. Then two, three... Why would it not have been right for the U.S. or any other country, for that matter, to stop him forcibly when he broke the agreements and started to rebuild his army? Did we need to wait until Europe was falling at his hand? Is that what is required to keep the victims of this world from believing that we preempted war? The action of breaking the law, (in these specific cases - agreements) is a declaration of war and we must defend ourselves against it.

Do not let the media sway you into the belief that the war in Iraq is a war based on false principles. As Robert Kyosaki’s rich dad told him: figure out what the average person thinks and think the opposite. Let us all remember that Nefi was commanded to slay Laban to keep him from destroying other people’s lives. This commandment was preemptive in the context set above. Be careful not to be confused by the deception of the BOC. It has fooled us all. Most everything we knew, until we were introduced to someone who turned our brain on, came from someone with their brain-off.

Thanks for reading!


Brad

Bdupuis - Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:01 pm

Brad:

In your post you've raised the issue of the first Gulf War, and its aftermath, as being (at least in part) the justification for the current war in Iraq. This is an issue that Rick himself has raised when defending the current war, and I discussed it with him on the air. We unfortunately ran out of time on the air, and this aspect of the discussion has not been continued.

Here is my point: If you accept the first Gulf War as legitimate, then logic can carry you through to accepting the current war as equally legitimate, since it is in essence merely a continutation of the first Gulf War. Would you agree?

However, if the first Gulf War was not legitimate, then we are merely following one mistake with another. This is my claim. I do not wish to debate the finer points of what constitutes a legitimate declaration of war at this time. Rather I wish to focus on another notion that has been raised here, namely that of the Founding Father's opinions/criteria for what constituted a legitimate reason for going to war. It is my contention that the Founding Father's would not have regarded the first Gulf War as any of our affair. It was a regional dispute between neighbors, with long historical roots. Oil interests, or "regional stability" or any of a number of other so-called "vital national interests" are nothing of the kind. They are merely pretexts. Therefore, if the first Gulf War was illegitimate, this current war, which was ostensibly based on the violation of the armistice agreements following the first, is equally illegitimate, at least on those grounds.

Your reference to Hitler's Germany, and the rearmament following WWI, is in a sense an indentical situation. Of course we can't go back in time and play "what if" with any degree of accuracy, but it does make me wonder, what if the U.S. had kept out of WWI as the President promised he would? Might the powers of western Europe at the time have resolved the war differently? Perhaps not punishing Germany so harshly, so as to create an environment wherein a Hitler could become even remotely popular by playing on the people's misery and humiliation?

The old adage "two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

Lastly, you and many others attempt to make the analogy between individual action to defend another person, such as your story of George, and the collective power of the state telling its people that they have to send their sons (and daughters now) abroad to fight in foreign wars, ostensibly to defend the oppressed and downtrodden. This analogy doesn't hold, because of the fundamental difference between individual and collective action. I as an individual have every right to decide for myself if I will go an defend another individual (friend or not) from harm inflicted by another. But just because 51% of Congress (leaving aside the people as a whole for the moment) says I have to pick up and go fight for "freedom" or "democracy" in another land, doesn't give them unique moral authority to do so. (Collective action has no unique moral authority). Just because the current armed forces are all volunteers doesn't have any bearing on the decision to go to war. It just means that those particular servicemen have to accept the responsibility for where they are (literally) in life, as do we all. The Hessian mercanaries that fought for the British in the American Revolution, for example, were surely all volunteers, but that didn't make their participation in the war moral, nor did it legitimize the British attack on the colonists.

I am writing this without having taken the time to give particular quotes from the Founder's to support my claims. I will provide such in the future, and I'm sure there are others reading this that can do so as well.

This issue of one interventionary war leading to another, and another, ad infinitum, has been the norm for the past century at least for our country. Yes, there are evil tyrants in the world. Is it our duty to try and overthrow them all? I think not. Not even one, unless he actually attacks us. I've read the recent documents put out by the Pentagon, which show some connections between Saddam Hussein's government and terrorist groups. Just because George W. Bush said that we would hunt down "the terrorists" and wage war on any state harboring or aiding terrorists, and most Americans stood up and cheered, doesn't mean it that is is a wise policy. Instead of going after the particular terrorists who planned 9/11 and the country or countries that supported them, we have made it an all-inclusive "War on Terror". Is it just Islamic terrorism? Do we make a distinction between al-Qa'eda and Hamas? Do we include the IRA, or ETA?

I realize I've begun to go beyond the scope of what I originally wished to discuss. I reiterite the old adage: "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Brandon (former member of the U.S. Air Force, having served myself in this war, believe it or not. I've gotten to know many Iraqi's personally BTW, so I suppose I could make it personal, but that doesn't change the macro picture, nor the underlying principles.)


Bdupuis – Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:39 pm

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME: 15:436

"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799. ME 10:124

"I see... not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power except as to making peace" --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330

"It ought to be the very first object of our pursuits to have nothing to do with the European interests and politics. Let them be free or slaves at will, navigators or agriculturists, swallowed into one government or divided into a thousand, we have nothing to fear from them in any form." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1801

"Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace and prosperity." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823.

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793. ME 9:56

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796


Enjoy!

Brandon

Cookiemonsterette – Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:03 pm

I feel like this is one of those rock / hard-place issues. I agree with Brandon (and the Founders) that we should not have gotten involved in the first Iraq war. In Brad's example George got involved (and rightly so) because the fight landed on his doorstep quite literally. George didn't have to drive over from across town to get involved.

At what point do we start living by principles, though?

The second war started because Saddam broke the peace agreements. There was evidence before the war (albeit circumstantial) that Saddam was involved with Bin Laden and thus 9/11. However, to attack based solely on circumstantial evidence would be unprincipled.

Quote:

The Bush administration promised yesterday that it was close to unveiling long-guarded intelligence that would silence doubts about links between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qa'eda terrorist network.

So far the case has not been made and the evidence cited has been tantalisingly circumstantial. Jan/30/2003 news.telegraph


Quote:
Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda. " April 27, 2004 news.telegraph


The historical justification for the war was in the fact that Saddam broke his peace agreements as Brad outlined. It's not that they MIGHT have WMD. We know they had them. Saddam used them on the Curds and the people of Iran. He wouldn't explain how he disposed of them as required by the UN. He wouldn't provide proof they had been destroyed. It's not that the WMD don't or didn't exist. They exist, we just haven't been privy to the information of what happened to them.

So what do we do now? We cannot productively play Monday morning quarterback. Let's take true principles and apply them to the situation that we have, not the one we ought to have.


Bradgreen – Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:56 am

Desert Storm was, by principle, even more obviously legitimate than the current Iraq war.

I agree that we should not be the parties deciding what exactly justifies a war. The founding fathers shouldn’t, even with their amazing foresight, be the ones that make these decisions on straight line “regulation type” deciding factors. If this were to be done, other countries (and terrorists), would push this line day in and day out to inflict the maximum damage without our retribution. It is my belief that this is the reason that we should elect God-fearing individuals to lead our country. This decision should be left to the One who knows the future, so to speak. Only God knows the impact that a decision of this magnitude will make.

Rick quickly elaborated this point on April 13th’s radio broadcast in response to a brain-on caller. He said that sometimes it might be justifiable to kill to protect/preserve your ability to follow the principles or the ability of others. “When the basic social structure that is conducive to these principles is threatened, then there is a hierarchy of principles….So all principles aren’t of equal value. And so when if you were to come into my family and start threatening violence or destruction for my family, then killing you would be a principled way to defend the life and principled livelihood of my family….When a principled life and livelihood are threatened, in that hierarchy, it is principled to destroy that threat.”

This reminds me of the story I mentioned above from the Book of Mormon where Nefi was commanded to slay Laban, a drunk defenseless man endangering no one at that particular moment. He was not going to pose a threat to Nefi nor his close family after that moment (they were leaving to never return). It was principled to the Lord that he be destroyed to protect the potential principled life and livelihood of the people under Laban’s realm of control, possibly even including those who might fall under Laban’s realm of control at some future time.

So I come to my point. The first Gulf War was started by the invasion of Kuwait not the threat on oil supplies. I do not deny that our troops were there before the invasion. Kuwait, an internationally recognized country asked the UN for help to defend its country’s PERSONAL PROPERTY (primarily oil), from an attacker who openly claimed it for his own; blatantly violating more than one principle of capitalism. The UN complied.

Remember my story about being shot? George was just near-by. He was asked to help which he did; if the hoodlums would have attacked his new friends, he would have been in the right to defend with lethal force, if able.

I’ve been researching the first Gulf War all weekend (with 4-wheeler ride breaks, of course). It seems pretty clear cut. The UN was asked to help. As part of the UN, the US sent some troops to help (we’ll get into the difference between individual and collective action later). When Sadam invaded, we were just near-by. By attacking our new friends, we were in the right to defend them with lethal force. We did not conquer Iraq and keep it for our own. We attacked them until they not only retreated, but agreed to follow stipulations we set. This agreement was broken forcing us to attack again; as agreed on, by some, in previous posts.

Now the difference in individual and collective action; an individual has very little power to enforce an agreement. Most countries do not have the power necessary do so. This is, by and large, the reason the UN was created. Effectiveness aside, the UN was responsible for backing up this agreement. They would not (we now know that some were taking bribes including the illegal trade agreements we’re now learning about - unrelated). Luckily, the US has sufficient military power (ability) to do so alone. The leader’s WE elected to do OUR will (ie… congress), ordered our TROOPS to go to battle. Our troops did so because they have promised voluntarily, because of trust and belief of a greater well being then their own, to follow the command passed down to them from ELECTED OFFICIALS, whose personal self-interest SHOULD be to act accordingly to the expectations given them by US, their constituents.

If anyone is to blame for poor decisions of our elected officials, it is US. I do not believe the decision to protect our friends in other nations from tyrants is a poor decision. I likewise do not believe the decision to enforce treaties is a poor decision. Our elected officials have poorly led our troops and for this things have not been perfect, but remember, they are a reflection of us. No one among us is perfect; hence imperfect leadership and imperfect war.

The solution is simple. Spread the Brain-on mentality. Win back the ability to elect righteous leaders. Otherwise, the BOC will cause the eventual fall of the United States of America. Something will. The scriptures tell us of the awful state we’ll be in when the Lord Himself returns in glory to save us from our enemies, the socialists.



-Brad


bdupuis - Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:43 am

Brad:

I admit that I am baffled by your using the United Nations of all things to defend United States' involvement in the first Gulf War. Yes, it is true that we, the U.S., are a member nation of the U.N. And by that logic alone, we should therefore do whatever the U.N. decides we should do!? Heaven forbid! I don't give two shakes if Kuwait petitioned the U.N. for aid following the Iraqi invasion. What you've highlighted is simply the mechanism by which we have gotten ourselves involved in foreign wars that I believe go against the principles laid out by the Founding Father's in regard to war. This mechanism is called the U.N. You quote the Book of Mormon, so I assume you're LDS. What about those Church leaders who have in the past condemned our involvement in the U.N. altogether? It certainly is true that we living today have to decide for ourselves whether it is right to go to war, and not long-dead ancestors (i.e. the Founding Fathers). But we should make that decision based on true principles, which principles I believe to have been articulated clearly by many of the Founders. Being a member of U.N. in itself doesn't conform to these founding principles, so how could U.S. entering into a war based on their U.N. membership conform to those principles. Even if Kuwait had petitioned the U.S. directly, leaving the U.N. out of the picture, I still maintain that our entry into that war to defend Kuwait would not have conformed to the founding principles regarding war. Refer to the quotes I gave above.

When differentiating between individual and collective action, this is in regard to an individual human being vs. the collective known as the state, NOT about an "individual" state vs. a collection of states! One state actor is already relying on the notion that the principle "Collective action has no unique moral authority" is NOT true. Multiple states acting in concert (such as the U.N.) is simply this same violation of principle multiplied several times. Again, just because Congress and/or the President decided that our entrance into a given war was necessary, doesn't make it so. To say that is to say that Congress and/or the President always make decisions based on true principles. If you believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Of course it is our repsonsibility collectively to hold our leaders accountable for their decisions. In order to do this however, do we not have to make our own determination whether or not their decision was principle-based? And do we not individually have the subsequent responsibility to educate others around us about how this decision was unprincipled? This is a straw-man, because I was not attempting to lay the blame exclusively at the feet of our elected leadership, while giving the electorate a pass. What I was and am doing is pointing out where I see that an unprincipled decision was made, so that we, the electorate, can hold that leader accountable.

Brandon

Latterdayconservative - Posted: Fri May 05, 2006 10:14 am

Amen to bdupuis for what you said about foreign wars.

The Founding Fathers, W. Cleon Skousen and others who understood the principles, I believe, were right when they taught we shouldn't be involved in all these foreign wars and entangling alliances. Based on principles we shouldn't have been involved in even World War II against Germany, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, War in Iraq, etc... all these foreign wars are leading to the downfall of the United States... I don't understand why so many people love war so much and find so many reasons to justify it... The easiest way to determine if a war is justified is: where are we fighting it? Are we repelling invaders, fighting a defensive war? (justified) or fighting an offensive war overseas (often not justified)?


[I didn't come to these conclusions on my own... first I heard it from some friends, then W. Cleon Skousen taught me this, and I also did my own research on the Founding Fathers and research into things written and said by the Lord's prophets regarding war and all this research led me back to the same conclusions as posted above. I started out, like most people, not knowing that many of the wars the US has faught in were wrong and un-principled. Most of us grow up being taught that these wars were the right thing to do, how unfortunate it is that people so easily accept our leaders decisions to invade other countries.]


Kapitalist - Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 7:11 pm

So what?
So what?
Therefore what?

On occassions like this, sooooooooooooo what!

What are we going to do about it? Now entangled now what? How to solve the problem? This is the challenge. Can we do anything now, this year, next year, in 10 years, in 20 years? There is an old African saying (and I'm paraphrasing) "The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago." Better start now.

Do we understand the times in which we live? Do we see the context of our lives within the larger context of current human events, and our place in history? I applaud all of you for speaking out, researching, understanding the context of the current world. What is the roadmap we will create to realize the "therefore what" of our circumstance? I am extremely grateful for wise men who have indentified the problems and articulated the consequences of our nation's actions. May we hold fast to that knowledge in moving forward and taking it upon ourselves in doing that which will move us into action as quickly and judiciously as possible. Let's start asking the hard questions, and then the answers begin to flow, and a roadmap will be created.


Freeagency - Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:27 pm

On the Iraq War there are three types of people: those who originally supported the war and still do, those who originally supported the war and realized their mistake and have the courage to admit they were wrong and those who knew it was wrong from the very begining. Unfortanately in Utah the state with a higher percentage of Bush conservativees than any other state, the majority of the citizens fall in the first catagory. Unless this Utah majority can be educated to their error Utah politics will not change. I see little hope for this change until we a chastised from above and maybe below, nevertheless I will hold and teach what I believe is the truth and listen to principled discussion.

Freeagency


Latterdayconservative – Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:35 pm

I am still waiting for Rick's (and anyone else) statement on what principles he thinks justify the war in Iraq. I have from time to time heard Rick say he wants to debate this on his radio show, but I still haven't heard the debate. Did I miss it? If so when was it? If not, when will it happen?

I really want to know what principles people use to justify the US war in Iraq. I've heard all the issue based statements like: Sadaam was a bad man, WMD's and give democracy to Iraq, but that doesn't justify anything... show me the principles, please.


Freeagency - Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:07 pm

I have tried a time or two to get Rick to debate Scott Bradley as to why we invaded Iraq verses why we should not have. The proff will soon be selfevident if Rick stalls long enough. I would like to see or hear that debate.

Freeagency

robert_anton_wilson - Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:54 pm

Don't take it personally. My experience is, Rick often has a problem with follow through.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data...

The Matrix is real...
BrianM
The Creator (of the forum)

User avatar
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:37 pm

Free Capitalist Opinions

Postby John Adams » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:53 pm

Brian,

So are you saying that the members (right word??) of the Free Capitalist group believe that we are justified in being in Iraq?

I like going to their web site for news information, but I haven't spent much time on the forums, listening to their radio station, etc.; so I wouldn't know where they stand on all major issues.

I did read all your post including what "Free Capitalist Rick" wrote and although he does respond to you, I don't have enough background to know why he (they) agree with the U.S. being in Iraq.

In the name of being open to both sides of this issue (Iraq War), could you elaborate on why they think we should be in Iraq? The reason I ask is that if we're talking about Democrats and/or Republicans opinions on the Iraq War it's hard to sift through all the rhetoric, but I've heard lots of good things about FreeCapitalist.com so I would be interested in hearing their side.

The more and more I research personally, the more and more I feel that we should not be in Iraq, but it's still good to get more information.
Rise Up O Men of God
John Adams
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Northern Idaho

not all...

Postby BrianM » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:05 pm

So are you saying that the members (right word??) of the Free Capitalist group believe that we are justified in being in Iraq?


Not all of the members believe this. But there seems to be a lot within the "core group", such as Rick Koerber, the "FreeCapitalist" himself and the "inner-core" of FreeCapitalists... and then within the general membership it's split.

I don't have enough background to know why he (they) agree with the U.S. being in Iraq.


I don't either. I have heard them on the radio show saying they agree with certain things but I've never heard them say WHY? If they have said why I missed that show.

've heard lots of good things about FreeCapitalist.com so I would be interested in hearing their side.


There are a lot of good things about them... that's why I don't understand their reasoning for their position on this issue, especially since Dr. Skousen was so straightforward on why he felt the war in Iraq was not justified, and they use a lot of Dr. Skousen's teachings in what they do. Rick "the FreeCapitalist" also claims to have learned a lot from Dr. Skousen and says they agreed on Iraq, but I have proof otherwise.

The reason for that big long discussion I had was to hopefully find out why some of them support the Iraq war based on principles, but unfortunately "the Free Capitalist" never said which principles. One person did make an assumption of what he thought was their justification... but that was only what he thought he heard from them... I'll post it if I find it.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data...

The Matrix is real...
BrianM
The Creator (of the forum)

User avatar
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:37 pm

Re: not all...

Postby John Adams » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:22 pm

brian wrote:The reason for that big long discussion I had was to hopefully find out why some of them support the Iraq war based on principles, but unfortunately "the Free Capitalist" never said which principles.


Brian,

I do like your focus on principles. My dad and I still don't see eye to eye on the Iraq War and sometimes it can cause some contention, but when we can back up and discuss principles we can come to an agreement on things.

Anyway, in relation to Elder Eyring's latest talk in the Priesthood Session of Conference on unity, I find the Iraq War discussion can really make that difficult. Still, these are issues that need to be addressed and whenever we can take a step back and talk about principles then the unity eventually does come, but whenever we get bogged down in the details it goes away very quickly.

It's just frustrating that we as an LDS people can't come together more and be more unified.
John Adams
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Northern Idaho

Postby SwissMrs&Pitchfire » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:35 pm

Good grief that was a long read!

I think that you said something very interesting jdadams22, about agreeing in principle but not practice. My father is the same way. I think it illustrates how easily the two are seperated these days!

We cannot believe (doublespeak) two contradictory things and yet we often do.

I firmly believe that if we had a good long sit down with every member of the planet, we could boil everything down to it's root and end all of the deception. I believe that most would side with what I believe the prophets have clearly spoken.

I commend you on your perserverance Brian, that was a rather antagonistic exchange!

My father says things that are very interesting to me all the time. Last time we talked he said that "this country is toast." He then proceded to chastize U.S. citizens in general for not having the stomach to see it through in Iraq. He believes that abandoning the gold standard ruined things. He has not spent the time to put all of the pieces together, but I am doing my best to tactfully and slowly place the proper items in his path.

It is sad that so many people see the signs of the times but are unable to understand why we are seeing them now. It is not because Al-Quada decided to fly a few planes into a couple of buildings! And yet that seems to be the only evidence put forth to explain it.
"The rich can only get them (keys, signs, words, etc...) in the temple, the poor may get them on the mountaintop as did Moses." Joseph Smith HC 4:608
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated

User avatar
 
Posts: 5946
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Driven

Postby John Adams » Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:08 pm

Pitchfire wrote:I think that you said something very interesting jdadams22, about agreeing in principle but not practice. My father is the same way. I think it illustrates how easily the two are seperated these days!


The hard part about judging others' actions (in this case I'll speak about my dad) is trying to understand if they act a certain way due to another principle or if they act a certain way because they're just too lazy to change.

For example, the draft could very well be re-instituted in the near future and I have a brother that could end up being drafted. I know he would serve because my father has taught him the principle of duty to country, but at the same time I know it would be extremely difficult for all,(especially my brother) moreso even now because we've had so many discussions about how unconstitutional all these wars are.

I tend to feel that my father might be more on the lazy side at this time of his life and needs to change just a little and acknowledge that the Iraq War is unconstitutional (while acknowledging that duty to country is still a sound principle). However, it would be interesting to see which principle we would have to focus on if the draft came back--duty to the law vs. unconstitutionality of the war).

Until that choice is a reality, I still agree with others on this forum that we need to educate each other more on the unconsititutionality of the Iraq War, etc.
Rise Up O Men of God
John Adams
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Northern Idaho

law or not a law?

Postby BrianM » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:31 pm

it would be interesting to see which principle we would have to focus on if the draft came back--duty to the law vs. unconstitutionality of the war).

Don't forget - if a law is unconstitutional it is not actually a law. The war in Iraq and other wars since World War 2 were never constitutionally declared by Congress, thus there really could be no law requiring someone to participate in the war.

I am also not so sure that a "draft" is constitutional either. But maybe it is, I am looking into that one....

What would be interesting is if there was a constitutionally declared war today... because even though the war could be constitutional, it still might violate principles.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data...

The Matrix is real...
BrianM
The Creator (of the forum)

User avatar
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:37 pm


Return to Principles of Liberty

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests