Iraq war not based on [proper] principle

[creator]

Many people are trying to incorrectly justify the Iraq 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

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."

[lundbaek]

We need to realize that many, if not most Americans believe Iraq posed a real threat to America, and the attack was necessary to prevent Iraq and terrorists from attacking the USA. Many other Americans believe the whole thing was a conjured up threat of danger that did not really exist, or that the USA had no right to attack unless attacked.

How many Americans believed the Japanese were provoked into attacking Hawaii and the Phillipines, and the commanders who could have taken action to prevent or seriously blunt the attack were deceived into believing there was no threat to their commands? How many Americans believed the Tonkin Gulf incident was a hoax? How many Americans really believe 911 was an inside job? Even today, most Americans do not know of or believe in those conspiracies. How many Americans realize that our avowed enemies Russia and China were build into military powers primarily with lots of assistance from Americans. How many LDSs believe that today

I'm confident that most LDSs believe "that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society" and maybe even realize that "It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before." But how many really believe that "Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. (and) A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." Tragically few, I believe.

The Gadiantons have been extremely successful in pulling the wool over our eyes.

[sbenard]

In addition to the excellent references that Brian mentioned in his post, here are some additional relevant scriptures related to the Lord's commands against initiating pre-emptive wars.

It is important to remember in reviewing these scriptures that the Book of Mormon is unique in that it's prophets did NOT write their inspired words for their own era. They were writing solely for OUR era! Thus, the scriptures in the Book of Mormon are placed there solely for OUR time and for OUR benefit. Thus, if we don't learn the lessons that those prophets taught, we will suffer the same consequences. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them!


Alma 43:45-47
45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

The key, of course, in this scripture is the phrase "first offense". Some people try to justify the Iraq war by calling the attacks on 9/11 as a "first offense", and that we are therefore justified in going to war and attacking them in retaliation and to destroy them. However, neither Saddam, nor the Iraqi people had attacked the United States or its citizens. There were no Iraqi's on the airplanes that carried out those attacks. There is NOTHING defensive about attacking a nation that has not attacked the United States.


Alma 48:14-16
14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.
15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;
16 And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

In these verses were are taught that we are "never to give an offense". We must NEVER be the attacker. We are also taught the sole time when we are permitted to raise our weapons against our enemies: "to preserve /our/ lives". Note that the Lord did NOT say "to destroy our enemies" or "for pre-emptive purposes" or anything of the like.

It is also interesting to note in these verses HOW the Lord will deliver us: He will 1) warn us to flee, or 2) prepare for war, or 3) "make it known unto /us/ whither /we/ should go to defend /our/selves against /our/ enemies". Again, the Lord never promises to tell us how to destroy our enemies, just how to defend and preserve ourselves against them.

In our own day, the Lord restated this law to Joseph Smith:

D&C98
16 Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace..."

Then He gives the law:

D&C 98:33-36
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

One thing that the bellicose war-mongers frequently ignore in these verses is that "/we/ should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them" .. The Lord expresses this in a very interesting way -- that we must NOT go to war unless HE commands it. He even states it TWICE, as if once isn't enough. In verse 36 he again states that we are only justified in going to war if "I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment". The Lord has never commanded us through his to go to war against Iraq or any other country that hasn't attacked the United States.

We are also taught in these verses that we must repeatedly and earnestly seek peace. That's PEACE, not capitulation! PEACE!

Hel 11:27-29
27 Now behold, these robbers (the "terrorists" of the Nephites day) did make great havoc, yea, even great destruction among the people of Nephi, and also among the people of the Lamanites.
28 And it came to pass that it was expedient that there should be a stop put to this work of destruction; therefore they sent an army of strong men into the wilderness and upon the mountains to search out this band of robbers, and to destroy them.
29 But behold, it came to pass that in that same year they were driven back even into their own lands...
30 And... they did go forth again against this band of robbers, and did destroy many; and they were also visited with much destruction.
31 And they were again obliged to return out of the wilderness and out of the mountains unto their own lands, because of the exceeding greatness of the numbers of those robbers who infested the mountains and the wilderness.
32 ...And the robbers did still increase and wax strong, insomuch that they did defy the whole armies of the Nephites, and also of the Lamanites; and they did cause great fear to come unto the people upon all the face of the land.

Interesting to note that the Nephite armies were not completely without success, since they "did destroy many". But the scriptural record makes clear that ultimately, the consequences of initiating wars against others is that "they /the Nephites -- and us/ were also visited with much destruction" and that eventually, the numbers of their enemies "did still INCREASE and WAX strong, insomuch that they did defy the whole armies of the Nephites". What is the Lord trying to tell US when He describes the consequences of these pre-emptive attacks? Will our enemies also INCREASE in number and wax strong because of our disobedience to this law of justified war? It is certainly interesting to note that hatred for the United States has grown -- even amongst our allies -- as a consequence of this wicked war. In the Muslim world, it seems to just fan the flames of hatred for us. Why? Because it has created the perception worldwide that WE are the aggressors!


3 Ne 3:19
19 Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge.

I couldn't help but ask myself WHY the Lord went out of his way to label Gidgiddoni as a "great prophet" to US reading the Book of Mormon in OUR day! He wanted to make very clear that the counsel Gidgiddoni gave to the Nephites came from GOD, not from the counsels of men!

The Nephites had been issued an ultimatum from Giddianhi, the leader of the robbers, telling them to give up or they would annihilate the entire Nephite nation. Here is what the Nephites wanted to do:

3 Ne 3:20-21
20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.
21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

These verses are the key to knowing what the Lord expects us to do against our enemies. How many times have we heard Dick Cheney say that we must destroy our enemies "in their own lands"? Every time I hear him say this, I hear verse 20 repeated in my mind. It is simply impossible to destroy every terrorist needle in a global haystack. It costs too much money, and it is impossible to accomplish in the 80 or so nations of the earth where Al Queda operates.
I love these verses because the Lord stated in very simple and clear terms what He thought of the idea of a pre-emptive attack to destroy one's enemies in their own lands: "The Lord forbid". Could He have told us in any clearer terms? He also tells us of the consequences of engaging in pre-emptive wars upon other peoples: "the Lord would deliver US into THEIR hands" Wow! God has promised to deliver US into the hands of our enemies of we attack THEM in THEIR lands. On the other hand, the Lord also promises that is we stay in our OWN lands and protect ourselves HERE, "as the Lord liveth" -- this is, by the way, the strongest type of oath the Nephites could make -- "HE will deliver THEM into OUR hands."

The Lord also tells us how he commanded the Nephites through their prophet to defend themselves: "we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us" Perhaps the Lord will command us to defend ourselves in a different way, as he told the Nephites he would do so in one of three ways that were mentioned above in Alma 48, but the Lord NEVER has justified attacking other peoples in the own lands, with one exception.

The one exception that I am aware of is when the Lord told the ancient Israelites to destroy Jericho. However, the Lord told us in the Book of Mormon that He commanded Jericho to be destroyed because they had become ripe in iniquity. They had been warned and refused to obey. But in our day, most Muslim nations have never even heard the preaching of the Gospel, so they don't qualify as having been warned or thus being ripe in iniquity.

[sbenard]

I also wanted to add one additional note to the verses that Brian posted at the top of this topic.

The Lord seemed to anticipate that there would be people in OUR day who would read Mormon Chapters 3 and 4 and say, "Well, it was because the Nephites were so wicked that Mormon finally refused to support them in their battles". The Lord inspired Mormon to therefore write in verse 12:

"notwithstanding their wickedness I had lead them many times to battle".
In other words, even the wicked are justified in fighting to protect themselves. So what made the difference this time such that Mormon could no longer justify helping them to defend themselves?

"that they would go up to their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren". Then, the voice of the Lord told Mormon:

"Vengenace is mine..." The Lord was speaking of vengeance on the NEPHITES, not the Lamanites!

Then, in the next few verses, Mormon states emphatically reagarding his message -- the lesson he is trying to teach -- is that "I write unto YOU, Gentiles, and also unto YOU, house of Israel... unto all the ends of the earth... also unto the remnant of this people /the Lamanite of our day/" He is preaching to EVERYONE in OUR day -- not to the Nephites, but to US! (see verses 17-20 in the same Chapter, keeping in mind that his delivery of the message is within the context of what he has just been talking about-- unjustified war!)

v. 20:
"And these things doth the Spirit manifest unto me; therefore I write unto you all."

As if the lesson of initiating wars to destroy one's enemies STILL wasn't clear enough, the Lord then inspired Mormon a few verses later in Chapter 4 to state again:

Morm 4:4-5
4 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.
5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.

[Shoemaker]

Who said our enemies were Al Queda? Even Steven Jones the B.Y.U. physics professor who challenged the Bush administrations official version of the 9/11 events said "the Arabs are probably not the ones to blame for bring down the World Trade Centers and building #7". The Muslins are not our enemies they're just the scape-goats just like Zacarias Moussaoui is the fall guy for the 9/11 events. Al Queda and the Taliban brotherhood are red-herrings. This is a case of mistaken identity! Our real enemies are our domestic terrorists--Skull and Bones and their agenda for the New World Order. Our enemy is the “secret combination” that has its tentacles in every nation; it is “among” us not in some remote country in the Middle East. Even the President of the United States, ipso facto, admits to belonging to this notorious “secret combination” “had in secret chambers” called the “tomb” wherein he said: "My senior year [at Yale University] I joined [The Order of] Skull and Bones, a secret society, so secret I can't say anything more." (Autobiography by George W. Bush, A Charge to Keep. P.47).

Both George W. Bush and John Kerry admitted to belonging to this secret combination on television on Meet the Press with Tim Russert while campaigning in the last presidential election. The CBS television documentary show 60 minutes did a piece on Skull and Bones in 2004 at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/ ... 6332.shtml.

This is a huge red flag flapping in front of the American peoples face and particularly in front of the members of the church’s face. When are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? Our enemy is inside not outside! The problem in Utah is that Mormons equate Mormonism with the Republican party and they think George W. Bush “is a man of God”. What rubbish and hey I’m a registered Republican with no ax to grind. Yes, we should stay in our own back yards and mind our own business but how can we when Americans and Mormons in particular continue to elect modern day Gadiantons like George W. Bush and his neo-con buddies who cavort the globe with black ops teams causing trouble and running a torture “rendition” program carried out by the C.I.A. etc. We allow Bush to bully the world into his image and let him get away with calling it “spreading democracy”. And when the press is no longer "the watch dog of society" but rather a "lap dog" for the internationalist traitors running this country and what is called news is really propaganda then you have a complicit press that covers the truth and manipulates our perceptions. As long as this conspiratorial combination continues to get our votes and our admiration we are “supporting” the idea of pre-emptive war. You intimated that you didn’t like Cheney, well that is a good start.

[Shoemaker]

For some reason that site for Skull and Bones is not working. To access the article go to your Google search engine and put in: "Skull and Bones" "60 minutes". The first entry is the right article.

[sbenard]

I wanted to add a few more recent thoughts regarding war and Book of Mormon scriptures.

In my daily reading, I reached Mormon 3-4 yesterday, and some new thoughts and impressions came to me as I was reading. Here are a few annotations I typed into my PDA.

Mormon 3:11
"When the Nephite soldiers decided to attack the Lamanites first, Mormon refused to lead them in offensive war. This position was not only justified by earlier teachings of the prophets and the counsel of the Lord (3 Ne 3:20-21), but was also vindicated by subsequent events: the Nephite armies began to be defeated from that time forth." Daniel Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon

Mormon 3:12
Lest anyone erroneously think that Mormon refused to lead the Nephites due to their wickedness alone (see v. 11), Mormon is inspired by God to make the point that he had led them "notwithstanding their wickedness". It was their offensive war to take vengeance on their enemies that caused Mormon to withdraw his leadership. Note also, however, that he did continue to fight with them (and even lead them again later), eventually dieing from mortal wounds he suffered in future battles.

Mormon 3:14
How do a people "avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who /have/ been slain by their enemies" (v. 9)? By seeking to destroy their enemies first (see v. 11 annotation)!

Mormon 3:15
This is a shocking and profound curse upon those who seek vengeance (offensive or pre-emptive war) upon their enemies; the Lord says, "vengeance is mine", ie., that He will bring down his Hand of justice upon that nation that sought such retribution. Upon whom his Justice will fall is made explicitly clear in this verse.
There is a powerful and important lesson taught in this verse and those verses in the footnotes, especially Romans 12:19 and D&C 82:23. That lesson is that we must never seek vengeance. "Revile not", he said simply. Vengeance only is for the Lord in his perfect justice. We are to seek redress, but never vengeance.

Mormon 3:17
Mormon makes clear in this verse that his message is not just a historical recounting, but that he is striving to teach his point to US in our day. One certainly must ask, "Why is Mormon explicitly stating in this verse that his message forbidding offensive war is directed toward US in the last days? (at the time of the gathering of Israel)" The obvious answer is that he saw our day and knew that we would make the same mistake that the Nephites did, and thus, bring upon ourselves the same "vengeance is /the Lord's/ (v. 15)" fate.

Mormon 3:20
Mormon states clearly and emphatically in this verse that he was commanded by the Spirit of God to deliver this messsage in particular -- to US.

Mormon 4:1
It is of note that the decision of the Nephites to engage in pre-emptive, offensive war ocurred imminently and immediately before the complete destruction of the Nephites. Is this perhaps also prophetic for us in our day?

Mormon 4:4
Note that it was because the Nephites went against the Lamanites (even though they believed their cause to be just) that they were being destroyed, as prophesied in 3 Ne 3:21. Note also that it is the wicked who lead people into war (see next verse - v. 5), "for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed." What does this say about us in our day, that we would initiate wars? It certainly implies that we are the wicked, since we began various wars.

Mormon 4:10
I am struck by this verse because rather than learn our lesson and repent, we, like the Nephites, have "repented not of the evil /we have/ done" and, instead, are preparing at this time to compound our error by committing additional troops and resources to a forbidden offensive war. Also like the Nephites, we have "persisted in /our/ wickedness continually."

Mormon 4:12
The Lord had told Mormon that no greater wickedness had ever occured anywhere in the House of Israel. And what was it that earned for them this horrible distinction? Pre-emptive war!

[Shoemaker]

Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed in his jail cell by a German speaking U.S. Army intelligence officer, Gustave Gilbert, during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert's book Nuremberg Diary.

Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in American, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[WhisperFox]

Great posts Sbenard and Shoemaker.

[Mark]

Lets talk about the concept of defensive wars and justification. I will use the situation in Israel as an example. There are reports that Israel is preparing to launch strikes against Iran nuclear facilities. Are they justified in doing so? Iran has said repeatedly that Israel must cease to exist and they have been very straightforward in saying that this must occur in order to bring about their religious fantasy. How should Israel react to this type of talk. Should they wait until a Nuke is detonated in Tel Aviv before they act against this very real threat? What constitutes a legitimate defensive reaction to a threat in your eyes? Must a nation wait until thousands of their people are murdered in a strike before they take action against a threatening nation like Iran has become? Reagan sent a little message to Khadafi in the form of a missle to shut him up. Was he wrong in doing so because Khadafi had not yet attacked an American city? If tyrants are threatening to kill millions of your citizens when is it okay to take action so that this does not occur?

[ChelC]

Back to the family argument. If you found out someone was talking about taking your family out, and they publicly flaunted weapons showing their power, are you justified in taking them out before a it's come to your home? You can try to deter it, you can try whatever you want, but you have no right to physically do any harm until it's come upon you. I don't think you wait until you've been hit, but you wait until the enemy is walking through your door. You stand ready, you let them hear the tell tale sound of preparing your weapon for fire. Why would there be one set of rules for families and another moral compass for nations? I think their best defense would be to have an arsenal pointed and ready, so their enemy can be quite certain that a strike would meet with equal or greater destruction.

I teach my son not to hit, but if someone hurts him he should give it back to them enough so they regret it. He's also able to flaunt his muscles to deter the hit in the first place, and block the punches as they come.

[Mark]

The detonation of a nuke on a city killing hundreds of thousands of citizens is just a wee bit different than dealing with a neighborhood bully don't ya think ChelC? Irans mullahs and its nut job President feel the need to create massive destruction so as to bring on their perverted religious dogma. Does Israel need to wait for the inevitable to occur before they act to defend their citizens? How do you negotiate with a diluted psychopath who feels the need to wipe you out irregardless of the consequences? Once again remember that after Khadafi received his gift wrapped present under his tree into his living room you didn't hear another peep from him. Perhaps we need a few more Teancums to deal with all the Amalickiahs out there in the world. The world is full of them.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Apparently, based on your assesment, what we need to do is have targeted nuclear strikes against Iran (Israel can do that one), North Korea, Russia and China (since they have had the oft-stated objective of our total destruction for some time now), Who else is on your list to nuke Mark?

By your stated standard ALL of these actions would be completely justified right? Yes? No?

[ChelC]

Precisely why government performs the greatest acts of evil in world history, because everyone pretends the argument is different. We pretend that when acting as a government body we have different responsibilities. It's easy for people to call my way of thinking naive. I understand the argument, I understand how much evil is in the world, I understand that my way of thinking could cost lives. I also understand that jumping into a war and causing the loss of lives can bring about the damnation of our souls if we are mistaken in judgement.

It's not just the neighborhood bully, where does the line change? Is it with a battered wife? If she gets smacked around every once in a while and stays and takes it for years, is she justified to wake up one day and decide to take him out? Or did nuclear warfare change the game? Because evil figured out how to do more harm with less advance warning, does that justify us in violent acts of war against an enemy that could be all talk and no action? How can we be certain that our attacks which inevitably take the lives of innocents are really justified? If we're wrong, is blood on our hands? I sure don't want to be wrong! I don't want to be dead, but I'd rather be dead than to have blood on my hands. I also believe that I would be protected if I am righteous. Can you be sure that we are justified to strike first? Can you be certain that it's okay to judge others to the extent that you take them out for a crime before they commit it? How much proof of intent justifies us? I can't answer all these questions, though I'm bothered enough that I don't want to risk being wrong and supporting the commission of murder. I would much rather work on being righteous enough to merit divine protection.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I like the final understanding that Joshua reached in "War games," essentially that this game is boring, there is no way to win how about a game of checkers?

Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that Iran would ever launch a first strike against Israel or the U.S.? There is a reason that the acronym MAD stands for mutual assured destruction. "Madness, madness,..." (Bridge on the River Kwai)

[Mark]

You need to go a read up on Irans religious beliefs and their stated goals in order to bring about those necessary beliefs Pitchfire. Until you know whats in their head and why they are willing to commit both life and limb in doing seemingly unexplanable things you won't ever really understand where I am coming from here. You also need to understand who is backing them in their blustery talk and what strategy these other axis powers have developed in bringing down the West before we can really go any further in coming to an understanding of things to come.

Suffice it to say there is an unholy alliance between some very powerful forces in the world who want to see you dead and buried in a heap with the rest of your family and they are setting things up very nicely to accomplish that goal. If all you want to see is the evil that exists in your own land then you will get run over by a freight train coming at you at 100 miles an hour as you continue to look only at your own country's faults and failings. America is in the bullseye of forces more powerful than the world has ever known and these forces know how to play to win. We are just too dumbed down as a people and as a nation to realize it fully. Read up on the Shanghai Cooperative Organization and meet your conquerers up close and personal. Once these plans are put into motion by these bloodthirsty tyrants you will long for the days when you could voice your complaints about the patriot acts and other various subjects focused on almost exclusively here. Learn Chinese and Russian in the meantime and maybe you might catch a break or two when the Assyrians are all around you in hordes commiting mass genocide among your fellow countrymen. Isaiah saw it all. You will to.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Where did you gain your look inside the head of the Iranians?

My look came between the time that Layla Terabinajad was teaching my wife how to cook Irainian food and the time that Javad called to talk after they moved to Virginia. That was after we bought honey from Aresh which was after he gave up on raising silk worms (not the missles) which was while his brother Shaheen was my toddler daughters best friend though a vast age discrepancy.

I am ashamed of my thoughts post 9/11 before I cooled down. they however have nothing to be ashamed of.

When I am staring down the Iranian barrel as it were, I will likely say saloam, and strike up a phylisophical conversation, which in my experience is far more likely to occur among those not sucking up Fox news night and day.

Heck the other day I was thinking about what I could do to help them when your inspired govt. rounds my friends up!

With any luck, they will forgive the foul aspersions we have cast at them and help us to eradicate the real threats. Not that we deserve their forgiveness.

[ChelC]

Mark, I think this is a waste of time. You are clearly trying to get me to see that I am a naive fool living in a bubble that nation upon nation is salivating to pop.

We cannot judge all citizens of a nation by their leaders unless we are willing to have the same done for us. I definitely ascribe to different philosophies than those of our nation's leaders. I don't think anyone here is trying only to vilify our nation, but to be so concerned with other threats that we ignore the one coming from within is truly foolish.

Again, I have a funny little theory that I get from the promises in the book of mormon that the ONLY way to preserve ourselves is to be repentant and turn to God. There is no other path to peace. There is no protection to be offered by other means. Our fate is sealed unless we are repentant. A nation that is righteous cannot be detroyed, it doesn't matter if the entire globe is set against one man, if the Lord is with that one man.

I don't think any of us here are "dumbed down" so that we cannot see threats which exist. We all see it. We all know that nuclear warfare means bye bye love. We all know that evil is pervasive. We all know that the US is hated and despised by many. No matter the threat, I do not agree that striking first is going to do anything to protect us. I think it will weaken us, it will take our resources, it will dampen our resolve, and perhaps even hold all who support it accountable for the deaths of countless innocent lives. I cannot be confident enough in the rightness of this war which was founded on lies, that I am willing to take that risk. The inside is the place to start because it is the only promised path to protection. The promises are repeated in the book of mormon that this promised land will be protected when it is righteous and obedient, and when it is not, will be destroyed. Well, look around, and it's not hard to see the fate that is in store for us if we don't change from the inside out. I have no faith in the tactical decisions of our military nor the righteousness of the motives of those making the case for war. I do have faith in that which has proven it's trustworthiness to me time and again, and that is in our Heavenly Father, whose promises are clear.

I fear that as long as people deny the power and protection of the Lord we will not be sufficiently humble to merit that protection. Tough times are ahead, and I've enough work ahead of me in preparing myself and my own family to be deserving of being passed over by that destroying angel - I've fallen short in many ways, and I know I'm no different than a good many others who have taken for granted the protections offered by the Lord in this land.

What exactly is the intelligence, source of said intelligence, date of said intelligence, reliability of the source of intelligence, factual data, etc, which makes the case for war in Iraq? What places Iraq at the top of the list? Have we examined this evidence thoroughly? How can we really be certain? I just don't understand how we can say that as the super power of the globe that we have so many enemies waiting to take us down, but in the same breath to be certain that we can trust those who've pushed their way up to the top of that power in our country.

[Mark]

We all know that nuclear warfare means bye bye love.

Based upon your understanding of what Nuclear warfare is all about I think you are right in saying that this is a waste of time. I don't have the time to educate you about todays realities when it comes to Nuclear consequences so I will just wish you the best and move on. I will only say that the MAD concept of yesterdays cold war threats have no semblance of reality when dealing with todays potential possibilities. The Nukes of today will not have a traceable signature for which to strike back at. The enemies of today want to create massive chaos before beginning to pillage and plunder our land and partaking of the spoils, not turning it into a glass parking lot. What you need to really worry about is what happens after the nukes go off. Most Americans will be ill prepared for that nightmare. I expect you will be busy blaming President Bush when that occurs and the arch-tyrants come a knocking at your door. Good luck.

PS. The secret combinations of today are not limited to a bunch of rich bankers on wall street and some Ivy league American politicians. The really ruthless combinations of today have not shown their hand just yet. They will soon.

[ChelC]

Well that post was dripping with everything but the wishing of good luck. I'm not sure what you expect me to say. I've presented disturbing questions I have that have been skirted around, and the answer I've gotten is, good look after the bombs go off, and a more nicely worded, "moron!" to boot! Because certainly it will be my fault, just as it's my fault that the dems are in power because I have serious reservations about things, especially the track record of republicans when they were in power.

Please do educate me. I hate to be wrong, but I like to become enlightened even more than that. Thus far, I haven't been convinced by your arguments. If we're each not trying to enlighten each other to our way of thinking then what are we doing? What is the point?

I'm trying to convince you that you're wrong by posing the questions I have faced, and you're doing the same thing to me. Right? Let's drop the chips off our shoulders and try to understand each other, if we can't do that this really is a waste of time. If we actually thought about what each other were saying, maybe we'd get farther than boasting about who has more or less "understanding". I don't think it takes a great deal of understanding to see the points of argument for what they are. A mathmetician can do a heck of a lot more with numbers than I, but I think we both get the concept that 2+2=4. Same deal. But thanks for calling me a moron in a nice way.

[Shoemaker]

Mark, you are so uptight with all this twisted Straussian propaganda you must look like a pretzel? Didn’t you hear Hermann Goring—“ All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked” or going to be attacked. This is the rant of Bush all his neo-con media friends in this country—I’ll bet you love Fox News!

Na, our government never lies—yellow cake uranium form Niger? Aluminum tubes that can only be used for centrifuging uranium inside Iraq? Weapons of mass-destruction in mobile labs? These same issues used on Iraq and now are being used to justify war with Iran; hello, is anybody home. The vilification of Iran brings forth the cliché: “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?” Mark, don’t these words echo between your ears alittle bit or are you fooled again for the second round?

[jbalm]

The Nukes of today will not have a traceable signature for which to strike back at.

This really shouldn't matter since we are sure that the Iranians are the problem, right? Or are we not sure.

I thought we were supposed to be safe if we "brought democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we "bring democracy" to Iran, will we be safe? Maybe.

But, I am guessing that Iran is backed by Russia and/or China. So, if we "bring democracy" Iran, Russia, and China, then will we be safe? One would hope.

Well, wait a minute. What about North Korea. We know they have nukes. Maybe if we just "brought democracy" to Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea--then we'd be safe, right?

But then there's India and Pakistan. They're both nuclear. Can we really trust them? Maybe we should just "bring democracy" to Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India. Then we'd probably be safe--as long as we took out (oops, I mean "brought democracy" to) Venezuela first--because they want us dead, and they would go nuclear if they could.

But then again, you never know what those damn French-speaking Canucks might be up to.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

You're forgetting Shoemaker, some of (us FRIENDS) don't have to answer questions. It is mean to ask (some of us FRIENDS) to answer them.

I wish that (some of us FRIENDS) would share some of this great knowledge that (our friend) keeps alluding to! I still wonder if as (our friend) says someone else is behind Iran (and I'm guessing it is not Iraq since they whooped them before, then why is (our friend) not calling them out and saying that we should be attacking them? I want to know all of these Iranian heads (our friend) has beem inside too. I also want to know if we are justified (through our friends opinion) to attack China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela etc...? If not why not? If so is (our friend) nuts? But then I guess we have nice clean harmless nukes now so it wouldn't really be all that bad. Just like the yummy DU that I see neat pictures from (and I assure everyone it does leave a hellish signiture!)

Nice things, nice things, we're all friends, nice things.....(now you FRIENDS can't all hate me for being mean!!!!!) Ha ha ha!

[Mark]

LOL ChelC. Maybe we can talk after all. You do not show the contempt that seems to flow freely from others here on this forum who speak as though they have formed paradigms that are completely unpenetrable and of course are ready and willing to let you know that in every discussion. I would be happy to share some info with you that will help you understand why I think the way I do. I would only ask that we both do so in the spirit of the gospel and leave pride at the front doorstep. I do not want to try and prove you wrong. I only want to discover what is right and true. I have seen others like Rcronk try to carry on a factual discussion about 9-11 and war only to be shouted down by those who seem to delight in sarcasm and insults. I personally have no time for that type of discussion. It is totally fruitless. Our mortal enemies to agency and choice are counting on Americans to fall for every wind of doctrine and theory that blows in with the breezes. They are masters of deception and red herring dragging to distract and get people off their trail. I prefer to just find truth and leave the rest alone. I will post some articles and thoughts when I have time.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Ahh humm...

I said "now you FRIENDS can't all hate me for being mean!!!!!"

Dangitt, how come it never works for me? Oh yeah, I remember because rather than attacking people with subtlty, condescendtion and innuendo, I just come right out and tell you what I have a problem with. Next time I'll add those in too before the ha ha ha!!!

I really wish people would single me out and call me on stuff, gosh what are we a bunch of sissies? So I'm a big dumb meany that is not befitting the priesthood, now can we move on and now will you answer my questions?