Perhaps.
I tend to generalize a lot, so sometimes in my posts I'm speaking specifically about Iraq, and sometimes I'm speaking generally about politics. This is why Seth never knows what I'm trying to say but in my mind it's clear! At least typing makes me slow down so I don't skip right over thoughts like I sometimes do when I'm speaking!
I also think the Spirit can testify to bits of truth at a time. Like if I were listening to Pres. Bush speak, he might say something that causes me to feel the Spirit because that thing is true. Maybe some people mistake that confirmation of a small truth for a confirmation of a greater belief which they think is right.
Iraq war not based on [proper] principle
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Exactly my point. People hear the prophet say that we stand solidly behind the president, they feel the Spirit and a strong sense of patriotism when they hear it, so they take it to mean not just that we stand solidly behind the president, but that the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq war and Iran next etc... are right. Those assumptions are not warranted. We should certainly try those seeds but not blindly accept them because they were next to a good seed.
Like wise when I read from presidents McKay and Benson, that there is a vast conspiracy that is communistic at it's roots etc... and have confirmation of the Spirit, that does not mean that 9/11 was an inside job that bankers rule the world, that the Iraq war is wrong etc...
There are many seeds that WE associate with every good seed. They must all be tried (in wisdom) as well and not blindly accepted by virtue of the seeds they appear to be associated with (lest we be deceived as we know many of the very elect will be, or are! Were it possible?)
Like wise when I read from presidents McKay and Benson, that there is a vast conspiracy that is communistic at it's roots etc... and have confirmation of the Spirit, that does not mean that 9/11 was an inside job that bankers rule the world, that the Iraq war is wrong etc...
There are many seeds that WE associate with every good seed. They must all be tried (in wisdom) as well and not blindly accepted by virtue of the seeds they appear to be associated with (lest we be deceived as we know many of the very elect will be, or are! Were it possible?)
-
justandholy
- captain of 10
- Posts: 13
- Location: Los Angeles
Ok, I've been thinking a lot about foreign policy and finally had a chance to read ETB's chapter in An Enemy Hath Done This. I definitely agree that we should always do whatever is in America's best interest, and I agree that we should build up a very strong national defense for detterence and protection should anyone attack. We also have neither the resources nor the political will to spread democracy worldwide. Here the questions that I still have after reading that and pondering:
1) If we should always look after our own well-being, isn't our well-being often dependent upon the actions of other countries toward each other? Meaning, if Iran occupies the entire Middle East and thus controls a huge portion of foreign oil, then couldn't that potentially pose a severe threat to our economy? If so, do we just look for alternative fuels, attack them to secure our economic prosperity, or should we not even be trading with them in the first place?
2) What would we do if Iran, or China, or Russia, or a combination of nations took over the entire world other than the U.S.? They would have enough manpower and resources to obliterate us fairly quickly? Would we just wait and watch while they do this and then have a massive war between the U.S. and a giant empire? Or is this where we have faith that the Lord will protect America because of promises already given?
3) We should let other nations determine what type of political system they will have, but what if one man or group of men is able to control a nation without the people's consent? The people have no liberty and may not ever unless someone helps them out; do we watch such a scenario happen all over the world?
Lots of questions, but I still don't feel comfortable about not being involved whatsoever in the affairs of other nations. It seems that everything that happens in the world has the potential to affect us directly, whether we participate in others' affairs or not. If anyone feels like offering answers for my concerns, then I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to figure this all out. Thanks.
1) If we should always look after our own well-being, isn't our well-being often dependent upon the actions of other countries toward each other? Meaning, if Iran occupies the entire Middle East and thus controls a huge portion of foreign oil, then couldn't that potentially pose a severe threat to our economy? If so, do we just look for alternative fuels, attack them to secure our economic prosperity, or should we not even be trading with them in the first place?
2) What would we do if Iran, or China, or Russia, or a combination of nations took over the entire world other than the U.S.? They would have enough manpower and resources to obliterate us fairly quickly? Would we just wait and watch while they do this and then have a massive war between the U.S. and a giant empire? Or is this where we have faith that the Lord will protect America because of promises already given?
3) We should let other nations determine what type of political system they will have, but what if one man or group of men is able to control a nation without the people's consent? The people have no liberty and may not ever unless someone helps them out; do we watch such a scenario happen all over the world?
Lots of questions, but I still don't feel comfortable about not being involved whatsoever in the affairs of other nations. It seems that everything that happens in the world has the potential to affect us directly, whether we participate in others' affairs or not. If anyone feels like offering answers for my concerns, then I would really appreciate it. I'm trying to figure this all out. Thanks.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
My responses to the above 3 questions:
1.) My professional work involved me in the oil and gas extraction business, and I became convinced that the US has plenty of reserves that the LDGs aare concealing from our awareness. Also, oil and gas fields in other countries are theirs, not ours, and we have no claim on them. The LDGs have convinced that nuke power is dangerous. Read Eric Skousen's "The Nuclear War" for the best rebuttal of that hogwash I've found. To attack another country to secure our economic prosperity would be immoral. And that just may be part of the motive of the American LDGs for attacking countries in the mid-East.
2.) Both China and Russia are powerful nations today mainly (I believe solely) because of outright gifts of American money (that's our taxes in action) and technology. Ref. the Hegelian whateveryacallit. Our FedGov is not about to attack Russia or China. It doesn't fit the plan, which some of us blieve includes luring them to attack the USA.
3.) You are perfectly free to go yourself to help any of those "other nations" attain their desired form of government. Remember the Lafayette Escadrille, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Flying Tigers. The actual participants were volunteers, not conscripts or draftees. But the US Constitution ddoes not allow us as a nation to do so, no matteer how sorry individuals may feel for them.
1.) My professional work involved me in the oil and gas extraction business, and I became convinced that the US has plenty of reserves that the LDGs aare concealing from our awareness. Also, oil and gas fields in other countries are theirs, not ours, and we have no claim on them. The LDGs have convinced that nuke power is dangerous. Read Eric Skousen's "The Nuclear War" for the best rebuttal of that hogwash I've found. To attack another country to secure our economic prosperity would be immoral. And that just may be part of the motive of the American LDGs for attacking countries in the mid-East.
2.) Both China and Russia are powerful nations today mainly (I believe solely) because of outright gifts of American money (that's our taxes in action) and technology. Ref. the Hegelian whateveryacallit. Our FedGov is not about to attack Russia or China. It doesn't fit the plan, which some of us blieve includes luring them to attack the USA.
3.) You are perfectly free to go yourself to help any of those "other nations" attain their desired form of government. Remember the Lafayette Escadrille, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Flying Tigers. The actual participants were volunteers, not conscripts or draftees. But the US Constitution ddoes not allow us as a nation to do so, no matteer how sorry individuals may feel for them.
-
justandholy
- captain of 10
- Posts: 13
- Location: Los Angeles
Thanks for your comments.
1) Ok, I agree with what you said on this one. But my question was more general than that. If China nukes Russia and takes it over, then wouldn't that provide an eventual threat to our country? Maybe, maybe not, but if it does, then why not stop it at the beginning, assuming we have no constitutional restrictions? When does the action of another nation become a large enough threat for us to take action? Or can we not take any action until they blow up Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center? We can have an awesome defense system but people will find ways around that.
2) My question is what if, hypothetically, a nation is able to conquer the rest of the world? Not looking at current circumstances but in general. Or do you not think it's at all feasible for one nation or a group of nations to control everything but the U.S.?
3) Ok, what if we decide to amend the Constitution so that intervening in other nations is constitutional, then what? This is more a moral than a legal question for me. Nice idea about volunteering but I don't think a volunteer army is going to overthrow a self-installed dictatorship in these days.
1) Ok, I agree with what you said on this one. But my question was more general than that. If China nukes Russia and takes it over, then wouldn't that provide an eventual threat to our country? Maybe, maybe not, but if it does, then why not stop it at the beginning, assuming we have no constitutional restrictions? When does the action of another nation become a large enough threat for us to take action? Or can we not take any action until they blow up Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center? We can have an awesome defense system but people will find ways around that.
2) My question is what if, hypothetically, a nation is able to conquer the rest of the world? Not looking at current circumstances but in general. Or do you not think it's at all feasible for one nation or a group of nations to control everything but the U.S.?
3) Ok, what if we decide to amend the Constitution so that intervening in other nations is constitutional, then what? This is more a moral than a legal question for me. Nice idea about volunteering but I don't think a volunteer army is going to overthrow a self-installed dictatorship in these days.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
"Can we not take any action until they blow up Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center?" A bit off course here, but would you believe that there is much evidence that both Pearl Harbor and 911 were provoked and instigated by elements in our very own FedGov, rather obviously to provide excuse and generate enthusiasm to get America into war?
I think it is very feasable for a single power to control the entire world economically and militarily. I believe that was and still is the purpose of the UN. Will it happen? Read Revelation Ch 13. Check out the Council on Foreign Relations. Read "The Naked Capitalist" and "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" which is on-line.
To try to overthrow a government which you personally disapprove of is your personal affair. But to compel others to join you is immoral. Some people seem to think that if a government is oppressing citizens we are morally obligated to relieve that oppression, even by war.
Im pressed and haven't time to elaborate further. I suggest reading "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" by H. Verlan Andersen.
I think it is very feasable for a single power to control the entire world economically and militarily. I believe that was and still is the purpose of the UN. Will it happen? Read Revelation Ch 13. Check out the Council on Foreign Relations. Read "The Naked Capitalist" and "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" which is on-line.
To try to overthrow a government which you personally disapprove of is your personal affair. But to compel others to join you is immoral. Some people seem to think that if a government is oppressing citizens we are morally obligated to relieve that oppression, even by war.
Im pressed and haven't time to elaborate further. I suggest reading "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" by H. Verlan Andersen.
-
jbalm
- The Third Comforter
- Posts: 5348
My two cents:
Regarding trade vulnerability, I believe the U.S. is so rich in natural resources and intelligent people that we could easily be self-sufficient. Any nation trying to damage us by withholding a single resource would harm themselves much more than us.
As we strive at the family level to become self-sufficient, we should, as a nation, strive to do the same. Then we could engage in trade for our benefit, and not be held hostage by nations that become undesireable trading partners.
Some may say that we are much more vulnerable if we wait (although historically, so far, the losses from surprise attacks on the U.S. have been statistically insignificant), and to prevent such losses, we are better off striking first. But what if the perceived threat that precipitated the preemptive strike were nonexistent? Where are the attackers, morally speaking? What about the innocents killed by a preemptive strike? Do any of us want their blood on our hands? I would rather be killed with a clean soul than buy a few extra years on earth at the expense of eternal condemnation.
I staunchly support the right of self-defense by the way.
There is only one reason that other nations could not reform themselves just as ours did so long ago--a lack of courageous, righteous people willing to risk all for a principle. Honestly, I don't know if this nation possesses enough of them anymore.
This is a slippery slope. Many nations take actions or possess characteristics that could be viewed as potentially threatening. Are we justified in neutralizing all of them? On the other hand, many nations consider the U.S. to be a threat to them. Are they justified in neutralizing us?1) If we should always look after our own well-being, isn't our well-being often dependent upon the actions of other countries toward each other? Meaning, if Iran occupies the entire Middle East and thus controls a huge portion of foreign oil, then couldn't that potentially pose a severe threat to our economy? If so, do we just look for alternative fuels, attack them to secure our economic prosperity, or should we not even be trading with them in the first place?
Regarding trade vulnerability, I believe the U.S. is so rich in natural resources and intelligent people that we could easily be self-sufficient. Any nation trying to damage us by withholding a single resource would harm themselves much more than us.
As we strive at the family level to become self-sufficient, we should, as a nation, strive to do the same. Then we could engage in trade for our benefit, and not be held hostage by nations that become undesireable trading partners.
Let's put Lundbaek's point about false flage operations aside for a moment (not disagreeing with you Lundbaek, just making a point). Are losses sustained from engaging in a preemptive first strike less tragic than losses sustained from being attacked? I say no.If China nukes Russia and takes it over, then wouldn't that provide an eventual threat to our country? Maybe, maybe not, but if it does, then why not stop it at the beginning, assuming we have no constitutional restrictions? When does the action of another nation become a large enough threat for us to take action? Or can we not take any action until they blow up Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center? We can have an awesome defense system but people will find ways around that.
Some may say that we are much more vulnerable if we wait (although historically, so far, the losses from surprise attacks on the U.S. have been statistically insignificant), and to prevent such losses, we are better off striking first. But what if the perceived threat that precipitated the preemptive strike were nonexistent? Where are the attackers, morally speaking? What about the innocents killed by a preemptive strike? Do any of us want their blood on our hands? I would rather be killed with a clean soul than buy a few extra years on earth at the expense of eternal condemnation.
I staunchly support the right of self-defense by the way.
I would answer the last question in the affirmative.2) What would we do if Iran, or China, or Russia, or a combination of nations took over the entire world other than the U.S.? They would have enough manpower and resources to obliterate us fairly quickly? Would we just wait and watch while they do this and then have a massive war between the U.S. and a giant empire? Or is this where we have faith that the Lord will protect America because of promises already given?
I cannot see how we are justified in changing any nations political system, any more than I would approve of another supposedly well-meaning nation forcibly trying to change ours. Righteous people will always be favored by God, and righteousness is not confined to the U.S.. In fact, these days, this nation's decadence has probably knocked us well out of the top spot if nations were to be ranked according to righteousness.3) We should let other nations determine what type of political system they will have, but what if one man or group of men is able to control a nation without the people's consent? The people have no liberty and may not ever unless someone helps them out; do we watch such a scenario happen all over the world?
There is only one reason that other nations could not reform themselves just as ours did so long ago--a lack of courageous, righteous people willing to risk all for a principle. Honestly, I don't know if this nation possesses enough of them anymore.
-
ChelC
- The Law
- Posts: 5982
- Location: Utah
We've got enough of them jbalm, we've just got to start waking them up.
All of the what if questions that we keep seeing are starting to chap me a bit, because, as was mentioned, we have very specific promises. We can choose to believe that the Lord will intervene on our behalf, and always strive for the upper road (the one less taken) or we can take matters into our own hands. If we have faith in the scriptures then I would hope we could lay some of our fears of men aside, and work on meriting the protection of the Lord. Instead of fretting, we could be speaking out, warning our neighbor, preparing spiritually, preparing supplies. It's hard to know where to start with all of those things, and it's easy to be afraid of doing them, but isn't it the better way?
The best way to warn our neighbors is to offer all of them a chance to read the warnings and promises that we all have readily at hand. Missionary work will do more for us than military efforts. Educating others about the truth of history will also be quite helpful if we can unite and do it. Educate yourselves first (that's the stage I'm at) and pray for opportunities to share your knowledge and bear your testimony. If all of us did that, I think we'd be surprised at the difference we could make.
All of the what if questions that we keep seeing are starting to chap me a bit, because, as was mentioned, we have very specific promises. We can choose to believe that the Lord will intervene on our behalf, and always strive for the upper road (the one less taken) or we can take matters into our own hands. If we have faith in the scriptures then I would hope we could lay some of our fears of men aside, and work on meriting the protection of the Lord. Instead of fretting, we could be speaking out, warning our neighbor, preparing spiritually, preparing supplies. It's hard to know where to start with all of those things, and it's easy to be afraid of doing them, but isn't it the better way?
The best way to warn our neighbors is to offer all of them a chance to read the warnings and promises that we all have readily at hand. Missionary work will do more for us than military efforts. Educating others about the truth of history will also be quite helpful if we can unite and do it. Educate yourselves first (that's the stage I'm at) and pray for opportunities to share your knowledge and bear your testimony. If all of us did that, I think we'd be surprised at the difference we could make.
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
Great posts all.
On the surface, ChelC's answers seem the most simplistic, but in the end, I think she is the most correct.
I get in trouble discussing these type issues because I base my answers on a few key books and what they teach. Often when I comment, the reader hasn't read the same background material so my answers seem too simplistic, or even wrong. I re-read them with an open mind and with the intent to find where I am currently wrong in my thinking. Rarely am I disappointed. Each time I re-read them I find that I have gotten a little off in my own assumptions.
I'd suggest that these books have most of the answers we are searching for.
The Book of Mormon - It answers every political question in our day if we just look with an open mind and heart, and don't just use it to prove our preconceived position. Of course, that is true of all of these books.
Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen, H. Verlan Andersen
An Enemy Hath Done This, Ezra Taft Benson
Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, Jerreld L. Newquist (This is 550 pages of quotes from the latter-day prophets to answer this and many other similar political questions sorted in a way to make them readily accessible.)
President Benson didn't mix any words when he said that we don't have the right as a nation to go to war or in any way interfere nationally with a foreign government, even if the are a dictatorship keeping their own people in bondage. If we were to follow his, and George Washington's council, we would be protected as a nation, and we would be able to do much good around the world.
As it is we are not heeding their, or the Book of Mormon's teachings on this issue, so the more we meddle, the worse things become both in foreign lands and here at home.
On the surface, ChelC's answers seem the most simplistic, but in the end, I think she is the most correct.
I get in trouble discussing these type issues because I base my answers on a few key books and what they teach. Often when I comment, the reader hasn't read the same background material so my answers seem too simplistic, or even wrong. I re-read them with an open mind and with the intent to find where I am currently wrong in my thinking. Rarely am I disappointed. Each time I re-read them I find that I have gotten a little off in my own assumptions.
I'd suggest that these books have most of the answers we are searching for.
The Book of Mormon - It answers every political question in our day if we just look with an open mind and heart, and don't just use it to prove our preconceived position. Of course, that is true of all of these books.
Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen, H. Verlan Andersen
An Enemy Hath Done This, Ezra Taft Benson
Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, Jerreld L. Newquist (This is 550 pages of quotes from the latter-day prophets to answer this and many other similar political questions sorted in a way to make them readily accessible.)
President Benson didn't mix any words when he said that we don't have the right as a nation to go to war or in any way interfere nationally with a foreign government, even if the are a dictatorship keeping their own people in bondage. If we were to follow his, and George Washington's council, we would be protected as a nation, and we would be able to do much good around the world.
As it is we are not heeding their, or the Book of Mormon's teachings on this issue, so the more we meddle, the worse things become both in foreign lands and here at home.
-
justandholy
- captain of 10
- Posts: 13
- Location: Los Angeles
One more question: in order to defend our nation against foreign aggression, should we go after the enemy? In other words, after 9/11, assuming Osama Bin Laden was truly the perpetrator, do we go after him in Afghanistan or elsewhere since he's already attacked us or do we only build up national security to prevent further attacks? After Pearl Harbor, should we have just built up fortifications or gone after the Japanese in Japan not in retaliation necessarily but to prevent an immediate second attack? Or would that be equivalent to pre-emption?
I'm not asking these questions to try to prove anybody wrong or right, I'm sincerely trying to figure this stuff out. I'm in the process of writing a paper for my Int'l Poli Sci class and have to analyze history and lay out what I think our foreign policy should be regarding nuclear relations, all in reference to the various theories of international relations out there. My professor just wrote a book called "In Defense of the Bush Doctrine" (yes, a conservative professor), and most of my classmates are very liberal, so I'm getting the full spectrum of ideas. Thanks for all of your comments; you're reallly giving me a lot to consider.
I'm not asking these questions to try to prove anybody wrong or right, I'm sincerely trying to figure this stuff out. I'm in the process of writing a paper for my Int'l Poli Sci class and have to analyze history and lay out what I think our foreign policy should be regarding nuclear relations, all in reference to the various theories of international relations out there. My professor just wrote a book called "In Defense of the Bush Doctrine" (yes, a conservative professor), and most of my classmates are very liberal, so I'm getting the full spectrum of ideas. Thanks for all of your comments; you're reallly giving me a lot to consider.
-
ChelC
- The Law
- Posts: 5982
- Location: Utah
Well, do you plan on making your paper a representation of what you would do, or what you would do absent religion? Your professor probably wants to hear tactical stuff, not spiritual stuff, and the answer can be very different when your remove faith.
I think it would make a fascinating paper that I would love to read if you based it on all of your beliefs. Study the role of the Almighty as witnessed and testified to by the founders. Study the political works that the founders studied, and Natural Law (Cicero). That would make a much more interesting read to me. Might not get you an A, don't know your professor, but it would be honest and refreshing.
I think it would make a fascinating paper that I would love to read if you based it on all of your beliefs. Study the role of the Almighty as witnessed and testified to by the founders. Study the political works that the founders studied, and Natural Law (Cicero). That would make a much more interesting read to me. Might not get you an A, don't know your professor, but it would be honest and refreshing.
-
justandholy
- captain of 10
- Posts: 13
- Location: Los Angeles
Thanks for your comments, ChelC. Actually, I go to a Christian university so it would be fine for me to incorporate a little religion into my paper. But I still have to analyze the varying secular theories on international relations. A paper last semester I wrote was on what I thought the best form of constitutional interpretation is. I really pondered and prayed about that issue and felt like I was guided in forming my opinions through my research. I even quoted Rex E. Lee in my paper. Anyway, I'm as interested as anybody to see what I come up with on this one.
Also, I don't think that the religious/secular viewpoints need to be different. I can advocate a view based on religious principles but back it up with secular reasoning. I think that's what you have to do in politics/policy today. You can't quote Joseph Smith if you're running for president; no matter how true his words or those of the Book of Mormon or even the Bible are, you have to explain your arguments under secular terms. It would be nice if public figures could tell the whole truth without reservation, but they would never get elected. But like I already said, you can base your beliefs and explanations on religious principles but figure out a way to explain them to someone who wouldn't give you the time of day if they new it was religious in nature. And while we strive to influence policy "undercover" we can, most importantly, be doing missionary work to really convert people to the truth. At least this is what I've come to believe after a couple of years in Washington.
Also, I don't think that the religious/secular viewpoints need to be different. I can advocate a view based on religious principles but back it up with secular reasoning. I think that's what you have to do in politics/policy today. You can't quote Joseph Smith if you're running for president; no matter how true his words or those of the Book of Mormon or even the Bible are, you have to explain your arguments under secular terms. It would be nice if public figures could tell the whole truth without reservation, but they would never get elected. But like I already said, you can base your beliefs and explanations on religious principles but figure out a way to explain them to someone who wouldn't give you the time of day if they new it was religious in nature. And while we strive to influence policy "undercover" we can, most importantly, be doing missionary work to really convert people to the truth. At least this is what I've come to believe after a couple of years in Washington.
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
JustandHoly - The book "Prophets. Principles, and National Survival is the exact book you need to be able to answer every one of the questions that will be raised by either your professor or his liberal students.
J. Ruben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson and others answered all of these questioned in detail, usually using the scriptures and the founding fathers to provide the foundation for their reasoning. My eyes are opened wider each time I read it.
It is currently in print I believe and available. If you can not locate a copy, or if the cost of the book is outside your budget, I would be willing to lend it for a month.
Another book is ETB's "An Enemy Hath Done This". He covers most of the questions you have posed in Chapter 9 which is available online at http://www.redhotlogo.com/AEHDT9.htm
The same is true of any of the books I have. For any here at LDSConservative I'd rather lend the books out and take a chance of not getting it back, or getting it back in damaged condition than let it collect dust on the shelf.
J. Ruben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson and others answered all of these questioned in detail, usually using the scriptures and the founding fathers to provide the foundation for their reasoning. My eyes are opened wider each time I read it.
It is currently in print I believe and available. If you can not locate a copy, or if the cost of the book is outside your budget, I would be willing to lend it for a month.
Another book is ETB's "An Enemy Hath Done This". He covers most of the questions you have posed in Chapter 9 which is available online at http://www.redhotlogo.com/AEHDT9.htm
The same is true of any of the books I have. For any here at LDSConservative I'd rather lend the books out and take a chance of not getting it back, or getting it back in damaged condition than let it collect dust on the shelf.
-
John Adams
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1084
- Location: Northern Idaho
Of course no one will listen, but Ron Paul's latest speech on his opinion of the Iraq War is very well presented.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 032007.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
March 20, 2007
The Upcoming Iraq War Funding Bill
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops.
Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution—and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.
It’s amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.”
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it’s supposed to protect-- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 032007.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
March 20, 2007
The Upcoming Iraq War Funding Bill
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops.
Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families--many on their second or third tour in Iraq--feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution—and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq.
It’s amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.”
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy--an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it’s supposed to protect-- for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no.
-
John Adams
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1084
- Location: Northern Idaho
-
AussieOi
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6137
- Location: Sydney, Australia
shortest paper in history
JUSTANDHOLY
>>>>Actually, I go to a Christian university so it would be fine for me to incorporate a little religion into my paper.
i know thi sis months old for you now, but it still remains a good topic
Easy
1) Exodus. God said "thou shalt not kill"
then you can call in scriptural examples where his people did kill. it seems that they were instructed by the lord.
you can refer to BofM where all people who went up to their enemy (and we're instructed by the lord) lost/ died.
then our D&C98, if the lords doesnt tell you to you cant go up against anyone.
2) secular
refer nuremburg trial, germany. punished for invading poland. end of story, the rest just followed by that. act of war on innocent country is the greatest evil.
the US had no legal authority to invade iraq.
beyond that a UN resolution authoris is a legal issue, not a moral issue, then it gets murky.
underscoring it all is that we are imperfect people with often not so innocent motivations. those who suffer are usually those who are the victims of what you say you are going in to defeat.
war is a raquet, it has never been good.
>>>>Actually, I go to a Christian university so it would be fine for me to incorporate a little religion into my paper.
i know thi sis months old for you now, but it still remains a good topic
Easy
1) Exodus. God said "thou shalt not kill"
then you can call in scriptural examples where his people did kill. it seems that they were instructed by the lord.
you can refer to BofM where all people who went up to their enemy (and we're instructed by the lord) lost/ died.
then our D&C98, if the lords doesnt tell you to you cant go up against anyone.
2) secular
refer nuremburg trial, germany. punished for invading poland. end of story, the rest just followed by that. act of war on innocent country is the greatest evil.
the US had no legal authority to invade iraq.
beyond that a UN resolution authoris is a legal issue, not a moral issue, then it gets murky.
underscoring it all is that we are imperfect people with often not so innocent motivations. those who suffer are usually those who are the victims of what you say you are going in to defeat.
war is a raquet, it has never been good.
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
[quote="SwissMrs&Pitchfire"] Only one person could change my mind and He did.
[quote]
This is the best statement in this whole thread. I have been through precisely the same experience.
The Sunday prior to the War in Iraq, I lead a short discussion in Gospel Doctrine regarding the Lord's doctrine on what constitutes a "just war" from D&C 98.
Something in my soul kept telling me that there was something wrong with the concept of pre-emptive (still an agression) war, but I couldn't place my finger on it. The Spirit kept telling me that was something erroneous about the idea that Dick Cheney kept saying that we have to destroy them in their lands so they won't destroy us in ours. I kept praying about it and pondering it. But I admit that I WAS in favor of the war at that time, even though it just "felt" wrong in my soul. I now realize that it was the Spirit whispering to my soul that the American people were being deceived.
That Spirit kept whispering to me to do some research and study it out, to search the scriptures and the prophets and find out what they had said. I finally took the time to do that. And now I know. It also know that it was the Lord that has changed my mind. Thanks for expressing that thought so simply, but powerfully!
[quote]
This is the best statement in this whole thread. I have been through precisely the same experience.
The Sunday prior to the War in Iraq, I lead a short discussion in Gospel Doctrine regarding the Lord's doctrine on what constitutes a "just war" from D&C 98.
Something in my soul kept telling me that there was something wrong with the concept of pre-emptive (still an agression) war, but I couldn't place my finger on it. The Spirit kept telling me that was something erroneous about the idea that Dick Cheney kept saying that we have to destroy them in their lands so they won't destroy us in ours. I kept praying about it and pondering it. But I admit that I WAS in favor of the war at that time, even though it just "felt" wrong in my soul. I now realize that it was the Spirit whispering to my soul that the American people were being deceived.
That Spirit kept whispering to me to do some research and study it out, to search the scriptures and the prophets and find out what they had said. I finally took the time to do that. And now I know. It also know that it was the Lord that has changed my mind. Thanks for expressing that thought so simply, but powerfully!
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
Love your enemies
While Mormon 3 is often cited as one of the Lord's powerful warnings against pre-emptive wars of agression, I recently found an additional insight that is usually overlooked in this verse:
15 Vengeance is mine, and I will repay; and because this people repented not after I had delivered them, behold, they shall be cut off from the face of the earth.
I had always thought that in this verse, the Lord was saying that He would take vengeance against the Nephites. However, when I studied the footnoted scripture verses, I learned that this was a misunderstanding. Note these two verses that are footnoted in the LDS edition. They give the proper understanding and context to what the Lord was saying the Mormon 3:15. Here they are:
Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, aavenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
D&C 82;23
Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you.
What is particularly interesting about the D&C scripture is that the Lord said it to the saints with regards to the intense persecutions that they suffered. They would certainly have been justified in going to battle to redeem their homes from their persecutors, but the Lord told them that they were not justified in doing so.
Since the Lord's servants have tied these two verses to the verse in Mormon 3, they are telling us that we MUST apply this commandment NOT to seek vengeance or retribution through war at a societal level also. In essence, we are being told that we must NEVER seek to pursue and destroy our enemiesin THEIR lands, but we are also commanded to repel them from OUR lands and protect our families, properties, and right of free worship. But we are NEVER permitted to destroy our enemies by following them to their homes (then WE become the agressor and the Lord strengthens THEIR arm to defeat US), only to repel them from our own. The Nephites were taught this lesson by their prophets, but also through painful lessons delivered by the Lord.
As I have pondered this idea that only the LORD is permitted to seek vengeance against His/our enemies, I have prayed for more guidance.
Then, recently, as I pondered upon this thought, the Spirit whispered this verse to me:
3 Ne:12:43 (see also in Matt 5)
43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;
44 But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;
This scripture was also cited in one of my following quotes by Pres. McKay in context with war. Can we honestly say that this War in Iraq lives up to this commandment of the Savior? This is a VERY tough commandment to humble ourselves to keep against such ruthless enemies, but I don't think the Savior would make an exception. Pres. McKay didn't think so either.
15 Vengeance is mine, and I will repay; and because this people repented not after I had delivered them, behold, they shall be cut off from the face of the earth.
I had always thought that in this verse, the Lord was saying that He would take vengeance against the Nephites. However, when I studied the footnoted scripture verses, I learned that this was a misunderstanding. Note these two verses that are footnoted in the LDS edition. They give the proper understanding and context to what the Lord was saying the Mormon 3:15. Here they are:
Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, aavenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
D&C 82;23
Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you.
What is particularly interesting about the D&C scripture is that the Lord said it to the saints with regards to the intense persecutions that they suffered. They would certainly have been justified in going to battle to redeem their homes from their persecutors, but the Lord told them that they were not justified in doing so.
Since the Lord's servants have tied these two verses to the verse in Mormon 3, they are telling us that we MUST apply this commandment NOT to seek vengeance or retribution through war at a societal level also. In essence, we are being told that we must NEVER seek to pursue and destroy our enemiesin THEIR lands, but we are also commanded to repel them from OUR lands and protect our families, properties, and right of free worship. But we are NEVER permitted to destroy our enemies by following them to their homes (then WE become the agressor and the Lord strengthens THEIR arm to defeat US), only to repel them from our own. The Nephites were taught this lesson by their prophets, but also through painful lessons delivered by the Lord.
As I have pondered this idea that only the LORD is permitted to seek vengeance against His/our enemies, I have prayed for more guidance.
Then, recently, as I pondered upon this thought, the Spirit whispered this verse to me:
3 Ne:12:43 (see also in Matt 5)
43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;
44 But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;
This scripture was also cited in one of my following quotes by Pres. McKay in context with war. Can we honestly say that this War in Iraq lives up to this commandment of the Savior? This is a VERY tough commandment to humble ourselves to keep against such ruthless enemies, but I don't think the Savior would make an exception. Pres. McKay didn't think so either.
Last edited by sbenard on May 29th, 2007, 11:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
I have noticed an interesting phenomenon in this thread. THose of use who are opposed to this war tend to use the scriptures and the words of the Lord's prophets, ancient and modern, to teach the abomination of this war.
But the pro-war proponents tend to use the philosophies and opinions of modern men to justify their opinion.
I think that this is because being pro-war is indefensible based upon the scriptures or the teachings of the Lord or his prophets.
But the pro-war proponents tend to use the philosophies and opinions of modern men to justify their opinion.
I think that this is because being pro-war is indefensible based upon the scriptures or the teachings of the Lord or his prophets.
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
David O McKay
Found this quote interesting:
There are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force.
Such a condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another. When this occurs proper reparations may be made by mutual understanding, apology, or by arbitration.
Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial expansion. The taking of territory implies the subjugation of the weak by the strong-the application of the jungle law.
Nor is war justifiable in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be. (emphasis mine)
‘David O. MacKay, Improvement Era, vol. 45 (May, 1942), p. 340.
Sidebar: I couldn't help but chuckle recently when Pope Benedict called the religion of Islam one of violence and war, or something of the sort. Doesn't he know about the Catholic Inquisition that lasted for SIX CENTURIES? How many millions were burned alive, boiled in oil, tar, and terpentine, or among the tortured millions of indigenous peoples in America who were executed in the catacombs that still exist beneath the Catholic Cathedrals in the Americas.
There are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force.
Such a condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another. When this occurs proper reparations may be made by mutual understanding, apology, or by arbitration.
Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial expansion. The taking of territory implies the subjugation of the weak by the strong-the application of the jungle law.
Nor is war justifiable in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be. (emphasis mine)
‘David O. MacKay, Improvement Era, vol. 45 (May, 1942), p. 340.
Sidebar: I couldn't help but chuckle recently when Pope Benedict called the religion of Islam one of violence and war, or something of the sort. Doesn't he know about the Catholic Inquisition that lasted for SIX CENTURIES? How many millions were burned alive, boiled in oil, tar, and terpentine, or among the tortured millions of indigenous peoples in America who were executed in the catacombs that still exist beneath the Catholic Cathedrals in the Americas.
Last edited by sbenard on May 29th, 2007, 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
Not by a prophet, but certainly applicable:
Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon, p.129
Clausewitz's next maxim (and this is an interesting one, too) is "The aggressor always pretends to be peace-loving because he would like to achieve his conquests without bloodshed. . . . Therefore, aggression must be presented as a defensive reaction by the aggressor nation." Nobody ever attacks. You're always just on the defensive.
Clausewitz wrote a book that is considered in Western society to be the "Bible" on conducting warfare.
From the same book on Warfare in the Book of Mormon:
Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon, p.139
Here's another of Clausewitz's main doctrines, the central doctrine of strategy and tactics: "The defensive is the stronger form of [making] . . . war. . . . It is . . . contrary to the prevalent opinion- . . . the defensive form of war is in the abstract stronger than the offensive. The absolute defense[, of course,] completely contradicts the conception of war." "All the time which elapses [you spar for time you see] falls into the scale in favor of the defender." Put confirmation off as long as you can. But of course "every defensive, according to its strength, will seek to change to the offensive."
Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon, p.129
Clausewitz's next maxim (and this is an interesting one, too) is "The aggressor always pretends to be peace-loving because he would like to achieve his conquests without bloodshed. . . . Therefore, aggression must be presented as a defensive reaction by the aggressor nation." Nobody ever attacks. You're always just on the defensive.
Clausewitz wrote a book that is considered in Western society to be the "Bible" on conducting warfare.
From the same book on Warfare in the Book of Mormon:
Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon, p.139
Here's another of Clausewitz's main doctrines, the central doctrine of strategy and tactics: "The defensive is the stronger form of [making] . . . war. . . . It is . . . contrary to the prevalent opinion- . . . the defensive form of war is in the abstract stronger than the offensive. The absolute defense[, of course,] completely contradicts the conception of war." "All the time which elapses [you spar for time you see] falls into the scale in favor of the defender." Put confirmation off as long as you can. But of course "every defensive, according to its strength, will seek to change to the offensive."
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
Another fascinating quote
This one is particularly interesting because it was from a talk on War by an apostle at the time of the Spanish American War. But what makes it noteworthy is that THIS talk has been frequently quoted by subsequent prophets and apostles regarding war ever since the time the talk was given. If memory serves me properly, Elder Nelson also quoted this talk in his talk a couple of years ago in which he denounced war. As I read this quote at this moment of pasting it here, the Spirit again testifies to me of its applicability to our time, and brings a tear to my eye. How eloquent were the words of this holy apostle and the soul-piercing voice of the Spirit! I hope you feel it too. Apparently, this talk is a definitive one:
"This principle (I clipped this from Daniel H. Ludlow's book in which he teaches the principle of defensive war) is also the teaching of the Church at this time, as is indicated in the following statement by President George Q. Cannon:
"We must proclaim peace; do all in our power to appease the wrath of our enemies; make any sacrifice that honorable people can to avert war, with all its horrors, entailing as it does dreadful consequences so numerous that they cannot be mentioned. It is our duty, I say, as a nation. The influence of the Latter-day Saints should be used in this direction. We should seek to quell these feelings of anxiety to fight and to shed blood. Our influence should go forth like oil poured upon the troubled waters, quieting the waves of discontent and wrath that are aroused by this fearful spirit. . . .
"Not only ought we to extend the offering of peace the first time to a nation that proclaims war against us, but again the second time; and if that should be rejected, again the third time; and if it be rejected the third time, then:
"They should bring these testimonies before the Lord."
Go to the Lord and say, "Here are our testimonies. We have offered peace the first time; we have offered it twice; we have offered it three times; but our offerings are rejected, and this nation is determined to have war with us. Now we bring these testimonies before thee, Lord." . . .
"I do not look for our nation to do this. [He was referring to the likelihood that the United States would engage in war against Spain, contrary to his counsel.] It is scarcely to be expected, in the nature of things, that they would do it. But it is the true principle, and we as a people should use our influence for this purpose. Our prayers should ascend to God; our petitions should ascend to the government of our nation to do everything that honorable people can to avert war. We have no fear of the effect of the combinations against us. . . . But the promise of God is that if we will do right as a nation, if we will serve Him, they shall not have power over us, or be able to bring us into bondage; and in the end we shall prevail. This is a glorious promise which is made to the inhabitants of the land. . . .
To us as Latter-day Saints these principles are of the utmost importance. I do not want to see our young men get filled with the spirit of war and be eager for the conflict. God forbid that such a spirit should prevail in our land, or that we should contribute in any manner to the propagation of a spirit of that kind! But one may say, "Is it not our duty to defend our country and our flag? Is it not our duty to maintain the institutions which the Lord has given to us?" Certainly it is. And it is no part of cowardice to take the plan that the Lord has pointed out. No man need be afraid that the Lord or any just man will look upon him as a coward. (Conference Report, April 1898, pp. 86-87.)
"This principle (I clipped this from Daniel H. Ludlow's book in which he teaches the principle of defensive war) is also the teaching of the Church at this time, as is indicated in the following statement by President George Q. Cannon:
"We must proclaim peace; do all in our power to appease the wrath of our enemies; make any sacrifice that honorable people can to avert war, with all its horrors, entailing as it does dreadful consequences so numerous that they cannot be mentioned. It is our duty, I say, as a nation. The influence of the Latter-day Saints should be used in this direction. We should seek to quell these feelings of anxiety to fight and to shed blood. Our influence should go forth like oil poured upon the troubled waters, quieting the waves of discontent and wrath that are aroused by this fearful spirit. . . .
"Not only ought we to extend the offering of peace the first time to a nation that proclaims war against us, but again the second time; and if that should be rejected, again the third time; and if it be rejected the third time, then:
"They should bring these testimonies before the Lord."
Go to the Lord and say, "Here are our testimonies. We have offered peace the first time; we have offered it twice; we have offered it three times; but our offerings are rejected, and this nation is determined to have war with us. Now we bring these testimonies before thee, Lord." . . .
"I do not look for our nation to do this. [He was referring to the likelihood that the United States would engage in war against Spain, contrary to his counsel.] It is scarcely to be expected, in the nature of things, that they would do it. But it is the true principle, and we as a people should use our influence for this purpose. Our prayers should ascend to God; our petitions should ascend to the government of our nation to do everything that honorable people can to avert war. We have no fear of the effect of the combinations against us. . . . But the promise of God is that if we will do right as a nation, if we will serve Him, they shall not have power over us, or be able to bring us into bondage; and in the end we shall prevail. This is a glorious promise which is made to the inhabitants of the land. . . .
To us as Latter-day Saints these principles are of the utmost importance. I do not want to see our young men get filled with the spirit of war and be eager for the conflict. God forbid that such a spirit should prevail in our land, or that we should contribute in any manner to the propagation of a spirit of that kind! But one may say, "Is it not our duty to defend our country and our flag? Is it not our duty to maintain the institutions which the Lord has given to us?" Certainly it is. And it is no part of cowardice to take the plan that the Lord has pointed out. No man need be afraid that the Lord or any just man will look upon him as a coward. (Conference Report, April 1898, pp. 86-87.)
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
Pres. J Rueben Clark
President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, April 1941, First DayMorning Meeting, p.21-
We believe in peace. We are the devoted followers of the Prince of Peace. We abhor war, save in the actual defense of our homes, our families, our liberties. For we remember that when Peter struck off with his sword the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest, the Lord said: "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52) The Lord made no exceptions to His law. History has made none.
We pray for peace. We pray that the Lord will keep the youth of America out of the European conflict. We ask Him to bring peace into the hearts of men.
We believe in peace. We are the devoted followers of the Prince of Peace. We abhor war, save in the actual defense of our homes, our families, our liberties. For we remember that when Peter struck off with his sword the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest, the Lord said: "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52) The Lord made no exceptions to His law. History has made none.
We pray for peace. We pray that the Lord will keep the youth of America out of the European conflict. We ask Him to bring peace into the hearts of men.
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
Pres. David O McKay
President David O. Mckay, Conference Report, April 1942, Church of the Air Broadcast, p.71-71
War is basically selfish. Its roots feed in the soil of envy, hatred, desire for domination. Its fruit, therefore, is always bitter. They who cultivate and propagate it spread death and destruction, and are enemies of the human race.
War originates in the hearts of men who seek to despoil, to conquer, or to destroy other individuals or groups of individuals. Self exaltation is a motivating factor; force, the means of attainment. War is rebellious action against moral order.
The present war had its beginning in militarism, a false philosophy which believes that "war is a biological necessity for the purification and progress of nations." It proclaims that Might determines Right, and that only the strongest nations should survive and rule. It says, "the grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry."
War impels you to hate your enemies. The Prince of Peace says, Love your enemies. War says, Curse them that curse you. The Prince of Peace says, Pray for them that curse you. War says, Injure and kill them that hate you. The Risen Lord says, Do good to them that hate you.
War Incompatible With the Teachings of the Savior
Thus we see that war is incompatible with Christ's teachings. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of peace. War is its antithesis, and produces hate. It is vain to attempt to reconcile war with true Christianity.
War is basically selfish. Its roots feed in the soil of envy, hatred, desire for domination. Its fruit, therefore, is always bitter. They who cultivate and propagate it spread death and destruction, and are enemies of the human race.
War originates in the hearts of men who seek to despoil, to conquer, or to destroy other individuals or groups of individuals. Self exaltation is a motivating factor; force, the means of attainment. War is rebellious action against moral order.
The present war had its beginning in militarism, a false philosophy which believes that "war is a biological necessity for the purification and progress of nations." It proclaims that Might determines Right, and that only the strongest nations should survive and rule. It says, "the grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry."
War impels you to hate your enemies. The Prince of Peace says, Love your enemies. War says, Curse them that curse you. The Prince of Peace says, Pray for them that curse you. War says, Injure and kill them that hate you. The Risen Lord says, Do good to them that hate you.
War Incompatible With the Teachings of the Savior
Thus we see that war is incompatible with Christ's teachings. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of peace. War is its antithesis, and produces hate. It is vain to attempt to reconcile war with true Christianity.
-
sbenard
- captain of 100
- Posts: 228
- Location: Bountiful, UT USA
Joseph Smith
Prophecy by Joseph Smith as recorded in the personal journal of Mosiah Lyman Hancock. This journal is located in the library archive of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
Mosiah Hancock was a close friend and bodyguard of the Prophet. The entry was dated June 19, 1844, eight days before the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. The date and conditions under which the prophecy were uttered have been historically verified.
Mosiah Hancock said that the Prophet was addressing the Nauvoo Legion. The Prophet discussed a map of the Western U.S. and explained the route that the Saints would take in their western migration. Hancock then records that Joseph said the following:
“There will be two great political parties in this country. One will be called the Republican, and the other the Democrat party. These two parties will go to war and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party. The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands until other nations will say, “Let’s divide up the lands of the United States”, then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided. Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up – when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, ‘Brethren, we are glad you have come; give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God’. Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when its liberty hangs by a hair, as it were.”
I gravely fear that by engaging in many wars in foreign lands, we are literally setting ourselves up for the fulfillment of this prophecy of Joseph Smith against us. By dispersing our military forces throughout the earth, we are spending our strength and means warring in foreign lands, and opening ourselves up to attack by other enemies. We are making ourselves even MORE vulnerable to invasion or attack. Perhaps a more prudent and wise use of our military would be to use it to fulfill its Constitutional mandate to secure and protect our BORDERS --here at home -- rather than waste away our wealth and resources fighting terrorist needles in a global haystack. (my thoughts)
Mosiah Hancock was a close friend and bodyguard of the Prophet. The entry was dated June 19, 1844, eight days before the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. The date and conditions under which the prophecy were uttered have been historically verified.
Mosiah Hancock said that the Prophet was addressing the Nauvoo Legion. The Prophet discussed a map of the Western U.S. and explained the route that the Saints would take in their western migration. Hancock then records that Joseph said the following:
“There will be two great political parties in this country. One will be called the Republican, and the other the Democrat party. These two parties will go to war and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party. The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands until other nations will say, “Let’s divide up the lands of the United States”, then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided. Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up – when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, ‘Brethren, we are glad you have come; give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God’. Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when its liberty hangs by a hair, as it were.”
I gravely fear that by engaging in many wars in foreign lands, we are literally setting ourselves up for the fulfillment of this prophecy of Joseph Smith against us. By dispersing our military forces throughout the earth, we are spending our strength and means warring in foreign lands, and opening ourselves up to attack by other enemies. We are making ourselves even MORE vulnerable to invasion or attack. Perhaps a more prudent and wise use of our military would be to use it to fulfill its Constitutional mandate to secure and protect our BORDERS --here at home -- rather than waste away our wealth and resources fighting terrorist needles in a global haystack. (my thoughts)
