Have Trouble With Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy?

[ktgcaptain of 100]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/17/h ... gn-policy/

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

I would avoid war with Iran like the plague. I agree we need to close all our overseas bases and bring all the our Armed Forces home and put them on the boarder to prevent illegal immigration.

I agree that we should stop giving out foreign aid. But stopping foreign aid is not the first thing I'd do. Right now, foreign aid is the only good PR that the US has going for itself. I'd first bring all our troops home (especially the black ops) and then 10 years from now stop the foreign aide and greatly expland humanitarian aid. Hopefully by then, the people would have forgotten what a bully the US has been.

If Ron Paul is elected and he stops all foreign aid first, without bring home all the troops and closing all the overseas army bases, then he is a Gadianton. ( I already think he is).

I don't trust any Libertarian. Libertarians are Republicans without morality. Many of ya'll don't have the opportunity to listen to the Libertarians Neal Boortz and Heman Cain on the radio like we do in the South.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

Excellent video, and one that I think everyone should watch before trying to understand our current position in the Middle East. As Ron Paul says in it: “We, as a group, now have a greater moral responsibility to act than those who've been in ignorance. Once you become knowledgable, you have an obligation to do something about it.”

For too long Americans as a people haven't bothered to wonder why things are happening as they are or why people do as they do, they've simply accepted the government's explanations and blindly supported it. Perhaps because they know that if they really understood what was happening they couldn't sit idly by.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

'fairminded'
Excellent video, and one that I think everyone should watch before trying to understand our current position in the Middle East. As Ron Paul says in it: “We, as a group, now have a greater moral responsibility to act than those who've been in ignorance. Once you become knowledgable, you have an obligation to do something about it.”

For too long Americans as a people haven't bothered to wonder why things are happening as they are or why people do as they do, they've simply accepted the government's explanations and blindly supported it. Perhaps because they know that if they really understood what was happening they couldn't sit idly by.

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004

by Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
October 5, 2004

Summary
This report lists hundreds of instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of military conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough survey of past US military ventures abroad, without reference to the magnitude of the given instance noted…

The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Eleven times in its history the US has formally declared war against foreign nations. These eleven US war declarations encompassed five separate wars: the war with Great Britain declared in 1812, the war with Mexico declared in 1846, the War with Spain declared in 1898, the First World War, during which the US declared war with Germany and with Austria-Hungary during 1917, World War II, during which the US declared war against Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941, and against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania in 1942. Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; the Persian Gulf War of 1991, global actions against foreign terrorists after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, and the War with Iraq in 2003. With the exception of the Korean War, all of these conflicts received Congressional authorization in some form short of a formal declaration of war….

INSTANCES OF USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES ABROAD, 1798-20041

The following list reviews hundreds of instances in which the United States has utilized military forces abroad in situations of military conflict or potential conflict to protect US citizens or promote US interests….

The instances vary greatly in size of operation, legal authorization, and significance. The number of troops involved range from a few sailors or Marines landed to protect American lives and property to hundreds of thousands in Korea and Vietnam and millions in World War II. Some actions were of short duration and some lasted a number of years. In some instances a military officer acted without authorization; some actions were conducted solely under the President's powers as Chief Executive or Commander in Chief; other instances were authorized by Congress in some fashion….

1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France. This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts. Congress authorized military action through a series of statutes.

1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war but not the United States, although Congress authorized US military action by statute.

1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Capt. Z. M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from Gen. James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers.

1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Capt. John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter.

1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.

1812 -- Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.

1812-15 -- War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Among the issues leading to the war were British interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France.

1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus US advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.

1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. US forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.

1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.

1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822 Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West Indies.

1815 -- Algiers. The second Barbary War was declared against the United States by the Dey of Algiers of the Barbary states, an act not reciprocated by the United States. Congress did authorize a military expedition by statutes. A large fleet under Decatur attacked Algiers and obtained indemnities.

1815 -- Tripoli. After securing an agreement from Algiers, Decatur demonstrated with his squadron at Tunis and Tripoli, where he secured indemnities for offenses during the War of 1812.

1816 -- Spanish Florida. United States forces destroyed Nicholls Fort, called also Negro Fort, which harbored raiders making forays into United States territory.

1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a haven for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.

1817 -- Amelia Island (Spanish territory off Florida). Under orders of President Monroe, United States forces landed and expelled a group of smugglers, adventurers, and freebooters.

1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.

1820-23 -- Africa. Naval units raided the slave traffic pursuant to the 1819 act of Congress.

1822 -- Cuba. United States naval forces suppressing piracy landed on the northwest coast of Cuba and burned a pirate station.

1823 -- Cuba. Brief landings in pursuit of pirates occurred April 8 near Escondido; April 16 near Cayo Blanco; July 11 at Siquapa Bay; July 21 at Cape Cruz; and October 23 at Camrioca.

1824 -- Cuba. In October the USS Porpoise landed bluejackets near Matanzas in pursuit of pirates. This was during the cruise authorized in 1822.

1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.

1825 -- Cuba. In March cooperating American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates………..
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm



I stopped at the end of our Founding Father’s presidencies. There are hundreds more on the list.

Only one out of 23 military actions under our founding fathers were under a declaration of war!

How soon do we forget our history, or rather how sad it is our history is not taught in school! No wonder we have so many naïve citizens who do not study history on their own nor study the intentions of our enemies. If we did we would see how naïve Ron Paul is. He has no idea what our enemies have stated their goals and intentions are. I hope it is naiveté or ignorance and not something worse.

[5tev3captain of 100]

Very interesting vid, ktg.

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

I do not believe that Ron Paul is naive at all. I believe he is very knowledgable of history, and our involvement with all the ills of the world. The United States has created almost every enemy we have had to fight.

Military veterans swear to defend the Constitution, to defend from all threats, foreign and domestic. No where do we swear to invade and occupy other nations to keep them in-line.

We should only wage war to defend our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom. We don't need to establish bases on foreign soil. We don't need to engage in a spiderweb of alliances.

Great video!

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

I do not believe that Ron Paul is naive at all. I believe he is very knowledgable of history, and our involvement with all the ills of the world. The United States has created almost every enemy we have had to fight.

Military veterans swear to defend the Constitution, to defend from all threats, foreign and domestic. No where do we swear to invade and occupy other nations to keep them in-line.

We should only wage war to defend our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom. We don't need to establish bases on foreign soil. We don't need to engage in a spiderweb of alliances.

Great video!

Great comment, and I recommend chapter 9 of Ezra Taft Benson's "An Enemy Hath Done This". As you say, Tribunal, the U.S. has funded and equipped almost every enemy we have faced in the last 100 years.

The Middle East in particular is musical chairs of us arming and training a group in order to fight an enemy, and then a decade later our former allies are fighting us and we are arming and training another group to fight them, and we are having weapons we supploed fired back at us.

The Book of Mormon provides the pattern - in time of war, the proper thing is not to be building bases throughout your enemies lands, the proper action is to fortify your own lands. You certainly don't invade the enemy lands to convince them at sword point to abandon the incorrect traditions of their fathers.

As well as arming our enemies, we also literally drive people to hate us and fight us. 500,000 Iraqi children dead due to sanctions (acknowledged by Madeline Allbright and said it was "worth it"...How many fathers and brothers and uncles and cousins of those 500,000 dead were then motivated to take up arms against the American invaders/occupiers? A little golden rule goes a long ways - we MUST ask ourselves how we would respond to another country doing to us what we routinely do to other countries?

The bloodthirsty war mongering by Americans and especially LDS makes me literally sick to my stomach. Thankfully, it appears that decades of needless warfare has made the American people war-weary, and more people are moving in the direction of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

I totally agree with you OI. The hatred we have created will affect us and our children for generations. It'll take a lot of repentence and healing to get right with those we've harmed, but we have to start now!

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

I do not think that Ron Paul is ready to win. I believe that if he did win he would be then forced to press forward with the mandate of change and consequently pull the whole system down, or compromise to get something passed. The courts wouldn't play ball with him, nor would congress (not even Republicans). Thus we would have deadlock or him compromising for the good of the country. That deadlock would crash the whole stack of cards. I would love to hear from the horses mouth which path he would honestly pursue in the event that he actually did win.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Oi

I would avoid war with Iran like the plague. I agree we need to close all our overseas bases and bring all the our Armed Forces home and put them on the boarder to prevent illegal immigration.

I agree that we should stop giving out foreign aid. But stopping foreign aid is not the first thing I'd do. Right now, foreign aid is the only good PR that the US has going for itself. I'd first bring all our troops home (especially the black ops) and then 10 years from now stop the foreign aide and greatly expland humanitarian aid. Hopefully by then, the people would have forgotten what a bully the US has been.

If Ron Paul is elected and he stops all foreign aid first, without bring home all the troops and closing all the overseas army bases, then he is a Gadianton. ( I already think he is).

I don't trust any Libertarian. Libertarians are Republicans without morality. Many of ya'll don't have the opportunity to listen to the Libertarians Neal Boortz and Heman Cain on the radio like we do in the South.

Foreign "aide" is definitely something that must go. It is false philanthropy. Ron described it well as "taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries."

[randontcaptain of 10]

I do not believe that Ron Paul is naive at all. I believe he is very knowledgable of history, and our involvement with all the ills of the world. The United States has created almost every enemy we have had to fight.

Military veterans swear to defend the Constitution, to defend from all threats, foreign and domestic. No where do we swear to invade and occupy other nations to keep them in-line.

We should only wage war to defend our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom. We don't need to establish bases on foreign soil. We don't need to engage in a spiderweb of alliances.

Great video!

Great comment, and I recommend chapter 9 of Ezra Taft Benson's "An Enemy Hath Done This". As you say, Tribunal, the U.S. has funded and equipped almost every enemy we have faced in the last 100 years.

The Middle East in particular is musical chairs of us arming and training a group in order to fight an enemy, and then a decade later our former allies are fighting us and we are arming and training another group to fight them, and we are having weapons we supploed fired back at us.

The Book of Mormon provides the pattern - in time of war, the proper thing is not to be building bases throughout your enemies lands, the proper action is to fortify your own lands. You certainly don't invade the enemy lands to convince them at sword point to abandon the incorrect traditions of their fathers.

As well as arming our enemies, we also literally drive people to hate us and fight us. 500,000 Iraqi children dead due to sanctions (acknowledged by Madeline Allbright and said it was "worth it"...How many fathers and brothers and uncles and cousins of those 500,000 dead were then motivated to take up arms against the American invaders/occupiers? A little golden rule goes a long ways - we MUST ask ourselves how we would respond to another country doing to us what we routinely do to other countries?

The bloodthirsty war mongering by Americans and especially LDS makes me literally sick to my stomach. Thankfully, it appears that decades of needless warfare has made the American people war-weary, and more people are moving in the direction of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

Great comments just wish more were willing to see the truth..."The bloodthirsty war mongering by Americans and especially LDS makes me literally sick to my stomach." couldn't agree more.

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

I do not believe that Ron Paul is naive at all. I believe he is very knowledgable of history, and our involvement with all the ills of the world. The United States has created almost every enemy we have had to fight.

That is simply not true. Anti-mormons like to say that our simple "existence" and basic beliefs about being true and others false actually makes US anti-Christian or anti- other religions. Our existence doesn't make us anti others, actually being anti makes someone anti.

Likewise, evil existing in the world and evil ideology's existing in the world doesn't mean we somehow "made them".
That is what is wrong with your peoples Alex Jones ideology. We've interacted with many country's peoples, etc., and many of them are friends. Just because we interacted some with those of the middle east, and they have a perverted infidel ideology, and thus don't want to be friends, in fact making us enemy's, doesn't mean our existence and interaction CAUSED their hate of us.

Fools.... Their hate of us is due to their ideology, not our interaction with them. Those no influenced by an evil ideology after we helped free them from the Russians would not have turned around and become our enemy, they would have been our friends. What you don't understand is that evil always finds a target.... IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO OR DON'T DO.....

Or take Liberals.... Liberals actually live here, yet they falsely charge Conservatives of great evils.....
See, that's what you people forget. You forget that there is evil in the world, and it doesn't matter how "nice" you are to it.
Christ was crucified.... It didn't matter how "nice" he was or what good he did. BTW.... Did you practice Ron Paul "isolationism"? Did he practice your selective perversion of the Book of Mormon "isolationism"? No he didn't... He went around and taught to Gospel to all who would listen.

Military veterans swear to defend the Constitution, to defend from all threats, foreign and domestic. No where do we swear to invade and occupy other nations to keep them in-line.

And what nations are we occupying to keep them in-line?
We go to war, and then we leave. Name a single country we haven't left for the most part?

We should only wage war to defend our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom. We don't need to establish bases on foreign soil. We don't need to engage in a spiderweb of alliances.

And what makes you think we "aren't" going to war for those just causes? I know for a fact we are, so why do you pervert the truth into something different?
Also, we don't need to establish bases, and don't need to have alliances? Really? Again, more with the isolationism.
Let me ask you.... Did Nephite isolationism work out for them? Haven't ever heard that the more people are able to know and understand each other, the less chance there are for problems and misunderstanding? Do you think isolationism helps or hurts that cause? Do you really think that allowing the world to just go to hell, and then thinking that it will never bother or have any effect on us is really a "good" policy, one of righteousness, one of wisdom? No it's not....

Defending our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom is MORE than simply defending "borders". We actually have to be engaged in the world we live.

If the greatest and most skilled of us don't stand against tyranny, then there is no safety for anyone, anywhere, or at any time.

You either serve God, or you serve the Devil by your actions..... Ron Paul isolationism is serving the cause of the Devil. Period.
As Mormons you have been called to stand for the right, and against evil in all places and at all times. Ron Paul isolationism is not you following that call. Period.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

I do not believe that Ron Paul is naive at all. I believe he is very knowledgable of history, and our involvement with all the ills of the world. The United States has created almost every enemy we have had to fight.

That is simply not true. Anti-mormons like to say that our simple "existence" and basic beliefs about being true and others false actually makes US anti-Christian or anti- other religions. Our existence doesn't make us anti others, actually being anti makes someone anti.

Likewise, evil existing in the world and evil ideology's existing in the world doesn't mean we somehow "made them".
That is what is wrong with your peoples Alex Jones ideology. We've interacted with many country's peoples, etc., and many of them are friends. Just because we interacted some with those of the middle east, and they have a perverted infidel ideology, and thus don't want to be friends, in fact making us enemy's, doesn't mean our existence and interaction CAUSED their hate of us.

Fools.... Their hate of us is due to their ideology, not our interaction with them. Those no influenced by an evil ideology after we helped free them from the Russians would not have turned around and become our enemy, they would have been our friends. What you don't understand is that evil always finds a target.... IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO OR DON'T DO.....

Or take Liberals.... Liberals actually live here, yet they falsely charge Conservatives of great evils.....
See, that's what you people forget. You forget that there is evil in the world, and it doesn't matter how "nice" you are to it.
Christ was crucified.... It didn't matter how "nice" he was or what good he did. BTW.... Did you practice Ron Paul "isolationism"? Did he practice your selective perversion of the Book of Mormon "isolationism"? No he didn't... He went around and taught to Gospel to all who would listen.

Military veterans swear to defend the Constitution, to defend from all threats, foreign and domestic. No where do we swear to invade and occupy other nations to keep them in-line.

And what nations are we occupying to keep them in-line?
We go to war, and then we leave. Name a single country we haven't left for the most part?

We should only wage war to defend our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom. We don't need to establish bases on foreign soil. We don't need to engage in a spiderweb of alliances.

And what makes you think we "aren't" going to war for those just causes? I know for a fact we are, so why do you pervert the truth into something different?
Also, we don't need to establish bases, and don't need to have alliances? Really? Again, more with the isolationism.
Let me ask you.... Did Nephite isolationism work out for them? Haven't ever heard that the more people are able to know and understand each other, the less chance there are for problems and misunderstanding? Do you think isolationism helps or hurts that cause? Do you really think that allowing the world to just go to hell, and then thinking that it will never bother or have any effect on us is really a "good" policy, one of righteousness, one of wisdom? No it's not....

Defending our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom is MORE than simply defending "borders". We actually have to be engaged in the world we live.

If the greatest and most skilled of us don't stand against tyranny, then there is no safety for anyone, anywhere, or at any time.

You either serve God, or you serve the Devil by your actions..... Ron Paul isolationism is serving the cause of the Devil. Period.
As Mormons you have been called to stand for the right, and against evil in all places and at all times. Ron Paul isolationism is not you following that call. Period.

So how do you like the police state that is being set up in America?

[ktgcaptain of 100]

Fools....

Either 12:26 And when (Obiwan) had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn;

LOL. Looks like we're rubber & you're glue.

Amazing how some people are so consistently wrong.

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

Great comment, and I recommend chapter 9 of Ezra Taft Benson's "An Enemy Hath Done This". As you say, Tribunal, the U.S. has funded and equipped almost every enemy we have faced in the last 100 years.

Simply not true. Some yes, but as I mentioned above, it's not our fault that some have an evil ideology that makes friends into enemy's.

The Middle East in particular is musical chairs of us arming and training a group in order to fight an enemy, and then a decade later our former allies are fighting us and we are arming and training another group to fight them, and we are having weapons we supploed fired back at us.

Yes, middle east.... Again, evil ideology by the evil.... Not evil actions on our part. WE are not to blame for trying to do the right thing and help the innocent and oppressed.

The Book of Mormon provides the pattern - in time of war, the proper thing is not to be building bases throughout your enemies lands, the proper action is to fortify your own lands. You certainly don't invade the enemy lands to convince them at sword point to abandon the incorrect traditions of their fathers.

This is a total liberal twisting of the Book of Mormon message. It's a "selective" reading, not the full truth.
First we aren't building bases in "enemy lands", we are building bases in "friends" lands.
Further, you compare apples and oranges..... Both being fruit doesn't mean it's the same kind of fruit.
We aren't invading people and simply telling them to stop being bad boys. We invade those country's who have some sort of influence on what is being done to us. The war is against Fanatical Islam, not a particular country. Fanatical Islam has directly attacked us, and attempted many more attacks. It is a cancer that has to be weeded out, if it's not, it infects, and it destroys.

The wars against fanatical Islam is similar to the wars against Gadianton's...... Such war was entirely justified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadianton_robbers

As well as arming our enemies, we also literally drive people to hate us and fight us. 500,000 Iraqi children dead due to sanctions (acknowledged by Madeline Allbright and said it was "worth it"...How many fathers and brothers and uncles and cousins of those 500,000 dead were then motivated to take up arms against the American invaders/occupiers? A little golden rule goes a long ways - we MUST ask ourselves how we would respond to another country doing to us what we routinely do to other countries?

You are confused. Most who fought against the U.S. in the Iraqi war were either Saddam loyalists or were imports from Iran and other Fanatical Islamics. You make it look like they were just innocent Iraqi fathers and mothers fighting against the great Satan America who killed their sweet little children. Your analysis is a complete perversion of the truth. Children didn't die due to Iraqi sanctions, that's also a lie. Clearly you don't even know what the sanctions were. Further, you ignore the fact that the entire country CHEERED for America when we liberated it. You need to learn some actual truth instead of regurgitating liberal and fanatical islam propaganda.

The bloodthirsty war mongering by Americans and especially LDS makes me literally sick to my stomach. Thankfully, it appears that decades of needless warfare has made the American people war-weary, and more people are moving in the direction of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

People like you who pervert the truth and lie about their brethren are what make me sick. Using terms of bloodthirsty and war mongering to describe us...??? You are clearly deceived by the devil friend! Nothing wrong with speaking softly and carrying a big stick, but it is wrong for people to bear false witness not only of their brethren, but also embracing the falsehoods of the evil of the world.

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

So how do you like the police state that is being set up in America?

Who said I like government and liberal intrusion on our Freedoms?
I think we should profile.... Not by race per-se, but by behavior as good cops and security people do.
No child should be touched unless they look like their scared, thus being forced to do something etc.
No grandma should be strip-searched and getting depends poop all over when the grandma looks like a grandma.

We should be all allowed to have firearms when and where we want, and carry them how we want.
Any place open to the public should have no right to restrict. If we want a Rocket Launcher and we can afford it, we should be allowed to have one. But in that case, background and health checks should be done to ensure emotional and criminal stability. The only place we shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun is likely either a Courthouse or Prison. Although, the Courthouse one, maybe not, but simply be required to open carry. But, something like a prison depending on the contact with the criminals, there can likely be a little restriction.

Anyway, I'm a Constitutionalist buddy....

[SempiternalHarbingercaptain of 1,000]

Good one Obiwan! Let me just say you are allot smarter than your name indicates. Truth is there are so many flaws with your post i neither have the time or inclination to point them all out. To hell with the "DECLARATION" of Independence! To hell with Constitution, to hell with Peacemakers, To hell with those who pray for their enemies, to hell with denouncing War and proclaiming peace, to hell with our founding fathers, to hell with the scriptures. Blessed are the warmongers. You should seriously study the history of the world from the words laid out by the prophets. Mormon stepped down as General of the Nephites when the Nephites decided to take the war to the Laminites. The Laminites were blood thirsty who were willing to do anything to kill them Nephites. The Lord didn't care, and he didn't give them permission to be the aggressor and go on the offensive. And when they did leave their lands to go into the enemies land.... The Lord withdrew His spirit and pronounced this...

And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren, behold the voice of the Lord came [to Mormon] saying: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay" (Morm. 3: 14-15).

Later it is the decision of the Nephites, after a series of brilliant victories, to take the initiative against the Lamanites and "cut them off from the face of the land" that makes a conscientious objector of Mormon, their great leader, who "did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people" (Morm. 3: 10-11).

Then comes the bottom line: "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" (Morm. 4: 5). The battle is not between Good and Bad--the wicked shall destroy the wicked. And at this point is where there was no turning back, the point of no return.

Then come those awful words, "and I saw that the day of grace was passed with them" (Morm. 2: 15). Though Mormon relents under extreme pressure and leads the army to more victories (see Morm. 5: 1), "nevertheless the strength of the Lord was not with us; yea, we were left to ourselves" (Morm. 2: 26).

After all the Lord has done for them, the poor fools "did not realize that it was the Lord that had spared them, and granted unto them a chance for repentance"--his arm is still stretched out (Morm. 3: 3). Does not the Lord say that those who live on the promised land if they but what Obiwan?? Who care that we have destroyed more families than any country has since it's inception. Its all justified by the Lord. Get out of here with that nonsense.

Mormon prays for the people he had loved and led, though he knows his prayer cannot be answered (see Morm. 3: 12). "And if they perish it will be like unto the Jaredites, because of the willfulness of their hearts, seeking for blood and revenge" (Morm. 9: 23). And all this is meant for us:

"These things must surely be made known. . . . A knowledge of these things must come unto a remnant of these people, and also unto the Gentiles," by being "hid up unto the Lord that they may come forth in his own due time" (Morm. 5: 8-9, 12).

And what makes you think we "aren't" going to war for those just causes? I know for a fact we are, so why do you pervert the truth into something different?

You know for a fact we are?? Oh, boy. Were our founding fathers justified in the War of Independence? Not only did they write down all of the atrocities committed by the King, but they took it to God for permission and God approved. Is our government taking these matters to the Lord today?? What a bad joke. How do you know they are just causes?? Has the Lord appeared to you saying such?? Do the scriptures or have the prophets promoted these types of actions?? They sure in Hell didn't approve the atomic bomb. I bet you do though. How do you justify the innocent killing of two populated cities, one being the only christian city in Japan. Very Christlike now isn't it?? Explain that justification to the lord or the innocent woman and children who brutally murdered by our hand. But who cares if the prophets have condemned it..... They are misinformed??????

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton


“We, the common people, have not been told the facts for years, since long before the last war broke. We are not now being told the facts. We can only surmise. But give us the facts and we will answer. And in our multitude of counsel you will find wisdom.”....."We may expect that every means, both fair and foul, which can be devised by hating, desperate men, fighting for their lives, will be used to drag us into this war. We must not accept anything at its face value; we must question every statement, carefully examine every incident. Such is war." (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr General Conference, October 1939)

“Satan is making war against all the wisdom that has come to men through their ages of experience. He is seeking to overturn and destroy the very foundations upon which society, government, and religion rest. He aims to have men adopt and try, only to be discarded by them when found unsound, impractical, and ruinous. [Satan] plans to destroy liberty and freedom—economic, political, and religious, and to set up in place thereof the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed men. He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize either him or his methods. There is no crime he would not commit, no debauchery he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Without their knowing it, the people are being urged down paths that lead only to destruction. Satan never before had so firm a grip on this generation as he has now….”( President Heber J. Grant, J.Reuben Clark, and David O McKay.)

We condemn the outcome [of the war] which wicked and designing men are now planning; the world-wide establishment and perpetuation of some form of communism on the one side, or some form of Nazism or Fascism on the other. Each of these systems destroys liberty, wipes out free institutions, blots out free agency, stifles free press and free speech, crushes out freedom of religion and conscience. Free peoples cannot and do not survive under these systems.” ( President Heber J Grant, David O McKay, and J Reuben Clark. First presidency message.) Again; “We condemn the outcome [of the war] which wicked and designing men are now planning, the world-wide establishment

“The Church as a Church does not believe in war and yet since its organization whenever war has come we have done our part … we do thoroughly believe in building up our home defenses to the maximum extent necessary, but we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense. We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put … We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe …” (LDS First Presidency, 1941,)

Interesting the First Presidency says“ We do NOT believe in war, (which wicked and designing men are planning)We believe our real threat comes from within and not from without” Every major civilization has fallen. Always the same way, from within. When you read about the Tower of Babel, Alexander the Great, Nephites, Jaredites, Babylon, the Romans, Assyria, and Napoleon, you clearly see that people don't change; nothing has changed, only the cast of characters. Harold B. Lee said “Great nations are never conquered from outside unless they are rotten inside. Our greatest national problem today is erosion of tradition Law and order.”

As read in General Conference, October 1946
.. “the Church is and must be against war... It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these could and should be settled--the nations agreeing--by peaceful negotiation."

One of my favorite scriptures in D&C states “It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole dearth groans under the weight of its iniquity. It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell. Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand; And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart. For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven. These should then be attended to with great earnestness. Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things” (D&C 123:7-15)

Defending our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom is MORE than simply defending "borders". We actually have to be engaged in the world we live.

False doctrine!

This nation is indeed The Promised Land, and it is favored above all other lands upon this earth by God himself. The words ‘promised’, ‘choice’, and ‘favored’ should not be taken lightly when used by the Lord.

Ether 2

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Great comment, and I recommend chapter 9 of Ezra Taft Benson's "An Enemy Hath Done This". As you say, Tribunal, the U.S. has funded and equipped almost every enemy we have faced in the last 100 years.

Simply not true. Some yes, but as I mentioned above, it's not our fault that some have an evil ideology that makes friends into enemy's.

The Middle East in particular is musical chairs of us arming and training a group in order to fight an enemy, and then a decade later our former allies are fighting us and we are arming and training another group to fight them, and we are having weapons we supploed fired back at us.

Yes, middle east.... Again, evil ideology by the evil.... Not evil actions on our part. WE are not to blame for trying to do the right thing and help the innocent and oppressed.

The Book of Mormon provides the pattern - in time of war, the proper thing is not to be building bases throughout your enemies lands, the proper action is to fortify your own lands. You certainly don't invade the enemy lands to convince them at sword point to abandon the incorrect traditions of their fathers.

This is a total liberal twisting of the Book of Mormon message. It's a "selective" reading, not the full truth.
First we aren't building bases in "enemy lands", we are building bases in "friends" lands.
Further, you compare apples and oranges..... Both being fruit doesn't mean it's the same kind of fruit.
We aren't invading people and simply telling them to stop being bad boys. We invade those country's who have some sort of influence on what is being done to us. The war is against Fanatical Islam, not a particular country. Fanatical Islam has directly attacked us, and attempted many more attacks. It is a cancer that has to be weeded out, if it's not, it infects, and it destroys.

The wars against fanatical Islam is similar to the wars against Gadianton's...... Such war was entirely justified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadianton_robbers

As well as arming our enemies, we also literally drive people to hate us and fight us. 500,000 Iraqi children dead due to sanctions (acknowledged by Madeline Allbright and said it was "worth it"...How many fathers and brothers and uncles and cousins of those 500,000 dead were then motivated to take up arms against the American invaders/occupiers? A little golden rule goes a long ways - we MUST ask ourselves how we would respond to another country doing to us what we routinely do to other countries?

You are confused. Most who fought against the U.S. in the Iraqi war were either Saddam loyalists or were imports from Iran and other Fanatical Islamics. You make it look like they were just innocent Iraqi fathers and mothers fighting against the great Satan America who killed their sweet little children. Your analysis is a complete perversion of the truth. Children didn't die due to Iraqi sanctions, that's also a lie. Clearly you don't even know what the sanctions were. Further, you ignore the fact that the entire country CHEERED for America when we liberated it. You need to learn some actual truth instead of regurgitating liberal and fanatical islam propaganda.

The bloodthirsty war mongering by Americans and especially LDS makes me literally sick to my stomach. Thankfully, it appears that decades of needless warfare has made the American people war-weary, and more people are moving in the direction of speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

People like you who pervert the truth and lie about their brethren are what make me sick. Using terms of bloodthirsty and war mongering to describe us...??? You are clearly deceived by the devil friend! Nothing wrong with speaking softly and carrying a big stick, but it is wrong for people to bear false witness not only of their brethren, but also embracing the falsehoods of the evil of the world.

I truly mourn for the blackness of your soul, Obiwan. You call me out as a liar saying I pervert the message on justified war of the Book of Mormon, say I lie about the 100's of thousands of Iraqi children that died DUE TO SANCTIONS, which I have video of Madeline Allbright ACKNOWLEDGING and saying it was "WORTH IT" - you say it isn't our fault that people in the middle east that we arm and train become our enemies and you say the evil is on them - I never said it was evil, I point it out as being unwise in the extreme, and yet you and others suggest that we just keep repeating the same mistake... maybe we should try not arming and training anyone in the area, and then in a decade we won;t be having our own weapons fired back at us...is it that hard to understand?

You say we put bases only in our friends lands - yeah we go in, install a puppet dictator, or back an existing one (ala the House of Saud who the Saudi people hate) and we provide the muscle to keep him in power in exchange for lucrative oil arrangements and military bases.)

You say the wars against Islam is similar to the wars against the Gadianton's - I'll agree, the Gadianton's also only were able to come to have any power over the people due to their wickedness and lack of obeying correct principles - very similar to you and others that are causing the radical Islamists to gain power (by turning the moderates into radicals with your war-mongering.)

You called me a liar on multiple issues - I would appreciate one piece of evidence to support that claim - at worst I didn't say you are a liar, and i still don;t but you are incorrect...your war-loving perspective is much more Sith like and aggressive, I suggest you take a new forum name - Darth Maul or Sidious maybe. Certainly "Obiwan" does not match your unwise and violent rhetoric.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Where I disagree with Dr. Paul:

"The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders."

So it was bad to trade and make loans to Hitler before WW2 on the other hand our embargos of Japan ‘forced’ them to attack Pearl Harbor?

So, according to Dr. Paul, we should have been trading with Stalin and the new Soviet Union and Mao’s China right after WW2 right?

Clinton was right then when he traded the secrets of missile technology with China which increased their targeting abilities.

No Dr. Paul I think it was wrong to help Hitler’s war machine and economy before WW2 and we STILL should not be trading with Russia and China.

They wouldn’t be the threats they are if democracies around the world had strangled them economically.

"…first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy — the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself — is not just a primitive cultural relic… A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy."
“advocate the same foreign policy the founding fathers would,”

You are right Dr. Paul our Founding fathers were not isolationists but neither were they non-interventionist as I demonstrated in my above post. Also neither did our Founding Fathers use a declaration of war every time they used military power.

This is the same attitude which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Neville Chamberlain, had when he negotiated with Hitler. Chamberlain kept feeding the hungry tiger to appease him which just made him hungrier and more ambitious. I feel that Iran is our equivalent of Germany of the 1930’s. If you read and study what is being said by Iran’s political and religious leaders you will realize the same thing.



our "troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies."

Chris Wallace asked Paul how he would persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapon. He replied, "Well, maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn't we talk to the Soviets, didn't we talk to the Chinese?"

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

Dr. Paul is naïve if he thinks that our actions in the Middle East caused Islamic Terrorists to attack us. He does not understand that there is evil in the world and that evil does not need a cause but rather only a pretext. Hatred only needs a target, not a reason. For example;

Were the Barbary Wars of the 18th century caused by our meddling in the ME?

Is Jemmaah Islamiya attempting to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia because of our actions in the Middle East?

Are the Chechyan jihadists waging Jihad against Russia because the US supports Israel?

Is Abu Sayyef attempting to establish an Islamic state on Mindanao because we invaded Iraq?

Are Jihadists attempting to establish an Islamic state in southern Thailand because Reagan sent troops into Beirut?

Have Nigerian Jihadists attacked innocent Christians repeatedly because we help Israel?

Is Al Shabaad conducting terrorist attacks in Kenya and Somalia on innocent civilians because of Guantanamo?

Are Jihadists attempting to create an Islamic state in India’s Kashmir because the US supports Israel?

Have Jihadists killed thousands in attacks on innocent civilians in Morocco, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, the UK, Spain, Jordan and Bangladesh because of our support of Israel?

Are young Jihadis rioting in France because the US supports Israel?

Islamic terror is happening the world over not for what we DO but because they HATE! Islamic extremists (not the peaceful ones) preach hate in their Mosques, teach hate to their children, and do not need an excuse to target the US or Israel.

That does not mean the US in innocent. We are not. We have supported tyrants in the ME and should be ashamed. This only gives ‘hate’ an excuse not its birth.

If you look the world over Islam is at war with more countries than not. Why?, because of hate.



Rep. Ron Paul told Don Imus on his show that Israel was "preventing food and medicine from going into Gaza. And that 'people that are starving' then compared the living conditions in Gaza as 'almost like in concentration camps.'"

Dr. Paul is wrong again. Food and medicine comes in, it the war making material that is kept out. Hamas even rejected the supplies which Israel took off the ‘Gaza flotilla’ and trucked in. israel have said repeatedly that any humanitarian supplies are welcomed to come by land but that’s not what Hamas wants. They want to smuggle arms on ships entering gazan waters.

The Myth of the Siege of Gaza
http://www.shalomlife.com/news/12876/the-myth-of-the-siege-of-gaza--page1/

[ktgcaptain of 100]

Where I disagree with Dr. Paul:

OMD, Do you also disagree with President Benson when he wrote that:
"The United States should:
1. Establish and maintain a position of independence with regard to other countries.
2. Avoid political connection, involvement, or intervention in the affairs of other countries.
3. Make no permanent or entangling alliances.
4. Treat all nations impartially, neither granting nor accepting special privileges from any.
5. Promote commerce with all peoples and countries."
Ezra Taft Benson on Foreign policy An Enemy Hath Done This, pg 163

Do you also disagree with the Lord when he said:
D&C 98:
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

So, OMD, are you going to send your children to fight and die in Iran? Don't you dare send mine!

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

So how do you like the police state that is being set up in America?

Who said I like government and liberal intrusion on our Freedoms?
I think we should profile.... Not by race per-se, but by behavior as good cops and security people do.
No child should be touched unless they look like their scared, thus being forced to do something etc.
No grandma should be strip-searched and getting depends poop all over when the grandma looks like a grandma.

We should be all allowed to have firearms when and where we want, and carry them how we want.
Any place open to the public should have no right to restrict. If we want a Rocket Launcher and we can afford it, we should be allowed to have one. But in that case, background and health checks should be done to ensure emotional and criminal stability. The only place we shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun is likely either a Courthouse or Prison. Although, the Courthouse one, maybe not, but simply be required to open carry. But, something like a prison depending on the contact with the criminals, there can likely be a little restriction.

Anyway, I'm a Constitutionalist buddy....

I know its difficult to accept the fact that Americia has become an evil empire. We indentify ourselves with America. I believe you are a good person with good intentions. We want our country to be good and do good deeds but all the evidence is there for you. This forum is a gold mine of info from the scriptures and modern era prophets warning us of the times we now face.

You say you are a constitutionalist but while you were cheerleading our troops abroad, the constitution has been destroyed at home. Dont' you find it at least a little suspicious that the Patiriot Act was already written before 9/11, which basically overturned all constitutional rights, allowing agents of the President (Executive branch) to arrest and imprison Americans without trial. Things have gotten much worse in the last ten years with many laws being passed that take away our rights.

I hope you don't take offence to my words . None is intended.


P.S. Can anybody tell me why the script I am typing keeps jumping below the field of visibilty when I post a reply on someone else 's previous post?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

How is God going to cleanse this nation if it's not even bad? Or does cleansing it mean to get rid of the peace loving, pro-rights people?

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

How is God going to cleanse this nation if it's not even bad? Or does cleansing it mean to get rid of the peace loving, pro-rights people?

Didn't you get the memo? All is well in Zion yea, Zion prospereth! God "has elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by [his] wrath down to hell". Our preemptive wars are only meant to hasten the process! Its all part of the plan.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

That is a well done video, and I noticed that many of the people supporting Ron Paul's position were people who would have some knowledge of middle east matters, such as the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit. Had some good history of what has gone on in Iran, but sadly I think you have to already have some understanding to catch it from the video. But I'd still recommend anyone that thinks we should be messing around in Iran to spend 15 minutes watching the video.

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

OMD, I went over the list of early military actions taken by the United States and I disagree that the Founders set a precedent of interventionism. Almost entirely (except for one example I saw) every military action was to suppress piracy or defend U.S. land. You would expect a far greater need for those things when America was first getting on its feet and other powers were pushing and prodding us to see just how far we would be pushed. The military/black ops action the U.S. took in the Middle East over the past ~60 years was of an entirely different vein: nation building/destroying because we were afraid of losing privileges.

You also list a few radical Islamist groups that are at war with different nations or peoples because they don't like actions we have taken and foreign policy stances we hold, and claim that proves the Islamists that attacked us did so because of ideology. I don't think that's a viable connection- the group that attacked us (Al Qaeda) had a very real grudge against us (as was pointed out in the video). In End the Fed, Ron Paul discussed how fanatical Islam does preach and use hate- but that now-popular anti-American jihadist groups had an incredibly hard time garnering support among the Muslim populace until the U.S. began meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

[Stephencaptain of 1,000]

I do not believe that Ron Paul is naive at all. I believe he is very knowledgable of history, and our involvement with all the ills of the world. The United States has created almost every enemy we have had to fight.

That is simply not true. Anti-mormons like to say that our simple "existence" and basic beliefs about being true and others false actually makes US anti-Christian or anti- other religions. Our existence doesn't make us anti others, actually being anti makes someone anti.

Likewise, evil existing in the world and evil ideology's existing in the world doesn't mean we somehow "made them".
That is what is wrong with your peoples Alex Jones ideology. We've interacted with many country's peoples, etc., and many of them are friends. Just because we interacted some with those of the middle east, and they have a perverted infidel ideology, and thus don't want to be friends, in fact making us enemy's, doesn't mean our existence and interaction CAUSED their hate of us.

Fools.... Their hate of us is due to their ideology, not our interaction with them. Those no influenced by an evil ideology after we helped free them from the Russians would not have turned around and become our enemy, they would have been our friends. What you don't understand is that evil always finds a target.... IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO OR DON'T DO.....

Or take Liberals.... Liberals actually live here, yet they falsely charge Conservatives of great evils.....
See, that's what you people forget. You forget that there is evil in the world, and it doesn't matter how "nice" you are to it.
Christ was crucified.... It didn't matter how "nice" he was or what good he did. BTW.... Did you practice Ron Paul "isolationism"? Did he practice your selective perversion of the Book of Mormon "isolationism"? No he didn't... He went around and taught to Gospel to all who would listen.

Military veterans swear to defend the Constitution, to defend from all threats, foreign and domestic. No where do we swear to invade and occupy other nations to keep them in-line.

And what nations are we occupying to keep them in-line?
We go to war, and then we leave. Name a single country we haven't left for the most part?

We should only wage war to defend our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom. We don't need to establish bases on foreign soil. We don't need to engage in a spiderweb of alliances.

And what makes you think we "aren't" going to war for those just causes? I know for a fact we are, so why do you pervert the truth into something different?
Also, we don't need to establish bases, and don't need to have alliances? Really? Again, more with the isolationism.
Let me ask you.... Did Nephite isolationism work out for them? Haven't ever heard that the more people are able to know and understand each other, the less chance there are for problems and misunderstanding? Do you think isolationism helps or hurts that cause? Do you really think that allowing the world to just go to hell, and then thinking that it will never bother or have any effect on us is really a "good" policy, one of righteousness, one of wisdom? No it's not....

Defending our people, our land, our friends, and our freedom is MORE than simply defending "borders". We actually have to be engaged in the world we live.

If the greatest and most skilled of us don't stand against tyranny, then there is no safety for anyone, anywhere, or at any time.

You either serve God, or you serve the Devil by your actions..... Ron Paul isolationism is serving the cause of the Devil. Period.
As Mormons you have been called to stand for the right, and against evil in all places and at all times. Ron Paul isolationism is not you following that call. Period.

“Already, I can hear the chorus chanting "Isolationism, isolationism, he's turning back the clock to isolationism." How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and "inter-dependent" that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of "logic" is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.” Ezra Taft Benson. Friday, June 21, 1968, Preston Idaho.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

Surely you can't mean that many of our founders actually lived in other countries for years like Adams and Jefferson, and Franklin? Surely isolation means isolation right? Say it isn't so! (then go eat some macaroni and thank Thomas Jefferson)

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Matthew.B:
OMD, I went over the list of early military actions taken by the United States and I disagree that the Founders set a precedent of interventionism. Almost entirely (except for one example I saw) every military action was to suppress piracy or defend U.S. land. You would expect a far greater need for those things when America was first getting on its feet and other powers were pushing and prodding us to see just how far we would be pushed. The military/black ops action the U.S. took in the Middle East over the past ~60 years was of an entirely different vein: nation building/destroying because we were afraid of losing privileges.

Mat, I agree that nation building is wrong and we should not be engaged in it. The list was not to show the Founders were interventionists but that for small actions a declaration of war is not needed nor were sought after.

During the First Barbary War under Jefferson we; held a naval blockade, seized ships and took their cargoes, and invaded enemy territory besides just fighting pirates. This is how we should deal with terrorists. Get authorization from congress, go in, take names and then leave.

Matthew.B:
You also list a few radical Islamist groups that are at war with different nations or peoples because they don't like actions we have taken and foreign policy stances we hold, and claim that proves the Islamists that attacked us did so because of ideology. I don't think that's a viable connection- the group that attacked us (Al Qaeda) had a very real grudge against us (as was pointed out in the video). In End the Fed, Ron Paul discussed how fanatical Islam does preach and use hate- but that now-popular anti-American jihadist groups had an incredibly hard time garnering support among the Muslim populace until the U.S. began meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Sound familiar Mat? Don’t believe the propaganda that our enemies have spoon fed us to believe that we are the cause of terrorist’s attacks. Our actions may give excuses but not cause. Bin Laden after the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan soon set his sights on America, that was in 1989 way before the Gulf War and the Iraq War!

The defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan played a key role in the downfall of the Soviet empire and the demise of communism. The final withdrawal of the Soviet troops in 1989 gave Islamic fighters all over the world a tremendous sense of self-confidence. Arguably, it was the first major victory of an Islamic cause over a European power in four centuries.

The Soviet defeat produced in bin Laden not just a feeling of pride and self-confidence, but megalomania. He speaks about his dream of creating a unified Islamic empire, encompassing 50 countries, stretching from North Africa and the Balkans, encompassing the whole Middle East (including Israel, naturally) and former Soviet Central Asia, all the way to Indonesia and the Philippines on the Pacific. It turned out that bin Laden regarded the Soviet Union not as the primary enemy, but merely as the weakest link in the chain. He turned his attention to waging war against his erstwhile ally, the United States.

Bin Laden's war against the U.S. would take the form of a prolonged terrorist campaign. In 1989, the same year that the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden founded his international terrorist organization, Al Qaeda (The Base) to train fighters for the global jihad against America.

Back in Saudi Arabia in 1990, bin Laden found the Saudi monarchy cooperating closely with the United States in repelling Sadam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Angered by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil during the Gulf War, bin Laden criticized the Saudi monarchy for selling out to the "infidel" Americans. The Saudi authorities placed him under house arrest, but he fled to Sudan, where an Islamic fundamentalist regime had just taken power and unleashed a genocidal war against its own Christian minority in the southern part of the country.

In Sudan over the course of five years, bin Laden gathered several hundred of his Afghan veterans from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian refugee camps, Uganda, Eritrea, Somalia, Albania, Bosnia, Chechnya and the Philippines. With the blessing of the government of Sudan, he set up three terrorist training camps. His fighters made their first sallies against America in 1993, when they helped train the Islamic militias that attacked American troops performing a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Somalia and helped coordinate the first World Trade Center bombing a month later.

In 1995, bin Laden's operatives detonated a car bomb that killed five American servicemen stationed in Saudi Arabia. In 1996, a larger car bomb killed 19 American servicemen at a housing complex in Saudi Arabia. http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/14/0914whoisobl.html

Only the naïve and uninformed, like Ron Paul, are part of the ‘blame America’ crowd, Mat. Please study up on the subject. Knowing the truth about the problems of the Middle East will be very important in the coming months. The next President (if we get one) will have to make the most important decisions of our life times.

BTW just because bin Laden planned to go after us right after he left Afghanistan in 1989 doesn’t mean we are innocent or have not made mistakes, we have and big time! Bin Laden used those mistakes to write a Fatwa in ’98 to gin up support and hatred against the US and to rationalize his terrorist’s actions. He and other similar groups’ goal is the spread of an Islamic Caliphate across the M.E. and then the rest of the world. This would be imposible to do while Israel and America is around. THAT is why they are and will continue to attack us no matter what we do or say.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Nice quote from Forbes - I wonder who the source was.

Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for a time and advised it thereafter, disagrees with your point of view, OMD,

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

In his second book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments."[20]
Scheuer contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. He cites Clausewitz's dictum that one must strike one's enemy's "center of gravity", and pairs it with an al Qaeda writer's assertion that "the American economy is the American center of gravity".[21]

In a videotape released around September 7, 2007, Osama bin Laden stated, "If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer."[

and emphasis mine

Scheuer's views have emphasized the danger of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, as well as the ineffectiveness of U.S. policy against these imminent threats. The threat to the United States, Scheuer has consistently maintained, continues to grow, and the U.S. continually fails to grasp the nature of the struggle in which it is engaged:[22] Islamist and anti-American sentiment continue to grow around the world, and the bin Laden movement is aimed, not at killing or conquering Americans or reforming their internal political systems, but rather bankrupting them in order to reduce their worldwide influence and thereby liberate Muslims from the yoke of American political, military, and financial influence. The failure of the U.S. to apprehend this threat is, in part, rooted in a misunderstanding and underestimation of Osama bin Laden himself. To Scheuer, Osama bin Laden's "beliefs, goals, and intentions" are carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it.[23]

Scheuer's criticism of U.S. foreign policy includes a sweeping condemnation of the invasion of Iraq, which he has characterized as a "Christmas present" to Osama bin Laden's Islamist recruitment efforts, and a validation of bin Laden's claims that the U.S. is at war with Islam. From his personal involvement in background research in the run up to the war, Scheuer states that "there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam."[24]

U.S. rhetoric about bin Laden's allegedly "hating freedom" has also irked Scheuer, who suggests that those "willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia... must want freedom in some kind of way."[25] This erroneous rhetoric, according to Scheuer, is not only to be found in the media and among politicians, but even in the 9/11 Commission report, in which bin Laden and his followers are identified "as takfiris, who kill Muslims if they don‘t agree with them. They‘re not takfiris. They‘re just very devout, severe Salafists and Wahhabis."

The insistence on referring to al Qaeda and the Islamist movement around it as a terrorist group or terrorist movement has also been a mistake, according to Scheuer. The U.S. is faced with an insurgency, rather than mere terrorism.

and regarding Iran

"The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda....These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we're going to have absolutely nothing to respond against."

I don't think that the head of the bin Laden unit of the CIA can be labeled "naive".