Have Trouble With Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy?

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Interesting how God has warned us about secret combinations but no mention of al Qaeda in the Book of Mormon. I am more worried about the Gadiantions attacking us false flag style.

Aggression against Iran could set up our Waterloo moment with all the warnings Russia and China have been giving. Thats a lot of nukes pointed our way and throw in Pakistan's as well.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Thomas
Interesting how God has warned us about secret combinations but no mention of al Qaeda in the Book of Mormon. I am more worried about the Gadiantions attacking us false flag style.

Aggression against Iran could set up our Waterloo moment with all the warnings Russia and China have been giving. Thats a lot of nukes pointed our way and throw in Pakistan's as well.

That is their Plan to start the ball rolling for WW III.

Thomas, al Qaeda is just an effective arrow in the quiver of the Latter Day Gadiantons, just as Russia and China are. Al Qaeda can deliver a nuke to one of our cities and give us no target to retaliate against. Russia and China could not. Also the Jihadists are eager to die for their cause, Putin and Wen Jiabao are not. They will be more than happy to have Extremists Muslims do their dirty work for them.

Our greatest danger is the enemy within. Back in the 60s Skousen identified them as the super-rich and communists. IMO there is a Master Mahan, the mirror image of Pres. Monson, at the head of the Gadiantons of today with secrete oaths given by Lucifer himself. They think their plan is infallible but God has other plans for us. Our enemies will fall into their own pit which they dug for us. We win in the end but the winning will be a refiner’s fire for the righteous.

[ChelCThe Law]

That's how I see the jihadists also. They are pawns whose hatred has been fed and nurtured. They are being used. Who hasn't been given a reason to hate? We need to fight evil wherever it exists and it exists everywhere. Jihadists allow the string pullers to remain in the shadows and they make it very difficult to define an enemy. They certainly aren't our only enemy. Satan is cunning and they are just one instrument in his orchestra. If we try to, we can sympathize with every enemy who desires our destruction. It's easy for us to turn on a country when attacked and see the war as being against a country rather than the reality that countless innocents will be lost in the battle. Jihad serves as a way of forcing us to look at the human cost because we can't clearly identify the enemy.

It's a mess and I wish I had a clue about how to solve it.

Bottom line: there are good and bad Jews, there are good and bad palestinians, there are good and bad americans, mormons, etc. We have to try to pan out a bit and get the big picture. To me, the big picture is that the Jews are being threatened with extinction, but more sympathy is being paid to the polar bears.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

ChelC
That's how I see the jihadists also. They are pawns whose hatred has been fed and nurtured. They are being used. Who hasn't been given a reason to hate? We need to fight evil wherever it exists and it exists everywhere. Jihadists allow the string pullers to remain in the shadows and they make it very difficult to define an enemy. They certainly aren't our only enemy. Satan is cunning and they are just one instrument in his orchestra. If we try to, we can sympathize with every enemy who desires our destruction. It's easy for us to turn on a country when attacked and see the war as being against a country rather than the reality that countless innocents will be lost in the battle. Jihad serves as a way of forcing us to look at the human cost because we can't clearly identify the enemy.

It's a mess and I wish I had a clue about how to solve it.

Bottom line: there are good and bad Jews, there are good and bad palestinians, there are good and bad americans, mormons, etc. We have to try to pan out a bit and get the big picture. To me, the big picture is that the Jews are being threatened with extinction, but more sympathy is being paid to the polar bears.

100% Agree ChelC.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Thomas
Interesting how God has warned us about secret combinations but no mention of al Qaeda in the Book of Mormon. I am more worried about the Gadiantions attacking us false flag style.

Aggression against Iran could set up our Waterloo moment with all the warnings Russia and China have been giving. Thats a lot of nukes pointed our way and throw in Pakistan's as well.

That is their Plan to start the ball rolling for WW III.

Thomas, al Qaeda is just an effective arrow in the quiver of the Latter Day Gadiantons, just as Russia and China are. Al Qaeda can deliver a nuke to one of our cities and give us no target to retaliate against. Russia and China could not. Also the Jihadists are eager to die for their cause, Putin and Wen Jiabao are not. They will be more than happy to have Extremists Muslims do their dirty work for them.

Our greatest danger is the enemy within. Back in the 60s Skousen identified them as the super-rich and communists. IMO there is a Master Mahan, the mirror image of Pres. Monson, at the head of the Gadiantons of today with secrete oaths given by Lucifer himself. They think their plan is infallible but God has other plans for us. Our enemies will fall into their own pit which they dug for us. We win in the end but the winning will be a refiner’s fire for the righteous.

Agreed and well said. The Gadiantions could impose marshall law after such an attack. I don't look forward to WWIII but its likely in the cards.

[pjbrowniecaptain of 1,000]

I agree with Ron Paul in principle. In practice, not so much. He's far too dismissive of the dangers Iran poses. I am not, however, for starting a war with them. We've been in a Cold War with Iran since 1979. So What? We don't need, and we can't AFFORD another war.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

I agree with Ron Paul in principle. In practice, not so much. He's far too dismissive of the dangers Iran poses. I am not, however, for starting a war with them. We've been in a Cold War with Iran since 1979. So What? We don't need, and we can't AFFORD another war.

A cold war we initiated in 1953 (the fruits of Operation AJAX) for British Petroleum by destroying their democratically elected government and installing a dictator who reigned with blood and terror for over two decades....and then in 1979 we helped him escape justice.

[John Adamscaptain of 1,000]

I think OldManDalton posted this in another place, but I've been curious about Dr. Paul's "supposed" passiveness ever since I heard he was the first one on 9/11 to try and initiate the Constitutionally based "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" (i.e., what Thomas Jefferson did with the Barbary issue back in his time).

I wouldn't think he would be a "passive" president at all, he would just use the military as they should be used.

The "back & forth" I go around with my dad (who likes Ron Paul in many respects, but still thinks Mitt Romney's and the mainstream Republicans' thoughts on "fighting the Jihad" is the better approach), is could we still fight the Jihad within the realms of the Constitution (i.e., send in the Marines as needed) or do we really need to be "policing the world" to make sure we know everything to win this "supposed" war on terror?

You can probably guess my opinion on the matter, but I would like to be more articulate in communicating these thoughts to those that think there is no middle ground (i.e., we either fight the jihad by policing the world or else they'll eventually come over here and murder our children and grandchildren--so therefore Dr. Paul must be too passive).

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

I would fight terrorists as Thomas Jefferson did, and not just with "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". First he asked for authorization from congress then he went about to capture enemy shipping, blockaded cities, attacked ports and fortresses.

If terrorist planned and carried out attacks on Americans and had basses in foreign nations we should warn their governments to rid their country of them or we would do it for them. Like we did in Afghanistan. The problem there is we stayed too long and tried to nation build.

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal", hiring mercenaries to arrest terrorists, would be fine for single or small groups but what would you do against the larger groups? This is where the authorization from congress or even a declaration of war would be needed.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Original_Intent
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."

OI it is interesting to note that most of the events that Scheuer uses in Al Qaeda’s “goals” occurred years AFTER Al Qaeda was formed. Here is a response I gave Patriotsaint on another thread:

You mean the Michael Scheuer who for 3 years was over the OBL Unit and somehow never found Bin Laden? The guy who now works for the ‘Center for Peace and Security Studies’ which works with the CFR on papers, videos, and symposiums? You mean this Michael Scheuer:


This caller sounds just like some of our forum members.

More love for Israel from Michael Scheuer:

"Ultimately we have to find a way to dissuade them [Muslim extremists] from focusing their anger on us and persuade them to focus their anger at what they themselves believe is the real enemy, the governments that govern them, oppress them, and Israel."

"Ultimately Israel is a country that is of no particular worth to the United States."

"The only country I care about is the United States. I care not a whit whether or not Israel survives."

“Israel is not only an unnecessary and self-made liability for the United States, it is an untreated and spreading cancer on our domestic politics, foreign policy, and national security.”

In 2002 Scheuer wrote about the connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and then repudiates it two years later. Some have even accused Scheuer for being the CIA handles for OBL. I wouldn’t go that far but I wouldn’t trust him as a reliable “source” OI. He has an agenda and has ties to the LDGs.

The six al Qaeda goals listed by Scheuer are those that Bin Laden use as propaganda to fool the world to hide his true goals, those that the Jihadists leaders and followers were willing to die for and know.These are the true goals of al Qaeda as stated by they themselves, not what they wanted the MSM to desiminate to the gullible of the world at large:

1.Establishing the rule of God on earth .

2.Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.

3.Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.

Just before Russia was kicked out of Afghanistan in 1989 Al Qaeda was formed in August of 1988 by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam (OBL’s and the Afghan Jihadists’ spiritual leader), "several senior leaders" of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, in order to “organize an Islamic faction, its goal is to lift the word of God, to make His religion victorious." One of the main reasons they split from the rest of the Afghan fighters to form al Qaeda, was to organize and include fighters from other Arab and Muslim countries to spread Jihad worldwide. See the above TRUE goals of the organization OBL helped form. Prior to this the Jihadists were primarily nationalistic in nature. With the preaching of Abdullah Azzam and the leadership of Bin Laden Islamic Jihad went global.

America and Israel were not the only targets. They also went after Western supported dictators in the Middle East whom they called apostate governments such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

"Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogues." Abdullah Azzam

“This vanguard constitutes the solid base` [qaeda in Arabic] for the hoped-for society ... We shall continue the jihad no matter how long the way, until the last breath and the last beat of the pulse - or until we see the Islamic state established.(Caliphate)” Abdullah Azzam

After reading about Michael Scheuer I now understand why he supports Ron Paul’s candidacy. They both have the same views of Israel and the same “blame America first” foreign policy.

Sheuer has also been interviewed on Press TV (Iranian TV) and Russian TV (RT). So let's sume it up: Sheuer hates Israel, works with the CFR and is on our enemy's propaganda outlets. Oh yea, Michael Scheuer is a great reliable source.

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]

Bin Laden, after defeating Russia, one of the two Super Powers of the world, set his sights of the last remaining, America. America’s intervention in the ME just gave him the propaganda he needed to gather fighters to his cause. America’s meddling is NOT the main cause for the Jihadists. It is the desire to spread Islam in its purest form is what is fuelling Al Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, and other groups. Read the writings of the religious leaders who are the spiritual core of the Jihadist movement, OI. They teach global Jihad, religious purity according to Sharia and the cleansing of the whole Middle East.

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.

Agreed.

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]

He contradicts himself. Who knows, Dr Stanley Monteith is sited on this forum as saying there was a connection. It is not an important point for me.

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."

Like I said before “hating freedom” was not their driving force, the spread of Islam IS. “Hating freedom” is just a by-product of Islamization of the world under Sharia Law.

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.

ter•ror•ism

1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

in•sur•gen•cy

1.Insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.

2.Rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.

Why would Scheuer, a supposed expert, use the term ‘insugancy’ instead of terrorists? Al Qaeda is not in insurrection against our government but uses violence against civilians for political and religious purposes. No IMO Scheuer is a shill for the LDGs and has an agenda.

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."

No, no one who has said they want to destroy our country and who may soon have the means to deliver that threat is not a danger to America are they?

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

No I would use the term ‘shill’ or ‘agenda driven’, OI.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Ahmadinejad’s Speech At The UN: His Apocalyptic Prayer

During the opening prayer to his speech at the UN yesterday (September 23, 2011: read here http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/66/IR_en.pdf),

Iran’s President once again asked God to “hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi.” Ahmadinejad is a devoted acolyte of the Mahdi, otherwise known as the 12th Imam (or the “Hidden Imam”), who, according to conflicting accounts, is believed to be a descendant of Mohammad who disappeared as a young boy in the ninth, tenth, or thirteenth century. Shi’ite Muslims who belong to this “death cult” (as some detractors call it) believe the Mahdi never died but is waiting at 1) the bottom of a well, or 2) in a cave until the world has been overcome by enough chaos, blood, and war. Only then will the 12th Imam make his triumphant return and the world will experience bliss under complete Muslim rule.

In contemporary vernacular, Ahmadinejad is a Twelver and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini is a Twelver.

People have a right to their spiritual beliefs but, unlike Christians who believe that Jesus will return one day to bring peace to the world and until then believers are to devote themselves to good works, devotees of the 12th Mahdi are basically honor-bound to hasten the Imam’s arrival by creating as much upheaval as possible.

What is behind Iran’s “recklessness” regarding the building of its nuclear program? Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameini said he has personally met the 12th Imam and is his “personal representative on earth,”( http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/02/09/understanding-egypt-the-twelfth-iman-and-the-end-of-days/) while Ahmadinejad believes supernatural power fell during a speech he once gave at the UN that prevented delegates from blinking their eyes for almost thirty minutes. (Read “Divine Mission Driving Iran’s New Leader”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html)

Some of Ahmadinejad’s dangerous euphemisms about his “messianic” mission:

MEMRI (Middle East Research Institute http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2388.htm) September 17, 2007

…On August 29, 2007, Ahmadinejad said, “The Iranian nation and the Islamic Revolution have a pivotal role in preparing the ground for the coming of the Hidden Imam… We must rapidly develop Iran in order to create the [right] conditions for his coming, and we must also help the rest of the world’s nations [to prepare for his return], in order to precipitate this great event…”

“The responsibility that currently rests on Iran’s [shoulders] is very heavy; it is the kind of mission [with which] the divine prophets [were entrusted]. It does not permit us to rest or slumber even for a moment. Have you ever seen a prophet take a rest from the fulfillment of his mission?….

http://chambersworldnews.com/2011/09/25/ahmadinejads-speech-at-the-un-his-apocalyptic-prayer/

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

Nice fear-mongering over empty threats. A lot of countries attempt to project power....just look at North Korea for example. Iran would be crushed in a military conflict and knows it. The fact that you take them serious puzzles me.

The US crushed Iraq like a worm and could do the same to Iran and North Korea at any moment. What is so threatening about these "axis of evil" countries? They are a joke, but gullible Americans can be duped into believing anything the media tells them.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Nice fear-mongering over empty threats. A lot of countries attempt to project power....just look at North Korea for example. Iran would be crushed in a military conflict and knows it. The fact that you take them serious puzzles me.

The US crushed Iraq like a worm and could do the same to Iran and North Korea at any moment. What is so threatening about this "axis of evil" countries? They are a joke, but gullible Americans can be duped into believing anything the media tells them.

I agree with your assement. The dangerous scenario is the possiblity of Russia and China coming to Iran's defence. The real enemy is within our own government. Pes. Benson told us that years ago. Any war would be directed behind the scene with the puppetmasters controlling both sides of the conflict.

The kind of propaganda Omd is showing us, is designed to have the Americian people go along with the plans of the puppet masters.The real goal is world government dictatorship, with a weakened America. As OMD has pointed out, they will fail, however that doesn't mean much suffering won't take place because of it.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

What is so threatening about these "axis of evil" countries?

They all want to get out of the dollar.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/ ... nking.html

Here is another great article in regards to the "terrorist" aspect of Iran. WE created them.... just like Jason said.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/ ... -case.html

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

Nice fear-mongering over empty threats. A lot of countries attempt to project power....just look at North Korea for example. Iran would be crushed in a military conflict and knows it. The fact that you take them serious puzzles me.

The US crushed Iraq like a worm and could do the same to Iran and North Korea at any moment. What is so threatening about these "axis of evil" countries? They are a joke, but gullible Americans can be duped into believing anything the media tells them.

To take it further, I always find it interesting that people try to portray Israel as the vulnerable country surrounded by enemies that want to devour it, when not only does it have by far the best military in the region, but is also the region's only nuclear power.

It's like saying the 200lb champion boxer with a machine gun is being terrorized by children with pointy sticks.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Patriotsaint
Nice fear-mongering over empty threats. A lot of countries attempt to project power....just look at North Korea for example. Iran would be crushed in a military conflict and knows it. The fact that you take them serious puzzles me.

Knowledge does not create fear, Patriotsaint, only when you are surprised by a catastrophic event that you were unaware of and unprepared to deal with.

When I post information most people ignore I am not trying to convince people to ‘invade or attack Iran and kill innocent people’. I just want all of the facts out there so people can make an informed opinion with facts and not myths. I understand completely, if knowing the stakes of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, you still think it unwise to try and take out their nuke sites. I struggle with my own position. I believe that Iran WILL use nukes if they get them. I believe that there will be fewer deaths if we take out their enrichment sites rather than wait for Israeli cities to be vaporized or a devastating EMP attack on America.

The US crushed Iraq like a worm and could do the same to Iran and North Korea at any moment. What is so threatening about this "axis of evil" countries? They are a joke, but gullible Americans can be duped into believing anything the media tells them.

I don’t rely on the MSM to form my opinion on Iranian nukes Patriosaint, I use what the leaders of Iran have said their goals and intentions toward us and Israel are. Europe made the same mistake with Hitler in the 1930s. They had a chance to stop WW II then, and save millions of lives. They were just as naïve then, as Ron Paul is today. We are repeating history and are headed toward WW III.

Paul: Iran no threat to US security
Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:53AM GMT


US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul

US Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says he would not launch a strike on Iran since there is no military element in Iranian nuclear program.

Paul told Iowa voters on Friday that he would not initiate an attack on Iran because “they don't threaten our national security,” ABC news network reported.

“If some other country thought they had to go to war with them [Iran], that is their business,” he said, adding there is no proof and reliable evidence of the existence of a military aspect to Iran's nuclear program.

Paul's stance on Iran is one that has drawn criticism from his GOP rivals.

Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates have said they would take military action against Iran if economic, diplomatic and other pressures did not stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

Romney criticized Paul on Friday in an interview on the Fox News Channel, saying, “I don't think Ron Paul represents the mainstream of Republican thought with regards to issues, particularly in foreign policy.”

The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program. Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike against its atomic facilities.

Iran argues that as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Press TV

http://presstv.com/detail/218645.html

Looks like Iran endorses Ron Paul.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

I don’t rely on the MSM to form my opinion on Iranian nukes Patriosaint, I use what the leaders of Iran have said their goals and intentions toward us and Israel are. Europe made the same mistake with Hitler in the 1930s. They had a chance to stop WW II then, and save millions of lives. They were just as naïve then, as Ron Paul is today. We are repeating history and are headed toward WW III.

Again, who cares what they SAY if they are unable to actually DO? Iranians are not as stupid as you make them out to be. They know if they use a nuke against Israel or the US they are toast. What was the last count on nukes held by the US and Israel? They are posturing...just like N Korea. They know the only way to even the tables as far as bargaining goes is to develop nukes.

History may be repeating itself, but it's not the history of WW2.

Germany was on the cutting edge of military technology.....Iran is not
Germany had the capacity to fabricate military technology at an incredible rate.....Iran does not
Germany had an air force and navy that could compete with world powers....Iran does not
Germany had bombs and munitions to match the allied forces......Iran does not

It's easy to compare Iran to Hitler's Germany....until you actually look at the facts.

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

patriotsaint
Oldemandalton wrote:I don’t rely on the MSM to form my opinion on Iranian nukes Patriosaint, I use what the leaders of Iran have said their goals and intentions toward us and Israel are. Europe made the same mistake with Hitler in the 1930s. They had a chance to stop WW II then, and save millions of lives. They were just as naïve then, as Ron Paul is today. We are repeating history and are headed toward WW III.


Again, who cares what they SAY if they are unable to actually DO? Iranians are not as stupid as you make them out to be. They know if they use a nuke against Israel or the US they are toast. What was the last count on nukes held by the US and Israel? They are posturing...just like N Korea. They know the only way to even the tables as far as bargaining goes is to develop nukes.

Hitler said he wanted to exterminate all of the Jews in Europe. Didn’t succeed but he did kill 6 million of them.

Hitler said he wanted to conquer all of Europe. He didn’t succeed but millions more died in his effort and nations were destroyed.

Patriotsaint, we know by ‘reading the back of the book’ that Islam doesn’t destroy Israel or America, it’s what they do to try and accomplish that goal that should worry you and everyone else. The sheeple, MSM, and the Propagandists have no idea what their intentions are so they just blow it off as “posturing”.

Iran’s fanatical leaders have told us in Farsi what they want to accomplish. No one is listening just like those in the 1930s didn’t take seriously what Hitler wrote in Mein Kamf. He told the world his thoughts and intentions and the people then just blew it off as rantings of a disgruntled wanabe politician who dreamed of the glory days of the old German Empire. Same thing is going on today. Iranian leaders want to be the heart of the new Caliphate led by their messiah, the 12th Imam, who they say they have met with and speak to regularly. I wish you would educate yourself Patriotsaint on what they say in Farsi. It may be too late.

History may be repeating itself, but it's not the history of WW2.

Germany was on the cutting edge of military technology.....Iran is not

Iran wont need raptors, stealth technology, or the latest super carrier to accomplish their goals, Patriotsaint. You underestimate their resolve and intentions still.

Germany had the capacity to fabricate military technology at an incredible rate.....Iran does not
Germany had an air force and navy that could compete with world powers....Iran does not
Germany had bombs and munitions to match the allied forces......Iran does not

Iran has no plans to build armoured divisions, fleets of ships, or air wings to blitzkrieg into Europe or Asia. Their plan, after their “Iranian Islamic Revolution’ and coming to power has been:

1. Spread their ‘Islamic Revolution’ to all Muslim countries and create a Caliphate which they lead.
2. Destroy Israel and America.
3. Hasten the return of the Mahdi through chaos and world war.

Their tools up until now have been training and supplying weapons and leadership from al Qods to various Terrorist organizations around the world like Hamas and Hezbollah, to destabilize governments, create fear and terror. Israel now has thousands of Iranian build and financed rockets pointed at them in Gaza and Lebanon. Soon they will have nuclear tipped ICBMs targeted on them as well. The US too. With nuclear weapons they can or will try to accomplish their 3 goals.

Its hard for a Westerner to grasp the idea that the leaders of a nation are willing to sacrifice their own people to realize their dreams of hedgemony and religious glory. We can’t comprehend the honour given to suicide bombers when they kill innocent men women and children or martyrs who willingly die to spread their fanatical religious beliefs. Unfortunately too many do not comprehend it and therefore don’t believe that it is possible and thus are very naïve, like Ron Paul.

[LateOutOfBedcaptain of 100]

Unfortunately too many do not comprehend it and therefore don’t believe that it is possible and thus are very naïve, like Ron Paul.

So, you're saying that Mitt Romney does completely understand all this, and that would be his reason for supporting a war with Iran?

I personally don't believe that to be the case. I don't think Obama gives a rats turd about it either. I don't think any of our leaders would go to war because they understood all of this. I think our leaders make the decision for war because or other VERY SELFISH reasons.

Do you have any evidence that says Romney is any different?

I'd really like to know, because being that I'm military and have been for well over 16 years now, I highly doubt the reasons we've been to war are the reasons they say they are.

-- Geoff

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Geoff
So, you're saying that Mitt Romney does completely understand all this, and that would be his reason for supporting a war with Iran?

I personally don't believe that to be the case. I don't think Obama gives a rats turd about it either. I don't think any of our leaders would go to war because they understood all of this. I think our leaders make the decision for war because or other VERY SELFISH reasons.

Do you have any evidence that says Romney is any different?

I'd really like to know, because being that I'm military and have been for well over 16 years now, I highly doubt the reasons we've been to war are the reasons they say they are.

Santorum is the only one who gets what’s going on in Iran and the danger of the Jihadists movement around the world, Geoff. (See articles below)

I think Romney and Newt are just playing to the conservative read meat when they say they’ll bomb Iran to keep them from getting nukes. Santorum is the only one who knows the reason WHY. While Ron Paul has no idea what’s really going on with the motivation of the fanatical leaders of Iran, the Jihadists, and those who are trying to create a Caliphate.

As to why we have been at war in so many places, IMO part of it has been to bleed us and wear out our military and spend $$. We had good cause to go into Afghanistan but not for 10 years! We should have gone in, kicked butt, and then left. The 2nd Gulf War was a move to surround Iran and place a friendly ‘democracy’ in the ME. Bad mistake, I don’t think it will end well there.

Now Obama and the rest of the Open Boarders/One World Government types are pushing the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine to justify more military interventions around the globe, like in Lydia. http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=20504




Santorum more realistic than Romney and Paul on jihad

by Robert Spencer

After Rick Santorum’s surprising show in Iowa, he may be the only candidate standing between Mitt Romney and the Republican nomination. But there is no contest between the two as to which demonstrates a more realistic understanding of the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. In that arena, Santorum wins hands down.

“Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is,” Santorum said last March. “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.” He added correctly, and in sharp contrast to the prevailing view, that “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”

Even though he made these remarks almost a year ago, as he rises in prominence, Santorum is going to get a lot of heat for this. The Islamic supremacist sympathizers in the mainstream media began calling to these remarks after the Iowa caucus, accusing Santorum of the phantom malady of “Islamophobia.”

One would hope that in response to these accusations Santorum would ask Leftist reporters (and Ron Paul, who recently accused him of “hating Muslims”) if they think that Sharia provisions such as the death penalty for apostates, stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, the denial of freedom of speech and institutionalized second-class status for women and non-Muslims are not evil.

If Santorum did that, it is likely that the media would then highlight some smooth Islamic supremacist deceiver who would claim that those things are not part of Sharia; however, there is not a single Muslim country that has ever implemented Sharia without implementing those measures, or one school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach such things. So Rick Santorum is on firm ground.

Mitt Romney, by contrast, is sinking into the quicksand of politically correct half-truths and untruths about Islam and jihad. Recently he claimed that violent Islamic jihadists “take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.” He said that the Muslims he knew in Detroit were “peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.” Romney has even gone so far as to claim that “there is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism” that is “by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.”

This is tantamount to saying that the local post office is by no means a branch of the U.S. Postal Service, or that golf has nothing to do with the country-club left-leaning Republicanism that Romney represents.

But even Romney has a clearer view of the jihad problem than Ron Paul, who has recently claimed that the September 11 attacks happened because of “flawed” U.S. policies -- not, in other words, because of the Islamic jihad imperative that the 9/11 hijackers themselves invoked as their primary motivation in writings they left behind. He has also claimed that the Iran nuclear threat has been “blown out of proportion.” His anxiety to avoid involving the U.S. in another foredoomed and quixotic adventure in nation-building like those in Afghanistan and Iraq is laudable, but to dismiss so casually the possibility of a cataclysm that could destroy Israel altogether and murder millions of people in the Middle East is irresponsible, to say the least.

None of the Republican candidates has a complete understanding of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, but all of them, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, would be an improvement over Barack Obama, whose policies have seen an Islamic supremacist advance in the “Arab Spring” countries that bodes extremely ill for the U.S. in the long run. There is no chance that Sharia states based on Islamic law will remain for long favorably disposed in any meaningful sense to the world’s foremost infidel polity. “In any meaningful sense” -- that is, as opposed to the deceptive sham alliances of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Free people may hope that whoever does ultimately get the nomination will get a crash course in the truth about jihad, and restore it to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. If he doesn’t, it will be another very long four years. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48675






Rick Santorum Strongest in GOP Field on Iran and Foreign Policy

For freedom lovers and great American patriots, national security and foreign policy is one of the top issues, if not the most important issue in the presidential race of 2012 -- particularly after the rout that Obama's disastrous presidency has wreaked on American hegemony in his wildly chaotic post-American world.

Santorum is best in show on this issue. He has been consistent for years on his opposition to the mullahcracy's pursuit of genocidal nuclear weapons. He is singular on this. I hope people are paying attention. He should be polling better. I expect that to change. Santorum got a huge standing ovation at the Florida State tea party convention that I spoke at on Saturday. http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2011/11/07/santorum-gets-standing-ovation-at-daytona-tea-party-convention.html

ICYMI: SANTORUM HAS STRONG WORDS FOR IRAN

Foreign Policy Experience Another Significant Difference Between Santorum and the Field

Verona, PA - Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) continues to be a national leader in standing tall against the radical theocracy of Iran. This past weekend, Senator Santorum devoted a large portion of his speech to the Republican Party of Iowa's Reagan Dinner to the need to address the looming threat of a nuclear Iran.

Reagan Dinner Speaker Rick Santorum Has Strong Words On Iran Oskaloosa News

"Santorum also spoke on the Iran Nuclear Situation. "Something very big is going to happen next week. It could fundamentally change this world and that's the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency about what Iran's nuclear situation is. I spent 10 years focused like a laser beam when I was in the Senate on the country of Iran. I introduce the biggest restriction and sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program 8 years ago. It was unanimously opposed even by President Bush, I got no co-sponsors. Within 2 years after people saw what Iran was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and they saw their nuclear program was being regenerated, it passed unanimously and was signed by the President."

Santorum continued. "I have been traveling around this country talking about the threat that Iran is to the future of our country and to the stability of the middle-east and of course to the nation of Israel. If Iran is in fact found to be close, the world as you know it will have changed and we will have to do something. We will have to do something to stop that production because an Iranian state that is fixated on the return of the 12th Imam and dominating the Islamic world cannot under any circumstances have a nuclear weapon."

Senator Santorum is not new to addressing a nuclear Iran. During his tenure in the United States Senate, Senator Santorum:

• Spent 8 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he worked to transform America's military from a Cold War force to one prepared to deal with the terrorist threats of today and tomorrow.

• Author of the "Syria Accountability Act" and the "Iran Freedom and Support Act" that imposed stiff sanctions on those rogue regimes and authorized funding for the pro-democracy movement in Iran. http://www.RickSantorum.com

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/11/rick-santorum-strongest-in-gop-field-on-iran-and-foreign-policy.html

[p51-mustangcaptain of 1,000]

Perhaps someone can tell me what this scripture has to do with wars and what causes them?

40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?

[DrJonescaptain of 1,000]

OK, here's a new video that explains why we need to be in constant war, in order to have peace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeP2SU6a ... e=youtu.be

{very funny}

[HeberCcaptain of 100]

It was slightly funny but even more annoying and depressing if that guy was serious. I couldn't stomach him for very long.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

It was slightly funny but even more annoying and depressing if that guy was serious. I couldn't stomach him for very long.

He was performing satire, which is what made it so funny. If you listen long enough he quotes Madison and Washington and a few others as "Ron Paul supporters", and then afterwards makes a quip about what the founding fathers would think of what they said. If you're not ready for it listening to the first bit can get you steamed, which is the danger with any sarcasm: people either don't realize what you're doing and think you're an idiot, or they do realize but disagree and think you're a jerk.

As a tool, sarcasm tends to backfire far more often than it hits.

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

JANUARY 21, 2012
5 Reasons Why Ron Paul Is The National Security Candidate

Ron Paul vs. The Global Military-Industrial-Financial Complex

Ron Paul is not simply the anti-war candidate. He is also the national security candidate. This is an important truth that is overlooked.

The wars in the Middle East have been sold to the American people as "national security" wars, but this is a big lie. The wars have nothing to do with America's national security interests. So, the anti-war position is the same as the pro-national security position.

Washington's Blog shined a light on the real reasons for America's endless wars in the article, "Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?"

Ron Paul is the world's biggest opponent of private central banking, the fiat dollar system, and the endless war on terror. His resistance has a moral dimension for sure, but his main argument is that America has not benefited from the wars either economically, militarily, or politically.

Throughout his presidential campaign Dr. Paul has repeated the point that America's national security and economic health are being ruined by Washington's multiple unsustainable and costly wars.

But Dr. Paul's rejection of the war on terror mythos is not the only reason why he should be considered as the national security candidate. He puts the national security of America ahead of politics and party every single time, no matter the issue. Whether the issue is a war against Iran or indefinite detention in America, Dr. Paul is consistently for the defense of America's national security.

It is clear that Dr. Paul is the only serious national security candidate in the 2012 presidential race. Below I've listed five issues which showcase Dr. Paul's national security credentials.

1. Dr. Paul agrees with senior members of the U.S. Military that a war against Iran is a bad idea, and with the U.S. intelligence community that Iran does not have a nuclear bomb. His political foes in his party are confusing America's national security interests with Israel's national security interests. And in doing so, they are severely undermining the economic health and security of the United States.

2. Dr. Paul's opposition to the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are grounded in the belief that unconstitutional laws threaten America's national security. Earlier this week, he introduced legislation to repeal the section of the NDAA that allows the military to snatch up American citizens in the night and keep them hostage in secret prisons without trial. This government power will be abused and the social fabric of America will be destroyed. As Washington's Blog stated in an article headline, "Indefinite Detention Hurts Our National Security and Increases the Risk of Terrorism."

3. In August 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. national debt poses the biggest threat to America's national security.

Dr. Paul has done the most among political leaders in raising public awareness about the rapidly growing U.S. national debt and the risks of U.S. bankruptcy. He is the only true anti-debt candidate, which proves that he truly cares about the economic security and social well-being of America, unlike every other Republican candidate and President Obama.

On January 18, 2012, Senator Jim DeMint endorsed Ron Paul's views on foreign policy and national debt, saying:
"If we spread ourselves too thin around the world were not gonna be able to defend the homeland, particularly with the level of debt that we have right now. It’s foolish for us to think that we can have military bases all over the world, spend billions of dollars when we’re going broke back home. It just isn’t gonna happen."
4. Ron Paul's defense of America's national security begins at the borders. He says as President he will protect America's borders and restore the legal paths to citizenship in the United States. His pro-legal immigration/pro-border security platform is in line with the true values and national security interests of America.

5. The foundations of America's national security are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment and the second amendment. They are currently under attack by the hijacked government, which is an attack on America's national security. Dr. Paul will restore the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would significantly improve the security of the United States.

America would not be America without a free press and an armed citizenry. If both were destroyed, which is a very real possibility if internet censorship and police state legislation are not resisted, then the fire of liberty that is America will be extinguished forever.

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.co ... ional.html

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

moonwhim;
JANUARY 21, 2012
5 Reasons Why Ron Paul Is The National Security Candidate

Ron Paul vs. The Global Military-Industrial-Financial Complex

Ron Paul is not simply the anti-war candidate. He is also the national security candidate. This is an important truth that is overlooked.

The wars in the Middle East have been sold to the American people as "national security" wars, but this is a big lie. The wars have nothing to do with America's national security interests. So, the anti-war position is the same as the pro-national security position.

Yes we have gotten in too many wars. Those of the Middle East have been to insure the free flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz such as Gulf Wars I & II. Afghanistan was justified even if it is compaired to our founding fathers, IE Barbary Pirates.

Washington's Blog shined a light on the real reasons for America's endless wars in the article, "Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?"

Ron Paul is the world's biggest opponent of private central banking, the fiat dollar system,

He is right!

and the endless war on terror.

He is naive!

His resistance has a moral dimension for sure, but his main argument is that America has not benefited from the wars either economically, militarily, or politically.

If we had kept them short, gone in kicked butt then left, then I would disagree. Otherwise yes, it has cost us.


Throughout his presidential campaign Dr. Paul has repeated the point that America's national security and economic health are being ruined by Washington's multiple unsustainable and costly wars.

They have added to the debt yes but not as much as has our welfare state and excessive borrowing. Yes we should have kept them short.


But Dr. Paul's rejection of the war on terror mythos is not the only reason why he should be considered as the national security candidate.

Dr. Paul is very naïve to deny the existence of the Jihadists’ movement and their desire to destroy both Israel and the United States.

He puts the national security of America ahead of politics and party every single time, no matter the issue.

Not if he is ignorant of the dangers faced by the fanatical leaders of Iran and the terrorists around the world who want a world Caliphate and our destruction.

Whether the issue is a war against Iran or indefinite detention in America, Dr. Paul is consistently for the defense of America's national security.

It is clear that Dr. Paul is the only serious national security candidate in the 2012 presidential race. Below I've listed five issues which showcase Dr. Paul's national security credentials.

1. Dr. Paul agrees with senior members of the U.S. Military that a war against Iran is a bad idea, and with the U.S. intelligence community that Iran does not have a nuclear bomb.

False! “Senior members of the U.S. Military” disagree on the results of the effects of a strike on Iranian enrichment sites. “U.S. intelligence community” and Israel knows Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Only the naïve like Ron Paul and our enemy’s propagandists like Saman Mohammadi, the author of this article, believe that Iran is not working to building nuclear weapons.

His political foes in his party are confusing America's national security interests with Israel's national security interests. And in doing so, they are severely undermining the economic health and security of the United States.

Actually our security interests are tied together when our enemy, Iran, say they want to destroy both countries and create Shite hegemony in the M.E.

2. Dr. Paul's opposition to the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are grounded in the belief that unconstitutional laws threaten America's national security. Earlier this week, he introduced legislation to repeal the section of the NDAA that allows the military to snatch up American citizens in the night and keep them hostage in secret prisons without trial. This government power will be abused and the social fabric of America will be destroyed. As Washington's Blog stated in an article headline, "Indefinite Detention Hurts Our National Security and Increases the Risk of Terrorism."

I agree %100 with Dr Paul.

3. In August 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. national debt poses the biggest threat to America's national security.
Dr. Paul has done the most among political leaders in raising public awareness about the rapidly growing U.S. national debt and the risks of U.S. bankruptcy. He is the only true anti-debt candidate, which proves that he truly cares about the economic security and social well-being of America, unlike every other Republican candidate and President Obama.
On January 18, 2012, Senator Jim DeMint endorsed Ron Paul's views on foreign policy and national debt, saying:
"If we spread ourselves too thin around the world were not gonna be able to defend the homeland, particularly with the level of debt that we have right now. It’s foolish for us to think that we can have military bases all over the world, spend billions of dollars when we’re going broke back home. It just isn’t gonna happen."

Again I agree %100.

4. Ron Paul's defense of America's national security begins at the borders. He says as President he will protect America's borders and restore the legal paths to citizenship in the United States. His pro-legal immigration/pro-border security platform is in line with the true values and national security interests of America.

Yes.

5. The foundations of America's national security are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment and the second amendment. They are currently under attack by the hijacked government, which is an attack on America's national security. Dr. Paul will restore the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would significantly improve the security of the United States.
America would not be America without a free press and an armed citizenry. If both were destroyed, which is a very real possibility if internet censorship and police state legislation are not resisted, then the fire of liberty that is America will be extinguished forever.

Yes.

Truth sprinkled over myths.

We need to both to reign in the size of government, the Fed, and reduce our presence overseas but not completely and in a measured process. We also need to realize that there is evil in the world intent on our destruction and not make the same mistakes as the appeasers of the 1930s did which led to WW II.


The author, Saman Mohammadi, is a terrorist sympathizer and propagandist for the enemies of Israel and America:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?ok=y&p=Hezbollah-Framed-By-Israel-by-Saman-Mohammadi-110701-460.html&c=d

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/mossad-was-behind-2011-oslo-attacks.html

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/The-Reign-of-Zionist-Globa-by-Saman-Mohammadi-110725-369.html

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/The-War-on-Terror-A-Myth-by-Saman-Mohammadi-110613-352.html

[scootd28Hi, I'm new.]

During the first South Carolina debate, people actually booed Dr. Paul when he suggested that we invoke the golden rule in our foreign policy. I was appalled at how low we've sunk. Another indicator is that, when I ask someone if they can remember the last time we had a legally declared war, no one can answer. No one seems to realize that the last time we had a declared war was World War II. We've been conditioned like the frog in the pot to accept that the president and congress can just send our troops anywhere they want. We've been conditioned to think of ourselves as the saviors or the policemen of the world. Dr. Paul's positions are radical only because we've totally forgotten who we're really supposed to be, and we've come to accept the unacceptable.

[ktgcaptain of 100]

I was appalled at how low we've sunk.

Unfortunately, the country will surely get what it deserves.

[linj2flycaptain of 1,000]

I've always loved this account of the prophet, Joseph Smith...
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/Volume%204%20Number%203,%202003/dealing-personal-injustices-lessons-prophet-joseph-smith

I went one day to the Prophet with a sister. She had a charge to make against one of the brethren for scandal. When her complaint had been heard the Prophet asked her if she was quite sure that what the brother had said of her was utterly untrue.

She was quite sure that it was.

He then told her to think no more about it, for it could not harm her. If untrue it could not live, but the truth will survive. Still she felt that she should have some redress. Then he offered her his method of dealing with such cases for himself. When an enemy had told a scandalous story about him, which had often been done, before he rendered judgment he paused and let his mind run back to the time and place and setting of the story to see if he had not by some unguarded word or act laid the block on which the story was built. If he found that he had done so, he said that in his heart he then forgave his enemy, and felt thankful that he had received warning of a weakness that he had not known he possessed.

Then he said to the sister that he would have her to do the same: search her memory thoroughly and see if she had not herself unconsciously laid the foundation for the scandal that annoyed her.

The sister thought deeply for a few moments and then confessed that she believed she had.

Then the Prophet told her that in her heart she could forgive that brother who had risked his own good name and her friendship to give her this clearer view of herself.

The sister thanked her advisor and went away in peace.

This is such a profound method of pursuing peace and forgiveness, and even strengthening our weaknesses through Christ. It can affect all levels of relationships...interpersonal, and I believe, international. We are a Judeo-Christian nation. If we had a morsel of humility, maybe we could look ourselves in the mirror, and find those things that are not in line with our religious and political tradition, and work on removing them from the equation that feeds hatred. There is much to repent of. That doesn't mean we have to put our heads in the sands. President Benson and Hinckley have both encouraged us to look to the BoM for the solutions to today's problems. In light of the fact that Mormon saw our day and abridged the records to our benefit, we must ask ourselves, 'why did Mormon include this?' 'How can I apply this to myself, my family, my community, my nation, my world--to those who love me and to those who hate me?'

Woven into the Book of Mormon is a guide to foreign policy. It (and the D&C) is very clear on what defense looks like. Those who are preserved by the Lord demonstrate a pattern of proactive preparation, both spiritually and temporally. They repel invasion. They drive their enemies 'out of the land.' On the other hand, those who are left to their own strength demonstrate reactionary vengeance. They boast of themselves, and invade (trespass) the enemy. Those that are preserved by the Lord LITERALLY rely on Him to deliver them, even when, as Alma the elder and his new converts did, they do not 'defend themselves unto bloodshed.' They prayed and pleaded and the Lord softened the hearts of the Lamanites. After a season of chastening, he miraculously delivered Alma's people from bondage. No one was killed. A war was not needed for deliverance. The Lord did it himself. On the other hand, Alma's counterpart--Limhi's people, tried valiantly to war against the Lamanites in an effort to free themselves, but the Lord left them to their own strength. He was slow to hear their prayers because of their resistance to Abinadi's message. When they were sufficiently humbled, the Lord directed a man from Zarahemla to them to help them escape. Alma's people were prepared. They humbled themselves and were delivered. Limhi's people were compelled to be humble. They were eventually delivered.

Ammon and his brethren truly had the pure love of Christ for their enemies. While their fellow Nephites laughed them to scorn for 'supposing they could convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of their traditions,' and even suggested that they should 'take up arms against them, that we may destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they or run us and destroy us,' Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni went to reclaim the Lamanites by the power of the word. They were prepared to sacrifice, to suffer pain and privations in order to proclaim the gospel to their kindred enemies. Aaron and his brethren were thrown into prison and suffered greatly as a result. Ammon (who obviously didn't pull the short straw) still was attacked by a gang of Lamanite thieves and was strengthened by the Lord. This miracle opened the heart of the Lamoni to hear his words. The demonstration of charity by these brethren FOR their enemies is without words, and the harvest basket, which affected generations, was overflowing.

I could go on and on (like the new converts mourning, instead of celebrating, over the deaths of their unrepentant brethren and enemies; Captain Moroni hating war for the same reason, as well as being passionate about preserving liberty, by the sword, if necessary).

It is all a condition of one's heart. Charity is a state of being. Charity encompasses all and is not selective. But charity will not save us from the enemy that wants to keep coming. Where do we turn? Absolutely and unequivocally to Jesus Christ. We repent and prepare ourselves spiritually and temporally (fortify our land). We pray for deliverance. We wait for the fight to come to us (as Lachoneus and Gidgiddoni did by direction of the Lord when the gadiantons threatened them with extinction, date and all; 3 nephi 3:8). We pray for the Lord to strengthen us. We look to Him for our salvation. We've already seen it in our own generation, with the miracle at Fishing River.

How many times does Alma the Younger plead with his people to remember the captivity of their fathers (both in Moses' time and their own parents!) and the delivering power of the Lord, both spiritually and temporally. How oft do we look to our own ways and our own strength instead of the ways of the Lord?

We might say, 'but these are different times and circumstances'...I can only repeat:

The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems. Pres. Hinckley, http://lds.org/ensign/2005/08/a-testimony-vibrant-and-true?lang=eng

If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, “Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?” President Benson, Keystone to our Religion
http://lds.org/ensign/1986/11/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

As we quickly find the parallels between the gadiantons, and the kinsmen of our day, let us also remember the examples of Book of Mormon peoples in solving their problems with their enemies. Let us remember that salvation, be it temporal or spiritual, comes only through Jesus Christ, and that without Charity, we are truly nothing.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Interesting how God has warned us about secret combinations but no mention of al Qaeda in the Book of Mormon. I am more worried about the Gadiantions attacking us false flag style.

Aggression against Iran could set up our Waterloo moment with all the warnings Russia and China have been giving. Thats a lot of nukes pointed our way and throw in Pakistan's as well.

Thomas....you arent alone in your thinking... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... E3QHPdD2JU