quote="larsenb"]
MercynGrace wrote:For my own clarification then, the principles of 'just' warfare are:
- purely defensive
- should only follow diplomacy and should recognize the value of every society
- should only be in defense of life, land, country, rights and religion and follow prior attack
- avoidable by righteousness and possibly divinely inspired fleeing
- should not be motivated by vengence
- will fail if aggressive
I don't see these as principles that aren't well-recognized even among what LDSCON terms "neo-conservatives" in the church. It seems the only real discrepancy is with the idea that we should NEVER enter foreign lands to engage in warfare. This would imply that Pearl Harbor, 9/11, pirate attacks off the coast of Africa, and the impressment of Americans into the British navy were all unfounded reasons for military response. It also implies that entering both world wars was a mistake. Am I understanding you correctly?
Along those lines, how do we handle nuclear powers if mutually assured destruction does not deter? . . . . .
MercynGrace (after this, ask me if I like to discuss/debate)
No need 
The disturbing thing to me, is how the principles you list, have been almost completely ignored by the LDS community regarding our ventures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. LDS may be aware of these principles, but suffer a real disconnect in their ability to apply them to the real world.
They are also very susceptible to propaganda. All it seems to take to galvanize LDS (and much of the rest of US) into supporting pre-emptive warfare, are a few well-placed and repeated statements/photos/videos depicting how bad the enemy target is, or is claimed to be.
Examples: 1) in Kosovo: the highly misleading photos/videos of emaciated 'prisoners' (they were not prisoners, one of the people shown allegedly had TB) behind barbed-wire (they were not, but the camera man was in a small power substation compound surrounded by barbed-wire, looking out); 2) the first Gulf War: the false statements about destruction of incubator babies (we won't even go into Ambassador Glaspie's ploy of essentially giving our OK for Saddam's invasion, or the apparent provocation by the Kuwaitee's by doing slant drilling into Iraqi delimitted oil fields); 3) Iraq invasion, 2nd Gulf War: the statements connecting Iraq to 9/11 (no proof), the later statements saying we were invading to find WMD's, coupled with the false statements regarding aluminum centrifuge tubes and yellow-cake (WMD never found, unless you want to stretch how you define WMD's); then statements how we were deposing a ruthless dictator to bring 'democracy' to the poor benighted Iraq's (never mind that the 'Constitution' we helped them craft is very socialistic; or Pres. Bush’ campaign promise to never force Democracy on the world).
Notice, that in all these instances of us attacking people in foreign lands, we were not defending ourselves against direct attack against us, our families, or our country. The only circumstances in which the Lord justifies us in going to war. In my experience, most LDS seem to be totally unaware or only marginally aware of the Book of Mormon commandment that going up into foreign lands to fight, is forbidden.
I don't see anything here that you expect a reply to since we don't seem to be at odds... all people are susceptible to propaganda. That's why governments use it.
Saying we should 'never' enter foreign lands to engage in warfare may be a little too black and white. But your example of Pearl Harbor doesn't fit the Book of Mormon principle because we were directly attacked in 'our' lands, with a good portion of our fleet destroyed. They also made incursions and attacks on the west coast and in such places as Dutch Harbor and Adak in the Aleutians. We were fighting them mainly in the Pacific, on islands they had taken over.
Except that according to D&C 98 we are supposed to endure 3 or 4 injustices and then take the issue to the Lord who will either give us a green light to respond or enact vengence on our behalf.
Doolittle’s raids against Tokyo could probably be considered in violation of the Book of Mormon principle. But what if Japan has sued for peace during the Battle of the Pacific? The Book of Mormon principle would dictate that we would accept and let them go home, except for the fact they had also invaded such places as the Philippines and China, with them attacking our forces in the Philippines.
Your example of 9/11 is off the mark. What is the proof Iraq was involved in 9/11? Read the many, many offerings in this Forum (and on the net, they're endless), indicating the serious, serious discrepancies in the official 9/11 story. Read Dr. Jones' 14 Points paper linked in a 'Topic' on this subject to get a flavor of some of these discrepancies.
I missed the part in my post that linked 9/11 and Iraq. Could you point out where I said 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq. After 9/11 we invaded AFGHANISTAN, a foreign land. Again D&C 98 applies. Or does it?
Your example of pirate attacks in Africa doesn't fit the scenario outlined in the Book of Mormon, either. Those attacks, including the ones in early 1800's weren't by countries, per se. They were by individual groups and maybe relatively small enclaves and local satraps, easily handled by 'letter's of marque' activities, or small military expeditions as they were in Tripoli. Our targets were the attacking groups, not entire countries and their armies (with all the collateral damage that entails).
And yet we call them the Barbary wars and were aggressive outside our borders to protect - get this - merchant interests. No blood for oil, dude
Regarding 'the impressment of Americans into the British Navy', that is a direct attack against American citizens. I don't recall, however, that we invaded Britain as a result. Quite the opposite. We may have hit some of their ships. But there was no ‘going up into the lands’ of Great Britain. Also, there were other reasons for the War of 1812, close in kind to those for which we originally fought the Revolution.
Yes, yes, our independence was threatened and our sovereignty maligned. All good reasons to make war on the open seas.
Regarding the justification for entering both world wars, there have been numerous books written in the last few years claiming to document how the Pearl Harbor attack was almost engineered, and that there was ample warning and even foreknowledge of the attack. That is a whole other topic, however. I’ve read enough of the claims by direct witnesses to give them some credence.
So were we justified or weren't we?
And there is a LOT of ‘revisionist’ history regarding our entry into WW I , ranging all the way from claims that J.P. Morgan was protecting loans to G. Britain to help them keep in the war (Wilson was in office, largely because of Morgan and cohorts efforts to get him elected), to claims that the Lusitania was deliberately sent in harms way with a large contingent of American passengers, and secretly boarded munitions, risking attack by German submarines, thus providing pretext for entering the war. Google these subjects and see what you come up with.
I know and we sunk the Maine.
A side note to this topic is the apparent fact that our own J. Reuben Clark was privy to private conversations shortly after WW I regarding the necessity of starting another large war to help the elites get what they missed with the first war (failure of sustaining the League of Nations; need for launching a successful world body, which turned out to be the UN). He talked about this in speeches, to my recall, and may have written about it, according to Cleon Skousen. There is quite a story behind all this. Brian (LDSConservative may have more and better information on this story.
Regarding MAD, it worked when it was in place, did it not? Unfortunately, Clinton (I believe) killed MAD by declaring we would absorb a first strike. This doctrine was kept in place during the Bush administrations, to my memory.
It worked because the cold war combatants were rational and wanted to survive. Such is not always the case, kamikaze.
Speaking of MAD, when Bush was expressing his determination to attack Iraq (and according to Joel Skousen, twice during this period Saddam sent emissaries to Bush begging him to reconsider and essentially asking him how high the Iraqi’s had to jump to put off an attack; but were ignored), it occurred to me that it would be really stupid for Saddam to attack anyone w/WMD’s, especially Israel, because he would be subject, not to MAD, but to UAD (Unilaterally Assured Destruction) by US forces. Saddam was fairly rational, I believe, when it came to keeping his power in his narrow sphere of influence. He was dedicated to a perverse ‘real politic’ (heroes were Stalin and Hitler) and LOVED to lord it over his country, not being motivated by Moslem fanaticism; in fact was very opposed to the Taliban and the ‘Moslem Brotherhood’. Why would he risk this kind of Unilaterally Assured Destruction that would REALLY spoil his party?? Which of course, our attack did. And we won’t even go into the claims about how he was a CIA asset or at least aided and abetted by them, from about 1959, on.
Again you invoke Iraq, which you will notice I did not. I offered no suggestion whatsoever that the war there is justified or justifiable. Posited no hypothesis about it's legitimacy nor it's true causes or the rationale behind invasion. Anyway, this is enough for now. It is a partial view of how I see these things.[/quote]
Larsenb,
I think you are treating me as a hostile witness on the stand, sir
In fact, I am a curious observer from the bench of my own mind trying desperately to ascertain your argument and its merits. Proceed.
