My brother Kevin has passed along an interesting article that an LDS person has written about the conflict in iraq. It can be found at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ashton2.html.
It has some interesting points and some truths so why does (I think) most LDS people support the U.S. still in Iraq including me? I wanted to share my view and what I am thinking. Again, this is only my view.
First this article starts talking about the Book of Mormon's views on war and when it should be used for from Alma 43:47 and 48:14. Which I totally agree that you should go to war to only defend your land, country, liberty, rights, religion, and lives including family. Also sometimes to help others to defend their land, country, liberty, rights, religion and lives. The Book of Mormon shares the doctrines of the kingdom. It was not meant to be historical and teach about every little thing not doctrinal. I think Alma probably wrote more about this war and what the Nephites did after and before each battle and war and why, but that is not the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It's main purpose is to convince everyone to come unto Christ. So what was the specific details that went on after each battle or war we do not know, which I think the author tries to specify or assume too much like saying that it was the policy of Captain Moroni of letting the lamanites sort out their own government affairs. Does the author really think we are aggressively slaughtering the people there in iraq instead of trying to defend ourselves and other iraqis?
I also didn't like how this person interpreted Captain Moroni's after war moves. I don't know the exact things Captain Moroni did after he won his battles but why could he not help the lamanites. He prepared the Nephite lands against further attack but, why couldn't he do that also by sending missionaries or teaching the lamanites. Maybe even teaching them laws and principles including government principles including maybe democracy. Where does it say that we can't stay in those lands that we make "instable" to help the people, even to help defend them. Maybe they can even ask for help, like many countries have in the past. So we try to do our best to do what we can. Right? Even using the Spirit and revelation as our guide.
Now back to the principle that war should be used to defend your country, liberty, rights, religion, and lives. The main question that this doesn't answer is at what costs do you defend your country, liberty, rights, religion, and lives. After we were attacked by Al-Qeida on 9/11 what were we to do to defend ourselves? Wait and defend just the U.S. only or go invade and attack Afganistan's taliban? Even though Al-Qeida is not a country? After we got attacked by Japan in WW2, what were we to do to defend ourselves? Get back our lands and just defend or invade Japan lands? Even drop the Atom Bomb? What defending did we do with Vietnam and Korea? I think each war or conflict there can be an assumption made about defending something of those things we should. It doesn't mean that those assumptions are right or wrong, but something I know will be that the people in charge will be held accountable to our Heavenly Father for those actions if they were right or wrong. I wish there could always be Peace, but I know that in this earth life that cannot be the case.
So, going back to the main question about why I still believe we need to be in Iraq is because the people are needing our help to DEFEND themselves and their new country, rights, religion, and lives. I liken it to the Nephites and Ammon who helped the people of Anti-Levi-Nephi defend themselves. Alma 27: 1-12, 23-24. After the lamanites were destroying the people of Anti-Levi-Nephi, the Nephites helped in defending them. So should people take action to defending others sometimes? YES! I even think some will be held liable for not taking any action when some people need defending. The author of the article keeps saying that even if we were defending ourselves at the start of Iraq, then that authority (Saddam Hussein) is no longer there and we aren't defending anymore. Tell that to the people still getting directly attaked by the militants, or trying to take away their rights. The question that I ask is that are we still helping Iraq defend itself? So the question is when does it change away from defending?
19 comments:
Yeah, I started reading that article, but gave up after a few paragraphs. It's not that he's necessarily wrong, but the last thing I want to hear is someone try to use the Book of Mormon to tell me we shouldn't be in Iraq. Unless of course it's someone with some authority. Even my sunday school teacher was at least called by the Bishop to teach me, so I would listen to them a lot more. I think the Book of Mormon should be used more as a tool to improve your own life. There's so many more important principles in there, don't waste your time trying to figure out if it proves when a country should go to war. Gordon B. Hinckley gave a talk in General Conference about the war soon after we invasion, and that's what I accept whole-heartedly. The modern revelation from the prophet means a lot more to me than what this guy thinks.
P.S. To Whoever: Please don't take my comments out of context. (that includes quoting a part of a sentence without the rest) It's just rude.
Ditto for Scott..........
I appose the war for three primary reasons:
1. It's unconstitutional. The Constitution requires Congress declare war for us to go to war yet Congress never declared war and we are waging war anyway.
Later-day prophets have taught that the Constitution is inspired and Godly. Even the Doctrine & Covenants teaches us: "I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land" D&C 98:6
I cannot support our government breaking that divine document which is the law of the land.
2. We frankly can't afford it. I wonder how many billions now the war is costing us... Our government is in massive debt and yet we some how think we can afford to liberate other countries?
Would it be wise to help your neighbor pay for his mortgage when he's behind if you can't afford it and it would be at the expense of your own family? Of course not, yet that is exactly what our government is doing with the war in Iraq. We need to get our own house and funds in order before we take on even more massive debt to help other countries.
3. We shouldn't be meddling with the "internal concerns" of another nation. I will use a quote from both Ezra Taft Benson and George Washington to further explain this:
"There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He's our executive; he's on our payroll, in necessary; he's supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to "uplift" their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies." - Ezra Taft Benson.
He goes on to quote George Washington: "I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration." - George Washington
And by the way almost all the founding fathers had similar things to say.
Also I don't think the Book Of Mormon is a waste of time when trying to figure out anything and everything. In fact haven't modern day prophets taught us that we can find the answers to everything in the Book Of Mormon?
I also accept President Hinkley's talk he gave after the invasion. I am fairly certain though he never said anything close to "the Church is for the war" or anything like it.
Just in response to Kevin:
First, I feel it is constitutional.
Part A of this is:
"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
Part B:
The War on Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed on September 18, 2001.
And President Hinckley has said, "And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference 2001. When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had just begun. The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict." April 2002 General Conference.
So the question is if the War on Terrorism has anything or nothing to do with iraq?
Part C:
Also, I liken it to the conficts in Veitnam and Korea where
legally, the President used his constitutional discretion being supplemented by supportive resolutions in Congress.
Dang, this got so long that I can't spend more time tonight on this, but I will more later. I would encourage everyone reading this just like Scott has mentioned to reread the article Scott talked about from President Hinckley's talk. Here is the link. http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/43649
One last thing. I did feel like Scott did on just one thing.
Kevin said:
Also I don't think the Book Of Mormon is a waste of time when trying to figure out anything and everything.
Just where did I ever say that?
Maybe you are refering to, "It was not meant to be historical and teach about every little thing not doctrinal." This was in context and in the middle of a paragraph talking about that the Book of Mormon didn't explain every little thing about the before and after war details of Captain Moroni.
If you took that line to mean you can't find out answers to anything from the Book of Mormon for your life then I'm sorry because you sure can.
Response to A & B:
No amount of resolutions can change the Constitution in anyway, only amendments can. As such, The Constitution still clearly calls for a declaration of war, not an authorization, not a resolution, not anything else. It only calls for a declaration of war.
Now it is true that it's up to the Congress how they "declare war" but they must declare war nonetheless. Now Congress could say something like "this resolution is how we are declaring war" but Congress said nothing of the kind in there authorization of force on Iraq, and I don't believe they ever even mentioned the word war. Also note the wording of the authorization: it was an authorization of force, not a declaration of war. So even if one could make the case that the "authorization" is a delcaration the second problem is they only authorized force, NOT a war. A war is much more than just military force. If we dropped a couple of bombs on one building that would be military force but not a war. The congress must declare war, not force as the two are not the same.
Furthermore the Constitution does not require the President get Congressional approval for military force anyway, ONLY for war. The Constitution already makes the President the commander-in-chief of our military forces and he can command them as he sees fit UNLESS it's for the purposes of war. So the congressional resolutions approving of force are Constitutionally unnecessary, unneeded, and meaningless.
Did you know that on February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority said:
"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
It is so crystal clear that the framers of the Constitution put the sole power of deciding when we go to war in the legislature(I have quotes if you'd like them). And the Constitution spells out the one and ONLY way they can approve of war: "declare war." The Congress simply did not declare war yet we are waging a war anyway, thus violating the Constitution.
Response to C:
Vietnam and Korea were both unconstitutional as well as again Congress did not declare war as Constitutionally required. So I must ask what are you talking about when you say that the "President used his constitutional discretion"? The Constitution gives the President no discretion at all to decide when we go to war.... That discretion lies solely in the hands of the Congress, not the President.
Vietnam, Korea, and now Iraq. History repeats itself that when you skip the proper, Constitutional steps of initiating war, through a Congressional declaration of war, the war tends to never end(nor does the cost), the country is divided, and victory is either non-existent or vague...
Compare that to the most recent wars where the Constitution was followed and Congress declared war: The country was unified, victory was clear, and they actually ended with firm dates.
The wisdom of properly and Constitutionally declaring war proves itself through history.
It would be wise for us to remember the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution and there careful wording of the Constitution which should be the law of the land.
Also, I just finished reading the entire talk of President Hinckley and it was great.
Oh and Jeff when I said: "Also I don't think the Book Of Mormon is a waste of time when trying to figure out anything and everything." I never said you said that or that anyone said that. I had no intention of accusing you of thinking that, which is why I never mentioned you said or believe that. In fact I completley agree with you when you said that one can "find out answers to anything from the Book of Mormon for your life."
It was actually in response to what Scott said: "There's so many more important principles in there, don't waste your time trying to figure out if it proves when a country should go to war." I quote here his entire sentence so I won't be accused of taking something out of context. Furthermore his full response is above if anyone wants to take in the full context of what he said.
I guess we can interprete the word War differently too. Most people call Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq, Wars. Also most people call other wars like War on Terror and the Cold War. I guess all these more recent "wars" are so different to me than WW1, WW2, or the Civil War or many other wars. I really would put them in two different classes or actually even maybe more. Even saying that the Korea "War" and Vietnam "War" is in the "Cold War" which is weird. Also Probably putting this "Iraq war" as somewhat part of the "War on Terror". I guess you could argue for a different case on each. But I think you can have many views on this subject, Like your view kevin, that we need and should have "declared War" because we didn't (if we didn't) and a war is what happened with Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Terror, and Cold. And I guess you could also make a claim that it was okay to not declare war (again if congress didn't already) if you can somehow prove those are not wars. So then how do you decide what are wars? When the public or media or government calls it that or what? Does the constitution say what a war is?
This is very informative and I continue to study and read up on some of the "resolutions regarding the use of military force" Here is the link for the most current one with Iraq.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107.pdf
It actually mentions the word "War" a couple times and the word "declare" in it. Not together though. But the most interesting part is when it refers to the War Powers Requirement that is from the constitution. I encourage you to read it. So did congress use this as a "declaration of war" and call it a resolution or did they purposely not call it a war and authorize the president to use military force to acheive a goal or what? But then the president can already use military force without congress so why is congress doing that? The problem that I have is that it keeps referring to other UN resolutions and US Resolutions that you have to look up to get all the information. So if all those are "wars" did congress declare war but in a manner of a resolution and/or did they do it correctly like the constitution says or not? You find out and let me know.
In response to Jeff:
Are you saying that the Iraq War is not a war? Even if you are saying that I don't believe congress has even made that claim. I'm pretty sure even all, or least least most, members of Congress refer to it as a war. If Congress sees it as a war then it frankly doesn't matter that you may consider it less than a war. If they see it as a war then Constitutionally they must declare war, which was never done.
I don't have a specific definition of war to give you but I'll side with just about everyone else in accuratly calling it the Iraq War.
Also yes I guess the resolution mentions the word war and delcare but I challenge you to provide a quote or line from it that remotley says anythying like "we declare war." I highly doubt you can because I don't think it's there. Again they only authorized military force, but they did NOT declare war. Remember that the Constitution requires a declaration of war, which was never given.
In response to this question of yours: "But then the president can already use military force without congress so why is congress doing that?"
My guess would be that Congress uses this "loophole" to remove responsibilty for the war from them. So if the war goes bad they can say "we didn't declare war, we only authorized military force to the president and he screwed up." If they actually declared war, as required by the Constitution, then they couldn't play the blame game and they would be responsible. But that's my guess, which doesn't change the fact that war was never declared.
In response to these questions: "So then how do you decide what are wars? When the public or media or government calls it that or what? Does the constitution say what a war is?"
1. I don't have a specific definition to give. Since we are talking about Iraq I will side with just about everyone else including congress and accuratley call it the Iraq War.
2. No, the Constitution does not define what war is. But again since we are specifically talking about Iraq then all of that isn't really that important. The real question is is iraq a war? I agree with most everyone else that it is a war.
In response to this: "The problem that I have is that it keeps referring to other UN resolutions and US Resolutions that you have to look up to get all the information. So if all those are "wars" did congress declare war but in a manner of a resolution and/or did they do it correctly like the constitution says or not? "
No need to look at any UN resolutions because none of those count at all. The Constitution requires congress delcare war, not the U.N. As far as the Iraq War resolution, it doesn't declare war. If you claim it does then quote the resolution showing that they did declare war.
Again, in the Iraq Resolution it specifically mentions the War powers in that document from the constitution. Does this resolution have to say in the exact order of words "we declare War"? No. Could it mean the same thing in this resolution and say, "Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution"? I am not a lawyer and cannot interpret correctly what this means in simple terms. But your saying this in no way could be a "declaration of war"?
Maybe the reason that many people call it a war is because it could be a "STATE OF WAR." One of Merriam-Webster Online definitions of a State of war is, "a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war."
As for your challenge to find the exact words "we declare war" in that order I can't, but can you explain the part of the resolution that specifically mentions the War Powers. Again, I am not a lawyer and cannot understand what that part of the resolution is actually saying in simple terms. You keep saying that congress didn't declare war, but you haven't given me enough evidence even to say they haven't.
But even if they haven't what is to say this resolution isn't another "loophole" that gives congress the ability to use force in Iraq without "declaring war" but still be in a state of war being in legal bounds with the war powers and the constitution?
I'm sorry I don't know and it is again only my interpretation that Iraq is constitutional, but you seem to know for SURE what a declaration of war is, and for SURE that congress didn't declare war, and for SURE that we are in a war. Which I would then agree if all that is true, that congress is going against the constitution and this war is unconstitutional. So what happens when congress does something that is unconstitutional? Or I guess what should happen to the people in congress that voted for a war and didn't declare it. Because it is not right to just stop waging war, It still took place. They broke the law still. Lets remove them from office.
what do i have to say about all this?
Religiously:
Alma 43:46 "...Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. "
president Hinckley in october 2001 said:
"Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions."
he goes on to compare terrorists to the gadianton robbers. As we remember the lamanites, who were more righteous than the nephites at this time, destroyed or converted all these gadianton robbers, while the nephites allowed them to exist and even put them into power.(Hel. 6:37-38) we should follow the example of the righeous lamanites here and hunt these terrorists.
As jeff has already indicated, president hinckley linked the war in iraq to this same talk in october 2001.
Politically:
(in order as kevins first response)
A)unconstitional:
Article 1 section 8 of the constituition, the congress has the power to declare war.
Article 2 section 2, the president is the commander in chief.
sadly i fear that the concept of a declaration of war is slowly fading away. if this is allowed to continue the president will have full authority to "fight" wars with anyone he wants without "decaring" war. which im sure he would love but is just wrong. Its not acceptable to say the president can fight wars without declaring it.
B)too expenseive
the cost of the war shouldnt be a factor if the cause is just. should we have stopped fighting WW2 because it was expensive?
C)"internal affair"
the only debate here, in my opinion, is the origional reason for the invasion of iraq. the reasons for were were not because saddam hussein tortured his people or even that we dont like dictators. the origional reason for invasion of iraq was that it was its treat to the security of the united states. here is where the issue should remain.
my conclusions
the gadianton robbers/terrorists will destroy the country that will let them. inaction=destruction in this case.
this poses a direct threat to the united states. clearly not an internal iraqi matter.
war should have been declared on the country of iraq. a declaration of war on terror is not sufficent for the president to just say "well that contry is terrorist, and that one, and that one. ect... ect...
what do we do now?
we are no longer at war with the country of iraq. our continued presesnce is to ensure the new regime can get a good grasp on the country, so the "gadianton robbers" dont come back. once the country is ready for it we should get out of there.
Jeff I don't think you understand that the "War Powers Act" is not a part of the Constitution at all. It's just another resolution that was passed by Congress which still in no way changes the Constitutional requirement for a Congressional declaration of war.
Furthermore the first quote you provided says "Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." So let's look at section 5(b) then:
"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces."
None of that says that Congress declares war... So I fail to see your point...?
I already admited that Congress can declare war anyway they want to but I see no evidence at all that anything close to a declaration of war was given. In all the resolutions you provide the only thing that they approved of was military force, which again is not war. I could even accept an "authorization" or "approval" of war but it's simply not in any of the resolutions you mentioned.
I did not challenge you to find the exact words "we declare war", I challenged you to find "anythying like "we declare war."" Which I still don't see... I still only see "authorize military force."
In response to this: "can you explain the part of the resolution that specifically mentions the War Powers." Yes, It mentions the war Powers act... So? What is your point? Are you claiming that mentioning the War Powers act is a declaration of war? How? Did you read the section you referenced about reports?
In response to this: "You keep saying that congress didn't declare war, but you haven't given me enough evidence even to say they haven't." I don't have to prove a negative nor is that even possible. Example: You stole my car unless you can prove you didn't steal my car. See, it's impossible to prove a negative nor is that rational to ask someone to prove a negative... The burden of prove is on you to prove that a declaration of war was given. And I still see no evidence of that. So again, where is the congressional declaration of war?
In response to this: "But even if they haven't what is to say this resolution isn't another "loophole" that gives congress the ability to use force in Iraq without "declaring war" but still be in a state of war being in legal bounds with the war powers and the constitution?" The Constitution does not allow for any loophole and always requires congress declares war.
In response to this: "you seem to know for SURE what a declaration of war is, and for SURE that congress didn't declare war, and for SURE that we are in a war." No, I never said I know for sure what a declaration of war is and I even challenged you to find something "like a declaration of war." No, I don't know for sure that congress didn't declare war but I have yet to see enough evidence to show that. Again the burden of proof is on you to show Congress declared war, I havn't seen so far. But yes I do know for sure we are in a war. I have no doubt at all about that.
And lastley: "So what happens when congress does something that is unconstitutional?" We should speak out and we definetly should not vote for those that violate the Constitution. Instead we should vote for those that follow there oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Flame Wars!
http://barb.velvet.com/humor/flaming.html
Microsoft Sux!
Go Ron Paul!
Safari Rulez!
Python destroys PHP!
Global warming is destroying earth!
Video games are evil!
Flame on guys, flame on.
My comments are getting deleted!
NO!!!
Post a Comment