Bin Laden dead.

[CAFB_04-12]

7. If we would turn our swords into plowshares (not spend so much on defense--which is really spending on offense around the world and spend more domestically) we could help get our economy back in order. An economy built on supplying the military with arms requires us to get into wars to keep the economy going. If you are mostly in a defensive posture, than you don't have to spend 1/3 of your budget on Defense (or whatever the number is). More money could be spent on securing our borders, fixing the infrastructure, etc.

I get frustrated with military acquisitions which simply drive up costs (F-22, F-35, KC-X) when the government decides it doesn't want as many as it thought it did. When the DoD decided to cut the F-22 purchase in half the price per unit instantly doubled. The KC-X was such a mismanaged process that there are probably university classes that study it just to learn what not to do.

The reality is that if you cut spending on DoD priorities people at Boeing, ATK, Lockheed, etc get laid off. Actual Americans working American jobs. It's the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone...a military-industrial complex feeding itself. It's not only that the military needs overseas conflict to justify itself, but also that American defense industries constantly need a customer.

[imuakahuku]

CAFB presented no data. He only attacked the data I presented, so of course I went back to the data I presented. If he wants to present data to convince me my family is safer with the presence of US soldiers in the middle east I would be happy to review what he presents.

Re: people who do bad stuff with mitigating circumstances. I condemn evil acts, not any person. Some people are lauded as heroes when they are not (though most would be the first to tell you they are not). FWIW most (though not all) of the quotes you are referring to were said during a time when people were being conscripted (aka enslaved) by the government and forced to go to war.

As for the prophets and the scriptures, you tell me which side they were on when people were talking about sending armies after common robbers (or even armies that had previously attacked) in foreign lands.

You can keep saying this: "Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us," And though you may laugh me to scorn, I'll end with this, a declaration made by the First Presidency concerning war,

“… the Church is and must be against war. The Church itself cannot wage war unless and until the Lord shall issue new commands. It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these should and could be settled—the nations agreeing—by peaceful negotiations and adjustments.”

BULL SPIT! I presented plenty of data and you refused delivery. But the frustrating part is I can't send some change through this forum so you could pound some sense into your own head. It's amazing how something so simple and logical can be minipulated and turned so as to argue against common sense. I'm done arguing these points. You evidently have a lot of life to learn and I'm sure some day the light will come on and then you might to begin to understand that it is you who are standing on his head and not the rest of the world that is upside down.

[Cougarfan87]

7. If we would turn our swords into plowshares (not spend so much on defense--which is really spending on offense around the world and spend more domestically) we could help get our economy back in order. An economy built on supplying the military with arms requires us to get into wars to keep the economy going. If you are mostly in a defensive posture, than you don't have to spend 1/3 of your budget on Defense (or whatever the number is). More money could be spent on securing our borders, fixing the infrastructure, etc.

I get frustrated with military acquisitions which simply drive up costs (F-22, F-35, KC-X) when the government decides it doesn't want as many as it thought it did. When the DoD decided to cut the F-22 purchase in half the price per unit instantly doubled. The KC-X was such a mismanaged process that there are probably university classes that study it just to learn what not to do.

The reality is that if you cut spending on DoD priorities people at Boeing, ATK, Lockheed, etc get laid off. Actual Americans working American jobs. It's the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone...a military-industrial complex feeding itself. It's not only that the military needs overseas conflict to justify itself, but also that American defense industries constantly need a customer.

Completely agree with your point. Our economy and the people working for the Military Industrial Complex (perhaps even including myself) would have to go through some major withdrawals when the Government comes off of the addiction to military spending. Perhaps that is why you have to "beat" the swords into plowshares. Seriously, though, those fine engineers at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. could then work on domestic issues--energy being one of the most important. There would still be a role for them in a new defensive posture--such as getting a better missile protection system, etc.

Congress is the biggest culprit in this as far as spending on defense to create jobs in their home states. That is the reason for the Anti-impoundment act, which forces the executive branch to spend money if Congress allocates it. Apparently, the military didn't want or need the Osprey, so when Congress allocated money for it, the military just didn't spend it. I applaud the military for that. Congress did not applaud, however. Instead, it forced the military to spend the money by enacting the Anti-Impoundment Act. It is a sad situation when you force the executive branch to spend money when that branch should know what it wants and/or needs. Frankly, I think there is an argument to be made that the anti-empoundment act may be unconstitutional as an overstepping of the separation of powers. If that theory is wrong, than an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to state that Congress cannot authorize expenditures in the other branches unless those branches request the money. That seems more in keeping with the separation of powers, rather than requiring other branches to spend money on programs they don't want.

[Lawboy]

I do want to point out that Pres. Hinckley himself made conference statements in support of the war against oppression in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.. Read them for yourself:

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/ ... 27,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There have been casualties in this terrible conflict, and there likely will be more. Public protests will likely continue. Leaders of other nations have, in no uncertain terms, condemned the coalition strategy.

The question arises, “Where does the Church stand in all of this?”

"When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for . . . power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

"And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole."

“And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).

"It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression."

Read the whole talk. It is solid.
____________________________________________________________________________

But it must be measured, and not to gain power or oppress. And from where I sit, I do not see where the USA is attempting to gain power or oppress the people or Iraq, Afghanistan, or other places. We are working to help them achieve democracy, religious freedom, and personal freedom. And by achieving religious freedom, the Lord's purposes get advanced, because the gospel can then enter areas where it is outlawed by death previously. Allowing Christian to worship openly in that part of the world would be HUGE, and falls in line with righteousness.

.

[jvquarterback]

Read the whole talk. It is solid.

Yes, please read the whole talk. At no point does he endorse the war. He says that people are in the right when defending their families and liberty against tyranny, threat and oppression.

I was sitting next to my brother and father during the talk and afterwards my father (retired military) said, "the prophet just called the US an empire and the Iraqis are in the right defending their families" and my brother (neocon extrodinaire) said, "the prophet just endorsed the US military in the war."

[CougarClaw]

I was hoping someone would bring up Pres HInckley's talk. I was in ROTC at the time fulling expecting to be sent to Iraq. I know the aforementioned rules on warefare and was seriously pondering whether my involvement in war was justified without a prophetical order of sorts.

Count me in the camp of listeners who thought the prophet was endorsing my participation as an act of defense and therefore justified. President Hinckley was no stranger to the middle east so I'm sure he had their perspective in mind when he said what he did

[hawkwing]

I agree, there can be no doubt by any well reasoned person that President Hinckley endorsed the war as in line with his understanding of gospel principals.

[Lawboy]

I think the talk clearly defines the tightrope that is war. Peace is preferred. But war, at times, is not only justified, but required, to bring about greater freedoms, including freedom of worship. If you think those radical Muslim countries are going to change and allow open Christian worship without it being forced upon them, then you are a fool. And without that, the Lord's work will not go forward in those lands. And it really is that simple.

I do not think the war has been handled perfectly by the US government. But that is another matter. I still think it was not only justified, but required, and is still required in order to create greater religious freedom.

[BoiseBYU]

I think the talk clearly defines the tightrope that is war. Peace is preferred. But war, at times, is not only justified, but required, to bring about greater freedoms, including freedom of worship. If you think those radical Muslim countries are going to change and allow open Christian worship without it being forced upon them, then you are a fool. And without that, the Lord's work will not go forward in those lands. And it really is that simple.

I do not think the war has been handled perfectly by the US government. But that is another matter. I still think it was not only justified, but required, and is still required in order to create greater religious freedom.

Lawboy, I respect your views a lot. Nevertheless, I very much disagree that war is necessary and that opening up a country to religion can be a justification to go to war. I am old enough to remember the Iron Curtain and the USSR and thinking there was no freaking way missionaries would ever enter those places in my lifetime. Lo and behold, the curtain came down and it did not take warfare. The Lord can and will open doors as we are ready righteously to bring and move the gospel forward. The Lord brought the gospel to the Lamanites through some humble sons of Alma and Mosiah, not some war, and that was miraculous too. War may be justified in defense of families as President Hinckley has taught us. But it can never never be justified, in my view, as an offensive tool to force a country to open up its land to the gospel. If I misinterpreted your view, I apologize. If my view makes me a fool in your eyes, so be it. War is hell.

[Lawboy]

Boise,

THE USSR was a political-economic machine, not a religious one. If was also a sovereign nation, not a militaristic one in place to simply create chaos. I do not think the 2 are comparable in that respect. The Soviets wanted to show their style of governing was better (see Kruschev comments on crushing US--he meant economically, not literally), the radicals want to simply destroy the USA, infidels, and forcefully impose sharia law on the world--by death is necessary, which means no religious freedom. It has to be stopped.

And while war is hell, which I agree completely, it is often used to further the Lord's plan. The Bible and book of Mormon are filled with examples of this. There are multiple ways this will happen, but as the scriptures tell us, war is one of them, and will be the ultimate decider in this as well. This is all just leading up to that, as prophesied in scripture. These are not random events. They are foreseen events leading to a great war as prophesied in scripture.