Bin Laden dead.

My bad CAFB, I don't even need to look back to remember it was imuakahuku I meant to write.



No one has stated how stationing troops in Afghanistan for 10 years makes anyone safer or further protects their faith or freedom (and Iraq is just a catastrophe as BoiseBYU says).



Snocythe, I have never said "no war was righteous," nor quoted anything in or out of context that can be construed as such. Read the quote you seem to think is so out of context and you will see that if I can read and believe in those words that I must consider some wars righteous.



And I started quoting prophets (with plenty of context) once BBP said there was no data I could present that he would believe.

I'm not going to convince anyone, but in 2001, Afghanistan as a country harbored and sheltered AQ, whose avowed purposes are to make war on the US. Invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the country's leadership and not allow AQ safe harbor is, in my book, a valid use of force and war. Have we done it right? No. Is it time to go? I think so. But the original invasion was more than justified in my book.

BoiseBYU wrote:

You have yet to persuade anyone that Iraq and Afghanistan are not fought to defend ourselves, our families, our faith, and our freedoms.

i can understand Aghanistan, but i do not see how the war in Iraq fits in? There were no weapons of mass destruction--zero--Iraq with the no fly zones and embargo etc etc was not a threat to us our families or our freedoms in any way that I can discern. We fought and occupied a country for reasons that proved to be false.

I have a son who was in Iraq at the beginning of the war, in military intelligence. He says that there is plenty of evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, but it's also clear that we may never find them, as they went to great measures to make sure of that. There was actually quite a bit found that was never reported. No, JV, I don't have data!

BoiseBYU wrote:
I'm not going to convince anyone, but in 2001, Afghanistan as a country harbored and sheltered AQ, whose avowed purposes are to make war on the US. Invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the country's leadership and not allow AQ safe harbor is, in my book, a valid use of force and war. Have we done it right? No. Is it time to go? I think so. But the original invasion was more than justified in my book.

Well said.

bigbluepuma wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
You have yet to persuade anyone that Iraq and Afghanistan are not fought to defend ourselves, our families, our faith, and our freedoms.

i can understand Aghanistan, but i do not see how the war in Iraq fits in? There were no weapons of mass destruction--zero--Iraq with the no fly zones and embargo etc etc was not a threat to us our families or our freedoms in any way that I can discern. We fought and occupied a country for reasons that proved to be false.

I have a son who was in Iraq at the beginning of the war, in military intelligence. He says that there is plenty of evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, but it's also clear that we may never find them, as they went to great measures to make sure of that. There was actually quite a bit found that was never reported. No, JV, I don't have data!

Sorry, but having worked with and for the Iraq Survey Group that was tasked with finding WMD, Iraq did not have a program. What they had was talk of a program. Saddam thought he had a program because his program and scientists basically didn't want to tell Saddam they didn't have anything. They sold Saddam a bunch of fake goods. We bought it too, because it fit what conclusions we wanted to make.



I think the war on terror should have been fought like it was last week. Completely covertly. We develop our intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan and we when we find leaders of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban who was harboring them, we take them down covertly. A conventional force was never going to find, destroy and eliminate Al-Qaeda.

SpiffCoug wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

You have yet to persuade anyone that Iraq and Afghanistan are not fought to defend ourselves, our families, our faith, and our freedoms.

i can understand Aghanistan, but i do not see how the war in Iraq fits in? There were no weapons of mass destruction--zero--Iraq with the no fly zones and embargo etc etc was not a threat to us our families or our freedoms in any way that I can discern. We fought and occupied a country for reasons that proved to be false.

I have a son who was in Iraq at the beginning of the war, in military intelligence. He says that there is plenty of evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, but it's also clear that we may never find them, as they went to great measures to make sure of that. There was actually quite a bit found that was never reported. No, JV, I don't have data!

Sorry, but having worked with and for the Iraq Survey Group that was tasked with finding WMD, Iraq did not have a program. What they had was talk of a program. Saddam thought he had a program because his program and scientists basically didn't want to tell Saddam they didn't have anything. They sold Saddam a bunch of fake goods. We bought it too, because it fit what conclusions we wanted to make.



I think the war on terror should have been fought like it was last week. Completely covertly. We develop our intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan and we when we find leaders of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban who was harboring them, we take them down covertly. A conventional force was never going to find, destroy and eliminate Al-Qaeda.

Thanks for the correction. I'm sure that both information and perception have changed a lot since he was there, plus it seems quite likely that what they were reading (they were the interpereters of documents that were found during the invasion) were the same info that Saddam was given. I do know, however, that there were some weapons found, just not the large caches that were expected, and nothing of the nuclear nature, just chemical. Of course, I wouldn't want to be attacked with those either.



I agree that the war on terrorism has been very poorly handled, and that the last operation is the one that has worked.



My feeling about Iraq is that if you have a known murderer holed up in a dark alley, saying that he is heavily armed, and that he has people in his sights and is going to kill them, and he has defied all attempts to stop his ongoing killing sprees, you don't check out all the leads and possibilities. You take him out! It just happens that in this case, he may not have been as dangerous as he was saying he was and had previously proven to be.



Now, you all might be thinking that I am a war monger. Really, I am not. I served iin Viet Nam as in infantryman and saw a lot of combat, and lost a lot of friends. I know how miserable war is, and what it is like to be very scared. The most vivid memories are of the days when people around me died. We had a Kit Carson Scout who saved my life. I know that when the US pulled out of Viet Nam, he was hunted down and killed. That hurts every time I think about it, as does the loss of a home town friend, who was walking point (my job) in another platoon, when we walked into an ambush.



I don't like war. I don't want war. I wish for peace, but I know that it is with us until The Savior returns. If we can withdraw from it and let others fight it, I am all for it, but history tells me that that will not happen. If we are not taking it to them, they will be bringing it to us. Chanberlain was wrong. Churchill was right. Staying out of it at all costs just creates more costs.

But as jv has pointed out, since the USA has been actively engaged in the middle east, things have only intensified and become more costly. I don't know how long the USA can afford those "costs". USA is going to be in a heap of trouble if our economy fails because of what I consider to be in large part hobby wars.



Thanks Spiff for the info about Iraq. I used to be a huge supporter of the war in Iraq. But as more information has got out about how and why we are there, that support has eroded.

Yeah, and wars' decisions always seem different in retrospect. I certainly wish (and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and others in quiet moments of solitude agree) that more of the war on terror had been handled in the same manner that bin Laden was taken out as opposed to the heavy handed, full-on military options we used.



I don't know if bin Laden would have still taken nearly 10 years to find, but I think many poor decisions and more involvement in the Middle East which has caused even further disenfranchisement with the US, could have been avoided.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Yeah, and wars' decisions always seem different in retrospect. I certainly wish (and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and others in quiet moments of solitude agree) that more of the war on terror had been handled in the same manner that bin Laden was taken out as opposed to the heavy handed, full-on military options we used.



I don't know if bin Laden would have still taken nearly 10 years to find, but I think many poor decisions and more involvement in the Middle East which has caused even further disenfranchisement with the US, could have been avoided.

I don't think for a minute that Bush second guesses his vision for the world. His national security policy released soon after 9/11 explained exactly what he would do. And then he did it. And America (well, a small majority) re-elected him. Go figure.



Tell me, then, which of the candidates for President in 2012 has the same views of war as you do? Vote for that guy!

I have skimmed through the posts and want to add my own thoughts on these issues--mostly to help me sort them out for myself, not to get anyone to agree with me.



1. I agree with JVQB's support of the bretheren's statement that we should only go to war to defend ourselves, or if God commands. I would add another category to defend others, as the Nephites did when the Ammonites came to stay with them, but they were also defending themselves.



2. We can only defend others if we can afford to do so. I'm afraid with the state of our economy, we can barely afford to defend ourselves.



3. Isolationism, at least militarily, while leading to bad outcomes in the past, may have a better outcome in a world much more connected through trade than in prior history. When you trade with people, you have less desire to attack them.



4. Our military responses should be proportional to the attacks. After 911, I was expecting the U.S. to bomb Afghanistan (military Taliban targets) into oblivion. I was not expecting a full scale ground invasion and trying to engage in nation building in a country that does not respect the rule of law. It worked in Germany and Japan because they had a history of respecting the rule of law (whether facsist or imperial). Afghanistan--not so much. Why spend all that time and money when we could have just bombed them into oblivion, sent in a team to capture or kill Osama, and then call mission complete.



5. Never saw a need for the Iraq war. Even if WMD programs were in existence, I felt we could use air strikes to neutralize the issue. Again, I didn't see the need for a full scale, regime changing, ground invasion. But, I don't have all the facts.



6. Dependence on foreign oil is managing our international affairs. If we had another way of providing our own energy, I don't think we would care two cents what went on in the Middle East. Furthermore, there are so many factions and they have been fighting themselves for thousands of years, I don't think they would have united to come against us. Al Qaeda's attack happened because of our support for Israel and involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. If we weren't involved at all, they would be busy fighting secular muslims trying to create a Muslim caliphate. However, they represent the minority, as evidenced by suicide bombings. If they could unite militarily, there would be much more of a conventional war. Get us out of the Middle East altogether, and wish Israel well.



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.



Anyway, just some of my thoughts on these issues.



Oh yeah, I heard that the rules of engagement for the Seal Teams were to shoot unless they were absolutely certain that OBL was not a threat. Essentially, not knowing if he would have a bomb strapped to him, they would have had to find him completely naked to take him alive. Before we judge the military too harshly for killing the woman and others, you have to remember your enemy. After the first shots were fired in the compound, the likelihood they they would not want to be taken alive and strap bombs to themselves became very high. In Viet Nam, soldiers did have to shoot children approaching their lines because the Viet Cong would strap grenades to them. It is one of the horrors of war. Taking OBL alive may or may not have garnered more intelligence, but it would also raise a huge issue of what to do with him. Do you take him to Guantanamo Bay, or to a trial in New York? Its not my place to judge either way, both those are some interesting facts surrounding the issue.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
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.

jvquarterback wrote:
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.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

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.

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/0,5232,49-1-353-27,00.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.



.

Lawboy wrote:
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."

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

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.

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 wrote:
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.

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.