War in the Book of Mormon

[_Sethbag]

It's every bit as troubling as the Nephi/Laban story. Many true believers will read it and think that whatever it is is A-OK because they read it in the scriptures. Hey, God wouldn't have put it in there if he didn't want us to believe it, right?

[_sock puppet]

true moral authority comes from what is just and good in itself. I reject post-modern moral relativism and am troubled by the ubiquity of utilitarian calculus and have argued elsewhere (in another ethical context) that existent objects, especially human beings, have value in themselves; a value which is self-evident. To rob a human being of this value through war, torture, or other forms of degradation in pursuit of one’s own self-interest is the height of immorality. Yet, because human beings have an inherent value they also have, in most circumstances, the duty to protect their lives and the lives of any who are being likewise threatened. As such, unprovoked and violent aggression are always morally wrong — regardless of the self-perception of the perpetrators of such violence.

It's all about context. If we have evidence that another nation, a self avowed enemy to us, is preparing aggressive weaponry that would wipe out significant portions of our population, are we 'provoked' and thus merely defending ourselves in taking a preemptive strike?

Suppose instead we have open hostilities, an ongoing war, we are concerned about new rocket and nuclear weaponry being developed by our enemy and new jet propulsion airplanes about to be deployed, may we launch a massive offensive operation to preempt the use of the new weaponry being developed by our enemy? Does the existent context of an ongoing, declared war with recurrent battles and skirmishes justify our deploying offensive strategies and tactics?

Or consider that marching towards our enemy's capital, a squad of our soldiers happens upon 8 soldiers of the enemy, holding up inside an old abandoned house. Do our soldiers, undetected, sneak up on the roof and drop a grenade down the chimney and kill the 8? Was it defensive to take advantage of having the drop on those 8 who did not even know of our squad being in their vicinity until the grenade went off? Defensive?

It seems if the overarching objective is to protect oneself and fellow countrymen, then even a preemptive strike is justified. But if the purpose is to destroy, steal the wealth of another nation, subjugate it to our will or exact revenge then it is an immoral aggression against fellow human beings.

What is a palpable threat to one, is not to another. Decisions are made. All of mankind never agree that the preemptive strike is necessary under any given set of circumstances. All military actions are therefore controversial.

To wit: 1991 and 2003 Iraq invasions by the US; the ongoing war in Afghanistan begun in 2001. There are strident differences of opinion as to whether such were justified. Was Afghanistan really just revenge, or was it to disable al Quaida from being capable of more 9/11 strikes against the US? If it was initially to disable against future strikes, was there a point in time that US military presence and action continued after that justification had been accomplished?

In 1991, Iraq had aggressively invaded its neighboring Kuwait, a US ally. Was that justified? In 2002 and 2003, the world intelligence community (including the Russians, Germans and French) agreed that it appeared that Iraq was making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, what with aluminum tubes and yellow cake acquisitions. Was the US justified in taking the preemptive strike against Iraq in the spring of 2003? Was there a point at which any justification ended, but US military presence continued?

I'm not proffering answers. In these questions are not hidden any agenda. They are perplexing questions. Those in charge must make these decisions.

[_the narrator]

for what it's worth, Greg Kofford Books just published a volume on Mormonism and war, featuring a few articles on war and peace in the Book of Mormon (and an essay on Eugene England by yours truly).

http://www.gregkofford.com/products/war ... n-our-time

[_Chap]

In 2002 and 2003, the world intelligence community (including the Russians, Germans and French) agreed that it appeared that Iraq was making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, what with aluminum tubes and yellow cake acquisitions.

You don't mention the UK, who were of course the most significant military ally of the US in the Iraq invasion. There is currently a large body of opinion in the UK that feels that the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) had a dedication to doing whatever George W. Bush wanted him to do that led him gravely to distort the messages that his intelligence services were sending him about Iraq's capabilities and intentions, in order to get his Cabinet and Parliament to sanction military action.

But perhaps that is off topic. As would be the topic of whether Saddam Hussein (a secular Baathist) was in any way a supporter of Al Qaeda.

[_sock puppet]

In 2002 and 2003, the world intelligence community (including the Russians, Germans and French) agreed that it appeared that Iraq was making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, what with aluminum tubes and yellow cake acquisitions.

You don't mention the UK, who were of course the most significant military ally of the US in the Iraq invasion. There is currently a large body of opinion in the UK that feels that the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) had a dedication to doing whatever George W. Bush wanted him to do that led him gravely to distort the messages that his intelligence services were sending him about Iraq's capabilities and intentions, in order to get his Cabinet and Parliament to sanction military action.

But perhaps that is off topic. As would be the topic of whether Saddam Hussein (a secular Baathist) was in any way a supporter of Al Qaeda.

I only mentioned those countries that came to mind that later castigated the US for the 2003 invasion of Iraq after having bought into the same intelligence in 2002 and early 2003, but chose to sit out the invasion.

The theory about Tony Blair posits:

• The Brittish intelligence varied from that of the US and other nations
• Bush was evil, bent on invading Iraq, and twisted Blair's arm (if not committed extortion on Blair and the UK, politically speaking)
• Blair buckled to the pressure that Bush brought to bear, thinking it better for himself (for Blair) and/or the UK, than to have the moral courage to resist and instead rely on UK's varying intelligence
• Blair's/UK's interests being served by such were ... ?

Like so many conspiracy theories, from what I see it is half-baked.

[_Chap]

In 2002 and 2003, the world intelligence community (including the Russians, Germans and French) agreed that it appeared that Iraq was making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, what with aluminum tubes and yellow cake acquisitions.

You don't mention the UK, who were of course the most significant military ally of the US in the Iraq invasion. There is currently a large body of opinion in the UK that feels that the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) had a dedication to doing whatever George W. Bush wanted him to do that led him gravely to distort the messages that his intelligence services were sending him about Iraq's capabilities and intentions, in order to get his Cabinet and Parliament to sanction military action.

But perhaps that is off topic. As would be the topic of whether Saddam Hussein (a secular Baathist) was in any way a supporter of Al Qaeda.

I only mentioned those countries that came to mind that later castigated the US for the 2003 invasion of Iraq after having bought into the same intelligence in 2002 and early 2003, but chose to sit out the invasion.

The theory about Tony Blair posits:

• The Brittish intelligence varied from that of the US and other nations
• Bush was evil, bent on invading Iraq, and twisted Blair's arm (if not committed extortion on Blair and the UK, politically speaking)
• Blair buckled to the pressure that Bush brought to bear, thinking it better for himself (for Blair) and/or the UK, than to have the moral courage to resist and instead rely on UK's varying intelligence
• Blair's/UK's interests being served by such were ... ?

Like so many conspiracy theories, from what I see it is half-baked.

Perhaps a closer acquaintance with Mr Blair, his attitude to UK/US relations, and the background to the events we are discussing might change your mind. But this board is not the place for me to attempt to do it.

[_ludwigm]

[ quote="sock puppet"] ...[ /quote] There is currently a large body of opinion in the UK that feels that the then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) had a dedication to doing whatever George W. Bush wanted him to do

Like so many conspiracy theories, from what I see it is half-baked.

Perhaps a closer acquaintance with Mr Blair, his attitude to UK/US relations, and the background to the events we are discussing might change your mind. But this board is not the place for me to attempt to do it.

At the end of 2006 we visited with our youngest daughter (36...) in UK. (Unfortunately, she used to work there only one year - but this is another story.)

There was (somewhere... our camera doesn't record the coordinates) a living show, with a certain Gerald Scarfe (who was, at that time, totally unknown for us).

I've shot these photos:

[#img] http://img1.indafoto.hu/10/1/57091_6715 ... a8f8_m.jpg[#/img]

[#img] http://img1.indafoto.hu/10/1/57091_6715 ... 0a18_m.jpg[#/img]

[#img] http://img1.indafoto.hu/10/1/57091_6715 ... 03d2_m.jpg[#/img]

You can buy his works.
For example:

Blair & Bush: In A Terrible Hole

The 'special relationship' between Tony Blair & George Bush as they found themselves in trouble over Iraq. (Print size: 48cm x 32cm. Printed on high quality archival matt paper. Hand signed by Gerald Scarfe. Limited edition of 100. Issued with a signed Certificate of Authenticity).
£200.00

or

Bill Clinton – Clintocchio

Bill's been telling lies again! (Print size: 48cm x 32cm. Limited edition of 100. Hand signed by Gerald Scarfe).
£200.00

Yes, this is off, but this is about WAR - one of today.

[_Chap]

At the end of 2006 we visited with our youngest daughter (36...) in UK. (Unfortunately, she used to work there only one year - but this is another story.)

There was (somewhere... our camera doesn't record the coordinates) a living show, with a certain Gerald Scarfe (who was, at that time, totally unknown for us).

I've shot these photos:







You can buy his works.
For example:

Blair & Bush: In A Terrible Hole

The 'special relationship' between Tony Blair & George Bush as they found themselves in trouble over Iraq. (Print size: 48cm x 32cm. Printed on high quality archival matt paper. Hand signed by Gerald Scarfe. Limited edition of 100. Issued with a signed Certificate of Authenticity).
£200.00

or

Bill Clinton – Clintocchio

Bill's been telling lies again! (Print size: 48cm x 32cm. Limited edition of 100. Hand signed by Gerald Scarfe).
£200.00

Yes, this is off, but this is about WAR - one of today.

Ah yes, Gerald Scarfe ... fortunately for TBMs he never heard of Joseph Smith ...