Isolationism And The Pride Cycle

[_Coggins7]

If a real war breaks out (which this is not) then I expect real inconvenience.

Could you expand upon that claim a little farther?

[_harmony]

Actually, I agree with much of your last paragraph in the post above to Nehor, Loran. But I still think winning the election as he did stung Bush,

??

I agree with your assessment in this paragraph:

As to your second statement, I see no reason to believe that the occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq are anything other than defensive in nature, given the provocations that brought us into armed conflict with these people, and the nature of the enemy we face. We are not attempting to annihilate anyone. A hysterical claim like this does not lend credibility to your positions Nehor. We are nation building there in an attempt to seed some democratic governments in the middle of a sea of medieval barbarism, the long range goal of which is to subvert islamofascism from the inside out so we won't have to be fighting this war a generation from now. That may or may not be an appropriate thing to do strategically, but its hardly annihilation. Indeed, the war itself has hardly been as relentless as aggressive as it should have been given, again, the provocation and the threat. Or, we can do as you would like and wait until the nuclear blasts, Anthrax, Serin, streets full of burning cars, and flaming aircraft reach our own cities and our wives and children. How comforting Nehor.

Without the personal sideswipes, of course. I see this war as both defensive in nature, and as Bush's attempt to look like a hero.

[_The Nehor]

I explain those words of Moroni as being part of his anger problem that he demonstrated again and again. Nowhere does he say God sanctioned those words. Moroni was a passionate hothead. He had his faults like anyone else. Moroni blamed the war entirely on his own people though and referred to the Lamanites as his brethren. I wish we had more Moroni-like policymakers.

I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped. Our current was is not defensive. Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying their government, and imposing a new one is not a defensive act. It's an attempt to annihilate the 'enemy'.

Personally, I think the war is Bush's lame attempt to look like a hero.

As for Moroni, I love a hero with human faults.

Me too, I like Captain Moroni.

[_Coggins7]

I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped. Our current was is not defensive. Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying their government, and imposing a new one is not a defensive act. It's an attempt to annihilate the 'enemy'.

The very obvious problem with this, of course, is that without destroying, through bombing and then the occupation and destruction in detail of the industrial infrastructure that maintains the war outside its borders, the capture and destruction of its stockpiled weaponry and materials, and the thorough purging of Germany of its Nazi government (regime change) and the ideological deligitimization of Nazism (denazification), the allies may not have won WWII at all. The pacifists would all have then still had their moral superiority to those who wished to defend themselves...as they they and their families died in gas chambers or in hideous medical experiments, but they'd all have their moral superiority.

Liberty may have then died in Europe, and even, in time, America. But the pacifists would all still have their moral superiority and love of peace. No one doubts that after the Nazis and Japanese conquered their respective portions of the world, there would have been peace (defined simply as the absence of conflict).

[_The Nehor]

I explain those words of Moroni as being part of his anger problem that he demonstrated again and again. Nowhere does he say God sanctioned those words. Moroni was a passionate hothead. He had his faults like anyone else. Moroni blamed the war entirely on his own people though and referred to the Lamanites as his brethren. I wish we had more Moroni-like policymakers.

I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped. Our current war is not defensive. Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying their government, and imposing a new one is not a defensive act. It's an attempt to annihilate the 'enemy'.

Well, OK, so you're rewriting parts of the scriptures that do not agree with your own philosophy, or feelings, to better conform to your own views. I understand. It seems your not really willing to engage my arguments here at a deeper philosophical level, so I guess it can be dropped.

As to your second statement, I see no reason to believe that the occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq are anything other than defensive in nature, given the provocations that brought us into armed conflict with these people, and the nature of the enemy we face. We are not attempting to annihilate anyone. A hysterical claim like this does not lend credibility to your positions Nehor. We are nation building there in an attempt to seed some democratic governments in the middle of a sea of medieval barbarism, the long range goal of which is to subvert islamofascism from the inside out so we won't have to be fighting this war a generation from now. That may or may not be an appropriate thing to do strategically, but its hardly annihilation. Indeed, the war itself has hardly been as relentless as aggressive as it should have been given, again, the provocation and the threat. Or, we can do as you would like and wait until the nuclear blasts, Anthrax, Serin, streets full of burning cars, and flaming aircraft reach our own cities and our wives and children. How comforting Nehor.

No, I'm not rewriting scripture, I'm allowing people to be people in them. I don't think Moroni's every action and move was inspired by God nor do I I think Nehor's or Korihor's were. I prefer to look at the overall lesson.

It's....almost disturbing to be in the same position Scratch is in in most of your debates with the serious philosophical stuff.

Imagine a scenario wherein a group of Americans decide that say.....Britain is the most evil nation on Earth. These people proceed to from within the United States plot a series of terrorist attacks against them. They carry out several. There are indications that there are forces in the U.S. government funding these people (for whatever reason). Britain invades us and destroys our government and puts one in it's place that conforms to a more Parliamentary system as the obvious problem with our government was not having a House of Lords. They do this in the hopes that Mexico will see how successful this new government is and copy it. Would any American in their right mind call what the British did a defensive war?

You want to destroy Islamofascism? What is the solution? I'd rather take a page from Ammon and Alma's playbook and preach the gospel to them. God told the Nephites in the very beginning that the Lamanites were there to stay but would have NO power over them at all if they were righteous. Attacking them was strictly forbidden even to prevent the next generation from having to fight the same war all over again. If the Book is for our day......

[_Coggins7]

[quote]I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped.


The very obvious problem with this, of course, is that without destroying, through bombing and then the occupation and destruction in detail of the industrial infrastructure that maintains the war outside its borders, the capture and destruction of its stockpiled weaponry and materials, and the thorough purging of Germany of its Nazi government (regime change) and the ideological deligitimization of Nazism (denazification), the allies may not have won WWII at all. The pacifists would all have then still had their moral superiority to those who wished to defend themselves...as they they and their families died in gas chambers or in hideous medical experiments, but they'd all have their moral superiority.

Liberty may have then died in Europe, and even, in time, America. But the pacifists would all still have their moral superiority and love of peace. No one doubts that after the Nazis and Japanese conquered their respective portions of the world, there would have been peace (defined simply as the absence of conflict).

[_The Nehor]

I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped. Our current was is not defensive. Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying their government, and imposing a new one is not a defensive act. It's an attempt to annihilate the 'enemy'.

The very obvious problem with this, of course, is that without destroying, through bombing and then the occupation and destruction in detail of the industrial infrastructure that maintains the war outside its borders, the capture and destruction of its stockpiled weaponry and materials, and the thorough purging of Germany of its Nazi government (regime change) and the ideological deligitimization of Nazism (denazification), the allies may not have won WWII at all. The pacifists would all have then still had their moral superiority to those who wished to defend themselves...as they they and their families died in gas chambers or in hideous medical experiments, but they'd all have their moral superiority.

Liberty may have then died in Europe, and even, in time, America. But the pacifists would all still have their moral superiority and love of peace. No one doubts that after the Nazis and Japanese conquered their respective portions of the world, there would have been peace (defined simply as the absence of conflict).

I'm not a pacifist. I do believe in defending one's self and one's country. I DO NOT support non-defensive war. I do believe that wars are caused by wickedness on both sides.

Actually if we'd stopped at the border Russia just would have gotten all of Germany but who's counting? Would have avoided the whole Berlin Wall thing.

[_guy sajer]

This was the brief elucidatoin I gave, but not on the same thread in which Guy's question is posted. And yes, I would consider this philosphically serious, even if not, obviosly, exhaustive (and I made some slight corrections to the text).

I posted a question on this topic? I don't recall. Please enlighten my forgetful mind.

[_Coggins7]

No, I'm not rewriting scripture, I'm allowing people to be people in them. I don't think Moroni's every action and move was inspired by God nor do I I think Nehor's or Korihor's were. I prefer to look at the overall lesson.

The fact of the matter is that those verses are in the scriptures and they are not peripheral, they are extensive. I see no basis in the text for your claim that Moroni's words here were not in accordance with devine will and were nothing but a manifestation of his "anger problem". Telling is that there is no condemnation of either his words or his actions in the case of either scriptural reference.

It's....almost disturbing to be in the same position Scratch is in in most of your debates with the serious philosophical stuff.

Yes it is, but for different reasons.

Imagine a scenario wherein a group of Americans decide that say.....Britain is the most evil nation on Earth. These people proceed to from within the United States plot a series of terrorist attacks against them. They carry out several. There are indications that there are forces in the U.S. government funding these people (for whatever reason). Britain invades us and destroys our government and puts one in it's place that conforms to a more Parliamentary system as the obvious problem with our government was not having a House of Lords. They do this in the hopes that Mexico will see how successful this new government is and copy it. Would any American in their right mind call what the British did a defensive war?

No in your hypothetical scenario. Yes in the real world, because Al Quada, as well as a number of other terrorist organizations funded and based in several Middle Eastern states (and around the world for that matter) have embarked upon what is in their own words a global Jihad against the Great Satan (America), the Little Satan (Israel) and the entire infidel world, the goal being the imposition of a world wide caliphate under Sharia law. They have said they are willing to wage this war for a hundred years if necessary to defeat the non Islamic world. They have pledged to acquire Nukes and other WMD (Saddam had them before the present war, going all he way back into the early Eighties, and used them. Iran is acquiring them now). Further, it was not a few terrorist acts. It was scores of them going back into the early Nineties and continuing throughout that decade, culminating in the second World Trade Center attack, which succeeded, not to mention the second intifada. Further, don't you think your analogy is a little weak? When was the last time two democratic nations went to war with each other?

You want to destroy Islamofascism? What is the solution? I'd rather take a page from Ammon and Alma's playbook and preach the gospel to them. God told the Nephites in the very beginning that the Lamanites were there to stay but would have NO power over them at all if they were righteous. Attacking them was strictly forbidden even to prevent the next generation from having to fight the same war all over again. If the Book is for our day......

You're fairly tearing the Book of Mormon to shreds here Nehor. Did you read Hamblin's statements I posted? Sometimes war was the only option except conquest or genocide, and the Lord supported them in those wars and even predicated success on their righteousness. You have not as yet engaged any of these points.

[_The Nehor]

No, I'm not rewriting scripture, I'm allowing people to be people in them. I don't think Moroni's every action and move was inspired by God nor do I I think Nehor's or Korihor's were. I prefer to look at the overall lesson.

The fact of the matter is that those verses are in the scriptures and they are not peripheral, they are extensive. I see no basis in the text for your claim that Moroni's words here were not in accordance with devine will and were nothing but a manifestation of his "anger problem". Telling is that there is no condemnation of either his words or his actions in the case of either scriptural reference.

It's....almost disturbing to be in the same position Scratch is in in most of your debates with the serious philosophical stuff.

Yes it is, but for different reasons.

Imagine a scenario wherein a group of Americans decide that say.....Britain is the most evil nation on Earth. These people proceed to from within the United States plot a series of terrorist attacks against them. They carry out several. There are indications that there are forces in the U.S. government funding these people (for whatever reason). Britain invades us and destroys our government and puts one in it's place that conforms to a more Parliamentary system as the obvious problem with our government was not having a House of Lords. They do this in the hopes that Mexico will see how successful this new government is and copy it. Would any American in their right mind call what the British did a defensive war?

No in your hypothetical scenario. Yes in the real world, because Al Quada, as well as a number of other terrorist organizations funded and based in several Middle Eastern states (and around the world for that matter) have embarked upon what is in their own words a global Jihad against the Great Satan (America), the Little Satan (Israel) and the entire infidel world, the goal being the imposition of a world wide caliphate under Sharia law. They have said they are willing to wage this war for a hundred years if necessary to defeat the non Islamic world. They have pledged to acquire Nukes and other WMD (Saddam had them before the present war, going all he way back into the early Eighties, and used them. Iran is acquiring them now). Further, it was not a few terrorist acts. It was scores of them going back into the early Nineties and continuing throughout that decade, culminating in the second World Trade Center attack, which succeeded, not to mention the second intifada. Further, don't you think your analogy is a little weak? When was the last time two democratic nations went to war with each other?

You want to destroy Islamofascism? What is the solution? I'd rather take a page from Ammon and Alma's playbook and preach the gospel to them. God told the Nephites in the very beginning that the Lamanites were there to stay but would have NO power over them at all if they were righteous. Attacking them was strictly forbidden even to prevent the next generation from having to fight the same war all over again. If the Book is for our day......

You're fairly tearing the Book of Mormon to shreds here Nehor. Did you read Hamblin's statements I posted? Sometimes war was the only option except conquest or genocide, and the Lord supported them in those wars and even predicated success on their righteousness. You have not as yet engaged any of these points.

I don't consider your quotes on the matter extensive. One occurred when Moroni was parleying and he never followed through on his threat. In his letter to Ammoron he was obviously angry (calling people children of hell usually occurs in angry situations) and again, he never followed through on his threat.

Read the descriptions of the Lamanites. (Enos 1:14, Alma 17:14) They sound like the Islamofascist threat you describe. They would gladly have murdered all the Nephites and destroyed their culture and their families and their homes but STILL they were told not to attack. The Lamanites were a threat for hundreds of years too to establish their Caliphate. They have bigger weapons...so what? Does the principle go away?

I used Britain in the example out of convenience. Replace it with Soviet Russia if you want and that makes it more clear.

I read your Hamblin quote. Book of Mormon warfare does follow Hebrew tradition to a degree. However anyone who has read the Old Testament knows that from Moses on the people never did a very good job of following God at all. Moses was beset by rebellions from within. The time of the Judges was spent mostly under the control of foreign powers because Israel refused to follow their God. From David on I believe there were 4 (?) kings of Judah that the Old Testament gives a positive review out of 23. Out of 20 kings of Israel not one gets a positive review. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their way of life. Their warfare was one of deliverance due to sins they committed. In my opinion the war was part of the punishment, usually the end. Until they fell again.