Obama and Mormonism

[_bcspace]

It has everything to do with it. A pre-emptive strike can prevent a war. Part of the Bush doctrine.

A preemptive strike begins a war.

It certainly can. But such is valid under LDS scripture and doctrine as we have seen. Are you afraid to answer my questions?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And I take it you still believe we should have entered Iraq for those WMD's?

How do you both presume to reconcile the paradox in the Book of Mormon?

[_asbestosman]

They killed before they were attacked but after learning their intent. What is missing from this that's in the Bush doctrine? WMD, or merely scale?

By the way, I'm against preemptive war--at least as in Iraq, but I'm not going to wrest scripture to support my position. That's dangerous territory as I would hope your exchanges with BCSpace would have taught you. Be vigilant.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It certainly can. But such is valid under LDS scripture and doctrine as we have seen. Are you afraid to answer my questions?

I believe we are justified in defensive war. I don't believe Iraq represents such in any way.

[_bcspace]

And I take it you still believe we should have entered Iraq for those WMD's?

Resuming the 1991 war was a part of the agreement if Sadam didn;t comply.

How do you both presume to reconcile the paradox in the Book of Mormon?

Are you still afraid to answer my examples? Are they right or wrong? Justified or not?

[Analytics]

And I take it you still believe we should have entered Iraq for those WMD's?

No. I believe we should have worked more with the rest of the world rather than going alone and alienating ourselves.

How do you both presume to reconcile the paradox in the Book of Mormon?

Sometimes God gives commandments to try our faith or for other reasons. God commanded Nephi and co. not to make much fire during their trek in the wilderness, but I don't think He has anything inherently against fire.

God also had the Israelites be circumcised and obstain from pork. He commanded the early saints to practice polygamy.

[_bcspace]

It certainly can. But such is valid under LDS scripture and doctrine as we have seen. Are you afraid to answer my questions?

I believe we are justified in defensive war. I don't believe Iraq represents such in any way.

That wasn't your original question. It was about the Bush doctrine. My examples illustrate the two major parts of it and as you can see from the Book of Mormon, both illustrations are justified. Therefore, the Bush doctrine does not conflict with LDS doctrine or scripture.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

They killed before they were attacked but after learning their intent. What is missing from this that's in the Bush doctrine? WMD, or merely scale?

By the way, I'm against preemptive war--at least as in Iraq, but I'm not going to wrest scripture to support my position. That's dangerous territory as I would hope your exchanges with BCSpace would have taught you. Be vigilant.

Yes, let me be clear: I am referring to a specific historical decision from the current administration. I believe it is a matter of context. He seems to believe, and perhaps it has seemed, that I am a sheer pacifist. Such isn't the case, and apologies for making it seem otherwise.

Again, I wonder how BCSpace would reconcile the paradox.

BC- my question was whether you support the Bush doctrine. You answered the question (I believe) in the affirmative. Seems we are at an impasse on how we read the scriptures. We've long known that you are much more of a literalist than I am. For example, you think chapter headings are scripture. We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe there are cases when war is justified, and I believe there are times when it is not. I believe it is possible to build false gods of steel as Pres. Kimball noted, and that the Prince of Peace would favor peace before war. That's where I try to stand, as well. That's pretty much it.

[_bcspace]

And I take it you still believe we should have entered Iraq for those WMD's?

No. I believe we should have worked more with the rest of the world rather than going alone and alienating ourselves.

Enough WMD's were found. It was also found that Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs as soon as attention was drawn away from him. Since he had terrorist ties and had used WMD's before, we certainly justified in going in, even in hindsight.

The "post 9/11 world" made it doubly imperitive. Libs hate the truth of that phrase, but the fact is that 9/11 showed that the US is not invulnerable making it critical to eliminate regimes that both support terrorism and/or WMD's, no matter who the terrorists or the type and extent of the WMD.

And yes, I would certainly have applied this to Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/ ... index.html

Goodnight.