[ZION] Moral War
John W. Redelfs suggested the following as a general description of Moral War. We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10). -- President Hinckley, October General Conference, 2001) And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians. (Alma 48:10) Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. (Alma 48:14) And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity. (Alma 48:16) John continues: Surely in these passages we can find some statement of belief on what is moral action, can't we? 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. 2) We never give offense. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. George adds to the discussion: From the first I have used Alma 48, et al, to start the definition of a moral war. I think that John has, in this instance, done an admirable, but basic and incomplete, job of defining what is needed for moral action in the event of war. Therefore, I would like to add a few comments based on my own feelings, as well as some contributions from others in this discussion. I am using Johns comments as a beginning point of discussion, therefore what follows is not a critique, rather an expansion. 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. I must add the consideration of doing all we can to avoid killing and destruction insofar as possible. We can not, when given the justification to go to war, use it as a pretense, or cause, to wield unfettered destruction and death upon the enemy. This is against the basic nature of the combatants, who have the tendency and instructions to go out and do all the damage possible to defeat the enemy. The control, however difficult, of such warriors is one aspect of Morality in war 2) We never give offense. We must also act proactively to correct the causes that might give offense, not to the extreme of doing anything at any cost, but we must act to prevent and correct negative conditions throughout the world. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. There is an additional consideration as we also have a obligation to preserve principles, not just our lives. There are principles that are worthy to give our lives for. We can preserve our lives by giving in to tyrants. This is not acceptable and is in fact immoral to do so. The reason we fight is as important as the way we fight. The acquisition of land and influence is not a principle that is acceptable as a reason to go to war. But the preservation of Liberty and freedom is a cause for action. The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. We have every moral right to act in our best interests, in complying with this 3rd consideration, and therefore to act when the other side is preparing or taking the first steps to act against us. Such hostile preparations can be a cause for pre-emptive action, but only after all other means of resolution are exhausted. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. This is good, but not possible in today's world. The best we can do is make sure that our definition of Moral war is consistent with Gods commandments and then do our best to comply. 5) We must treat the losers with honor and dignity, irrespective of their prior actions. We must do all we can to mitigate the effects of our actions against them. The moral victor must always look at the loser as a victim of a terrible tragedy, even if brought upon themselves, and must do all they can to correct the negative situation. Other questions such as crossing boundaries or international law or Geneva Convention only are applications of the basic considerations of Moral
[ZION] The Zion List Has Moved
Dear Zionisti, The Zion list has moved from the Topica server to the SmartGroups server. Please send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am sorry for the inconvenience. John W. Redelfs, Listowner of Zionsbest [EMAIL PROTECTED] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Moral War
George Cobabe favored us with: The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. What do you think, George? Is the coming war with Iraq a fight between one moral party ad one immoral party? Or is it a fight between two immoral parties? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Moral War
John, I am willing to answer, and defend, but first answer the question that we have been discussing. Are we in general agreement as to what constitutes a Moral War? If so then we can apply the test and come up with a satisfactory conclusion. If not, then why bother? as discussion will not be possible! George - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ZION] Moral War George Cobabe favored us with: The question was asked by one, is it not possible for both sides to fight a moral war? No, it is not!!! We must only fight after we have done all we can to prevent a war. If both sides are trying to do this, war will not occur. Moral action by both parties will always result in peace. For war to occur one or both must be acting immorally. What do you think, George? Is the coming war with Iraq a fight between one moral party ad one immoral party? Or is it a fight between two immoral parties? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
[ZION] Important Questions
Here are three important questions that need to be answered before we launch a preemptive strike against Iraq: Who has more nuclear weapons, Iraq or the United States? Who has more chemical weapons, Iraq or the United States? Who has more biological weapons, Iraq or the United States? If the answer is the United States in all three cases, then I consider it gross hypocrisy for us to use Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as justification for aggression against another sovereign state. Now if it can be prove by evidence that Saddam Hussein was in some way behind the attack on the WTC, that will constitute an attack on our own soil, and I would fully support full retaliation by launching as invasion of Iraq. However, I'm not sure there is any evidence to pin the WTC attack on Saddam Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current administration in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for war with Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was not involved in the September 11th attacks. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. --Lord Acton, 1887 == All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Moral War
George Cobabe favored us with: John, I am willing to answer, and defend, but first answer the question that we have been discussing. Are we in general agreement as to what constitutes a Moral War? If so then we can apply the test and come up with a satisfactory conclusion. If not, then why bother? as discussion will not be possible! I think we are in general agreement about what constitutes a moral war, but I'm not certain. We seem to read Alma 48 differently. Both you and Gary seem to see both Captain Moroni and George W. Bush as the guys with the white hats, and Saddam Hussein and Iraq as the guys with the black hats. For me, I don't see how the USA can be the white hats as long as it has legalized pornography, gambling, adultery, sodomy, abortion, alcohol use, and the socialistic redistribution of the wealth. I don't think that the USA is any more righteous than it was when the Joseph and Hyrum were lynched, the saints were driven out of the country or the Savior's church was forced by the federal government to change our religion to comply with the hypocritical morals of the Protestant majority. If anything, it is more wicked today than it was during the 19th century. I see all this pompous talk about freedom and the American way as hypocrisy. I believe that the USA has a highly immoral foreign policy projecting its military presence all over the world and trying to force its values on other nations. To me it obvious that we do not have our acts together nearly well enough to dictate to others. But perhaps the biggest reason that I am not certain we have a general agreement as to what constitutes a moral war, is the fact that you have not been as succinct in expressing your opinion on the matter as I have. I have said: Fundamental principle: Self-defense is OK. Everything else is unlawful. 1) We defend ourselves even if it means shedding blood. 2) We never give offense. 3) We never fight except to preserve our lives. 4) We only fight when God commands us to fight. In my opinion the current situation fails the definition of a moral war on all four counts. Let Saddam Hussein strike us here at home and then invade Iraq. If we stop meddling in his part of the world, perhaps he will not strike us here at home. In all probability he won't. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. --Lord Acton, 1887 == All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Important Questions
John - I will not write what initially came to my mind when I read your post. It might be misunderstood! :-) So, let me state that there are several reasons why a country might arm itself. These include: 1. To act as a deterrent. In this case, the fact that they have them is made known publicly. This is the case for the US. 2. To use as a bargaining chip. In this case the fact that they have them is made known publicly. This is the case for North Korea. 3. To use to perpetrate a blind attack on someone. In this case, the fact that they have them is hidden. This is the case for Saddam/Iraq. Your three important questions fail to take this into account. We live in a dangerous world, one where Satan would love for us to roll over and play dead. We must walk a fine line, which I believe we have done reasonably well over the last 60+ years. It is not hypocrisy to take out Saddam. We are not taking him out because he has WOMM. We are taking him out because he has and will use them against others in acts of blatant aggression, for Saddam's personal gain. Jon - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:04 PM Subject: [ZION] Important Questions Here are three important questions that need to be answered before we launch a preemptive strike against Iraq: Who has more nuclear weapons, Iraq or the United States? Who has more chemical weapons, Iraq or the United States? Who has more biological weapons, Iraq or the United States? If the answer is the United States in all three cases, then I consider it gross hypocrisy for us to use Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as justification for aggression against another sovereign state. Now if it can be prove by evidence that Saddam Hussein was in some way behind the attack on the WTC, that will constitute an attack on our own soil, and I would fully support full retaliation by launching as invasion of Iraq. However, I'm not sure there is any evidence to pin the WTC attack on Saddam Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current administration in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for war with Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was not involved in the September 11th attacks. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] == Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. --Lord Acton, 1887 == All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Important Questions
Gee-wizz, John. I thought we weren't suppose to talk about Iraq? Remember the last flame war we had? Well, since we are about to go at it again I will only make one little itty bitty comment which is that I hope we bomb the hell out Iraq and roll our tanks right into the palaces of that madman in Baghdad. Enough said. Now back to lurking. :-) Paul O On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:04:41 -0900 John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here are three important questions that need to be answered before we launch a preemptive strike against Iraq: Who has more nuclear weapons, Iraq or the United States? Who has more chemical weapons, Iraq or the United States? Who has more biological weapons, Iraq or the United States? If the answer is the United States in all three cases, then I consider it gross hypocrisy for us to use Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as justification for aggression against another sovereign state. Now if it can be prove by evidence that Saddam Hussein was in some way behind the attack on the WTC, that will constitute an attack on our own soil, and I would fully support full retaliation by launching as invasion of Iraq. However, I'm not sure there is any evidence to pin the WTC attack on Saddam Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current administration in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for war with Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was not involved in the September 11th attacks. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
