only just over 1000....

as you may have noticed, i'm not using this blog much as a journal anymore, but more as a personal website now. i just don't have the time to keep up my old site.

anyways, i don't have much time to write up anything new, so i'm going to be lazy and just copy something i posted at provopulse.com. the first post someone wrote basically said that 1070 (now 1082) american lives were worth taking saddam out of power.

my response:

it's easy to say that when you don't think of those "just over 1000" as individual human lives with names, lives, families, and friends.

what about the just over 15,000 iraqi civilians (parents, children, elderly, non-combatants) who we have successfully slaughtered?

what about the deaths of tens (or even hundreds) of thousands iraqi soldiers whom we've killed?

since when has a political end justified the means of war?

somebody then wrote:

since when has a political end justified the means of a war? what political end are you talking about? the political end of getting rid of a dictator and mass murderer? getting rid of a guy who has attacked the world community repeatedly, who rewarded suicide bombers with cash, who supported terrorism? do you really think ousting him was about making Bush look good back here at home, or abroad?

1070 lives is a SMALL price to pay for the freedom of millions, and ridding the world of a very evil dictator.

as members of the true church here on the earth, we have a special responsiblity to do all that we can for the weak, the destitute, and needy. if you come across a person in need and you have the ability to do something to help that person - and don't - you will be judged on that. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. the United States has a moral responsiblity, no matter what your political ideology may prescribe, to help other nations find freedom. period.

to which i say:

"what political end are you talking about?"

democracy. until 4 years ago, collin powell, condoleeza rice and the rest of the crew held a position that war was justified only as a means of defense (the view taught in the book of mormon) and that war should not be used as a means to a political end (the view condemned in the book of mormon). donald rumsfeld, dick cheney and their buddies in the american enterprise institute have thrown powell and rice into the backseat as mere figure-heads and have implemented their theory of war as technology... that war can and should be used as the means to bring about political and social ends.

is the war in iraq a defensive war? clearly it has not been the case. recent cia reports show that saddam had no wmd's, did not have the ability to make wmd's, was not working with al qaida, and was no threat to the united states (all of which powell had been saying previous to 9/11).

"do you really think ousting him was about making Bush look good back here at home, or abroad?"

no. i never said that. i think bush was using war as a technology towards political ends... meaning that bush is using war as a means of implementing democracy in the middle east.

was saddam a ruthless dictator? yes he was, but his actions fair in comparison to attrocities comitted against the peoples of other countries by their ruthless tyrants (ex. sudan).

"as members of the true church here on the earth, we have a special responsiblity to do all that we can for the weak, the destitute, and needy."

i totally agree with you here. that is what king benjamin taught. that we should give to those in need until we have no more to give. yet, our materialist greed keeps us from doing that. in fact, christ taught that as long as one person has more than another, the world is in sin (d&c 49:20).

the book of mormon teaches quite contrary to your desire to use war as a means for political ends. pre-emptive strikes are condemned in 13 nephi 13 (especially vs 20-21). the righteous nephites never attacked the lamanites to liberate them. ammon's adventures make it clear that they were oppressed and murdered by their ruthless leaders. alma, his sons, and the sons of mosiah made it clear that war was not the means to liberate the lamanites, but that expressions of love and the word of god was the means.

1070 is not a SMALL price to pay. that's one thousand-seventy individual american parents, siblings, children, cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, etc. we've already killed over 15,000 iraqi civilians. THAT OVER 5 TIMES THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE DEAD FROM 9/11... AND THE IRAQIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! tens (or hundreds) of thousands of involuntary soldiers have died by american forces. what kind of sick utilitarian view do we need to justify all of this?

i think democracy is great (although our idea of democracy is nowhere in the book of mormon). it's unfortunate that today we have to practice under a bureaucratic republic. i'm voting for bush. why? he's the lesser of the two evils we have to choose from. we've got the republican who led an immoral war and the democratic who would have.

oddly, the only time that governmental take-over is justified in the book of mormon is when christ kills the bourgeoisie and dissolves all politcal, social, and economic structures among the lehites in 3rd nephi.

what do you think?