a-train

Absolutely not. I am advocating free trade with ALL middle-eastern states and a complete cessation of foreign aid. I am not advocating any effort to reduce Israeli weapons capabilities. Let them decide what weapons to possess, and how and when to use them. I advocate the same for ALL middle-eastern states. And if everyone in Europe had simply shut up and allowed Germany to take over there would have been no WWII. Sound crazy? That is exactly what Palestinian people see. They see an enormously powerful army supported by most of the west taking over the middle-east. It will take generations of a halting of border expansion to rest these fears. This weekend's invasion will not lead to such alleviation of fears. Egypt actually wanted to allow crossing to alleviate humanitarian affairs, and their military actually checked returning Gazans for weapons, or at least claimed to. Egypt is trying not to become involved in this mess that the west seems bent on escalating.What I am advocating is a policy of peace and commerce, rather than war. If Israel wants to expand her borders, the best means to accomplish this design is to build up a nation peaceful and so prosperous that others will want to be annexed. Utah made concessions to be numbered among the United States, it was not compelled to gain statehood through military force. Such a project will take generations, but the current path Israel is on will be generations of perpetual war which if escalated by foreign interventionists such as the U.S., it has the potential to lead to a third world war with western nations aligning with Israel and eastern nations (including possibly Russia) with Palestine. Renounce war and proclaim peace. -a-train

Jewish terrorists, in their efforts to establish the state of Israel said the exact same thing about 'aliens' who were then (1940's) inhabiting the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. They believed that Palestine, and Jordan had no right to exist.These terrorists were awarded medals by the established state of Israel and were admitted into their military. Palestinian and other peoples living within those borders are justifiably concerned that they will be expelled just as have the many thousands to date. This is why the images in the OP are so poignant to inhabitants of that area of the world. They literally fear that the U.S., and other western powers, motivated by prospects of middle-eastern oil, together with Israel is scheming to establish an Israeli state extending into modern Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and completely consuming Palestine and Jordan. They literally believe that the ultimate goal is just as the early Zionists proclaimed: a state of Israel ten times its current size. Can we blame them for these concerns? What has the last 50 years demonstrated? Perpetual war and a dramatic advance in the borders of Israel, combined with the overthrow of middle eastern governments by western powers both through covert CIA operations and direct military engagements. You brought the body counts up. On what should we place our assumption that the state of Israel would not exist without American tax dollars? And if that is true, why are we paying for it to exist? Why export Jewish Americans to Israel? Why pay to displace thousands of people and perpetuate a war? The truth is that the American support for Israeli military efforts comes mainly by virtue of Christian beliefs in end time prophecy. This is all driven home by the constant reminder of the holocaust in Germany. Very much has been achieved. Just look at the maps. But yes, nothing has been achieved in terms of peace, so why will more of the same somehow make any difference? Isn't it time to try something else? We've been subsidizing the advance of Israeli borders and the death of thousands for all these years and it has not brought peace. Go figure, subsidizing and perpetuating war doesn't yield peace, who knew? What I am proposing is that we deescalate the conflict by withdrawing support of war and by trading openly with all middle-eastern countries fairly. And so what? Who are we the world police? We go around telling people what they should and should not say? We decide who is guilty and by what law in foreign lands? So why then should we escalate the war by subsidizing both sides while justifying and aligning our foreign policy with one?-a-train

I see you didn't argue with the example of the city of Enoch, the greatest city of God known to us. If you mean that self-defense is imperative to the survival of any nation in the face of scheming enemies, I'll quickly agree, but that is not the topic of our discussion. The issue I raise is that the United States need not subsidize the Palestinian/Israeli conflict nor take sides in it. Both activities only escalate hostilities and increase the loss of life and property.Additionally, the justification of such destruction is simply not our place. Let Israel, which is clearly the military power of that region defend herself both physically and politically. And gasoline is currently at its lowest real price in our lifetime, there can be no uncertainty that it will go up, and up a lot. -a-train

And you think that is not enough? We need to send Americans over there to add to the total? Our objective in killing thousands of Vietnamese was to prevent death? Our objective was based on the fallacy of "domino theory". Who ridded the world of the Khmer Rouge? So you place the power of those shooting rockets into Israel in the same sphere with Hitler's war machine? Are we under this threat? Are rockets landing here in the United States? Our involvement in a foreign war can definitely preciptate such events. Our involvement in the middle east brought us the events of the 11th of September, 2001. Is it worth World War III to stop a border dispute in a remote country? So you think we should subsidize them and Israel so they can all have a gigantic war? Perhaps we need to send our troops over there so more Americans can die too. You think that an escalation of this war around the world will in someway put an end to the years of conflict there?These countries cannot realize that their problems are their own doing until the scapegoat of foreign intervention leaves them. That is exactly what happened in Vietnam. It was not until they were left alone to pursue their vision of communistic paradise that they were able to realize the futility of it all. -a-train

So, you are saying we need to give Israel, a nuclear power with the most powerful airforce on the eastern hemisphere, more weapons so it can fight men with nothing but grenades, small arms, and RPGs? We further need to place santions on this enemy? And all this to "even the playing field"? Somehow, this enemy is so amazingly effective with these small arms and grenades, the Israeli military is not on an even playing field with them?-a-train

Watched it a little over a month ago. I don't think it equates peer review with discrimination at all, on the contrary, the claim in the video is that peer review has been stifled and scientists writing on the subject have been silenced by the prospect of job loss. The most poignant and startling point in the video for me was the climax in which Professor Richard Dawkins said: "It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, microbiology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer." He continued "And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existance spontaneously. That's the point." For the Mormon who rejects the ex nihilo doctrine, this is all quite intriguing. -a-train

What is the strategy and agenda of the shooters who propel rockets in to Israeli residential areas? They hope for the Israeli military response. They want media and the internet to globally parade the images of the Palistinian civilian casualties and dire circumstances. Why do they want this? They want international support for their cause of a dissolution of the state of Israel and the ultimate realization of a unified Palestinian state. This goal requires great international assistance. Why does it require that? Because of the tremendous international support of the state of Israel. What does all this ultimately lead too? A global war over borders in a relatively tiny place. Is that what we want? Will we let a relatively small band of murdering thugs plunge the whole planet into war as did the Black Hand in 1914? What is necessary is a deescalation of hostilities, not an emboldening of international tension and war rhetoric. -a-train

So, following this logic to its end, a cessation of the subsidization of Israel and her enemies would lead to Israel and the United States falling under some Palestinian empire. Are we expected to believe that people with little more than small arms and RPGs are going to militarily win against a nuclear, airborne, Israel that has power to shut off Palestinian water, food, and energy sources instantly?If history is our guide, then why did peaceful coexistance with communist Vietnam begin after we pulled out? Why did Vietnam not come conquer us? Why did Vietnam follow the Đổi Mới policy? Why did Russia not conquer us? Did Reagan's peaceful negotiations with Russia and the opening of trade lead to world communism or the fall of the Berlin Wall? My history books tell me the latter, not the former. -a-train

It is hilarious how in the question of whether Richardson could have somehow enhanced the prospects of a state contract for a campaign contributor, the mere allegations have caused him to withdraw, and yet Congress can simply hand out tax dollars to the businesses they see fit and all is well, it's business as usual in Washington. He is probably among the best of Obama's picks. -a-train

It is a befuddling notion: the idea that sanctions are considered non-isolationist and free trade is considered isolationist, that a policy of war is considered non-isolationist and a policy of friendship and peace is considered isolationist.Let us not confuse my position with mercantilist notions, with protectionism. Instead of subsidizing war, let us open free trade and seek common commerce with these nations. Nothing will bring peace faster. -a-train

"There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." (Isaiah 57:21)So if I understand you right, a nation becomes great in God's eyes through warfare. Perhaps Hitler's Germany was among those considered most great by God. The assassin of Franz Ferdinand must have one of the highest thrones in heaven for his hand in precipitating World War I. I guess the blood thirsty Lamanites were great in God's eyes and that is why they survived and the Nephites were extinct. It wasn't the unrighteousness among the Jews and their crucifixion of the Messiah that caused their downfall, it was God's love and praise for the mighty war efforts of the wonderful Roman empire that exalted Ceasar and his legacy. In God's eyes, fascist war-mongering dictators are considered greatest. The Prince of Peace, who failed to support the Zealots and their blundered revolt which precipitated the Abomination of Desolation of which he prophesied, was not considered great in God's eyes. The Jews were simply not as blood thirsty as Titus and that is why God considered him and the Roman nation great and granted them their victory in 70. With this in mind, we had better get busy. A concerted effort among us who know the scriptures and God's view of the world should press the Congress and our new president to begin nuclear assaults throughout the world to establish the Great American Empire over the whole earth. Through this we can achieve greatness in God's eyes. Perhaps the scripture should read: "But he that is greatest among you shall be your war chief." (Matt 23:11) The commandment to renounce war and proclaim peace is only for those wanting to be considered least in God's eyes. With this I can agree. For the Saviour taught: "he that is least among you all, the same shall be great." (Luke 9:48) "And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people; And lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth". (D&C 105:38-39) I cannot find a nation more exalted by God than Enoch's Zion. I've never heard of another which was taken to heaven. I cannot seem to locate his great war efforts in the scriptures. "And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him." (Moses 7:13) It would seem in Enoch's case that warfare did not cause his people to live in peace, but it was the word of God that repelled his enemies. -a-train

Moroni fought in a civil war and defended an invasion. Palestine has no border dispute with the United States and has not invaded us. The war we are talking about is a foreign border dispute. Our involvement in it only escalates hostilities and spreads throughout the world a problem between two countries. A blind devotion to the state of Israel based on misguided interpretation of scripture will not help us. Inasmuch as Israel repels invasion and attack, they are indeed justified, but we have no reason nor right to make such judgments nor to come to the rescue of the most powerful country in that region. In fact, U.S. policy on the matter has actually bridled Israeli war efforts and emboldened their enemies.-a-train

We are not one of the two parties.-a-train

Joseph Smith owned a bar in Nauvoo. Looked it up in the Church history set.Read this, from fairlds.org. It says: It is simply a matter of historic record that Joseph Smith drank alcohol in his Nauvoo days. -a-train

Why do we feel compelled to make any determination (especially a sweeping one) whether Israel is justified? Are we to issue some policy on that basis? If Israel is NOT justified, should that change our policy towards it? When we take such positions, we actually take war positions. Why can't we take a peace position? Why not support no act of war? Renounce war and proclaim peace. -a-train

One need only to look to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to see vehement critics of government. As recently as our last General Conference, Boyd K. Packer qouted praised Elder Phineas Richards' 1849 statement that characterized the administrations of Governor Boggs, President Martin Van Buren, and others as a "corrupted and degenerate administration". This speech actually gives good points about the proper coexistance of patriotism and criticism of government powers that do and should live in the hearts of the saints. Joseph Smith lead a movement of pacifism. He lead a movement of freedom: freedom from the oppression of Congress, from Governors, from mobs, from slavery, from injustice. His political platform on which he ran for the Presidency in 1844 called for a decrease in the size and scope of the federal government to one third of its then relatively tiny size when compared to the enormous leviathan which oppresses us all today and spreads war and horror throughout the world. Unconditional allegiance to the state is NOT the commandment of God to the saints. In fact, our allegiance is to God and our fellow man, not to a particular group of men, and certainly not to some such group which oppresses others. Christians believe they are pacifists, and many are, yet history proves the bulk of them otherwise. I will make the biased statement that only "true Christians" are pacifists. In the history of the Church, a great many leaders have spoken out strongly against war. That said, Church leadership is faced with very dangerous consequences in making statements about any particular conflict. Such activity could prove harmful or even deadly to saints in various parts of the world. It is therefore left to each individual member to "renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children" as we have been commanded by God. (D&C 98:16) The overstatement and extreme misapplication of the Twelfth Article of Faith during the NAZI era of german history lead to very bad judgment and church policy there. The letter and spirit of the Article should not be put in any position to promote the violation of the Thirteenth Article of Faith. A king, president, ruler, magistrate or law that is engaged in oppression, favoratism, violence, and discrimination cannot be righteously supported in these sins if we are to be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and to do good to all men. The proposal of Joseph Smith and his fellow abolitionists in peacefully ending slavery was decried as an affront to liberty by the pro-slavery movement and a position too pacifist by the statist abolitionist yankees happy to go to war with the South. Had his proposals been inacted, the United States of America could have ridded itself of slavery and saved itself the horrors of the Civil War as did every other civilized country in the world who enacted almost precisely the policy he advocated. The LDS position on abortion recognizes the right of the unborn to the protection of the law. This is the same as the position of Joseph Smith on the subject of black Americans and their elegibility to be considered equal citizens with white Americans. While there are indeed cases wherein medical conditions will force parties to decide whether to lose an unborn child or the mother as well, the act of abortion as birth control amounts to the murder of a born child in the effort to save money and time. If one looks closer at the issue, abortion is mainly the effect of a greater cause, which is largely economic and social dispare. Both of which would be solved by more liberal economic and social policies. With greater freedom comes the greater availibility of prosperity. A prosperous and happy people will not be so inclined to kill children in an effort to save money or face. -a-train

While I respect your opinion, it was not shared by Joseph Smith and the early saints.-a-train

It matters not a lick what Joseph Smith said concerning his Vision. He never said: "There was only one Personage." He simply left details out. Did you know that he thought the forest was going to burn up and that he could tell it had also been transfigured? That is not in the testimony we so often read. Should we imagine that he was lying simply because this detail is not in that testimony. Why did he not give a more detailed description of the face of the Father? Did he have a beard? If so, was it short or long? We shall never know every detail of that Vision and attempts to discredit Joseph Smith with the lack of inclusion of every detail in every attempt to describe the experience over a 24 year period is lacking in logic and honesty. Section 76 was received in 1832 and is simply irreconcilable with a theory that Joseph Smith only adopted the notion that the Father and Son were physically separate in his later ministry. -a-train

And the state of Israel does not represent Judaism or the Jewish community either.-a-train

It was Paul, talking about the false prophets of the latter times which will be "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (1 Tim 4:3) To imagine the "meat" Paul is talking about is vegetable, would be to ignore verse five which includes the word "creature". The Word of Wisdom DOES counsel us to eat meat sparingly. It also advocates "mild drinks" of "barley" in the seventeenth verse, id est: BEER. What we call the Word of Wisdom today (the forbidding of: alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea whether cold or hot, and harmful drugs), is a modern commandment given through the brethren, it is not actually the Word of Wisdom found in Doctrine and Covenants section 89. A simple differentiation of how the term "Word of Wisdom" is modernly used and how it was used in 1833 is necessary to avoid confusion. This should not annoy or frighten us when we learn of Joseph Smith's having owned a bar in the 1840's in Nauvoo, almost a decade after the reception of the Word of Wisdom. It should also not cause us trouble when we see the words: "not by commandment or constraint" in the first verse. Further, this understanding helps us in considering the modern commandment against iced tea. Could such commandments be lifted some day? Will Mormons be drinking a nice cold beer or iced tea in the future? It is perhaps as possible as it is improbable. -a-train

There will be no global economic disaster. It will be contained to the U.S. This will be very good for countries like China which will see a tremendous increase in the average standard of living while our standard of living decreases. Read Thomas Friedman and Peter Schiff for some good information on the subject. -a-train

The expansion of this conflict all around the world will only make it that much worse. We need to allow those directly involved to solve it. All aid should be completely removed. The U.S. actually provides more of our tax dollars to enemies of Israel than to Israel. The best U.S. policy I've heard is to simply stop subsidizing the war. -a-train

My friend did three years in prison. In my opinion, that was about three years too long. -a-train

A friend of mine robbed a bank and ran out of gas only blocks away. Those darn gas prices! -a-train

Check the Wikipedia article on the LEHI gang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group) Also see: Irgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These terrorist groups existed during WWII. They DID kill and bomb innocent people, including many Jews. They DID advocate an Israeli state extending to "the borders delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River." Genesis 15:18)" And they DID advocate the replacement of non-Jews with Jews saying: "Solve the problem of alien population [i.e. the Arab inhabitants of Palestine] by exchange of population." -a-train