New Government For Australia

[Ray A]

The idealogical flaw in this preemptive foreign policy is either the notion that we have the capability to read minds, or the notion that through the aggressive taking away of the sovereignty of a nation we can prevent them from commiting acts of aggression themselves. This course of preemption is not only unattempted by God, but is indeed impossible for man. All creatures bring forth offspring only of their own kind and war can only beget war. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Let's take Grenada. Grenda's sovereignty was threatened by communist forces. The US launched Operation Urgent Fury and quashed the coming revolution. The "excuse" was that it was in line with the Monroe Doctrine. In spite of what ideologues like Chomsky have written, and what some media have protrayed, Grenadians welcomed the US "invasion" (it was over in the blink of an eye) to protect their sovereignty, not usurp it. During the Second World War the US set up bases in Trinidad, taking out a 99 year lease on a part of the island, which was governed by the military and guarded by military police. Twenty years after the war this part of the island was returned, and all US forces left, the country's sovereignty intact. Did this prevent German attacks on the oil-rich nation? It most certainly did. So once again, the "world policeman" was welcomed to protect sovereignty, and of course - oil.

Can our government hold in contempt the right to property and the right to life in foreign lands and exist in peace according to verse 2?

Can it fail to honor the leaders in a foreign country and seek their destruction through covert or military means in order to bring about internal actions within that nation it finds financially beneficial to it's citizens, it's nation, or it's nation's businesses and somehow follow the direction of verse 6?

Can it deny a foreign land the protections spoken of in verse 11?

Preemptive policy does none of these things. The preemptive foreign policy disallows the right to property in foreign lands with the penalty of death. It fails to allow foreign leaders the right to defend their people and secure peace. It is a policy of fear. Are we so faithless, so fearful, that we will commit bloodshed to prevent a nation from even gaining the materials necessary for the production of weapons, albeit those same materials can provide them self-sufficient energy?

The problem here is not the people, but the governments. Nearly 2 million Tutsis were murdered by the Hutu, and the UN failed to act. Here is a chronicle of this sorry tale of virtual consent to murder: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

And President Clinton's apology:

In Kigali, Rwanda President Clinton apologizes to the victims of genocide.

"... the international community, together with nations in Africa, must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy, as well. We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past. But we can and must do everything in our power to help you build a future without fear, and full of hope ..."

No preventitive measures were taken. Instead of increasing military forces, the UN withdrew them. Don't get involved.

It is indeed a fact that the Mormons need to look to non-Mormon friends for the support of liberty and truth. Perhaps our current election would be going differently had so many Mormons had not looked to Mitt Romney simply because of his Mormonism although he openly advocates violation of the constitution, preemptive foreign policy, and the demonization of muslims and the islamic world.

Again we need to ask whether the problem is Romney, or the radical Muslims.

[a-train]

Been busy with work, so haven't had a chance to reply.

I support the system we have in Oz, which is about 1.5% universally deducted for medicare. It really is small bickies for peace of mind. Sure, some abuse the system, but by and large the majority use health care appropriately. Last time I saw a doctor was nearly 18 months ago. It is wrong, IMO, that anyone should be barred from essential health care because they can't afford it. Wasn't this a remnant of the idea Joseph Smith originally had, with the United Order? No reason why it should only apply to United Orders.

The whole issue is how we do this. Do we have the government do everything, or do we do it? I advocate less government involvement (D.C. is full of blunders). There are great organizations that can be supported or built to provide healthcare to the needy. In fact, government has harmed these groups over the years.

I understand you don't have compulsory voting in America, but that's beside the point.

I am not advocating not voting. I am advocating voting for the right people. I am simply not allowed to say who that is on this site (you know the rules.)

Even when a dictator has killed 2 million people? And threatened to nuke Israel? Israeli fighter jets eradicated Saddam's nuclear facility in the early '80s, and through the '90s he defied more than a dozen UN resolutions to cease trying to build nuclear weapons. The gassing of 5,000 kurds doesn't matter? Mass graves don't matter? Children of parents suspected of "treason", or simply refusing military service, hung on telegraph poles in the street isn't aggression? I suppose I could take the cynical view that only when America is attacked it should respond, like Pearl Harbor. But admittedly, it's a mess in Iraq. Maybe America should not have gotten involved. They didn't attack Russia, or Germany, and some progress was made there. The Berlin wall came down in 1989 without military intervention. But whether this hindsight is wise is quite complex, as I will show.

And all the while, U.S. taxes supported Saddam!!! We gave him the gas! Who made the mess? WE DID! We absolutely should not have gotten involved. The west is plundering the middle east. The west is the problem, not the Arabs or Persians.

Actually crime prevention does extend to covert surveillance, and a person suspect of about to commit a crime can be arrested. The government is empowered to take whatever measures are required to prevent crime. Surveillance of radical Islamic websites, and shutting them down, is crime prevention. Overt and proactive crime prevention is sometimes necesary. The police drug squad don't wait for illegal drugs to reach the streets, they tear down crops grown for such purposes. Whether this is successful is debatable, but the point is that crime prevention is a reality.

The difference is simple. Someone with a crop of illegal plants in their basement HAS committed a crime. Someone with some fertilizer has not. Someone making death threats has committed a crime. Someone who simply owns a gun has not. This is not complicated. There is no such thing as real crime prevention. A man cannot be tried for a crime that never happened (at least he's not supposed to be).

If Iran builds a nuclear power plant, we have no right to restrict them. They have been totally forthcoming about all details and have not threatened to nuke anyone. Their current government has never invaded anything. All the fear and hate of Iran comes from political rhetoric from the west. What has Iran EVER done? The only straws we are grasping at are some photos of shrapnel claimed to be Iranian-made bombs used in Iraq. All the Iraqi guns are Russian, should we invade Russia?

The people of Iran were killed by Iraqis using western provided chemical weapons and we are crying about possible grenades from Iran.

Not if that nation has threatened, for example, to nuke another. If you hold a gun in your hand, or say "I'm going to get a gun and kill you", do you think the police will wait until the murder has occurred? The very threat is a crime.

Again, I have not been able to locate any threat of attack from Iran.

I couldn't agree with Ron Paul more, he is fantastic and would make a great.... ahem...

Some mixed views there. Intervene for change, but don't intervene using the military? I think the real issue here is what Iran will do with nuclear weapons. That is a question those outside of Iran have to ask. If Hitler had the A-bomb, should Britain have waited for a preemptive strike by Germany? We live in different times. Actually, the Brits acted after the invasion of Poland. Germany at the time was no where near English soil, but still a looming threat.

Pakistan had nukes for a long time, why didn't we bomb them? We have it out for Iran and its all business reasons.

I do think that anti-Muslim fear mongering is a MAJOR problem in the U.S. We need to be very careful about this. We also need to make certain we understand that the state of Israel is not Zion. It is not perfect. We need not be afraid to be critical of her policies.

-a-train

[Ray A]

The whole issue is how we do this. Do we have the government do everything, or do we do it? I advocate less government involvement (D.C. is full of blunders). There are great organizations that can be supported or built to provide healthcare to the needy. In fact, government has harmed these groups over the years.

I am not advocating not voting. I am advocating voting for the right people. I am simply not allowed to say who that is on this site (you know the rules.)

I'm still relatively new here, but I think I grasp the rules.

And all the while, U.S. taxes supported Saddam!!! We gave him the gas! Who made the mess? WE DID! We absolutely should not have gotten involved. The west is plundering the middle east. The west is the problem, not the Arabs or Persians.

"We" was a different admistration. It was Reagan who gave them weapons. It was different circumstances, and not long after the American hostages were held. Iran called America "the Great Satan", and people marched in the streets yelling "Death to America!" The Shah was corrupt too, but I wonder how many Iranians preferred the Shah to Khomeni? We wouldn't know, because the penalty for expressing free alternative opinions is imprisonment, or even death!

The difference is simple. Someone with a crop of illegal plants in their basement HAS committed a crime. Someone with some fertilizer has not. Someone making death threats has committed a crime. Someone who simply owns a gun has not. This is not complicated. There is no such thing as real crime prevention. A man cannot be tried for a crime that never happened (at least he's not supposed to be).

Where did they get the illegal plants? Suppliers. Who are the suppliers? Surely we are not that naive? Who grows marijuana plants for a hobby?

Owning a gun is not a crime. I don't know about the US, but in Oz you can't own a gun if you have a criminal record. Gun-owners are scrutinised to a tee. Any record of real or intended violence would disqualify one from owning a gun. Crime prevention means weeding out those who have the potential for violence, or who have made real threats. ("Death to America")

If Iran builds a nuclear power plant, we have no right to restrict them. They have been totally forthcoming about all details and have not threatened to nuke anyone. Their current government has never invaded anything. All the fear and hate of Iran comes from political rhetoric from the west. What has Iran EVER done? The only straws we are grasping at are some photos of shrapnel claimed to be Iranian-made bombs used in Iraq. All the Iraqi guns are Russian, should we invade Russia?

Where have you been?

Iran has long been one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism worldwide. Iran’s ruling mullahs are extending their regional influence in the fog of the Iraq conflict. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and a robust ballistic missile capability continues apace. Thomas Joscelyn argues that Iran is guilty of far more. An emboldened Iran has vicariously waged war against America for nearly three decades, yet America’s leaders are unwilling to admit what is plain for all to see.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.733/pub_detail.asp

Next, there is Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s master terrorist, who helped Osama bin Laden upgrade al-Qaeda’s capabilities in the early 1990s. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, long suspected to be the handiwork of Hezbollah under direction from Iran, may also have had a junior partner in al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission established that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were the work of Hezbollah-trained al-Qaeda operatives. There are disturbing signs that may implicate Iran in, at the very least, facilitating travel for some of the 9/11 hijackers. Finally, there is extensive evidence that Iran aided al-Qaeda’s retreat from Afghanistan in late 2001 and has allowed al-Qaeda agents to operate from Iranian soil ever since.

The people of Iran were killed by Iraqis using western provided chemical weapons and we are crying about possible grenades from Iran.

Again, I have not been able to locate any threat of attack from Iran.

See above.

I couldn't agree with Ron Paul more, he is fantastic and would make a great.... ahem...

Pakistan had nukes for a long time, why didn't we bomb them? We have it out for Iran and its all business reasons.

The US has threatened Pakistan.

I do think that anti-Muslim fear mongering is a MAJOR problem in the U.S. We need to be very careful about this. We also need to make certain we understand that the state of Israel is not Zion. It is not perfect. We need not be afraid to be critical of her policies.

I agree that anti-Muslim fear-mongering is a problem, but this fear goes back to the radicals. It is the radicals who have created this fear. It's like thinking that FLDS are one and the same as Utah Mormons.

You focus on "rights". How many Iranians have the basic rights we have in the west? Check out some of these links: http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/mena/iran.html

What you seem to be assuming is that Islamic theocracies operate in the same way as Western democracies. In that, I'm afraid, you're sadly mistaken. They can't express their real opinions.