PBS Frontline: Bush's War

[Moksha]

I saw the Frontline special, Bush's War, on PBS these last two nights. I wish the entire voting population had viewed this program (instead of TV "reality" game shows). It would help enable them to make an informed choice this November.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by Moksha

I saw the Frontline special, Bush's War, on PBS these last two nights. I wish the entire voting population had viewed this program (instead of TV "reality" game shows). It would help enable them to make an informed choice this November.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Since Congress did not declare the War, as demanded by the Constitution, we can know that it "cometh of evil" as spoken of in our Doctrine and Covenants.

I know that is a hard pill to swallow. Unfettered warfare is a tool of tyrants. We are fortunate that our tyrants remain generally benevolent.

We must return to strict Constitutional rule of Law, or we are doomed.

We will never win a conflict that is not Constitutionally madated.

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

Originally Posted by JohnBirchSociety

Since Congress did not declare the War, as demanded by the Constitution, we can know that it "cometh of evil" as spoken of in our Doctrine and Covenants.

I know that is a hard pill to swallow.

Phooey. We are not bound by your interpretation of what needs to happen before America takes action in the world.

Unfettered warfare is a tool of tyrants.

And the term doesn't apply to any war the US has engaged in under any administration. There are plenty of fetters. Maybe not enough for you, maybe you're blind to them, but the word 'unfettered' does not apply.

We are fortunate that our tyrants remain generally benevolent.

Bush (or whatever shadow conpiracy people you're thinking of) are not tyrants. To apply the word in this case merely cheapens it and cheapens your rhetoric.

We must return to strict Constitutional rule of Law, or we are doomed.

I think I agree with you here.

We will never win a conflict that is not Constitutionally madated.

I suppose the devil is in the details of what you mean by "win". But it goes against reason, experience, history, and the nature of our existence to make this goofy claim. Did the Lamanites not win against the Nephites?

I just want to keep on public record that members of the John Birch Society often make such blanket generalizations, stated as fact, when they ain't.

LM

[Fiannan]

Moksha, and maybe the entire public should read the book "The New Military Humanism" by Chomski -- sure points out how the war against Serbia by Clinton was not only hypocritical foreign policy, but a blatent violation of international law.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by Moksha

I saw the Frontline special, Bush's War, on PBS these last two nights. I wish the entire voting population had viewed this program (instead of TV "reality" game shows). It would help enable them to make an informed choice this November.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

I watched a bit of it last night. Compelling. It really helped me understand the news stories of the last few years since 9/11. At the time, I was so confused as to why we were going to Iraq. Just didn't make sense.

Definitely makes you question Bush, not that I wasn't questioning him and good ole Dick before, it just helped clarify what I was feeling already.

I don't know if it helps me with the upcoming election. I am not sure I am happy with any of the candidates. And I know I am not happy with congress. Hmmm..... guess we will see how it all shakes out. At this point, we are in this war/Iraq mess, and somebody has to get us out of it without too much collateral damage in the process.

[Fiannan]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

I watched a bit of it last night. Compelling. It really helped me understand the news stories of the last few years since 9/11. At the time, I was so confused as to why we were going to Iraq. Just didn't make sense.

Definitely makes you question Bush, not that I wasn't questioning him and good ole Dick before, it just helped clarify what I was feeling already.

I don't know if it helps me with the upcoming election. I am not sure I am happy with any of the candidates. And I know I am not happy with congress. Hmmm..... guess we will see how it all shakes out. At this point, we are in this war/Iraq mess, and somebody has to get us out of it without too much collateral damage in the process.

Too bad this man can't run for the US presidency:

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by Loudmouth_Mormon

Phooey. We are not bound by your interpretation of what needs to happen before America takes action in the world.

And the term doesn't apply to any war the US has engaged in under any administration. There are plenty of fetters. Maybe not enough for you, maybe you're blind to them, but the word 'unfettered' does not apply.

Bush (or whatever shadow conpiracy people you're thinking of) are not tyrants. To apply the word in this case merely cheapens it and cheapens your rhetoric.

I think I agree with you here.

I suppose the devil is in the details of what you mean by "win". But it goes against reason, experience, history, and the nature of our existence to make this goofy claim. Did the Lamanites not win against the Nephites?

I just want to keep on public record that members of the John Birch Society often make such blanket generalizations, stated as fact, when they ain't.

LM

1) Only Congress has Constitutional authority to declare war. All other armed conflicts, though they may rightfully be called "war", lack proper constitutionality. The last proper declaration of war by Congress was after the Pearl Harbor attack. We haven't had one since, and we've lost every conflict since then (other than very minor skirmishes in Grenada / Panama).

You say the term doesn't apply. Korea was a UN Police Action (Undeclared warfare). Vietnam was an undeclared war. And on an on it goes. And we've lost them all, and will continue to lose them. We cannot hope to have the hand of divine providence on our side if we presume that we can enter into warfare without following the demands of the Constitution, which GOD inspired.

2) If Congress doesn't declare a war, then it lacks the Constitutional oversight of Congress. In effect Congress has abdicated its' prime authority in the matter to the Executive. This is a central violation of what the Framers intended. And it results in nearly endless, unfettered warfare. Such things are the tools of tyrants.

3) Tyrants are any who would abdicate national sovriegnty to other interests. Tyrants are those who would violate Constitutional principles in the name of "Security".

4) I don't believe in any shadow conspiracy. That's the stuff of Hollywood movies. What I do believe in is bad people working in concert to bring about change in their favor. Sometimes this involves secretive meetings (Bilderberg, for example) but mostly it is just an open drive to diminish American supremacy in the name of "Globalism". By the way, the Book of Mormon does warn of "Secret Combinations" that would be amongst us, and that we would "awaken to a sense of our awful situation". Maybe I'm awake and you aren't?

5) You most certainly don't agree with Constitutional law if you think that the warfare we've engaged in since after WWII was constitutionally valid. As an aside, I believe Korea, and Vietnam, and other conflicts were morally justified (We have a moral obligation to assist the spread / defense of liberty, in my opinion. Let's do it Constitutionally. Congress, declare war on the nation of Iraq, for example, and then let's kick butt!!! Win, and get the heck out. I'm for the idea of fighting "them" over there, rather than here, let's just do it in a Constitutionally approved manner (I greatly differ for the JBS on that).

Simply, Congress declares war, and the Commander in Chief executes it (being the Chief Executive). Then, during the war, every two years, Congress reviews funding for it, and decides whether it shall continue or not. That's the constitutional model. Let's follow it.

6) The Lamanites were not Americans. They had no allegiance to the Constitution. They had no moral foundations inspired by GOD. I don't believe GOD is pleased with Constitutional violations. After all, he inspired the document, which has been declared "akin to scripture" in General Conference, by the Prophet.

Why not just follow it in all respects, at the Federal Level? What is so gosh darn hard about that?

I support only those actions that are in accordance with the enumerated powers of Congress as stated in the Constitution. I stand with GOD in declaring that "anything more or less than this cometh of evil".

I'm surprised by LDS that don't agree with this.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

I don't know if it helps me with the upcoming election. I am not sure I am happy with any of the candidates. And I know I am not happy with congress.

I do know that I will be most unhappy if Frontline has to do an update of new developments regarding Bush's War in Iraq in 2012.

This war had the look and feel of being of the Vietnam war from the get go. Both are doomed to failure in the end, and yet for some reason that realization has not yet dawned on the ultimate policy makers (or if it has, the quest for oil and contracts for Haliburton has overridden better judgment).

[Fiannan]

6) The Lamanites were not Americans. They had no allegiance to the Constitution. They had no moral foundations inspired by GOD. I don't believe GOD is pleased with Constitutional violations. After all, he inspired the document, which has been declared "akin to scripture" in General Conference, by the Prophet.

True, and God took away his last bit of protection when, after the Nephites had drifted away from the Gospel, they started raping and then eating Lamanite women.

Ritual canibalism was actually not uncommon even in advanced Meso-American cultures.

[a-train]

Originally Posted by Moksha

I do know that I will be most unhappy if Frontline has to do an update of new developments regarding Bush's War in Iraq in 2012.

This war had the look and feel of being of the Vietnam war from the get go. Both are doomed to failure in the end, and yet for some reason that realization has not yet dawned on the ultimate policy makers (or if it has, the quest for oil and contracts for Haliburton has overridden better judgment).

When asked for a pledge to end the war by 2013, Democrat Presidential candidates effectively answered: 'NO'. The leading Republican Candidate said 'its fine by me' to remain in Iraq for 100 years.


**removed for violation of terms and conditions**


-a-train