Skip navigation.

Nukes, and why they matter

Orson Scott Card has written an enlightening piece on why nuclear missiles are the only true WMD and how this affects our world's careful balance of power.

I really appreciate his ability to process and distill this type information into such an accessible form. The article is well worth your time.

Read it here.

nukes

A halfway decent article from a writer who has previously expressed some pretty bad judgement (we should invade Iran and Syria etc.). I wish that the USA hadn't unilaterally pulled out of the NPT. Then we would actually have some moral authority in bargaining with nations such as Iran.
The recent National Intelligence Estimate says Iran is 10 years away from making a bomb, which should muffle the drums of war in D.C.
I leave you with the wisdom of J Reuben Clark on the matter:

From J Reuben Clark Oct. 1946 General Conference:

Now do not forget that all of the nations had prepared before World War II to use aircraft; they had already used submarines in World War I; and we in this area know we were prepared to use poison gases. Then as the crowning savagery of the war, we Americans wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilian population with the atom bomb in Japan, few if any of the ordinary civilians being any more responsible for the war than were we, and perhaps most of them no more aiding Japan in the war than we
were aiding America. Military men are now saying that the atom bomb was a mistake. It was more than that: it was a world tragedy. Thus we have lost all that we gained during the years from Grotius (1625) to 1912. And the worst of this atomic bomb tragedy is not that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples, but that it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery. Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this.
If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to
curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life.

more nukes

It is illuminating to see how we vote on nuclear issues at the UN. For years, the UN has been working on a verifiable FISSBAN (Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty), which would deal with a substantial part of the nuclear problem. The UN has not been able to implement FISSBAN. There was a General Assembly vote to limit the making of this nuclear bomb material which was defeated with 147 votes in favor of the measure and 1 vote against it. Surprise, the USA voted against it with abstentions from Israel and Britain. Why are we alone in the world in this?

We're right and they're wrong

We have been at odds with the rest of the world on many issues pertaining to weapons including land mines over the last few years. So, it is in our defense interest to continue to build up nuclear weapons when the whole rest of the world says they'd like to stop? I just don't see the logic there my friend. We already have enough nukes to blow up the world a gazillion times over. Our current threat comes from "terrorist" infiltration against which nuclear weapons (nor space weaponry) have no utility. I think it is in the interest of humanity, or the survival of the species, to give up our current nuclear ambitions and work towards what the Non-Proliferation Treaty was intended for.

Napalm

By the way, Card mentions here that Napalm might be listed as a WMD. I agree it is a horrible weapon that uses some sort of polystyrene and kerosene based jet feul to stick to you while you are burned up with no chance of putting out the fire, however, apparently it is still being used. Our Government, after initially denying use of Napalm, has finally confessed to using it (actually an evolutionary version of it called the MK77 firebomb, I think the only difference is the use of kerosene instead of petrol) in Fallujah and other parts of Iraq including Bagdad. It has no stabilizing fins and is therefore not very accurate in it's targets.
As one US Pilot described Napalm and it's effects in the Vietnam war:

"We sure are pleased with those backroom boys at Dow. The original product wasn't so hot ­ if the gooks were quick they could scrape it off. So the boys started adding polystyrene ­ now it sticks like shit to a blanket. But then if the gooks jumped under water it stopped burning, so they added Willie Peter [white phosphorus] so's to make it burn better. It'll even burn under water now. And just one drop is enough, it'll keep on burning right down to the bone so they die anyway from phosphorus poisoning."

On the other hand, a chemical engineer at MIT said the following about Napalm:

"I've said that I'm not in a position to offer any general moral guidelines, but at that time it seemed clear to me that if I had to choose, rather than work as a chemical engineer for Dow, it would be better to make a living selling heroin to schoolchildren."

napalm

i dont understand what point you are trying to make here...

the pilot's description was that of a powerful weapon that works

the MIT guy said that he'd rather sell heroin to children than fight the VC and NVA with napalm--(like i'd trust his judgment)

so...?

i don't care if our military uses napalm...i think it is the best thing for everyone that the anti-iraq terrorists end up a pile of ashes

napalm

Sorry to be unclear. Napalm was banned by the UN decades ago. The US never signed on to the ban but did promise to only use it on military targets. It's not a precise weapon and there's not much verifiability that it only hits military targets. It kills it's victims in an excruciatingly painful manner. Card says it could be called a WMD. We use it.
To me it is another evidence of our militarily malignant nature. I am not in favor of our using Napalm on people. I am not for killing our enemies except for under exceptional circumstances.
The designation, "anti-iraq terrorists" could be applied to US forces as well as those who run suicide bombs. The people we burned to death in Fallujah and Bagdad were probably mostly Iraqi. In fact, the vast majority of the fighters we face over there are Iraqi. During the Fallujah destruction we took something like a thousand prisoners and something like only 1-3% were identified as foreign. These people might refer to themselves as Iraqi patriot freedom fighters, fighting against a brutal occupation force.

JR what do you think?

I've recently heard that VP Cheney is the architect of a policy that says if we in the USA get hit by a terrorist attack again, be it from what ever group it may come from, we would immediately retaliate against Iran, using our bunker busters to hit their nuclear facilities etc. and ask questions later. JR, would you be in favor of this policy?

agree or not to agree?

I've recently heard that VP Cheney is the architect of a policy that says if we in the USA get hit by a terrorist attack again, be it from what ever group it may come from, we would immediately retaliate against Iran***, using our bunker busters to hit their nuclear facilities etc. and ask questions later. JR, would you be in favor of this policy?

maybe...but for me to agree this would have to be added:

***and north korea, and france, and germany, and canada, and the state of massachussetts, and california, airbus, and manchester united fc, and cf chelsea, and the clinton home in NY, and anyone who has violated--i mean, misused, i mean, exercised their constitutional right of free speach to complain about ANYTHING HRH George W. Bush has done.

(so...d'y'all think im am a credible now?)

justice

JR, you take a lot of heat from these discussions. I think you are likely a just minded person and we may be reading you wrong. Perhaps a straitforward question would clear this up. Say a terrorist blows up a mall in Nebraska and kills 400 American civilians, and we found out that the guy lived in Iran up until 6 months ago, would it be justice for us to send a nuclear weapon to Tehran which ends up killing 4 million civilians? Anyone else can pipe up on this question as desired.

not hypothetical

The first part has already happened, more or less. Because Iran breeds and supports terrorists that have killed Americans for decades, it has been named part of the axis of evil. Now a question for you.

Terrorists trained in Iran come to blow up a mall in Nebraska. They are no longer fighting American soldiers in Iraq because America abandoned the people of Iraq before they were ready to defend themselves against their own power-seekers. You stumble upon the terrorists at the mall about to kill all those innocent people. Do you let them do it because God uses the wicked to destroy the wicked (and you are not wicked), or because we offended them in the past and they are justified in doing it, or because it will only inspire them to send more terrorists?

Defender's question

Thanks for considering me not wicked. I would defend our own land against this sort of attack.
Interesting the way you put your question though. You mention leaving Iraq before the peope are ready to defend themselves. That is the main reason given for not leaving the country right now. Since we value democracy so much in the USA, would you support the pullout of our troops, "prematurely" if the Iraqi people voted on it and the majority were in favor of having us leave? Indications from our own CPA polls in the past have shown the Iraqi people want us to leave. Would you support their own democratic will?

Not fair

Ahh, Curtis, but your answer is not consistent with your statements, or at least you admit there are cases for prevention, etc. But I will answer your trick question with another question: Is it better to do the right thing as a leader, even if the polls suggest the majority want to do otherwise? (to defend the rights of the minority, for example?)

P.S. This is why we are a democratic REPUBLIC. The majority isn't always right or patient or consistent. We (hopefully) elect wise leaders, not those that make their decisions based on polls, especially since polls show different results based on who is designing the questions. Which poll do you trust to throw even a minority back to the dogs?

what?

"law to defend ourselves, much as the Iraqi people are justified in defending themselves against those who attack their nation, or the Vietnamese were justified in defending themselves."

are you serious?

S. Vietnam was a seperate (and soveriegn) entitiy from N. Vietnam--and the NVA/VC were attacking and trying to forcefully take the South and submit its citizens to communist rule...the United States stepped in to intervene on behalf of the S. Vietnamese for their sake and the for our sake based on the Policy of Containment...the NVA/VC were not 'defending their country' from the supposed US aggressors, they were fighting an offensive war against the South (and they had no right to be doing so) in which the US played the defender

your defense of the NVA/VC is ridiculous and not even a comparible situation to the current one in iraq (which i might add is also justified)

ha

it is debateable whether or not j ruben clark's opinions/statements here are 'wisdom' or foolishness...the quote provided is in no way a church statement nor is it a revelation from God--it is simply j ruben clarks opinion--
and i think he's wrong
the fact is, an armed society is a polite society (see the fbi uniform crime reports on states with loose gun laws -ccws and such- vs. those without)--and from the article (and everthing else i have read)...i understood it that nuclear weapons brought a fast(er) end to wwii...and have prevented numerous conflicts since...(as discussed in the article) so they don't sound like such a bad thing--
j ruben clark was mistaken

all alone in the world

because we're right and everybody else is wrong
(and i am totally serious about this)

frankly, the US does not (and should not) care what canada, france, thailand, brazil, chile (and everyone else in the UN) votes for/against--nuclear weapons have been/are/will be a vital part to the defense srategies of the United States--and we shouldn't give them up no matter what the vote in the UN is

Stronger, Better

I can't understand why so many people want a weaker America. It sounds like we read the Book of Mormon. The Nephites, under Moroni, built better defenses and more inspired offenses. The clear message: evil exists, and EVIL COMES AFTER YOU. If you do not have better weapons/defense, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO EVIL. (If everyone was like Moroni, a warrior, the devil would have no power...) To protect religion, family, and country, you need to be stronger.

The next problem with signing pacts against nuclear proliferation is that it robs only the honest nations. The EVIL leaders lie and continue to build. The USSR and North Korea are obvious, blaring examples. You make a deal with the Devil, YOU are the loser every time. Remember how Lehonti came down the mountain and made a deal with Amalickiah for peace? Very shortly thereafter, Lehonti was pushing up daisies.

Get it? Evil exists. Therefore, be stronger. Make a peace deal with evil, YOU DIE. Build better weapons and defenses, you are FREE. That's why I love America. In the two World Wars, for example, it did not start the wars, America ENDED them. That came from being stronger, not making a deal with evil. It would have been a good day when Moroni could have put down his sword. It will be a good day when we can put down the nuke. Today, however, is not that day.

...

"I think you are likely a just minded person and we may be reading you wrong."

i believe the words you were looking for were 'are likely a right-wing nutjob'

the thing is though...the very fact that you and farker rip on what i have to say so much--tells me that i am doing something right

Questions, questions

Defender, I don't believe I have made any statements pertaining to defending our own territory from attack. My statements up untill now have been directed towards the interventions that we get embroiled in such as Chile, Haiti, Guatemala, East Timor, Vietnam etc. where we are not defending our country. It is also a huge stretch of imagination to continue to assert that we were defending our country in the case of Iraq.
In the case of an actual attack within our territorial boundries, we are justified under international law to defend ourselves, much as the Iraqi people are justified in defending themselves against those who attack their nation, or the Vietnamese were justified in defending themselves.
Other than legitimate self defense when we are attacked, I would be a lot more cautious in going to war than we have been and seem to be now.
In answer to your question I believe there has to be some defense of the minority, but I can't see a minority that will be hurt more than another group if we leave Iraq. Both the Sunni's and the Shiites want us out of their country. The Kurds have learned to expect no favors from the USA. The poll I mentioned was undertaken by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had every reason to produce poll results that would legitimize our presence there and instead came up with numbers showing the majority of Iraqi's want us out. However, if the Iraqi's really want us out, perhaps they could use some of the 18 billion dollars we stole from them to vote on the issue. If we truly value democracy then we should bend to the will of the people. However, we don't value democracy more than we value our, "national interests," which have nothing to do with the democratic will of the Iraqi people, nor with our democratic will for that matter.
A question for you then. If a vote shows the average joe is in favor of helping out... say sea turtles by putting protective escape hatches on tuna fishing nets at the expense of 100 dollars per net, and the majority of tuna fishermen (a very small part of the population in general) were opposed to such a measure since it would cost them money and would infringe on what they see as their rights, would it then be good to go along with the majority, or would it be good to protect the minority so they wouldn't lose their hard earned 100 dollars?

No sir, that's not history

We flew in a dictator from New Jersey, Diem, to rule the South. The guy put his family members in most of the powerful positions of government and imprisoned anyone who was politically opposed to him (about 70,000 people). We secretly bombed South Vietnam from about 1961, 4 years before war was declared. That's South Vietnam, not the North. When we finally provoked the war we bombed the North too, but laid down about 3 times the tonnage on the South. The people in the South were terribly oppressed and communism was very attractive to them since they were very poor under the system they had there. The people in the South were beginning to rally around Communism and so in order to save them from themselves, we killed something like 2-3 million of them and bombed them back into the stone ages. They were fighting against their power structure and corruption in their government. It is mistaken for one to think that one nation was attacking another and we were lending a helping hand against the godless communists. In fact, whereever communism popped up we strove with our might to squash it in it's tracks. That's why we supported Suharto in killing between 500,000 to 1 million mostly landless and unarmed peasants who were leaning communist. That's why we overthrew Guatemala's government, and Chile's Government, and Brazil's. The threat of a good example is the most frightening thing to us apparently. Cuba is another example. We weren't able to overthrow them in spite of a long history of terroristic attacks against them, including the terrorist Carriles who we are harboring right now. The guy blew a Cuban airliner out of the sky carrying 72 people, and we are refusing to extradite him to Venezuela to face murder charges.
So, how do you justify the Iraq situation JR?

nuke debate

Hey JR. I thought you might pipe up on this discussion. You're semi-correct on the J Reuben Clark quote. It was definitely his opinion. It was not given as a "thus saith the Lord," revelation. It was given in the Oct. 1946 General Conf. with the approval of the first presidency. Therefore you can take it or leave it. There's been a lot of questionable things come over the pulpit as the opinions of General Authorities. I happen to strongly be on J Reuben Clark's side on this issue. I can't help being disgusted with nuclear weapons after reading the scriptures.
Good points about an armed society being a polite society, but... When we have these weapons we will ultimately end up using them. The survival of the species is in danger with these weapons. We are now spending boatloads of cash on developing new nuclear weapons while there are much more worthy causes to be spending our money on. If I was president of the USA...

Hmmm....

nuclear weapons have been/are/will be a vital part to the defense srategies of the United States--and we shouldn't give them up no matter what the vote in the UN is

I think this is a very interesting comment.

Before the first nuclear weapons were dropped, the US had already bombed the bejeebus out of several Japanese cities. In fact, in a single night they had done far more damage than both of the bombs put together by simply dropping lots of smaller non-nuclear weapons. The nuclear bomb was more of a "look what we can do!" move, combined with a bluff that we could/would do it to all of Japan. Honestly, without this move the war would have resulted in much more loss of life due to Japan's total war policy, but that is a seperate discussion and not an incident likely to be repeated today outside of small extremists groups.

The only practical difference in destroying a large target with nuclear and non-nuclear weapons is that you have to lob more of the non-nuclear. The difficulty in arguing this is that the US is perfectly cable of doing either. Even without the negative propoganda, the US still isn't likely to use these weapons as there is little reason to destroy large targets in modern day warfare.

So, how would nuclear weapons fit into US defense strategies if we don't need to destroy large targets? Two words, "Total Retaliation". IE, you lob a nuke at us, we level your country. So it basically becomes a matter of if this policy is right and effective. I don't know, but I do know that if you outlaw guns, only the unlawful will have them, and that is not a situation you want to be in.

Reply #2

It is a far cry to compare ourselves to Moroni's situation. We were never under attack by Iraq. Moroni never went into Lamanite terroritory because of their human rights abuses (they existed) nor because of their ability and intent to attack the Nephites (they existed).
The Devil would be powerless, not because every Moroni-look-alike would be a warrior, but because they would all be full of faith. Mormon's greatest compliment to Moroni was that he was like Ammon, a guy who preached the gospel to his enemies when his countrymen wanted to destroy the lamanites up out of the land.
The admonition of the prophets is not to build up our defenses to protect against outside evil, but to build up our righteousness, then the Lord will protect us.
Brigham Young promised: "As the Lord lives, if this people will be faithful inthe performance of every duty, they will never come upon a field of battle to fight their enemies."
And again pres. Young: "How easy it is for the Almighty to direct the steps of our enemies, until they fall off the precipice and are dashed in pieces, without the efforts of his servants."
The Lord says: "But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed."
How is this done? Pres. Young says, "He has done so by bringing about circumstances to cause them to destroy themselves."
The approach you suggest gr8e is the approach the world is entirely comfortable with. But is it how the Lord would have us act? I leave that question up to you all to answer.
Again, these classic words by Pres. Kimball, (the entire remainder of this post is Pres. Kimball's): In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had -- in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people -- a condition repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel -- ships, planes, missiles, fortifications -- and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45).

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us -- and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Nephi 1:7) -- or he will fight our battles for us (Exodus 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chronicles 20), and when Elish's life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, "Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them" (2 Kings 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, "And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha" (vs 17).

What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the "arm of flesh," for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, "I will not spare any that remain in Babylon" (D&C 64:24).

this is not a matter of opinion

"When we finally provoked the war we bombed the North too"

ho chi minh (a communist backed by china, the soviet union and the eastern soviet block) started the war--the United States did not 'provoke' him/his followers into it--(in fact, he had already been fighting it since the end of wwii against the japanese, his political opponents, and the french)

"It is mistaken for one to think that one nation was attacking another"

lol. the south had its own army to fight NVA/VC/viet minh before the united states entered viet nam and it continued fighting the NVA/VC/viet minh as long as it could after the US left vietnam--my assertation that it was in fact two entities (one attacking the other) is in no way ridiculous--but what actually occurred

"and we were lending a helping hand against the godless communists."

yes we were. (by fighting the NVA/VC who were backed by the chinese, soviets, and eastern communist block)

"In fact, whereever communism popped up we strove with our might to squash it in it's tracks."

and this is somehow bad? (do you know anything about both the domestic AND foreign policies of the soviet union and/or all of its allies in communism?)

my justifications of iraq war;

1. Saddam Hussein
2. Possible (and at time what seemed Probable) WMDs
3. Iraqi state sponsored terrorism and links to other terrorist organizations prior to our invasion (including but not limited to Al Queada)--as cited in the 9/11 commission's report
4. Spread of Freedom/Liberation of Iraqi oppressed
etc
etc
etc

atamido

wow...after reading all that i cannot tell whether or not you support/oppose my comment--

either way--right on about the 'outlaw guns' policy thingy

nuclear weapon use likelihood

"the US still isn't likely to use these weapons as there is little reason to destroy large targets in modern day warfare."

It is a scary thought. There is a new weapon called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or the Bunker Buster which we are threatening to use on Iran. Apparently it would still kill over a million people and contaminate the air in neighboring countries, but that hasn't stopped our consideration of its' use.

I agree with you 100%,

I agree with you 100%, Curtis.

Thanks for providing the obvious for those who seem to think a random connection (even vague and uncomparable) to the scriptures makes their political stance correct.

Your Alternate Reality

Well, the Nephites also committed vast resources to both protect themselves and engage in pre-emptive attacks, such as Moroni attacking Amalickiah's party when they lost the election and ran, putting to death all those that would not support the cause of liberty (and Amalickiah had not lifted one sword against anyone). The Israelites also killed off entire countries that never attacked them.

Also, the whole "they never attacked us" argument precludes defending the countries attacked by Germany in World War II, for example, since Germany never attacked us either. Do we let innocent people die simply because we were not the ones attacked???

But attacking the terrorists is not so much pre-emptive since they have been attacking us repeatedly for decades. Clinton bombed Iraq often supposedly for Al Qaeda's attacks on our home soil and for Iraq's WMDs. He also attacked the Sudan and Afghanistan, to name a few. So the point that Iraq never attacked us is moot. Especially since we aren't attacking Iraq at all at this point; we are rebuilding and protecting it. We are still hunting terrorists and the former tyrant’s cronies in Iraq. And there are only a few hotspots left.

Fortunately, the Bretheren send monthly letters through an office of the 70 confirming that our cause is a just one. This is no small comfort to the LDS soldiers. Often they are like Nephi before killing Laban, wanting confirmation that this is indeed the right thing to do. And that is the concern of most of the soldiers here. They have good hearts and want to do the right thing.

And the effort is paying off. Many Iraqis are very stoked about their new freedom, as witnessed by them turning out in droves to vote. Indeed they are becoming very industrious. In addition, billions of dollars in investment are pouring in to Iraq from investing countries such as India, South Korea, and Iran since stabilization seems more certain. 2 new major airports are in the process and the power coming through the Iraqi grid has already exceeded the peak during Saddam's reign.

So hearing your version of things is like talking to someone in an alternate reality. It's so different than what is going on here.

justifications

OK JR, I won't argue Vietnam with you anymore. I'll just refer you to a great historical account of the Vietnam War called, "Anatomy of a War," by Gabriel Kolko. Enjoy.

As for your justifications for the Iraq war, it gets kind of tiring and I'm sure you feel the same, but let's take a look at them.
Saddam.
OK, he was a bad guy but not a rarity. We deal with many bad guys on a regular basis and don't go bombing them. It is much better for the bad guys people to overthrow him rather than to have a superpower go in and overthrow him and kill a hundred thousand civilians at the same time. Which one of George Bush's sins should he be overthrown by a foreign army for? Or Clinton for that matter (just to show you I am neutral on the two parties we have here). Bush could easily get thrown out for what he has done in Haiti recently for example. It would seem the rest of the world would be as much justified as we were to go after Saddam if they were to go after Bush.
WMD's
Everyone knew, pre-9/11 that Iraq was no threat to anyone period. Even Kuwait wasn't afraid of Iraq. Our National Intelligence Estimate of 2001 denied the findings we later proclaimed to be true, which have been found out to be deliberate deceptions as per the Downing Street Memo.
Terrorism
Just wasn't an issue. The 9/11 report found no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The connection between Al Queda and Iraq was weak. There are probably stronger evidences tying the USA and terrorism together than what was had with Iraq. We are even harboring a major terrorist from justice as we speak (Posada-Carriles).
Freedom
Just double speak for the spread of economic imperialism. The freedom most important to those who rule this country is the freedom to plunder.

well...

well...
if you ask me...
when it comes to iran...
we should not be considering the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator...(you are right curtis, it is wrong to consider that weapon)

(for iran, we should instead be considering hydrogen bombs, earthshakers, and LOTS of napalm)

Thank you for continuing to

Thank you for continuing to defend the cause in which we are engaged. With out a doubt we are doing the right thing by taking the fight to the terrorists. We cannot wait for them to come and attack us. Scriptual references to the justification and condemnation of any war could be found. It depends on how you interpret scriptures. It is by the good graces of our father in heaven that we have modern day prophets to lead and guid us. President Hinkley our Prophet speaks on the war on terrorists and that of Iraq on these two links...War and Peace and President Hinkley said of our present war, "Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions." The Times in Which we Live. Our Prophet has told us to support our leader and that our cause is just. So if these atrocities were as wide spread as curtis and others believe the prophet would not say our cause is just. I believe that the good outcome of this war greatly outweighs the scarce negative things that happen when any war is waged. War is ugly, people do things to condem themselves, but we are doing the right thing as a whole. And that is the truth.