When we take a look at the cost to wage a war in Iraq, we are completely using borrowed money (debt) to wage this war. However, to look into it further, does the US government intend to pay this debt back? If they do intend to pay it back, how will they do so? The government does not produce income, they only receive contributions and then redistribute those contributions to other parties.

As a private citizen, if you borrow from your neighbor but never intend to, nor have the means to, pay them back, is this debt or is it theft?

Many people maintain that taxation is a form of theft. Many people maintain that borrowing without the intent to repay is theft. Others maintain that if the government does it, then it is national debt and a fact of life that we just live with. We have stopped calling evil evil.

When we look into monetary policy a little deeper to find out where the money used to wage the war comes from, it really isn’t debt, but instead it is directly related to what is called debauching the currency.

Since the government does not create income or wealth, it can only redistribute or redirect that which it already has or it borrows money from other nations who are holding on to US dollars. In order to create more money to spend it must somehow change the value of the currency. This is done 2 ways; one by printing more currency, and two by reducing interest rates.

As more currency is put into circulation, the value of the currency which already exists in the economy has less value than it did before the new currency has been introduced (a form of theft) and is called debauching the currency. Debauching currency is the use of unequal weights and measures and God has condemned this practice in His word (Prov 11:1; Prov 20:10).

Recently, the Federal Reserve Bank has inject billions of new dollars into the US economy, thus debauching the currency. They have also reduced interest rates, thus encouraging debt and reducing the impact of the mistaken federal borrowing practices. These actions are stealing from the American people AND the war in Iraq is and will continue to be one of the primary reasons for these actions.

Let’s consider one of the many entitlement programs that the government provides…social security. Most people who are currently contributing to social security under coercion do not intend to ever see their contributions return to them (as promised)…again, another form of theft. As we expend more money on the war in Iraq, does the possibility of receiving social security for future generations increase or decrease? Obviously, the possibility of receiving social security payments for future generations is drastically reduced. Has the federal government declared to the people from whom they are leveraging their future that they will no longer be entitled to receive that which was promised (i.e. deception)?

I use an entitlement just as an example, but, debauching the currency is wrong, AND it is robbing future generations. I just don’t see anywhere in scripture that God allows, commands or provides for participating in actions that are an abomination to Him for the advancement of His work. He does the exact opposite. God condemns and/or curses those who do not follow His commands. He does not bless them. He is faithful to those who are obedient to His commands EVEN IF THE CONSEQUENCES ARE BAD (e.g. Daniel, Hanania, Mishael and Azariah). We cannot continue with these actions and claim righteousness in Iraq. Righteousness should outweigh pragmatism even if the outcomes are life threatening.

For an example of deception…Let’s just say for a moment that the plan to go to Iraq does fit into an overall plan to gain power and control in the middle east; to ensure access to the resources of the middle east; and to influence the governmental structure of the nation of Iraq. We cannot deny that this IS a possibility. It is happening and these outcomes will be results from our actions in Iraq (the only question is whether they were intentional or were they planned). Has the US government been forthcoming about these plans? No, they have not, just like they have not been forthcoming about the plans for a North American Union.

Another example…Some of the claims to remain in Iraq is to “liberate” the Iraqi people. As we are actively liberating the people in Iraq, what is happening to our freedoms and liberties in the US? Have our liberties been increased or reduced? Can we travel from point A to point B more freely today that we could in the past? Can we carry weapons as freely as we could in the past? Can we correspond as freely as we could in the past? Many of our freedoms have been restricted in recent years, which seems ironic to me, since the time that we have gone to Iraq for the cause of liberty. Again, another act of deception on the part of our government.

You also stated, “And I don’t know of anyone who is claiming that the ends justifies the means.” AND “There will be a power vacuum and it will return to something worse.”

In essence you are claiming that avoiding a power vacuum (the end) in Iraq requires remaining in Iraq with military force (the means). In other word, the end of avoiding bad people from taking control of Iraq justifies the means of continued military occupation in Iraq.

I believe our founding principals require that we only entangle our country in affairs of direct defense of our nation. Bad people moving into Iraq, threatens Iraq. IT MAY some time in the far future threaten the US, but again, we are not under direct threat TODAY by bad people moving into Iraq.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1400.htm

There are so many issues surrounding the foreign policy of our nation. I truly believe based on comments, actions and decisions by President Bush that his mentality is to be a policeman for the advancement of democracy throughout the world. Another way of stating this is, President Bush has a mentality of injecting American influence in every nation of the world and the New World Order must be created and controlled by the US. Every Republican candidate has the same exact mentality except for Ron Paul. Ron Paul recognizes the dangers of globalization; the dangers and evil actions of debauching the currency; the dangers of entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations; the evil of restricting freedoms of citizens; and the dangers of trying to be the police force for the world.

Congress may continue to drag us into entanglements throughout the world. If we have a willing President, we will continue in unnecessary entanglements. But, if we have an unwilling President, then our entanglements will be reduced and minimized.

If none of the other motivations and/or benefits for attacking Iraq exist (nation-building, wealth, power, influence, oil), then I would probably agree with you. But as long as these alternative motivations exist AND the intelligence was proven to be incorrect, it is not as simple as just following the direction of the Bush Administration.

This along with the answers to your other questions (greed, theft, deception, etc), places doubt in my mind that going to Iraq was wrong and remaining in Iraq is just as wrong (biblically and constitutionally).

I will try to finish up the other response in a little bit.

We acted on the intelligence we had and on the fact that Hussein wasn’t cooperating. And honestly, I’m not exactly convinced that there weren’t WMD that were not uncovered. The evidence of sarin gas at least seems likely:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?pagewanted=print
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/03/the_chlorine_gas_attacks_in_ir.php (of course, the gas used here could have come from anywhere)
http://boortz.com/nuze/200411/11172004.html

I’m still not convinced that the initial strike against Iraq is unfounded. Especially since we keep finding high ranking members of Al Qaeda there.

Let’s regroup a little bit and review what we know and the perspectives we each hold.

First of all, I very much respect your willingness, knowledge and discipline throughout your blog to seek details and truth. I am not claiming to know the absolute truth when it comes to foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the positions of all candidates, but maybe we can shed some light on what we have discussed and some of the questions you have raised in your last post.

Our discussion began when you commented:
“I’d be all for him [Ron Paul], I think, if I agreed with him on foreign policy. I really like a lot of what he says domestically and think he is closer to what I think government should be. But foreign policy is a big issue for me right now.?”
AND
“I really like Ron Paul on a lot of domestic issues, with some reservations about certain things and concerns regarding what he would do with foreign policy. I do not think that an immediate withdrawal of Iraq is a good idea, regardless of all the reasons we went in.”

With foreign policy being a big issue for you right now, we need to understand the facts surrounding the conflict in Iraq in order to determine whether an immediate withdrawal of Iraq is a good idea or not AND whether Dr. Ron Paul has a sound foreign policy.

1. WHY DID THE US BEGIN BOMBING IRAQ?

At the time, there were many reasons and speculations being discussed and presented to the world and US citizens.

As you pointed out, “We went in because Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement in which they had agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons. Whether or not they actually possessed the agents, they refused to cooperate.”

This is what we were being told by the UN and the Bush Administration. After going into Iraq, we learned that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs and he confirmed prior to his death that he was maintaining a deception, therefore the only actual charge that remains is that Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate. In a sense he did cooperate…he agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons…he apparently did (because he didn’t have any), but he didn’t openly let the world know that he had complied.

Another reason that has been presented is that our actions in Iraq were for defensive reasons based on terrorist attacks as you have stated, “We were attacked, and had every right to go after Al Qaeda. It wasn’t preemptive. It was defensive.”

Since that time, it has been proven and confirmed by the Administration that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and has/had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Therefore, our actions were not defensive, but rather preemptive.

So, this leaves us really with the only reason, that we have been told, to go into Iraq is because Saddam Hussein was not cooperating with the demands of the world. I find it tyrannical that we would use military force against a nation and it’s people because they refused to cooperate with international demands. It gives me pause when considering the actions our government and/or UN may be inclined to use against those who they determine to be some sort of threat (think Germany vs. homeschool families).

The other reasons that have been reported by people outside of the Bush Administration include, nation-building, oil, power and influence.

You stated: “We aren’t building a house in Iraq, and we aren’t taking them over as some sort of American colony.” We may not be building an American colony and calling it such, but as documentation has shown, we are ensuring American influence on the affairs of the Iraqi nation and people.

Since the initial reasons presented by the Administration were unfounded, it is prudent for us to ask whether remaining in Iraq has merit.

2. WHY SHOULD WE REMAIN IN IRAQ?

One of the reasons that you have stated for remaining in Iraq is that “There will be a power vacuum and it will return to something worse.”.

I find this to be merely speculation. There is no way for you or I (or even our national leaders) to know for certain that this will happen. History may show that it CAN happen, but there is no certainty that it WILL happen.

Besides that, what business is it of US to disrupt the power structure within a nation, seek to conform a nation to our method of rule, and then ensure that they submit to the restructure as the US sees fit?

Also, since our initial reasons for attacking Iraq were unfounded, how can we know that remaining is founded on truth, honesty, and a righteous cause? If in fact the results of an immediate withdrawal are disastrous, then it only underscores that our initial motivations to enter Iraq were completely unfounded and we have now made the situation in the nation worse than they were when we found it. How can we be certain that our continued presence will then continue to lead to even greater consequences? When will the damage we cause be enough?

From the other perspective, remaining in Iraq will result in continued loss of American and Iraqi lives, can continue to enflame hatred towards the US, and continue to promote unethical US influence over Iraq and the Middle East region.

We are a nation quick to claim our own sovereignty, but when another nation wishes to declare the same, we are quick to squelch their assertiveness. We needlessly entangle ourselves in the affairs of others which is in direct violation of our governing principles and founding intent of our nation.

I will use another post to address your other questions.

You haven’t really convinced me at this point that this is happening. Debt, yes. But theft? Deception? Greed? I don’t see it from what you’ve posted thus far. I see a nation defending itself and holding other nations to treaties they signed.

I don’t have time to look at the articles you posted just now, but will later tonight.

And I don’t know of anyone who is claiming that the ends justifies the means.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/cover.html

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html

http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/14461897.html

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/27/perspective/8_35_561_26_08.txt

On the Bible and government, all I can say is, ok, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Somehow I thought you were trying to imply that biblical standards for a government are different from the standards for an individual. I guess what you were really trying to indicate is that the principles for warfare are not clearly delineated in the New Testament.

My point in all of this is that regardless of the specific principles for warfare, there are other biblical principles that are being violated in order to wage the war in Iraq. I am of the belief that God will not honor or bless the activities of an individual or a government when anti-biblical activities are used in accomplishing a task (war). God is sovereign and may use the task for His purposes, but that does not justify man’s (government’s) use of anti-biblical principles in accomplishing the task.

Specifically, debt financing, unequal weights and measures, theft, deception, and greed. We can’t claim that the means justifies the end.

Are you saying that the New Testament has nothing to do with civil government?

Not exactly, no. It emphasizes our relationship with God and with each other. This will have an effect on the kind of government we will have (Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there will be liberty.)

Government is an effect. When the people are moral, the government will be. In a Christian sense, self-government means that I am governed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Civil governments exist to uphold the good, but if the people are not good, nor will the government.

How can we separate the actions of individuals from the actions of a group?

It depends…who is the individual and who is the group? Individually, you and I are Christian. As a group, the US is not. What is our relationship to the state? It is an interesting question that I cannot so quickly walk away from. I believe we have a “Christian form of government” but I understand under that the importance of self government, as I sort of defined above. Our system of government is only possible in so far as the people are self-governed, ie., in so far as we are virtuous.

Can individuals act in ways that adhere to the principles of the New Testament, and then somehow [miracuoulsly] the civil government then acts in evil ways?

Of course. Rome did it. I’m assuming you mean a Christian nation in which most of the voters are Christian? But first we have to determine what exactly the New Testament says about our relationships and whether how “we” are acting are indeed evil. I’m not yet convinced that it is.

If all civil servants acted in ways according to the New Testament, I don’t think any of us would be complaining about the encroachment of government.

No, we would be complaining about the separation of church and state. (That was an attempt at a joke.)

But I think liberty flows the other direction. If we all acted according to the gospel, our civil servants would as well. They act no differently than we do. It was obvious something was seriously wrong in America when Clinton was able to win with a campaign slogan like “Character doesn’t matter.” What else matters? The character issue is with me, my family and my neighbor. That is where we fix our nations problems.

If the New Testament has nothing to do with civil government, then what is our complaint about public schools?

You are reading too much into my statement. But still, the following is directed at Christians, not government officials.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

True, but not really directly relevant to the discussion.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

This is highly relevant. Maybe we should go in this direction from here. : )

2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

No arguments there.

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

And true again. But not quite relevant.

And on and on…Do these scriptures NOT apply to the public education system?

I never made that argument. They apply to us and how we should deal with children. They put the responsibility on us, something that every Christian should take seriously when they choose how to educate their children. But somewhere along the way, parents gave up their responsibility to education their children and turned it over to the local school district. When that failed, they turned it over to the state. Still not satisfied, they are asking for the federal government to step in. Ask anyone about public education and you are likely to hear one of several responses including, “the state should do something” and “we need to spend more on education.” People do not understand their own responsibility to educate their children, hence the public school system as it looks today. Pull that away, and we will have a great problem with uneducated youth. People need to take responsibility first. Then the system can be dismantled.

Are there 2 standards? One for individual behavior and one for civil government behavior? How are they distinquished in God’s word?

I’m not sure how to answer, because you are still arguing against a point I didn’t really make.

Christ did say:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Yes. And we may differ greatly on what exactly that means. I don’t know. But when he said on the cross, “It is finished,” (John 19:30) I believe He fulfilled the law.

AND

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

True. The foundation for the entire scripture hangs first on honoring God and second on our relationship to each other. Everything else is a natural extension of that. No argument there. : )

By implying that the New Testament does not apply to civil government, you might be implying that there is some sort of separation between the Old and the New Testaments. I do not believe this is true.

No, not a separation. But we are also not exactly bound by Old Testament law. The Old Testament is a picture of Christ, a shadow of what was to come. All of it prepares us for Christ’s coming. I think the best book I’ve read outside the bible about the bible is “On the Way to Jesus” (Bayliss). It has been updated and I think has a different title, now, but I haven’t read that one.

And this guy:

http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1458

He’s my favorite teacher. I could spend hours on that site. In fact, I think my husband just popped in one of the DVDs so I think I’ll go watch that.

Of course, none of that really gets us any closer to resolving whether or not there was a scriptural basis for going into Iraq. And I’m not much of a theological scholar, but it is an interesting conversation nonetheless.

My daughter can’t wait until she can vote. She wants to vote for George Washington. She thinks he can do a better job dead than the rest of them can alive. Gotta love the loyalty of a nine year old. : )

Brian, so you know a little more where I’m coming from, here is the most I’ve written on Ron Paul:

http://principleddiscovery.com/2008/01/01/a-little-hope-for-conservative-voters/

And I know Lisa will understand what I’m saying with this, but I don’t think the US is ready for it. Liberty will come when we take responsibility for ourselves. Right now, if we turned everything back the way it should be, we would have a tremendous problem on our hands.

The reason we have gotten where we are is because the sins of the nation…a long time of blaming our situations rather than taking responsibility for our own actions. We no longer wish for God to rule over us and are seeking a king. Exactly as the Israelites did with Samuel.

What a great conversation! I should’ve come here earlier!! The volley between Dana and Brian was especially intriguing to me. I, too, thought, as Dana does, that we did not go to Iraq over oil. Nor are we staying there over oil. Many people believe like Brian does on this issue. I am going to look up the links you posted, Dana, and I thank you both for sharing your thoughts.

As an aside - I’m beginning to like Ron Paul a little better as I learn more. This election is a little scary for me - I almost feel, like Brian mentioned in his first post, that no matter who we elect, the government will grow. I have a friend who works in the Colorado Gov’t building. He seems to have come to the same conclusion.

Also, Linz mentioned that the virtue of the people will determine the form of government we maintain, or change to. I agree! Our founders said that without a virtuous people, our form of gov’t will not remain. Without biblical teaching, no one knows what virtue is!

And, Dana, when I’m famous, you will have gotten there first!!

Lisa