While I enjoy the song "WAR" I disagree with the lyrics that say it is good for "absolutely nothing". I do believe that there are instances where to protect our country we must act proactively.
For example to allow a radical Muslim Nation like Iran now or what Pakistan may be someday soon to have nuclear weapons is unaccpetable.
Unlike the Soviet Union who was our enemy in the Cold War a radical Muslim nation has no common sense to restrain it form using a nuclear weapon when faced with "mutually assured destruction".
In addition I believe the United States should take out Radical Muslim terror cells who are continually planning attacks on the West no matter where they are.
About the only thing I support President Hussein in is his increased use of Drone attacks to kill Al Queda and other terrorist leaders.
I would consider your post one of the
best I have seen on this forum for a
long time!
I would consider your post one of the
best I have seen on this forum for a
long time!
Dordrecht, don't tell bbyrd! Of course I don't really know what bbyrd said in his response to CC1's post ...... and so what, I don't understand much that bbyrd post anytime. Just sayin'
Been Thinkin
__________________
"From the time you're born, 'til you ride in the hearse, there ain't nothing bad that couldn't be worse!"
LIFE: Some days you're the dog and some days you're the hydrant!
I have ... Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia! The fear of long words.
"Prediction is very hard, especially about the future." - Yogi Berra
"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave in reflection." - Thomas Paine
Do you believe the Bush Doctrine (a political ideology, not a theological one) which states that if our nation perceives another nation a threat that we should preemptively attack them first before they get the chance to attack us?
If so, how does that idea comply with the Christian virtue of "turning the other cheek?" After all, America is a "Christian nation," right?
The Bush Doctrine doesn't comply with Just War doctrine. One cannot attack a country simply because it's a potential threat. I mean, we're potential threats to many countries... what if they adopted the Bush Doctrine tomorrow and implimented an attack to defend themselves from a future attack from America???
It leads us down the road to insanity. Just War Doctrine is the only context in which I can accept a war's validity:
Principles of the Just War
-A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
-A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
-A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
-A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
-The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
-The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
-The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Why did the christians allow hitler so much freedom? We had tje ability to stop him before he started to take countires.We just could have kicked him out of the Rhineland when he took it in 1936. Sometimes we use turn the other check as an excuse not to do the right thing.
I feel we must strike first in the beginning to stop such people.
Look at how many lives could have been saved.
However, if we must go to war, I believe in fire bombing our enemies cities into ruins. leave no one alive.
Why did the christians allow hitler so much freedom? We had tje ability to stop him before he started to take countires.We just could have kicked him out of the Rhineland when he took it in 1936. Sometimes we use turn the other check as an excuse not to do the right thing.
I feel we must strike first in the beginning to stop such people.
Look at how many lives could have been saved.
However, if we must go to war, I believe in fire bombing our enemies cities into ruins. leave no one alive.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Well, there's a spectrum. Just like non-Christians. Which reminds me of my latest musings and potential new thread, maybe a poll: are Christians any different from non-Christians? Are they better? (Stay tuned. )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Dordrecht, don't tell bbyrd! Of course I don't really know what bbyrd said in his response to CC1's post ...... and so what, I don't understand much that bbyrd post anytime. Just sayin'
Been Thinkin
I just tried to imagine what Christ would say to him, and then I repeated it. Is this clear enough?
Last edited by MissBrattified; 10-10-2012 at 09:06 AM.
Reason: insults removed
)
Linear Mode
