Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Paul3144, Sep 3, 2010.
Posted for Targus; he didn't think it fit into the other thread.
I do accept the concept of a just war.
It is not something that Scripture addresses directly but may be something that we can come to when considering - justice, self defense, defense of the innocent, etc.
Prepare for a shock. I agree with everything you said.
There is no just war theory which includes preemptive strikes and starting wars. They are all about protecting borders.
So if a larger-stronger country attacks another smaller weaker country without provocation for the purpose of stealing their resources and subjecating it's citizens...
It would not be just for another country to enter the conflict to protect the weaker country under attack?
Only if the countries had a mutual defense treaty in effect.
Would the US have invaded Columbia in the ongoing phony drug war if Columbia had a defense treaty with China?
Risk-reward does not speak to whether a war would be "just" or not.
If a country, or a priviliged military organization within that country, attacks, then I believe that it would be acceptable within the bounds of any just war theory to assault them rather than just hunkering down in your own defensive works waiting to defend your territory against more attacks.
Arguably, keeping a declared enemy busy protecting his own caliphate could fall within the same category.
It is not as if Afghanistan had anything we want, and if the intent was to steal oil from Iraq then it has failed miserably.
>It is not as if Afghanistan had anything we want
You gots to be kidding!
US oil interests wanted a pipe line across Afghanistan to warm water access and the Taliban refused. Three months after the invasion the contract was signed.
The Taliban shut down opium production. Who is the biggest consumer? the US. Now production is twice the pre-taliban level.
So you believe that the US went into Afghanistan in order to control and increase opium production?
You have the most unusual beliefs of anyone that I have ever met.
You should start a talk radio show.
No, to get the pipeline. The heroin was a welcome side effect.
To be honest about this, the Taliban didn't place a ban on poppy cultivation until 2000.
As hashish, the Taliban was against the opium fields because this less potent and less refined form of the poppy trade was used by Afgans and muslims and seen as an offense to their religious beliefs of avoiding intoxicating substances: However the refined product of opium and heroine was considered to be a drug used by the west and 'infidels' and therefore was acceptable as it helped to fund the Taliban and the country at the expense of outsiders. The Taliban, did institute enforcement of stopping the poppy farms and opium production for a while when it seemed advantageous to its cause of winning UN support and perhaps negotiating with the West: This lasted a brief time, when 9-11 and saber rattling reignited the need for funds and monetary support to prepare for an invasion... and the poppy trade was a cash crop.
US geologists discovered and it was reported earlier this year, the vast riches of mineral ore and wealth contained within the country. As a blogger points out, making some interesting points in her blog, reported here: http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/afghanistan-rich the successful mining and use of these resources for the good of the Afganis, is unlikely, due mainly to corruption in a society rift with civil unrest. greed and other competitive factors.
Our own government has been largely silent regarding the poppy fields explosion.... silent concerning how the fields become a locus of civil unrest over control... an 'easy' (but dangerous) target for our own military action in attempts to stop the unrest... and then protected by them as a necessary evil to tolerate to help sustain the Afgans flagling economy. I don't know if there is any concrete data to support this opinion.... but some have opined that the US government planned early to take a somewhat neutral stand or 'turn a blind eye' to the resurgence of opium production, to support a country's economy, and, hopefully, a government which could bring stability to the country... which we alone could not do had we taken a firmer stand.
Personally, I think Afganhistan is a very sad country, filled with people who need hope, but have very little: They have a religion which enslaves the people into an intolerant bondage to laws and customs which prevents their progress into more peaceful tolerance for the differences between their factions and has no tolerance for those who desire to break free.... and offers no assurance upon their death. If people cannot live with an eternal hope, and their lives.... whether short or long ....is prevented by unrest and religious dogma from finding the liberty to express and benefit and leave to others the development of their abilities and talents ........ what a poverty of joy... what a miserable and impoverished life of hardship each person must face to even live!
One can only pray that God will open windows and doors in the lives of each of these people for the gospel to enter.... and keep the vaccum within each of their hearts until His grace can fill it!
Which wars since 1860 do you consider just and which ones do you consider unjust?
Well there is still no pipeline, but the Asian Development Bank will be financing any pipeline, not US bankers, not the US government. The only American company involved, Unocal, withdrew before the Afghan invasion.
You believe that the US government was interested in increasing the supply of heroin to US drug addicts and drug gangs? Come on Bill, that argument comes from out in the ozone.
NiteShift are you suggesting that someone needs to adjust his tinfoil hat?
lol...I don't know, I think it's just billwald being billwald. A pot-stirrer
To get back to the OP...
For the Church there is no alternative in Scripture than pacifism. Christ's commands and example compel us to be peacemakers. Another issue is that any power of the sword is given expressly to the state and not for the Church.
While individual believers can act in a defensible way to protect themselves and their families from marauders, it is a hard case to suggest that they should be actively engaged in warfare before they have been acted upon.
Again I ask you. What wars, since 1860, do you believe were just and which one unjust?
First you need to explain your contradictions in saying that Jesus did not advocate war and your belief in a just war.