Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Jun 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity - Video

    "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." - Matthew 5:9

    It would seem that 9 out of 10 Republican candidates for president are in favor of launching a preemptive nuclear attack on the sovereign nation of Iran. Where do you stand on this issue and why?
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    I assume you have quotes to back up that statement.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    No such thing as a "Christian" preemptive war.
     
  4. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    Just might be a Jewish Preemptive one though :thumbs:
     
  5. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    No to a nuclear attack because it will hurt innocent Iranians.

    Yes to assassination of that idiot in Iran.
     
  6. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    The op makes a general statement with no context given by each individual candidate. It appears to be misleading and lacks credible information. To top it off Ron Paul makes an out right lie that Iran is not a threat to America. This goes to show that he is not fit to run the country.
     
    #6 2 Timothy2:1-4, Jun 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2007
  7. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sheesh...I figured ya'll were paying attention to the 2008 Presidential campaigns, my apologies. I'll provide the quotes and background as time permits.
     
  8. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the last debate...

    Duncan Hunter - "The United States reserves the right to preempt...I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges."

    Rudy Giuliani - "Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table."

    Jim Gilmore - "We’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance."

    Mitt Romney - "You don’t take options off the table."

    John McCain, Sam Brownback, Mick Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo - <cricket noise>

    Ron Paul - "I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition... And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!”

    (Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/repu-j07.shtml)

    Other notable non-debate quotes:

    John McCain - "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

    If ya'll can find statements from a presidential candidate, other than Ron Paul, who has taken a nuclear preemptive attack "off the table" in Iran, I would be delighted to see that quote or quotes.
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Nice quotes , but when will you provide the ones that back up your assertion that even just one of them is "in favor of launching a preemptive nuclear attack on the sovereign nation of Iran"? Let alone 9 out of 10.
     
  10. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not change it to 'in favor of considering a preemptive nuclear strike'. Does it feel less dirty now?
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Certainly more accurate, at least.

    The other statement is really just a bald faced lie.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul needs a campaign advisor who will tell him to shut up. Every time the man opens his mouth he shows a gross policy immaturity revealed by not understanding basic things. He misuses the NT in arguing that "Blessed are the peacemakers" forbids preemptive war. He fails to see the wisdom in refusing to take options off the table. He continues to misunderstand the fundamental nature of problems in the middle East. He should go back to being a doctor and quit trying to be a politician.

    Nuclear war isn't the kind of thing you want to be the second man in on. I hope it never comes to that, but Paul's solution is clearly nonworkable.
     
  13. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    So do you believe preemptive nuclear strikes to be compatible with a Christian philosophy of a 'just' war?
     
  14. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which one, do you believe, is opposed to a preemptive tactical nuclear strike?

    Where do you stand on this issue and why? Do you believe that we should vaporize millions of Iranians because their leadership desires to become a nuclear nation, like Pakistan, India, Russia, USA, China,and North Korea are? What if OBL forces took over for Musharaff in Pakistan, would it be necessary to preemptively nuke them as well?
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Not lying in your OP would be a good place to start a reasonable discussion. Until you correct your misstatement, what is there to really discuss?

    Your main point is already blown and discredited.
     
  16. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is possible that some on this board would benefit from a message board advisor.

    Chicken hawk, saber rattling and threatening to nuke a people that have not harmed us is a better usage of "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
    There is no wisdom in threatening to nuke a country because they might create a nuke, it actually sounds like madness. We destroy Iraq for fear of their non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and now we are to use a WMD to prevent another nation from getting a WMD? Surely, you see the irony?

    There are people on the street that talk tough and threaten the lives of others, would you give authority to police officers to preemptively kill those folks so that they won't have the opportunity to kill someone else? After all, wouldn't you hate to be the second man in on murder?
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    In principle, yes. I am not speaking with reference to Iran, Iraq, or any concrete historical example.
     
  18. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    What biblical principle do you think justifies attacking a nation that has not done anything? Is fear really a rationale that Christ would advocate?
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct. You should find one that would keep you from starting these kinds of threads. :D
    So far as I know, “Chicken hawk, saber rattling and threatening to nuke a people that have not harmed us” is not a usage of “Blessed are the peacemakers” at all.

    Actually there is great wisdom in it. Negotiate from strength. It is much easier to stop something before it starts than after. Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?

    I don’t find it particularly ironic.
    If someone had a gun pulled on someone else, you should preemptively take the man out. I think that is standard and settled procedure. If you have an opportunity to stop a crime before it starts, you take it. The police officers (and citizens) already have the preemptive right you speak of here. And yes, I would hate to be the second man in on a murder. I would like to think that if I saw a murder getting ready to take place, and had the ability to intervene, I would do so preemptively, rather than disrespecting life so much that I stand by and let it expire while doing nothing.

    But again, I think we have demonstrated that many “prolife” people on this board really aren’t prolife consistently.
     
  20. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your accusation is without merit and it is becoming quite typical of our dialogues. I lied about nothing but you turn yourself into a liar by presenting the accusation. I expressed my belief in the OP:

    This was my opinion based on the comments of 4 candidates who clearly desire to keep a preemptive nuclear strike on the table, 5 candidates who were silent about this appalling position and only 1 candidate who spoke out against it. If I am wrong, then show me one of the 9 candidates who has taken a preemptive nuclear strike off the table. If you have nothing to present as such, then move on to focus on the thread topic. Though this is likely unnecessary as I would expect that you would be in favor of nuking anyone that your neocon masters say is in need of a good nuking.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...