Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity

The USA would not stand by and allow Iran to attack anyone with nukes.

 

It is naive to believe that the radical mullahs in Iran will not use nuclear weapons when they have them. I believe they will use them either directly or provide them to others who will use them just as soon as it is feasable.

Try and remember that the islamofascists who run Iran have a culture of death and glorify in it. Retaliation won't matter much to those seeking martyrdom.

But I don't believe this is a decision we have to make at all. The Israeli's will act when the need arises. They know they are squarely in the Iranian nuclear bullseye and they won't be willing to stay there.

We should stand ready to support them in the aftermath.

 

What is a bigger myth is that somehow the US is poised ready to strike at Iran. There is absolutley no evidence of that.

 

Yes, but they act as rulers of a nation, not as individuals. Again, this is basic stuff.

All over. Almost every historical narrative book of the OT has it in there, approved by God and commanded by him. I am not arguing that we should approach war as God commanded Israel to. But I refuting the notion that preemptive war is always unbiblical. It clearly is not, and anyone who says it is hasn't read the Bible ... or doesn't believe it.

 

No, I used hte word properly, and even defined it as such in my initial usage. You just didn't read closely enough, or decided to change the terms of the conversation. Either way, you were wrong.

Of course not. You know better. You need to read more carefully to see what I actually said and respond to that instead of making stuff up. You make it very hard to have a conversation when you don't respond to what I actually said.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Again, I can't help but think you have not read very closely. Try reading what I say and responding to that. It will make the conversation so much easier. Not quite as fun for you since you won't be able to make silly, off topic remarks like this ... and you won't be able to win ... but it will be more truthful and honest and that is always an advantage in conversation.

 

Once again, if it was so basic we ought to be able to put some scriptures together and come up with a doctrine to support it. You readily admit that God commanding Israel to judge another nation is not the same thing. What criteria would we use to justify preemptively attacking another nation? If its there, we should be able to find it. I don't believe that the US is in the position to be the moral judges of the world. I'm not saying a nation can't do whatever they want to do, I'm just saying they can't point to the bible and claim the support of God's word to do it. And they certainly can't expect to not reap the rewards.

 

I am opposed to the Bush administration starting a third conflict in the Middle East.

1) Iran has not violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unless it does so, we should leave Iran alone.

2) Our military is already stretched thin. We don't have the manpower for a third conflict.

3) Iran is three times larger than Iraq. We can't bring peace to Iraq. How would we ever do so in Iran?

 

Why? Everything we do does not have to be supported by a doctrine. You can imagine the absurdities that begin once you use that standard.

Having said that, the institution of civil government charged to protect its citizens is all the justification we need. You don't wait until your citizens are killed to start protecting them. You protect them from all legitimate threats to their safety.

As I said from the beginning, legitimate dangers.

Again, why?

Me either, but for reasons entirely different than you, I imagine.

Which is a fine thing to say, even if misguided. I am not saying a nation should claim the support of God's word in a war. I am saying that the principle of just war is clearly there and a preemptive strike against a legitimate threat is clearly a part of that.

 

As there are no winners of nuclear war, the answer is no.

 

Oh Lordy!

Not again.

Some people will embrace any outrageous claim that suits their agenda.:BangHead:

 

You're just being silly. I am not a gun control advocate unless you mean by that, everyone should control a gun. Guns harm people because people don't control them. And if a person is trying to buy a gun to harm someone, then the police can stop that person. Again, you simply did not read very closely and said something silly and are not trying to defend it. Just say, "Sorry, I misunderstood" and this will go away.

No I didn't. Go back and read what I said. There is a word you left out, and that word is important.

No, it is doubtful that it is anywhere near that high. You are just reaching for anything you think can help you. Furthermore, a large number of the dead are dead from Iraqi violence, not American troop action.

No it is in no way similar to that at all. Again, think before you say this silly stuff.

I tend to agree, but this is not really about that, is it? I don't know that the "shock and awe" killed any children, or innocent people. I have no idea, but that is not really the point here.

Please don't, in your attempt to defend your misreading, make up stuff or change the subject. If you want to talk about something else, feel free, but don't do it in response to my comments.

 

I have seen those numbers before. They don't add up.

If you think about it, you see that it isn't silly. I didn't "go into an arena on a pretext that [we're] going to save children." There is much more than children at stake, and adults matter too. There were thousands and thousands gassed by a brutal tyrannical dictator who was believed to possess the abilities to do far more than he had already done. That was a serious issue. It is in no way similar to Reno at Waco.

 

I don't remember. It was some time ago and I don't save those links. "Peer reviewed" is no guarantee of accuracy. There are people who disagree with Johns Hopkins and you have simply dismissed them.

 

An "estimate" (not an actual count) like the Lancet study that has a plus or minus margin of error of 30% is hardly one I'd embrace as accurate.

Those adept at statististical analysis laugh at such a large margin of error.