I don't think we should attack a nation that hasn't done anything. That was not the topic of conversation. You asked if a preemptive strike was compatible with a just war. I said yes because a "just war" has legitimate cause. Striking a nation who hasn't done anything is, as I see it, not a legitimate cause.
Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Rufus_1611, Jun 25, 2007.
Page 2 of 6
-
-
-
From dictionary.com
2.taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival. -
-
-
-
So I take it this is your official retraction of the lie posted in the OP and you are stating it is just your opinion that 9 out of 10 of the candidates "are in favor of launching a preemptive nuclear attack on the sovereign nation of Iran." ?
Even though none of them has said so. -
-
-
"It would seem that 9 out of 10 Republican candidates for president..." -
-
Take for instance, Ron Paul's use of "Blessed are the peacemakers." That is a command given to individuals as individuals. It is not give to nations pursuing just action against legitimate threats.
This abuse of the Bible in the name of Christianity has to stop. -
"Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I remember something about “Blessed are the peacemakers.”-Ron Paul
This again is not true of anyone I know in office. What it is is an intentional mischaracterization born out of a lack of intellectual integrity for the purpose of demonizing those with whom he disagrees with and to create a false sense of victimization.
Since the op of this thread is a lie and quotes continue to be given out of context it has no credibility. -
-
-
-
-
Why is Iran a threat to the USofA?
-
-
Page 2 of 6