So Ron Paul Brought Up Just War At The Debate

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

So I heard Ron Paul bring up the concept of Christian just war principles tonight and I wondered where some of you guys stand on the war and American foreign policy. It seems that the Catholic position - and the position of many Christian denominations - has fallen by the wayside in the past several years. I'd like to get a little dialogue going.

I personally believe that our last several wars have been utterly un-Christian and all this talk of bombing Iran is anti-Christian.

[catholicinsd]

Ron Paul is the only one is that party with a brain or a conscience.

[kujo]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1289177' date='Jun 6 2007, 12:00 AM']Ron Paul is the only one is that party with a brain or a conscience.[/quote]

Wow....how did you manage to handle the HUGE brush you used to paint this HUGE generalization?

[Paladin]

[quote name='kujo' post='1289278' date='Jun 6 2007, 12:45 AM']Wow....how did you manage to handle the HUGE brush you used to paint this HUGE generalization?[/quote]
Because the current front runner of the party is under the big tent of pro-abortion, pro-gay, and pro-torture.

[goldenchild17]

Yes
No
and...
Probably not

Edited June 8, 2007 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

a just war is a few elements. likelyhood to win, good authority, etc.
your poll for one thing should reflect those elements.

whether a preemtive strike can be a just war is what iraq was all about on one level. assuming all the elements seemed to fit, there's the inherent question of whather a preemtive strike can ever be justified.
i'd guess it could, as if you know they will strike, why wait.
the other question was whether iraq even met the conditions to begin with, and that's where it always starts getting gray. it's easy to say theoretically if someone will surely strike then you're good. but when is that surely teh case?
iran said they wanna blow up israel... if they have a nuke is that enough? if they ahve a nuke ready to shoot? once they are doing the countdown etc, then sure. but all that ebfore then who the SSGGDE knows.

[GodChaser]

NO, NO, NO for me.

I don't think we should enter any war just because it is a 'Just War'. An attack must be made first, by International law. That is the only International thing I like right now. International law states a country must attack another country before a state of war can be declared.

Because that is the law, and President Bush Declared war on Iraq, even though Iraq not attacking America, makes President Bush a War Criminal in my books.

The same would go for Iran. Unless Iran attacks the U.S. First, it is against International law to declare war on the country.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1291869' date='Jun 10 2007, 11:28 AM']NO, NO, NO for me.

I don't think we should enter any war just because it is a 'Just War'. An attack must be made first, by International law. That is the only International thing I like right now. International law states a country must attack another country before a state of war can be declared.

Because that is the law, and President Bush Declared war on Iraq, even though Iraq not attacking America, makes President Bush a War Criminal in my books.

The same would go for Iran. Unless Iran attacks the U.S. First, it is against International law to declare war on the country.[/quote]

This has alot of technicalities in it... the official "declaring a war" part has some truth to it, but a "conflict" doesn't need that criteria. If someone has a nuclear weapon pointed at you [like North Korea might in the near future], you have ever right to pre-emptively take them out and if Iraq would have had that, I would def have voted for the war.

Reza

[MichaelF]

I'll point out that, in modern warfare, if both belligerents are roughly equal in (at least Theatre-level) capabilities, the guy who hits first......wins. The end.

Maneuver and depth-centric warfare capabilities create the likelihood that the follow-on operations will enjoy such momentum (created by the attrition and confusion resulting from the preemptive strike) that the belligerent on the recieving end will not be able to recover and initiate a counterattack.

So, with the exception of conflicts where one side enjoys a staggering level of tactical and operational superiority over the other (i.e. the Coalition vs the Iraqi military of 2003), ALL will begin with a preemptive or surprise attack.

The cost of "playing fair" is now too high.

Iran isn't really that way though, as we wish to (if neccesary) attack [i]before[/i] they develop a fissile weapon. Once they actually [i]have[/i] a functional weapon, they cannot be beaten (the possibility of the glazing Kuwait City or Dubai in retaliation for an invasion raises the stakes too much).

IOW, if we don't attack, and they finally deploy a nuclear arsenal, they can then flood every Mohammedan terror group [i]in the World[/i] with Rials, counterfeit US$, weapons, explosives and advisors. We won't be able to do a thing about it, because the chance of a nuclear conflict will be more unpalatable than bombed-out daycare centers.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's worth a Crusade (word-choice intentional) to keep the Mohammedans in their self-wrought cage. They made their corner of the World according to their tastes, but I see no reason to allow them to do so elsewhere.

Edited July 5, 2007 by MichaelF

[MichaelF]

I'll also point out that, under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement (and UN Resolution 1441, not that it was worth the toiletpaper it was written on), non-cooperation with weapons inspectors was [i]cassus belli[/i]. We had every right to attack Iraq, beginning in 1996 when Saddam first got caught pulling a bait-and-switch.

Edited July 5, 2007 by MichaelF

[TheOliverOrder88]

Don't ask the New Oxford Review about this...

They hate the war, have hated the war, and I am not seeing them shift their positions anytime soon.

As for me, I believe all of this is wwaaay to complicated to see completely objectively. I supported the Iraq war at the commencement. Now, I am not so sure... but leaving would be bad.

[Resurrexi]

Yes at any and all costs; idk; idk