War And Christianity.
- Thread starter LysanderShapiro
- Start date
It must be remembered that War is War. Those same Iraqi troops who were retreating were the same ones who invaded Kuwait and killed innocent cizilians, robbed the banks and raped the women killing innocent children. Retreat in War does not mean surrender. It means to "RE-group", and then attack again. The same Iraqi's troops who were killed, in due time would have been the attackers once again when able. That is why War is war. One must kill more of the enemy than the enemy kills of you when and where ever possible.
I am not advocating what happened, only explaining why such things happen in war. When the Nazi's invaded Russia in WW2 they raped the land and killed everything in their path. Then when they re-treated, they did so in a "scorched earth" polocy burning and destroying everything. Do we really believe that the Russians should have allowed them to re-treat without any military action.
The German's showed no mercy at Dunqurk. They attacked the British while they were trying to board ships and escape killing approx. 20,000 men who were beaten and were trying to escape.
Only on the grand scale are they the same. But there is no denying that we don't seem to disconnect enemies as human waste. I think this is my concern with war these days and how they treat it. When I say human waste, they seem to assume that anyone on the opposite side that fights is automatically aligned with their leaders views. Truth be told, many of the enemy soldiers don't even want to be there. Oddly enough, if you express this view, you are branded some sort of ignorant hippie.
By no means am I saying war is never justified -- many times, it has been.
The first target in any war is always the opposing leaders. No ground troops want to kill anyone if it can be avoided.
I was doing some reading on the US troops in Iraq. It is impressive how far they go/went to help and protect the innocents like children and woman. At least in a Muslim country woman can be classified as neutral.
Indeed. This isn't so much in regards to the troops and their actions in war (though some of them do go beyond what they are supposed to). It's more in regards to the authorities of war.
Most of us here probably have friends who have fought in the military. Most of my friends who have did so as they were told to, but opposed the cause. I remember one of my friends who fought (and is now honorably discharged) expressing his disgust with the US's current occupancy in Afghanistan, not only because many of the people don't want the US troops there, but because it has also created a serge of dependency.
Yes, the statement Tom Woods gave was regarding Basra Road. That was his turning point--and with good reason. Though a lot of people defend it due to their being armed. In fact, some weren't quite retreating--some were firing back. Forgot to mention though that that was only in response to bombing after their retreating.
This is one of those things that is constantly debated.
Although, this was strictly his turning point. And if Basra Road hasn't taken place, it wouldn't change the grey areas of war.
Last edited:
Even conceding that the military thought it had logical, tactical reasons for doing it, it does take years to recover from such and other incidents, in terms of confidence-building and diplomacy.
I guess the point was that with Kuwait having been liberated, the military wasn't just going to let the Iraqi military go back in again after any ceasefire, or after saying: Would you mind awfully staying over the line?
I agree it's terrible, and so is war.
You cannot know for sure what the actions of the rapists might be in response to your intervention. You intervened because it was just to do so. You may have determined in your mind that the risk to you was low, but if the rapists did not turn out to be as cowardly as you assessed, you may have lost your life. My point is that in cases like this we act because it is just to do so - not because the risk to self meets a certain criteria.
But the situation is no different. Terrorists, by definition, use their acts of terror in order to influence nations to behave in a certain way. Specifically, in the case of Al Qaida, they attacked the United States on 9/11 to influence the United States to stop bolstering Israeli strength in the region (and probably a host of other reasons) so that Al Qaida can establish their Islamic Caliphate that will eventually spread to consume the entire world. Yes, this is what they want - an entire world under Islamic rule.
In political science terms, there are 4 Instruments of national Power (IOPs): Diplomacy, Information, Economics, and Military. Ideally, the military IOP is the last resort in attempts to influence the behavior of other nations to act civilly. Unfortunately, Al Qaida is not a nation. Al Qaida is an organization of like-minded zealots linked throughout the globe. You cannot use diplomacy with Al Qaida. You cannot use information to influence Al Qaida. You can try to use economics (seize bank accounts, apply sanctions to countries that support Al Qaida, etc.) to influence them, but economics as an IOP rarely works. The only option left is the Military IOP.
With that said, how do we best utilize our Instruments of national Power to influence Al Qaida? If we do nothing, they are strengthened in their resolve to continue to attack us because of our apparent weakness and inability to stop them, which results in more attacks until we change OUR behavior and THEY win. OR we utilize the most effective IOP we have available (military) and destroy them wherever they are - and this is going to include invading countries that provide them safe haven, and using drones in order to not invade other countries in which they are operating.
So yes, terrorists are not rapists. But are we just to pursue them and destroy them like rapists? I believe we are and we should.
This may be sad, but unfortunately it's also irrelevant. If you are ideologically opposed to the views of your national leaders, you have a choice to make. Either you comply or disobey. Disobedience has a consequence, but if you feel strongly about it, that should be a stand you're willing to take.
Nations do not and should not base their decision to go to war on the possibility that some Soldiers on the other side may not agree with their leaders.
I understand what you are sayiing and in fact I agree with you. I am only exposing the reality of life that happens in War that comes down to acts of revenge without nesessarilly any thought being given to who or what.
The most dangerous thing in this world that I know of is a man with a gun and an agenda. In War, you have both of those and it is a very combustable situation because anger and revenge demands payment and when you have a gun and agenda,
look out!!!!!
I do agree with you.
Correct my brother!
Consider the Tribulation Period of Revelation 4-18. Jesus said of those days that IF He did not come back, man would destroy himself.
Indeed. I think this is something this is often having to be explained, no matter how anti-War/anti-State someone may be. I'm often called an anarchist (and well, I kind of am--but not the kind you might think that is out to destroy -- rather more anarcho-capitalist), and the same rule applies because mankind is stained with sin.
Another way to say that is Libertarian.
Well, there are different kinds of Libertarians -- it's a way of a saying that perhaps I lean toward a type of Libertarianism. Some are minarchists and some would consider themselves as "Goldwater Republicans."
I think that we have made a big mistake in Arab countries by thinking a democracy can exist there. Those countries are thousands of years old and are steeped in clan rule. To believe that they will accept democratic rule is a real mistake IMO.
The strongest clan will win out in the end no matter what we do.
In regards to their governments, yes, I think you are absolutely right.
Not we though -- they. They made that mistake.
If a Christian is in charge of a nation and has final say as to if the country went to war or not, he would ask God, "Am I to go to war and how should it be fought?" God will reply, if God wants total destruction of that nation, God will command it, just as we read in the Bible.
Why do we have tomake things complicated? No need to over think and over anylize and come up with some right or wrong formula which we think should fit all wars that God would be pleased with.
Why do we have tomake things complicated? No need to over think and over anylize and come up with some right or wrong formula which we think should fit all wars that God would be pleased with.
Because Christians aren't infallible--the word of God is. Even the best of us fall short of the glory of God.