aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Fair enough.
Which Wars Were Justified?
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
Fair enough.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (NAS, Matthew 26:52-53)
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NAS, Romans 12:17-21)
Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (NIV, Isaiah 2:3-4)
None of those passages indicate war is also murder. Was is killing, not murder, and fwiw there is indeed a difference.
And other passages to consider:
Matthew 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Luke 22:36
He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Hey, it isn't my fault that the Bible is a highly contradictory piece of work with plot holes so big you can drive a truck through it.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Wait, are you saying the Bible advocates violence?
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
But it wasn't MobBoss who originally brought the Bible into this.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
It's MobBoss and the Bible and this is a thread dealing with morality and justification of war. Of course we are going to drag religious guidelines in.
Gentlemen, using any religion to argue for or against war in general is a very bad idea indeed and it works just as well in both directions. Let's leave it out please.
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Then why did you discredit religious guidelines as soon as he stated some to which he personally finds important with relation to morality and justification of war?
There's no "Ah-HA! Religious guidelines say this so according to you, you must be wrong!" the one minute and then "Well it's all contradictory and meaningless anyway" the next when he's called you out on using it against him.
MantaRevan
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,541
I agree, but that wildly contradicts your avatar.
Ama, thanks for the good reply.
The problem in terms of teaching it that way, which I'm fine with, is that it needs to be understood in the context that the North was reacting to the Southern actions.
Fair enough. I do think its possible to separate feelings in terms of what I THINK the law should be and what it is or was.
It definitely was the primary motivation in the early days of the war. But, it quickly shifted as casualties mounted.
The problem in terms of teaching it that way, which I'm fine with, is that it needs to be understood in the context that the North was reacting to the Southern actions.
Moderator Action: Please put more than a smiley in your post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Am I the only one who had TVTropes in mind when looking at that post?
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
That's Stephen Fry, British comedian, host of QI show, documentary maker, twitterlord of the British.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Its not contradictory. It just needs context.
As was pointed out, I didnt initiate that, but I did reply since it was flung in my direction. I dont need a biblical reference to correctly point out that murder and killling (as in war) arent the same thing regardless.
Ah yes, the Fox News Defense. It's amazing how many situations there are in which it's useful.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Moderator Action: Please put more than an image in your post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I find the low vote for WWI pretty interesting.
I'm certainly no hawk, but I voted for Korea, the Gulf and Libya (I'm quite surprised that this last one has less support). Korea is the most borderline of those, I think, but the UN factor pushes it over the line for me. The Gulf War was a completely fair enough response, I think, and that it stopped is also a helpful factor. I'm much more a Solidarist than a Pluralist also, so I support the Libyan intervention too. I'm quite surprised there aren't more Solidarists here, though I guess part of the lack of vote may be to do with people assuming ulterior motives (which I disagree with).
I'm certainly no hawk, but I voted for Korea, the Gulf and Libya (I'm quite surprised that this last one has less support). Korea is the most borderline of those, I think, but the UN factor pushes it over the line for me. The Gulf War was a completely fair enough response, I think, and that it stopped is also a helpful factor. I'm much more a Solidarist than a Pluralist also, so I support the Libyan intervention too. I'm quite surprised there aren't more Solidarists here, though I guess part of the lack of vote may be to do with people assuming ulterior motives (which I disagree with).
Korean War: Anything to stop the spread of communism
Vietnam War: Anything to stop the spread of communism (or in this case slow it down)
Gulf War: Required to keep Saudi Arabia on our side and restore Kuwait. Yes it was about oil
Afghanistan: Removal of terrorist training grounds, Taliban could have gone in the direction of an Islamic equivalent of Nazis
Iraq: Prevented Saddam from becoming the next Hitler. Someone like Saddam wanting to have WMD is enough justification. Not to mention we genuinely thought they were further along. I can think of at least one more that should be in this category (should not be allowed WMD), maybe two or three.
Libya: Not sure I'd even count this one -- no ground troops, right?
Vietnam War: Anything to stop the spread of communism (or in this case slow it down)
Gulf War: Required to keep Saudi Arabia on our side and restore Kuwait. Yes it was about oil
Afghanistan: Removal of terrorist training grounds, Taliban could have gone in the direction of an Islamic equivalent of Nazis
Iraq: Prevented Saddam from becoming the next Hitler. Someone like Saddam wanting to have WMD is enough justification. Not to mention we genuinely thought they were further along. I can think of at least one more that should be in this category (should not be allowed WMD), maybe two or three.
Libya: Not sure I'd even count this one -- no ground troops, right?
