How to Decide to go to War

Post Reply New Topic

No, and that would be a horrible, horrible idea.

This was one of the first books he wrote that wasn't actually published until the 1990s.

Axis of evil was just a bunch of spin s**t. Saddam needed to be dealt with, but in a way where a war hasn't dragged on for 6 years too long.

Bush's biggest f'up definitely had to be not sending in enough ground troops in to begin with -less room for foreign insurgency's success, more people forthcoming with information as they're not fearing for their lives quite as much, fewer of the police infiltration and assassination issues (probably far more expedient and quality training), we'd probably be at a very low level presence by now.

Maybe. I think it was linking Osama with Saddam though.

Yeah, that....the cup games played on the weapons inspectors, the gifts to families of Palistinian suicide bombers, firing at planes patroling the no fly zones, it was more a lot of small irritations and issues with his stridance it seemed. That and we found out later, the Oil for Food apparatus was a big grease payment network to attempt to get himself back on track to doing exactly what he wanted to do; as he did back in the 80's and 90's.

Actually it was Donald Rumsfeld who ignored the military's recommendation for more ground troops.

I know a good portion of it was Rumsfeld, I've forgotten though - did congress drag their heels on that one as well? I know the Turks backed out on us which hurt our ground op efficiency as well.

Congress didn't have a say in troop levels.

On the issue of God ordering war...or for that matter, can a Christian participate in a war.

This is a hard issue because war is NEVER a simple affair. Perhaps as long as man has been around, the reasons for war were often more than just matters of defending yourself against an aggressor. Most every time, it involved matters of resources...need vs. want, sharing vs. taking by force.

In the Bible, we see that God ordered the extermination of people He judged to be worthy of eradication. If we flow from the premise that God is the only being righteous enough to make such a proclamation and order, then the question remains...Does God still order the extermination of people?

The answer is, "NO." Since the days of Jesus Christ and the new dispensation of grace, God has never ordered anyone to carry out the systematic extermination of any person or race. We are told that such a time will come, but it is not man who will be the instrument of judgment.

So, when can a Christian take a life? The answer is spelled out quite clearly. God prohibited the shedding of innocent blood. This preserves the freedom to kill another in an act of self-defense or the defense of someone in immanent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Killing someone for the defense of property is really not justifiable, but that angle gets muddied because many property thieves are armed and willing to harm/kill someone who tries to stop them.

The problem with war and the Christian is that wars are routinely sold to the common man as an effort in self-defense or defending an innocent nation from a horrible aggressor. Sadly, historical evidence shows that most every time, such situations are based on lies.

Going backwards over prior military actions....

Iraq 2 - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect.

Afghanistan - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. The basis for Afghanistan was the alleged harboring of Usama Bin Laden. The fact is that Usama denied involvement in 9/11, and established extradition treaties required that Afghanistan follow due process before allowing his extradition. The US government had plans to invade Afghanistan over oil issues and it twisted the situation to say "you're with the terrorists" so the people would support an illegal invasion and occupation. If the USA followed international treaties we signed to, we would go to Afghanistan, make a case that Usama was likely involved in 9/11 and then we would have a legal right to have Afghanistan turn him over. Refusal to do so after that point would be a basis for military action, not before.

Iraq 1 - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. Saddam asked for permission to invade Kuwait. The USA told him it was none of our concern. After he invaded, the US government changed it's tune and used the war effort against Saddam to test the ability of the "world community" to invest in a military operation against a sovereign nation.

Panama - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. Dictator in power stopped playing nice with the CIA boys who helped him get into power. So, we decided to take him down.

Grenada - ??? Students held hostage. Limited military operation. Unknown if there were ulterior motives for what happened.

Vietnam - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. We took over a failed war. Vietnam is the bastard child of Asia. Routinely conquered then left alone to rule itself. Soviets gained little to nothing by winning South Vietnam.

Korea - ??? South Korea wanted to be free. Unknown if there were ulterior motives behind operation.

WWII - LIE. Need for self-defense was self-inflicted. We helped create the "innocent" party to protect. Hitler was the wonder child for the globalists and industrialists of his time. American companies helped to built the Nazi war machine. When he started gassing Jews, he became an embarrassment. Those in power approved of Hitler's beliefs, but they couldn't put a harmless spin on his open acts of genocide. Likewise, going to war with Japan was provoked by the USA by delivering demands to the Emperor of Japan which were tantamount to a declaration of war. This went unnoticed by most Americans as the average man did not comprehend the Japanese psyche and the strict obligations that went with the preservation of personal and national honor. We discovered that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor and the military-industrial complex allowed it to happen so the bloodshed would move Americans to vote for war.

WWI - LIE. No need for self-defense. No "innocent" party to protect. War was started by an assassination engineered to throw Europe into chaos for the benefit of the rich and powerful.

That just about covers the 20th and early 21st centuries.

Now, we can examine the ethical issue of the American Revolution. That's a tough question. Citing Biblical principles, the Founding Fathers felt justified in casting off the tyranny of the British Crown. The American colonies were heavily taxed, given no representation before the king, they had resources stripped from their land and sent to England with practically nothing in return and the British troops in the colonies were there more to maintain the power of the Crown over the subjects rather than provide security and defense. Add to that the fact that most Americans fled England to get away from a king who thought he was God's spokesman on Earth, and you can see why they felt a revolution was in order.

As I understand the circumstances, the Crown was basically a thief and a thug to the colonists. This made an issue of self-defense more prominent as the treatment got worse. The colonists really wanted little more than to eject the British troops and install self-governance. That the Crown responded with violence only escalated the matter.

That's more-or-less true, but it does not constitute a casus belli ("cause for war") or a reason for a just war. As international law stands today, the only war allowed to fight without a mandate of the UN or to prevent genocide is in self-defence of a state (Art. 51 UN-Charter).

---

Back to topic: So the legal framework to avoid war is today quite strong - it "only" needs to get implemented.

More from legal point of view:

There was a mandate from the UN - therefore this war was legal.



There was also an UN-mandate: Also prior the invasion there was no government in Afghanistan capable of an extradition of Bin Laden. Being a sovereign state does also implement duties in international law: E.g. executing this sovereignty inside the border in a way that the states does not cause a permanent thread to international security. In such a case the UN is entitled to issue a mandate to introduce a basic state order to prevent such danger.

Because Nato declared 9/11 as a case according to Article 5 of the Nato-Treaty, a so-called "casus foederis" was constructed and the UN Security Council had to become active.



Germany declared the USA War on 11 Dec. 1941.



As international laws stood prior 1914 it was the right for any state to start war whenever it pleases.



The colonies were founded by Royal Charter. As such they were "enterprises" of the crown and no need for a representation was constituted. No one was forced, except in the case of criminals and soldiers, to move into the colonies. Anyone how left the UK to live in the colonies was aware regarding this fact.



Which is quite nonsense - even in Britain was hardly someone how believed this. The role of the King was stronger than today, but even in those times the real power was vested with Parliament. The House of Hanover, to which George III belonged, was in fact only on throne because of the will of parliament, otherwise it how have almost no claim at all. Don't confuse the British monarchs in the 18th century with the Plantagenet monarchs or the Tudors.



The colonists were tenants of the crown - living on property of the crown and protected by Royal Charters to they voluntarily submitted by moving into the colonies.

I have advocated for some time now that when I am elected Empress of America, I will be implementing some new vote-for-policy initiatives, politely titled Put Your F**king Money Where Your F**king Mouth is.

The only reason I voted 'no' here is that I would not advocate the draft for people who voted no or for people who didn't vote. If our military doesn't have enough willing participants to wage the war, then apparently that war is not what our country as a whole wants and we shouldn't be in it.

But otherwise, I think it's more than fair to say going to war would require a majority vote of those physically able to carry a gun on the front line. And your 'yes' vote is simultaneously your enlistment.

**Edit for lack of proofreading. Man - I really need to wake up more before I try typing!

Still can't remember the title of the book - but the main character was a man from the 1930s who's in a car accident and wakes up more than a century in the future.

Drop the legal B.S. I'm talking about the historical facts behind why we went to war. There would be no UN mandate if there were not people acting to provoke incidents so they could go to the Security Council and seek a mandate to go to war.

You look at things quite superficially.