Killing Heartily in the Name of the Lord

This thread is about whether or not Christians can support a war. I would have supported the removal, even assassination, of Idi Amin, and several others.

 

Okay, thanks for the answer, Bro. Curtis!

But wouldn't this mean we would be pretty much constantly at war? There are always dictators and human rights abuses somewhere.

 

Yup. But our nation seems to pick and choose, some say because of oil, some say because of racism, some say because of outright bad leadership, I don't know why our nation hasn't helped more oppressed. I don't know why we didn't stop Pol Pot, or help Romania in their bid for democracy, or several other times we have fropped the ball. It does seem America is always first in financial aid, but not always first in removing murderers from power.

Luke 12:48.....For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: ...

 

If I were still in the Army and I were in Iraq, I could and would kill. I have now problem with any soldier in Iraq who kills in the line of duty. Even if this were an unjust war, which it is not, the soldiers would still be in the clear, unless they had absolute proof that their country was acting tyranically.

 

"But our nation seems to pick and choose"

Perhaps we just have limited resources and have to pick and choose where and how to use those resources.

 

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

Laurence M. Vance Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance48.html

<edited out due to Copyright - Please see this BB thread re: Copyright Infringement - thanks:

BB thread

Lady Eagle,
Moderator </font>[/QUOTE]Lew Rockwell: That shining example of Christian anti-semitism and crossing to the other side of the road isolationism. Sorry. But, I find very little Christian values in what I have read on his site in the past. He is simply the far right extremists conservative version of Michael Moore.

He would have been very comfortable around John Kerry at the false WSI.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Vice President Cheney in a recent speech to US military personnel has acknowledged that the war could go on for several decades. This statement, which reveals the Bush Administration's commitment to global warfare, was barely mentioned by the mainstream media.

We are dealing with a "military roadmap". Iraq and Afghanistan are at the outset of the Bush administration's military adventure.

Cheney warned that the US will be involved in war for decades to come:

Like other great duties in history, it will require decades of patient effort, and it will be resisted by those whose only hope for power is through the spread of violence.

War without Borders

What is referred to in military parlance as GWOT (The Global War on Terrorism) requires, according to Cheney, the deployment of US forces Worldwide in more than one hundred countries rather than in a select number of overseas military bases::

American soldiers are currently serving in 120 countries, and the Army remains an active, visible sign of America's commitments -- defending our interests, standing by our friends, keeping patient vigil against possible dangers, and, above all, directly engaging the enemies of the United States.

The US will be involved in the conduct of major theater wars as well as "military policing" and punitive actions.

These actions are based on the doctrine of preemptive warfare, where war is conducted as an act of self defense.

The US will also be involved in military actions against "failed states" and "unstable nations", which do not constitute a perceived threat to the security of the US, as defined in the March 2005 National Security Strategy. (For analysis see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO504A.html)

The NSS consists in US military presence around the World, the development of new weapons systems, the conduct of theater wars and global military policing.

The stated purpose of the US military agenda as conveyed in Cheney's speech are to:

See The Rest Here

 

Order of Centurians

http://www.orderofcenturions.org/history.html

A long history of Christian Soldiers marching to war.

 

I've got no problem in going to war as long as it's in the defense of this country. I've got no problem in giving other nations a helping hand.

I do however have a problem with going to war as a means of "military intimidation" in the "pursuit of power" through "imperial mobilization".

This is exactly what has been going on since 9/11 or the "sudden threat and challenge to our public sense of domestic well-being".

This war on terror or the "imperial mobilization" was planned well in advance of that threat.

 

Someone hasnt been paying attention all that well. There has not been a moment on this planet where war like conditions have not existed, and where the US military in some small way, has not assisted or at the very least been there as observers. It is the very nature of defense.

Our nation does indeed pick and choose on what causes for which we stand up and fight. If we entered the fray publically (meaning you see it all on CNN) every time there was a threat of bloodshed, half of our citizens would self combust with excitement of making posters and organizing protests against it.

If this thread is about Christians at War (not those sitting in church praying about it, but those actually carrying out the order of the day and yet still maintaining their personal relationship with Jesus Christ), then you all should know there are more of us out here than you can wrap your mind around.

 

Yep.

Looks like he let his politics get confused with his purpose.

 

I wish the left would use the correct word when describing how we were led into the Iraq war, the correct word is "emphasis" not lies! Propaganda would be an acceptable word also I reckon.

 

Slow learners.

 

Slow learners. </font>[/QUOTE]So far as I can see the left hasn't learned that bigger government isn't compatable with individual liberty, but, then again it would seem that neither has the middle or the right.

I am hearing the same sermon from all three, bigger government is the answer to all our troubles.

 

Remember--you heard it here first! </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, I chose the Battle of 1812, too! I used International Falls because it's so cold there; I suppose you chose Death Valley for the opposite reason. I had the ACLU & Rove.

It's a kool tool.

Maybe "emphasis" is the right word...what is the word for when you don't care whether your argument is true or not as long as it's effective?

That they believed that Saddam had some kind of weapon is certainly possible, even probable, but that they knew what the weapons were and where, is obviously bogus; that they truely believed in the mushroom cloud in 45 mins is probably false; that they believed Saddam was a real and imminent threat, is probably not true. There were a lot of lies told by the administration pre-war - mainly the reason for it.

 

Propaganda.

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

Merriam-Webster

The Bush administration (PNAC/CFR/globalist regime) was only trying to carry out Bill Clinton's regime change policy on Saddam and fulfill the neocons stated goals in the Project For A New American Century and Brzezinski's dream of "American imperial mobilization". Where Bill Clinton's administration (Trilateral/CFR/UN/globalist regime) failed by not having enough powerful "emphasis" (scare tactics, propaganda, public fear) the Bush administration was able to succeed because 9/11 gave them the "pretext" that they were all "wishing for" including Henry Kissenger of a "percieved threat whether real or promulgated", "of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being".

With that kind of "emphasis" the Bush administration had much less resistance to face from the citizens who would normally find the idea of "pursuing power through military intimidation and imperial mobilization" distastful while putting PNAC and Brzezinski's goal of American global dominance into action...otherwise known as "spreading democracy, freedom and the American way".

After the shock effect of 9/11 (the pretext) and the fear mongering (27 reasons why we had to invade Iraq right now!) and the waking up of individuals to the use of questionable evidence (emphasis) we got the ever changing rationals and the scapegoating of the intell agencies who dared to ask questions about the "emphasis".

 

Can you conceive of any war that the U.S. got involved in that you wouldn't support?