WN: USS Enterprise joins two other U.S. carrier groups in Persian Gulf

[forrestkc]

the reason why I discount what you are saying is becasue those US Christians that make up what you are offering, voted for a president who supported military action in Iraq. If the constituents of those references you listed were on the same page as their leaders, Bush would have not been elected...

Bush being reelected has more to do with him having the good fortune of running against someone like Kerry than anything else. Over 70% of Americans now are against the war and do not believe it has been worth its costs.

Now, back to the thread, I don't know yet whether military action against Iran will be necessary or not, we still have even with the worst case estimates about 3 years before they will have the nuclear materials for even one bomb. If we get closer to that point, and if we still have good reason to believe that Iran intends to use that device against the U.S. or our allies, then we will have to act.

[sweetycakes]

I am totally against all forms of war, killing and cruelty if it can be at all avoided.

However, judging by the recent comments coming out of Iran, and taking into account biblical prophecy, I think that maybe a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be the best option to minimize casualties in the long run.

Better that a targeted strike against their nuclear and military installations be carried out than that a nuclear device or maybe a 'dirty' or radioactive bomb be detonated in the streets of Israel.

[senerhu]

I am totally against all forms of war, killing and cruelty if it can be at all avoided.

However, judging by the recent comments coming out of Iran, and taking into account biblical prophecy, I think that maybe a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be the best option to minimize casualties in the long run.

Better that a targeted strike against their nuclear and military installations be carried out than that a nuclear device or maybe a 'dirty' or radioactive bomb be detonated in the streets of Israel.

Its interesting that you brought up prophecy Stephen. It may not matter what we think we should do, it will happen...

[senerhu]

the reason why I discount what you are saying is becasue those US Christians that make up what you are offering, voted for a president who supported military action in Iraq. If the constituents of those references you listed were on the same page as their leaders, Bush would have not been elected...

Bush being reelected has more to do with him having the good fortune of running against someone like Kerry than anything else. Over 70% of Americans now are against the war and do not believe it has been worth its costs.

Now, back to the thread, I don't know yet whether military action against Iran will be necessary or not, we still have even with the worst case estimates about 3 years before they will have the nuclear materials for even one bomb. If we get closer to that point, and if we still have good reason to believe that Iran intends to use that device against the U.S. or our allies, then we will have to act.

Let me ask you this forrest, as an aside. If Bush manages to stabilize Iraq, what percentage of Americans do you think will then say it was worth the sacrifice and support Bush for what he did?

[sweetycakes]

I am totally against all forms of war, killing and cruelty if it can be at all avoided.

However, judging by the recent comments coming out of Iran, and taking into account biblical prophecy, I think that maybe a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities may be the best option to minimize casualties in the long run.

Better that a targeted strike against their nuclear and military installations be carried out than that a nuclear device or maybe a 'dirty' or radioactive bomb be detonated in the streets of Israel.

Its interesting that you brought up prophecy Stephen. It may not matter what we think we should do, it will happen...

Well, Iran (Persia) is certainly mentioned in the prophetic books as coming against Israel in the last days, along with many other nations, who will fight against the Lord and against His annointed.

Quite apart from that, it is increasingly obvious to me, by the rhetoric coming out of Iran, that Iran is setting itself up as an aggressor nation, stating often and over it's wish to drive Israel (a sovereign nation), into the sea, along with all it's inhabitants...men, women, children.

I am never on the side of the aggressor. Just like I am not on the side of school bullies, and such like, who I think should be taught a lesson, and be brought down a peg or two.

Iran doesn't want peace with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel. Therefore, I fervently hope that anyone who takes up arms against the population in Israel shall be thwarted in their plans, and taught a lasting lesson.

[nebula]

Whether our current situation is of God or against God is a different matter. Please stay on topic with the question.

I am on topic, we have a different theological position as to Christianity and war. Mine is the majority opinion in Christianity, yours represents a minority opinion in Christianity. Obviously we are not going to change each others minds, so there is no point in continuing to go in circles on this.

Forrest -

I was asking you about your understanding of God with what I was asking. My question was not a trick to justify Vietnam or even Iraq. This is why I got angry at your response. You dodged the question I was asking to answer a challenge you were assuming. Right now I don't care if you think Iraq was justifiable or not. What I care about is you are accusing us of using Jesus as a warmonger because we believe the war is or could be justifiable. If you can't understand the difference, then we have nothing more to say.

You don't want to answer the heart of my question without throwing in modern conflict interpretations, fine. I'll back out of this debate now.

But we are not at peace with each other.

[JustinM]

The question that has arisen here concerns the idea that Paul has apparently taken no account of unjust authorities.96 Many commentators see the problem97 and Cranfield surfaces three possible explanations. First, says Cranfield, there is the possibility that Paul is speaking out of his good experiences with the Roman government and has forgotten or neglected the fact that Rome could do and had done evil. That this is the explanation is severely weakened by the fact that Paul had been treated unjustly by the Roman authorities (Acts 16:22, 37; 2 Cor 11:25) and it was ultimately those authorities that he understood to be the ones who crucified Christ (1 Cor 2:8). Second, Paul, though fully conscious of the possibility that the government might commit evil, is here only speaking of its true and natural duty as a magistrate under God and appointed by him. Third, Paul is saying that consciously or unconsciously, in one way or another, the government will praise the good work and punish the evil. Cranfield argues for the third possibility based in large measure on the "absoluteness" of the promise. He says,

This gets down to the question of what is Just War from a Christian Perspective. Now, lets look at what Christians opposed military action in Iraq.

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" could not be justified at the time. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology. [15]

The Vatican also came out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable." [16]

Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his successor, Rowan Williams, spoke out against war with Iraq.

The executive committee of the World Council of Churches, an organization representing churches with a combined membership of between 350 million and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries,[17] issued a statement in opposition to war with Iraq, stating that "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter." [18]

Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has argued that, among both evangelical Christians and Catholics, "most major church bodies around the world" opposed the war.[14]

Total them up, and you have about 90% of the world's 2 billion Christians.

A just war according to the majority of the world's Christian Churches meets these qualifications:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

* there must be serious prospects of success;

* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

This proves nothing and does nothing to enforce your opinion. Unless you have a petition with almost 2 billion Christian's signatures on it, then all you really have is a group of unelected officials speaking for themselves and not us.

quote forrestkc: "They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a just war as defined by Catholic theology. "

The Catholic church did not sign a treaty with Saddam Hussein in order to stop the first Gulf War, a treaty that Saddam Hussein broke dozens of times. Legally, the US had the authority to attack Iraq, based on that alone.

Much like if you sign a contract for a home loan, if you don't fulfill that contract, and let's say you miss over a dozen payments, you can bet the Bank will get tired of waiting for you to comply and take the authorized actions to reposess your home.

Now, you can argue all you want, until your face turns blue, that the UN didn't support the second Gulf War, in which everyone that has half a brain has realized that the UN didn't support going to war with Iraq, because the UN was bought by Saddam Hussein.

Now, argue until you turn blue. The UN being corrupt, is not a good enough excuse to not go to War with someone that violated their cease-fire agreement.

[EricH]

My guess is several things could be in the works. Maybe a hit into Pakestan

Highly likely.

I believe that when hezzballah and Syria strike at Israel later this summer. It will leave a strike on Iran's nuclear facility wide open to the U.S.

We should use that advantage while Iran is pre-occupied with her proxies.

President Bush will not leave this problem open for another Administration that lacks the will and resolve to deal with it, IMO.

Peace,

Dave

Do you guys actually pray for more war, more death and destruction? Shouldn't you really be praying that everyone will realize the danger of an all out war in the ME and work towards peace? PEACE. That is the message of Jesus. NOT WAR.

This has nothing to do with what I hope will happen. The question was what we think it means. Saying what I think it means does not mean that I hope it does. I don't see the connection here