My Life Verse

God causes all things to work together for good, for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose...

Throughout my life, in all its ups and downs, this has been the one constant truth I can confess.
My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2005

Stuff

  • 2008 Favorite Photos
    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2008328&l=995b1&id=1005873147
  • Facebooks Blogs
  • Facebook Profile
  • Shared Stuff in Google Reader
  • Google Ads
  • The Patriot Post
  • ClipMarks
  • Arch's Sermons - Growing In Grace, ACCRadio.com
    http://accradio.com/

Become a Fan

« Day10 - Old Faithful.... | Main | Summary: The Big Picture »

June 10, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Demonizing war is just as poisonous: the way is straight, and narrow, and beset by evil.

This is one we have to talk about so don't cut if off prematurely.

It is not "demonizing" war to say that it is foolishness. All sin is foolishness because it is the insane act of rejecting God and His wisdom in pursuit of our own ends. War is founded on sin, as is divorce, though it is not true that every party to war, as with divorce, is guilty of that particular sin. Further, since there is such a thing as a "just" war then it is "just" and hence, righteous, for the conduct of war in pursuit of those just ends. That still does not obviate the initial premise. Even a "just" war is grounded in sin and is foolishness because someone, somewhere, chose to bring it on themselves or initiated it un-righteously against others. The proper attitude toward war and its necessity is grief... just as Jesus wept over Jerusalem and just as Paul told the Corinthian elders that they should grieve over the sin of one of their members even as they must dedicate themselves to the practice of discipline of that member.

Im not a stickler for "demonizing"... "Ridiculing" or "Decrying" or "Don't want nothing to do with" will do just as poisonously, and really, this is a bigger problem in the present zeitgeist; from my seat, anyway.

We, our society that is, hasn't had the stomach to formally declare war for a few of my lifespans, and nearly one of yours. Just, for scale. No derision intended- the surest sign of wisdom is a grey beard? Mine is still coming.

The world is different than it was. The effects of the two Great Wars and the prolonged "Cold War" with its nuclear potential, has change the international political landscape considerably. Effectively, but simplistically, the "common understanding" is that as long as a "war" is not "declared" formally then it is assumed by both sides that it will be restricted in scope and execution. Thus neither the US nor the UN ever formally declared war on North Korea or North Viet Nam. In both instances and in all the subsequent ones, the general idea was that basically anything goes within certain limitations. The major imperative being stopping short of full scale war.

Therefore I would submit that this country has basically be consistently "at war" for the past 60 years. The major problem is that the "limited objectives" were such that the mobilization of the citizenry and the effective inspiration they needed to sustain that strategy has failed due to abysmal leadership and political corruption.

I happen to agree with the over-arching strategy. I completely abhor the manner in which it has been carried out.

"The major imperative being stopping short of full scale war."

I don't know nor can conceive of any person that would *sort-of* need killing, or a cause that was *sort of* worth dying over. If we need to wage war, we should wage war, and our grief, holy or not, should not factor in the equation of our action.

>>>I don't know nor can conceive of any person that would *sort-of* need killing, or a cause that was *sort of* worth dying over. <<<

I honestly don't know how these statements relate to my previous statement about stopping short of "full scale" war. Any person dying in a limited war is just as dead as a person dying in a nuclear one. If the advantage of limiting the scope of a war to just one finite region and using weapons only to a level that is consistent with limited objectives is not clear then I'm not sure what is being argued here.

It is one thing to pursue a war with, say, Viet Nam and employing all of our conventional war-fighting capability to do so. It is another to drop a nuclear weapon on Hanoi when China and Russia have stated that they will consider that an attack on them. I am willing to lose Saigon in a limited war that fails to achieve its objectives. I am not willing to sacrifice New York City in order to prevent Saigon from falling (what's left of it after the nuclear attack.)

If your position is that there should not be a "limited" war then that's a whole different question.

"I honestly don't know how these statements relate to my previous statement about stopping short of "full scale" war."

Violence is polarizing. If reigning it in is an option, then violence is probably the wrong thing to be using to begin with.

The comments to this entry are closed.