2. Thomas Aquinas apparently believed that the “sovereign,” i.e.: King or Oligarchy must have its interests and liberty protected by war; not the life and liberty of “We the People.” Just war is the defense of national and individual life and liberty. Our Declaration of Independence is an eternal Declaration of Just War – “against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

And then you tell her that it is their efforts
that have proven to be an excercise in futility, not mine nor that of my comrades.

Back in 1975, I got heartache, they got to gloat. Today, they are perpetually discontent with the overall course of human events. I am no Pollyanna, but I have much more satisfaction with this current time
and these current events than do they. And as to the future, I can see ways and means for the good guys to prevail. My opposition
basically knows that it is doomed, one way of the other.

We shall prevail. And if you know the address of that Boston Mom, see if you can pass the message on to her. I am sure she would appreciate it.

(2) what I consider an out-of-context perversion of Thomism and the concept of “just war”. I have not seen any of that on the pages of BC and I hope we never do.

I have no doubt that your fire will be as directed on my behalf as on your own. I’ll do my best to reciprocate.

The Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki involved large scale indiscriminate killing but so did the strategic conventional bombing of Japan which, if I recall correctly, killed more people than the two Atomic bombs. I believe this was just because the totalitarian Japanese government excelled at mass murder of civilians; they were experts at indiscriminate mass murder of innocents, and were developing plans for much more. The Atomic bombings saved millions of lives by bringing the war to a close, thereby preventing massive conventional bloodshed. They had to be defeated one way or another, and the way it ended was for the best – for both sides.

“Destruction (MAD) did absolutely nothing to keep the peace. In fact is came close to destroying same. What did keep the peace was the Eisenhower doctrine of “massive retaliation at a time and place of our choosing”.

This seems like an oxymoron because “massive retaliation at a time and place of our choosing” is an example of one the two arms of MAD. Cold War MAD did not prevent Korea and Vietnam; so you are right on those counts, but it did prevent something much worse.

I believe we agree on the moral basis of just war (defense of life and liberty); that is the most important thing. Our disagreements seem pretty small in comparison.

Re:Matthew 10:34-39 NASB

Same rule as above. Text taken out of context is a pretext.

32″Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]

37″Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
////
You can see the results of families in the Arab world in which there is no sword between their family members. Most typical of this are places like saudi arabia and yemen where the most frequent diseases are caused by inbreeding.

Christianity does not teach violence toward others, though there is the curious passage in Luke 22:36 advising the disciples to ‘buy a sword’.
………..
in seminaries the saying is that text without context is a pretext.

Luke 22:32-40 (New International Version)

32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.

36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives
39Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.”
………….

I believe there has long been a difference on whether or not Islam could raise itself out of the fifth century and into the modern era. As I have mentioned before, the creation of Pakistan was in the minds of the Pakistani’s the opportunity to show the world that Islam and civil behavior could exist side by side. The experiment has been an abject failure.

Iraq can be considered the best model upon which a majority Islamic population could turn backward societies into a semblance of civilized human behavior. It would be ideal to rely on the ability of the Iraqi people to look past their religious differences and deal with one another on a strictly secular basis, but such an ideal situation is not very likely to present itself. The clerics in Anbar who supported Sharia and introduced Al Queda, are not a part of the solution. They were in fact a large part of the problems. It is a measure of Western success that the sheiks in Al Anbar not only turned against Al Queda, but joined up with the US and Coalition forces to make that change permanent. The difference between the Taliban leadership and the the tribal elders has already been discussed here and the elders of many tribes have been killed as a result of efforts to kindle the same sort of rebellion among tribes in the NWFP of Pakistan. Yet even there the citizens tire of not only the Taliban uneven administration of Sharia Law but it’s inconsistency and rather selfish implementation of versions of law and doctrine.

Still the inconsistency of the West, and the inability of the NATO to act as a cohesive unit contributing toward a shared objective allows the Taliban (and Al Queda) to convince local fighters that we are not the strong tribe and that we are not there to stay.

The people of Afghanistan do not want to live under taliban rule, but they would support the taliban now if they know they will be killed in a short time for withholding that support. I see no difference between the citizens of Afghanistan and the denizens of the NW of Pakistan.

No one is there in either pakistan or in Afghanistan to close down the Madrasa’s. In very few of the remote areas of Pakistan and most of Afghanistan is there a system of education ready to replace the Madrasa’s. No where in the Whole of Afghanistan is there a strong enough presence of Afghan Police or military to protect local inhabitants from Taliban abuse.

It is a tough situation. but if after nine years we turn tuck tail and run we are surely inviting further attacks on our sovereignty. If we determine to press on with more efficent variations of the current tactics and strategy we must do so with the knowledge that we are going to be ther for some extended time, and will be dealing with not only the Afghanistan problem but with the Pakistan problem as well.

If we cannot accomplish victory (and by victory I refer to a determination on the part of the Islamic peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan to make impossible efforts to subvert by violent means or attack us by means of terror) then we must turn to use of other methods, to get their attention.

I favor the long term, counter insurgency approach seen in Iraq, which is the embodiment of the Bush doctrine. Habu feels that is a waste of time and lives, and that bringing the enemy to their knees in a conventional fight, is the proper way to gain a real change of heart,
That much has been understood for a while, what is not known (cough) is whether or not president Obama has the will or the intention to do follow through on either much less any path.
The enemy knows this, and is taking full advantage in an attempt to get us to loose heart, and surrender. The longer the enemy can keep president Obama from embracing one strategy or another the fewer options will be available to us, and so the enemy is gamboling the less likely we will be to use nukes.

My question is whether on not the president is delaying a decision on purpose, or because he is that incapable of making a decision. The murders at Ft Hood did little to settle the debate. But in my mind they should have sealed a commitment to act.

Dave, i’ll be sure to pass that on to Becky –it IS true. There may be or not be the Valhalla beyond the beyond but there is one in the hear and now in the living who remember, you just made evidence and i did too. i should not have written that thought about futility as it called for a finer distinction than i can express. A bad leader can make a politics futile but nothing can make that kid’s life nor the end of it futile –he wrote his story in the elementals. that boston mom –that is the face of fear –you could see what she fears in her face –that her son’s mission is getting thrown away. someone is surely talking to her and time can’t but help against the raw hurt –but whatever the future flow of history will be we have it in our hands now. and laying aside for the moment all GWB’s messups and misses, one thing for certain he was trying hard to speak for the nation and was fully aware from that position what it would have meant to be questioning all the meanings of the soldiers mission.