Replies

i don't know if i've answered your question or if i've just become repititious...

the way i've read it was, romans 13 tells us that we are to follow our leader where he directs us. our leader is supposed to pray first (Deut 20:1-4, 1 Sam 30:8, Psalm 108:12-13, and if you know the story of jehosophat(sp?) he fasted and prayed and LISTENED when the lord spoke, and his armies turned on themselves) and do what he is told. hopefully Bush prays and listens.
as far as rules of engagement, as i interpret it, Deut 20:12-13 is in reference to other christian nations and nations not religiously bent on conquor and convert. its the national equivalent of punishing an unruly child who won't listen. a little swat to get their attention, then make them listen.
when its a nation where the children are raised hating us (as a couple of articles regarding the schools over there depict) there is little hope for them. they will continue their hatred and keep coming back as they grow and constantly be bringing us war.
if ti makes a difference, i'm not condoning the wholesale slaughter of women and children by the army sweeping and gunning them down, i am, however an advocate of dropping a nuke.

So then you do see a deference in the nature of a war between fellow Christians and a war between the believers in the Lord and the unbelievers. But here is a problem with the reasoning, if your pagan enemy you slaughter on the ground that he might corrupt you if he lives; what do you do if a pagan city surrenders (as in verse 11)? Theoretically the danger of being corrupted is still present, so why not kill all anyway.

if ti makes a difference, i'm not condoning the wholesale slaughter of women and children by the army sweeping and gunning them down, i am, however an advocate of dropping a nuke.

Yes, nuclear weapons make things so much less personal don't they. I suppose then that your advocacy would collapse if we did not have such weapons.