Replies

I suppose what I am posing to you is this: Do you see where it is prudent to carry a fight to an enemy on his soil? Do you consider an attack against a foreign power's infrastructure, etc. a correct thing to do? Or do we simply defend against them when they arrive on our shores? Please clarify. 152 posted on 11/26/01 6:27 PM Pacific by He Rides A White Horse

Yes. The State's Covenantal Duty is to kill murderers. If that requires "invading" their territory... well, they are murderers, fer-cryin-out-loud.

That does not always mean that this is the best option in terms of prudence (though it often is); but beyond that, it certainly does not mean that it is always the best option, once one has ventured into the rat's nest with a bottle full of "just war" rat-poison, to then stay and take up residence there.

In My Humble Opinion, the Middle East is a rat's nest. Once we have killed the offending rats in question, I would just as soon leave. My copy of the Constitution expects the Federal Government to guarantee a "republican form of Government" to the States; it says nothing whatsoever about madly attempting to guarantee a republican form of Government to Afghanistan!!!

9.A Christian nation should always seek God’s will before declaring war.

I couldn't agree more. I wasn't of naked acts of aggression, nor was I speaking of the forcible conversion of a populace to my beliefs. "Believe in my God, or I'll cut your head off" just doesn't strike me as a valid mechanism to gain converts. Anyway.........

I believe we are on the same page, for the most part. I'm off to watch the Buccaneers wage war on the Rams (or vice versa). If you have more, I'll post back later.