Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24681)	7/21/2006 3:08:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541490

I'm sure Saint Augustine understood that dead is dead. I don't thin Augustine or Aquinas ever said it was immoral to use force against your attackers. In fact the whole just war concept developed from their ideas was supposedly the way to use force in ways that were not immoral. The strictest interpretations of the just war idea might only work well if an inferior force fought a conventional war against a strongly superior force on a set-piece battlefield. Which is something that almost never happens because only the most extreme case of foolishness is going to cause you to openly and aggressively attack, with no stealth or "human shields", and no (or very weak) allies, someone who can hand your head to you without breaking a sweat. OTOH the rules for a just war are not detailed specific requirements but principles that must be interpreted in the light of the situation. - --- - 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. ewtn.com Message 22641235 --- Depending on how you interpret them and how they apply in a specific situation a lot of wars (even if not the majority of them) could be "just wars". Applying those rules to your choice of and conduct of wars isn't laying down and dying, or accepting inevitable defeat. Well at least is isn't if you don't interpret them all in the strictest possible way, reacquiring near absolute certainty about each principle, and constant re-evaluation (even in the heat of battle) to make sure that every violent action, no matter how small, comports with the principles. Obviously requiring constant thought about the practical and philosophical consequences and nature of every act you do in combat is going to get you killed. But I doubt that most supporters of the just war idea take it to that extreme. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (24681)	7/21/2006 6:00:29 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541490

Authoritative source? It's called logic. Quit worrying about authoritative sources and use your brain. If you refuse to kill when attacked, you die. Duh! If an individual chooses to take that path, it's suicide. If a culture chooses to take that path, it's genocide. Whether you agree or not, the teachings of Jesus Christ and supported by the logic of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Avery Dulles, etc can not be dismissed that casually. I agree most people will agree with you. Billy Kristol, Dick Cheney, and all the neocons will all agree with you and then take that logic to its own logical conclusion. Duh! I don't think that would be a good idea.