In defense of Bush's foreign policy

Remove all ads!

Yeah, and that's the part where to me, nothing make sense anymore. If they had evidence and where convinced this evidence would be accurate and trustworthy, they could have exchanged that evidence with other countries. They should have. In some way, they were obligated to show it to every other major country involved in the whole matter (secretly, of course). I acutally speculate they did and had a "not enough" as answer.

And again this only leads to two options to me. They either weren't diligent (gross negligence, I think) enough to check with others and check themselves or they knew it was in reality not convincing.

And then the always in connection re-appearing UN-bogey-straw-man. Either go to war or deal with those unreliable foreigners in foreign countries and at the UN (that will yield no results never ever). And the insistience on doing it alone. Preferably alone. Come hell or high water, we go in alone. Alone seems to have been the most preferable option to them. Now, that seems to have changed, as they'd like some other involveld (I of course might err here). But why go in alone, why willingly take up a burden that could be shared ? Because they knew they had nothing convincing and had their very own plans, not involving someone else. At least that's the explanation that seems to be the most reasonable to me.

That seems to me to have been the most reasonable option at that time.

 

I found Bush's remark that the war on terror is unwinnable telling. He just seems to have found out that he has gotten himself into a mess.

The big news, all but lost in the stories about alleged intelligence failures, is that the strength of the anti-American resistance in Iraq is growing by leaps and bounds. Over the past year, the insurgent order-of-battle has enjoyed as much as a fourfold increase. If the US needed further proof that the war is not going well, evidence is now at hand.

A year ago, when he assumed charge of United States Central Command and acknowledged that Operation Iraqi Freedom had given way to what he candidly called a “classical guerrilla war,” Gen. John Abizaid assessed the total number of insurgents to be 5,000.

According to a recent Associated Press dispatch, official estimates of the enemy’s strength have risen to 20,000—this despite the fact that over the past year American forces have killed or imprisoned several thousand Iraqis and so-called “foreign fighters” *. But unfortunately, enemy recruitment is easily outpacing our efforts to reduce his numbers.

This hardly comes as a surprise. Despite periodic ebbs and flows, the fighting in Iraq over the past year has progressively intensified. Overall security has deteriorated. Bush administration efforts to portray the resistance as a last-ditch effort by a handful of Saddam loyalists have long since lost all credibility.
The truth is that the Iraqi adversary is shrewd, resourceful, and highly motivated. By and large, the US finds itself dancing to his tune: he blows up an oil pipeline, detonates a bomb in downtown Baghdad, or assassinates an Iraqi official—and the US react after the fact.

But the new figure of 20,000 insurgents—if sympathizers and fellow travelers are included the actual number could well be even higher—does qualify as important in one sense. It affirms long-standing suspicions, vociferously denied by the Bush administration, that there are too few US troops on the ground to win.

History suggests that one precondition for defeating guerrillas is overwhelming numerical superiority, with a ratio of 10:1 traditionally cited as the minimum requirement. Even counting the fledgling Iraqi army, allied contingents (some of dubious quality), and the modern-day mercenaries known as private contractors, counterinsurgent forces available in Iraq today fall well short of that 10:1 standard.

Numbers alone cannot guarantee victory. But without enough boots on the ground, it becomes impossible to provide security. Absent security, it becomes impossible to gain the trust and confidence of the people, as the newly installed Iraqi government desperately needs to do.

How many U.S. troops are needed to pacify Iraq, a landmass the size of California, with long, open borders and an increasingly alienated population of 25 million? A quarter of a million soldiers—almost twice the number currently deployed—would not be too many.

Bush and Rumsfeld have repeatedly vowed to provide their commanders with whatever they need to accomplish their mission. Except troops methinks. For public consumption at least, U.S. generals have said that troop strength in Iraq is adequate. But the new, higher estimate of the enemy’s forces has made that position untenable.

Either the Bush administration needs to get serious about winning the war that it so recklessly sought in Iraq, or it needs to cut its losses. To persist in the present course is merely to perpetuate the existing stalemate—with good men and women getting killed and maimed, tens of billions of dollars being expended, and the United States exhausting its stores of goodwill—all to no purpose.

Getting serious means mobilizing the country for an expanded military commitment. Mobilization necessarily entails changes in domestic priorities. It also implies an urgent, costly, and politically sensitive expansion of the U.S. Army, the service bearing the greatest burden for the war’s conduct.

Cutting losses means promptly beginning the process of disengagement. That implies bringing the troops home, leaving it to the now-liberated Iraqis to sort out their future, and mending the diplomatic fences so recklessly torn down in the administration’s rush to war.

The issue is a political one. But military realities rather than ideological fantasies or electoral calculations deserve pride of place in considering the alternatives.

That Bush admits the Iraqi resistance is sucessful despite US attempts but avoids to decide on the consequences of it is telling.

He doesn't speak about underestimating Iraq. The Pentagon leadership (civil) has underestimated Iraq, not Bush, but as the "war president" Bush set his name under the war orders and so he is ultimately responsible for he endorsed these follies, fully so.
But it is election year and he won't spoil the party that could, horrors, well be his own. The mess in Iraq is not his fault but Sistani's, Sadr's and, of course, Syrias and Irans, and the fault of the killers in Iraq, or some other bogeyman for that instance. Ain't life great?

* like ... some 750 in that battle of Fallujah alone, just like probably in the later fightings in Najaf.

 

1. UN sanctions enforced by, that's right, the US.
2. Well, it works pretty well in Palestina. Much better in Iraq anyway.
3. Yup. Just because we view them as terrorists, doesn't mean that they are. After all, I consider Bush a terrorist, but if he is caught and taken in front of a judge, I would still like to see a fair trial.
4. Well, it works better than now. Drugs are roaming the streets, raiders attack frequently, Warlords control practically everything but Kabul which that petty dictator that Bush putted into power in the military coup.
5. Well, in Pakistan, they at least didn't kill anyone, well, at least not in the scale they do nowadays. Also, why don't you attack Pakistan then? They are EVIL, EVIL I tell ya.
6. Well, since NK have nukes, leave them alone. They wont dare to use them, they wont like to loose their power over all those people. If you attack a nation with nukes, chances are that they will start dropping soon.
7. Errm, they didn't have one before the war to begin with.

 

We need to look at Bush's foreign policy and the hostage crisis in Russia at the same time. Bel posted an article in the Russia hostage thread titled, "Why appeasement is always wrong". That's near the core of Bush's policy. Kerry is looking forward to appeasement. If we don't stay strong, those will be our schools soon.

 

Heh, what kind of appeasment are you talking about Math? As I wrote in that thread as well so do we know what happens with a hard core, no nonsense kind of attitude. We saw what happened to France in Algeria, we have seen what is going on in Israel and we just now saw what happened in Russia. These all had in common that they thought that "appeasment" was always wrong and the only way to deal with such vermin was to kill them, kill their friends, their families and everyone around them. Great results and a great way for a civilized society to end circle of violence. I am not completely sure what would work but being tough obviously dont.

I am and have always been very surprised by the American christians stance in every conflict the last years. My interpretation of the words of Jesus have always had "turning the other cheek" and understanding yuor enemy at the core of its values, something I myself am not a big fan of everytime but one I have been taught is central to christian thinking. Apparently it is non-existant in the belief system of the christians in America. I am not surprised however, every religionist from Bin Laden to Bush to Falwell to Farrakhan interprets their religion so it suits their own private needs and not nescessarily what their supposedly divine founders said.

 

They Russians are appeasing their southern borders for some years now. Still, constant bombing hasn't yielded the desired results yet, one might think. Look, drawings of "appeasement".

 

[ September 04, 2004, 08:38: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

I really, really, really would like the Bush supporters to explain this one to me. I really want to know the genesis of this sentiment. Please show me why you guys think Kerry is such a pushover. Please. Evidence required.

I've really been trying to stay out of this thread - only lurking as a reader - but this is an accusation that I hear constantly and I believe it to be baseless. Partially because no one ever seems to be able to back it up.

So fellas...if you don't mind.

 

All who dissapprove of smart rethorics such as "we need to stand strong", "you will be hunted down", "dead or alive", "you are either with us or against us" ~ all those are appeasers.
The ones who refuse to fan the flames of hatred? Appeasers, too.

Lets be grateful there are so few guilty of appeasement. Thats why our news report so little about suffering caused by terrorism and why we will overcome the present and future hordes of terrorists. Bombs and war serve our cause well. Yes, lets be grateful.

 

@Grey

Sorry for the deleyed answer but I was not in the mood to discuss serious matters the last few days. So let's begin:

The people who are joining the ranks of Al Qa'eda don't do it because they feel mercy for the bankrupted and almost dead Al Qa'eda as you describe but for many other reasons. They do it because they have seen the humilation of their fellow arabs in Abu Greib prison, because of the double standards that the american foreign policy follows, they do it because they see the american invasion as a crusade. The fact is that (no matter if their reasons are valid or a result of brainwashing) they keep joining Al Qa'eda. Furthermore the name Al Qa'da has became a franchise and it is used by Al Qa'eda members, perhaps by freelancers (as you say) or by groups, which don't have a connection with the original Al Qa'eda and this has made Al Qa'eda a legend among muslims fundamentalists who see Al Qa'da as a symbol of resistance against the western world.

IIRC Bin Laden isn't anymore the one who organizes and decides about Al Qa'eda's targets and attacks. Bin Laden has become a legend, he is seen as someone who has dared to attack the big western devil and the big western devil seems to be unable to punish. There is no need for Bin Laden to run Al Qa'eda, his fame is doing this for him.

I'm not sure that I have undestood what you mean with this paragraph, so perhaps what I write is totally irrelevant.

It wasn't Europe the one who was proved unreluctant to side with the US, it was US who failed to convince Europe and damaged its reputation and credability. The whole thing reminds me the story of the shepherd who was screaming "Wolf" in order to laugh with the villagers who would come to help him. Someday Powell or another american official will have real proofs about something but when he goes to the UN and says "I will show photographic evidence which are proving our claims", he'll face the laughter and the mocking of the diplomats.

1984 hysteria? Patriot act, the last E.U. antiterrorist law,security cameras that are everywhere. All these makes me believe that we're becoming societies under surveillance and that 1984 is coming. On the other hand why all these are necessary for our security? There are far more chances for me and anyone else here to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack.

How many american soldiers died during the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII? I was unable to find an exact number but I bet that the american casualties during these occupations were much lower than those in Iraq. Also, if you think that the american administration was expecting that Iraqis would welcome the american forces with flowers, the casualties cannot be considered low.

What I see is that the new iraqi government cannot do anything without american help, while the muslim clergy, meaning Al Sadr and Al Sistani, is the one who is pulling the strings and who can infuence the iraqi people.

Of course pre-emptive strikes were used in the past, ancient Athenians were the ones who introduced them (I wonder if there is something in this world that it wasn't invented or introduced by us ), but never before they had been legalized. As for the iraqi invasion in Kuwait, it was not an pre-emptive strike, it was an invasion with the annexation of Kuwait as its main target.

USA were the one who refused all the proposals to lift the sanctions

Almost all major european terrorist groups (Baader-Meinhoff, Brigade Rossi, November 17) were destroyed by this methods sooner or later. On the contrary the method of massive military attack like Chechenya has led to the opposite results.

The same answer as above.

The fall of Taliban was a side-effect. If they had given Bin Laden, they would be still in power. Furthermore, they have reappeared as well and as Caleb has said the ones who have succeeded them, don't seem to be much better.

Are you definetely sure that Pakistan isn't still Al Qa'eda's playground? Is Pakistan more democratic than Saddam Hussein's Iraq (double standards again)?

Why the iranian nukes will make the world less safer and the israeli nukes are making the world safer?

@Hacken Slash

Will they be ready to launch them against London in 45 minutes like the iraqi WMDs?

 

Is this comment supportable? If so, explain how and why Kerry is "looking forward to appeasement." Perhaps in the same way that the Bush family has appeased the Saudi Royal family? Most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from where ...? So much for the War on Terror.

 

Sorry for my late response, some of us have RL obligations. Then again I don't apologize seeing how many ad hominem attacks are launched here over anyone who would dare questions the liberal leanings of the majority here. I never said Bush was the only hope for America or for the world, but I do think that Kerry will make the world more dangerous to live in and that he cannot be trusted with my nation's security.

I'll admit that it is impossible to know exactly how Kerry will deal with the terror threat (especially since he doesn't know or won't tell us), but from the history of the democratic party, Kerry's voting history and a few other indications, it seems he'll be much like Clinton and therefore inclined towards appeasement.

Kerry has already, however, stated that he'll be more of an international player, which means that he'll let the UN dictate our foreign policy. Also, he'll gut our intelligence community and has already voted for a $6 billion reduction of it.

Richard Holbrooke will likely be Kerry's Secretary of State. Holbrooke and Clinton worked together (iirc) in appeasement measures in Israel and North Ireland .. both of which failed.

Lets shift from history to Kerry's own words. The Kerry camp will not make statements on Iran's nuclear capabilities. However, while Bush imposed sanctions on China for illegal arms transfers to nations like Iran, Kerry opposed them. In fact, on September 11, 2000, Senator Kerry spoke to the Senate, opposing an amendment to impose economic sanctions if China continued to sell advanced missile and nuclear technology to Iran.

To quote him;

Kerry stated on the Senate floor on September 19, 2000 that he would vote for permanent favored trade status with China despite its violations of missile export treaties to Iran.

To make a long post short... if you look at Kerry's voting record you'll see that he always leans towards appeasement. He was opposed to Reagan's missile build-up plan that helped win the Cold War ... heck I could go on, but I know I won't change your minds so why wear out my keyboard.
Faith!
-Mathetais

 

@ Mat (if you do come back, that is),

Sorry, I have 2 big problems with this statement. And I'm not attacking anybody, ad hominem or otherwise. I just want to understand this line of thinking, because frankly, it sounds goofy and inaccurate to me. This has nothing to do with partisanship. If any of the following is taken as an attack, it shouldn't be - Mat, you know I have the utmost respect for you.

First off - I don't know how you make the jump in logic that international cooperation = letting the UN decide things for us. Kerry has never said that he'd let the UN make decisions for us with regard to our national defense or WOT. Never. In fact, he said quite the opposite in his DNC campaign speech. The idea that Kerry would do as you suggest not only goes against everything he's stated throughout his campaign, but would be utter political suicide. So again, I really can't understand where people get this one, other than his senate record, which is ambiguous at best unless you include the context of each and every vote he's cast (which is why bringing up his "record" is a bit of a red herring, IMO).

The fundemental problem with the way we're fighting our current war on terrorism is that we're doing it all ourselves, and our current foreign policy says to the rest of the world that America doesn't care who's toes we step on to achieve our ends. Like it or not, everything we've done in Iraq has ensured 2 things: that no country on earth believes us when we say that irradicating terrorism is our ultimate goal, but rather to establish a power base in the middle east; and that we've damned ourselves to either apathy to our cause (it's America's mess - let the terrorists get them) or empathy for the terrorists (America asked for it). This is why the Bush administration will never be successful in the war on terror, or any other war for that matter. They refused to listen to people who knew better than they did (and in many cases, fired them) and now refuse to acknowledge how wrong they've been up to now and what a mess we're in. There's a reason Iraq was barely mentioned at the RNC, you know.

But despite 3 years of utter failure to properly wage a war that, by it's very nature, requires international cooperation, and has ignited anti-American sentiment around the world at an unprecedented scale from which we're unlikely to ever recover, you think Kerry will make the world more dangerous in the face of the fact that Bush CLEARLY already has...because Kerry wants to include our estranged international allies in the defense of a world that they too are a part of?

Again...I just don't get this way of thinking.

Second: If you're going to complain about the "gutting" of the defense budget by Kerry, then you can't possibly vote for the current administration. Dick Cheney's history of killing/attempting to kill spending on key military programs - from his Wyoming days to his tenure as SecDef - makes John Kerry look like a lightweight by comparison. Most of the very systems people compain about Kerry voting against - the B2 Bomber, MX missiles, etc. - Cheney let the charge to be rid of altogether. So if this is really an issue that bothers you, you're backing the wrong horse.

Also - cutting $6 billion from a budget that is typically hundreds of billions is hardly gutting - especially when most of the government during the late 80's and early 90's (yes, including George Bush Sr.) were attempting to strip down the outrageously inflated defense budget left behind after the build-up of the Reagan years.

MY list could go on and on, too... but the difference is I do indeed hope to change your mind. Or at least give you pause enough to look more honestly at the men you support, because frankly I don't think you really have. I welcome you to try and change mine as well. I can be convinced that Kerry is the devil he's made out to be, I really can. I just ask that people be accurate, fair and honest in doing so. So far few have been able to, which is why so few attacks on Kerry actually hold any water. With me, at least.

 

Death Rabbit, I wasn't saying that I wouldn't come back or anything, just that I have little confidence in a web forum as a good medium to change people's minds. In my opinion the only real good that can come out of this forum is to sharpen personal opinions by posting them and hearing what others think. For example, you picked the weakest part of my post to comment on. That phrase was more of a transitional vent, not the real meat. But since I posted it, I'll defend myself.

That's a very popular, but also very wrong concept. Yes, the old school "big countries" like France and Germany did not choose to engage in this encounter. (Though Germany is frustrated by Iran's nukes ... though I wonder what they'll do other than be frustrated) In Bush's speech, while he was talking about Iraq, he went through a list of partners in this war. To say this is an America only enterprise is to be minimize the support of some these countries and shows a bit of arrogance because some of these countries are easily dismissed. Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others. John Edwards and the Kerry campaign call this coalition "window dressing" and other comments, but I think those attacks are off base. If the coalition was made up of US, GB, France & Germany would that be any more compelling? Yes, we are making unpopular choices, but does not make them wrong.

Honestly, I could go into great lengths about the ways I feel betrayed by Bush. He backed way off his pro-life stance once he got the 2000 nomination. He's spending more than I think is responsible. If I agreed with everything he stood for either 1) I'd be brainwashed, or 2) he'd never get elected because I have a few unpopular positions. Despite by disagreements, I like his leanings towards a flat tax, I admire his strength of commitment in the war on terror, and I think he's a better leader right now than John Kerry.

You also mention that the war on terror is failing. That is your opinion, but I disagree. To quote Bush's RNC speech:

I'd call that a success.

Reference my statements above. I really don't think we can change minds here on big issues. You might be able to talk me into getting Morrowind or trying a Paladin/Cleric duel class ... but not to abandon Christianity, weaken my anti-abortion stance or vote for Kerry (not that they all go together ... but maybe they do ). From my experience on the Alley, I see lots of rhetoric but very little impact. It can be sometimes fun, sometimes frustrating, but rarely successful. Just my $0.02

 

First I would like to ask Math if he has anything to say on my previous post as it is something I have been wondering about for a long time.

Secondly, the coalition is windowdressing for among the countries you listed none have a population who supports what their leaders are doing and run a large risk of when elections come up as in Spain what is seen as Washington's lap dogs will be voted out of power. Exceptions might be Britain where socialist Blair have alienated most of his voter base but still dont run that much of a chance for them voting for the Tories as the ghost of Thatcher still haunts the nation and Italy where Berlusconi is on his way to becoming a de facto dictator.

As for discussing things on internet forums I think it can be very fruitful. It may not change peoples views and opinions but it sure does broaden their experiences. To take myself as an example I was a regular all the US does is wack and they are a nation of psychos European before I started coming into contact with the many Americans here and elsewhere and while I may still retain much of my core perceptions and values I see many more nuances know and a greater understanding for why and how things are as they are and I do my best to refrain from blanket statements. On the other hand I was a very tolerant person who thought religion was a silly but harmless thing which may have something going for it I am now after having come into contact with many truly religous people a rabid anti-religionist and much more convinced of my stance. So I think internet discussions serves to opening up your perceptions and second guess things you took for granted while it at the same time sharpen and distill views on others.

 

Joc ... you're a confused jerk

Your question was about Christians who wage war, thereby not turning the other cheek or expressing sufficiently "christ-like" love. Sorry I ignored it, but I can only bite off so much at one time.

There are a few issues here.

1) Should all Christians be pacifists

2) Is a government with Christian leaders allowed to wage war?

3) What is a Just War?

4) Is the War on Terror a Just War?

Let me tackle these as best I can (while I'm at work and waiting to give my two weeks notice).

1) Should all Christians be pacifists.

Francis Scheffer expressed this wonderfully:

I struggled with this and was a pacifist for quite some time. During the Desert Storm war in the mid-90's (when I was 19) I filed my contentious objector card. That means I was willing to serve on the front lines, but not to carry a weapon. I would have been a medic or such, carrying supplies and hospital equipment while under fire. Not a coward's way out, but not a warrior's path either.

I've reflected on this a bit, and realized that while pacifism may be an appropriate path for me, it is not necessarily the only way, nor the best way for nations. Its a long Greek exegesis of the text, but the end result is that this passage calls us to "act differently than our oppressors". We can't take the "turn the other cheek" passage in isolation. Throughout the Bible, we see war, reproof and correction as instruments that God condones and, at times, demands. The call is to a holy sort of love. (see http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Matthew/reproof_as_an_aspect_of_enemy.htm for more help on this).

Let me bridge to the next point with a quote from John Piper:

2) Is a government with Christian leaders allowed to wage war?
I think Christian leaders have to find balance between the extremes of pacifism and militarism, Christians ought to embrace a clear distinction between the kingdom of God and earthly conquests while allowing the just war ethic a renewed prominence in our reflection on when -- and when not -- to engage in that terrible action that is all too common and yet still all too necessary in this time that the apostles called "this present evil age."

John Piper breaks this down biblically for us:
Pacifism is harmful
To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

Consistent pacifism would have to eliminate the police, not just the military
In fact, if we were to conclude that governments should always turn the other cheek and never resist evil, then we would be logically committing ourselves to getting rid of not only the armed forces, but also the police force and criminal justice system. For police officers arrest criminals, using force against them if necessary, and put them in jail. That is not turning the other cheek. Does Jesus intend his command to turn the other cheek to apply to the police? Surely not as their primary way of responding to evil. God does not want evil to run about in our society unchecked (cf. in the OT the numerous civil laws and in the NT Romans 13, to be discussed below). If one accepts the legitimacy of police using force in some instances, there can be no objection to the military using force in some instances, either.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, 'And what about us, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Romans 13:3-4 grants governments the right to use force to restrain and punish evil
Paul writes: "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Here Paul affirms the government's right to use force in two ways. First, he says that it "does not bear the sword for nothing." Second, he states that government is a "minister of God" when it executes vengeance against evildoers.
Governments, of course, do not have the right to use force for any purpose whatsoever. They do not have the right to use force in order to lord it over their citizens and impose unnecessary restraints upon freedom. There are two purposes for which this text says the government is justified in using force: the restraint of evil and the punishment of evil. The purpose of force is not just to prevent further evil from happening, but to punish evil acts by bringing the perpetrators to justice. Government is acting as a "minister of God" when it serves as "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Does the right of the sword in this text extend to the case of war? The immediate context does have in mind the use of physical force in regard to a government's own citizens. But by extension this also implies that if one nation commits an act of war against another nation, the offended nation has the right to engage in self-defense and to avenge the wrong. Would it be consistent to say that a nation has a right to restrain and punish evil committed against it by its own citizens, but not to restrain and punish evil committed against it by another nation? The mere fact that the civil offense was committed by another country does not remove their accountability to the country they attacked.

1 Peter 2:13-4 confirms the teaching of Romans 13:3-4
In 1 Peter 2:13-14, we are taught: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." Once again, the right of governments to punish evil is affirmed.

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars
3) What is a Just War?
The guidelines for a Just War go back to Augustine. He gives us:
1. Proper Authority
2. Proper cause
3. A reasonable chance of success
4. Proportionality
(see http://www.thebanner.org/cpbn_special_justifiable.htm for more help)

4) Is the War on Terror a Just War?
This is a lively debate. I've read many articles on both sides. I won't elaborate now because while all this is a bit off topic, that would be an entirely new post.

----
Responding to below ...
You didn't mention pacifism, but you did mention turning the other cheek. Taking that statement at facil face value is pacifism. Also, people quote other books of the Bible along side Jesus' words because God has chosen to reveal himself to us in many and various ways. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God (he IS the Word of God incarnate). That, however, does not dismiss the rest of Scripture. Paul says that "all Scripture is God-Breathed (inspired) and is useful for teaching, training and correcting, guiding us into all righteousness." That means we can use Romans, Peter, etc to understand God's will for our lives. Jesus' public ministry was only 3 years long and he never wrote anythign down. He did not come to give us doctrine, he came to give us life. More on that later though

[ September 10, 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: Mathetais ]

 

We are highly off-topic already. I would like to point out though that I did not use the word pacifism and nor was it my intention to claim that a true christian should be a total pacifist. My question was why, atleast in my perception, is the christians in the US who are the first to go for the sword and who advocates and support violent solutions to problems most vehemently. Just look at the Iraq war which even to a supporter must be rather ambigious whether it is morally right or wrong. There the vast majority of American christians wholeheartedly supported the military solution without much reflection. Had they reflected they would have found out that both WMD claims and Al-Qaida ties were in the least questionable and thus any claim to fight a great evil to be a rather weak claim. If it is justified by liberating a supressed people then they would truly have their work cut out for them seeing as a large majority of the worlds population is supressed today and throughout history all have been supressed even in christian nations ruled by christian leaders.

Also you give give a lot of explanation of when a christian can take up arms but I cannot help but wonder who decides when those of your criterias are being met? I know that most Swedish christians did not think those criteria were met for Iraq war but I am fairly sure they thought they were met during WW2. I remember reading a post you made a while ago about whether the so called war on terror was a just war and though I may no have agreed completely with it there was a lot of thought behind it, do you think most christians really give that much thought as to whether they are going to support the killing and maiming of people in foreign countries?

I find it odd though that whenever scripture is quoted in these little trickier questions where christians are challenged somewhat by people we can call liberals the quotes are not from Jesus who should be the main source but the private musings of people who evidently did not claim divine descendence. If Jesus said "Turn the other cheek" does it really matter if Peter and Romans and John and whatnot said a lot of other things? Jesus is the one who is thought to be the son of god, does not his word transcend that of mere mortal followers? When I look at the American Christian right I may see a lot of people who follow what it says in the bible but I do not see many who follows the teaching of Jesus. But then again, I am no expert.