President Bush is once again restating his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
The strategy has shifted U.S. foreign policy away from deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States.
This bring up a whole sereis of questions that I'dlike to pose to you. Do you support this? Is it right for a person with Christian beliefs to "strike first" and how do we decide when pre-emptive action is warranted?
Can this be a legitimate part of self defense when the consequences of an attack are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by?
2 comments:
The traditional Just War doctrine says that only a war of defense is acceptable. No act of aggression is just. So traditionally, I think Christians would say that a pre-emptive strike cannot be easily justified.
However, I believe the advent of nuclear weapons changes things. In this case, a nation should not wait to be attacked before responding, as we might have done under conventional methods.
Not catholic ... so PJP's comment is his opinion and he's entitled.
Just War?
Do a basic SWOT analysis and you'll quickly see that the US needs to:
1-Use it's strengths to eliminate the threats
2-Take opportunity to guard its weaknesses
How did Israel get into the promised land? By God's instruction and aid they took it over! This wasn't a defensive war. There's no theological argument here. If there were then I take it that GOd is inconsistent. Let's not run down that road of error.
Post a Comment