Pakistan ready for war with India

[raderag]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3688288/Pakistan-Were-ready-for-war-with-India.html

A war with India and Pakistan would be a very interesting case for Just War Theory (JWT). If a country such as Pakistan can not control criminals from its country, does the victim country have a right to attack and assume some sort of control (i.e. wipe out the offending groups)? What if it happens again? What if it is 10 times worse? Thoughts?

Here is a summary of JWT from wikipedia:

Jus ad bellum

Main article: Jus ad bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum)

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Orend) omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorities) may wage war.

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose), while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

[Athanasius]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3688288/Pakistan-Were-ready-for-war-with-India.html

A war with India and Pakistan would be a very interesting case for Just War Theory (JWT). If a country such as Pakistan can not control criminals from its country, does the victim country have a right to attack and assume some sort of control (i.e. wipe out the offending groups)? What if it happens again? What if it is 10 times worse? Thoughts?

Here is a summary of JWT from wikipedia:

Jus ad bellum

Main article: Jus ad bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum)

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Orend) omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorities) may wage war.

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose), while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.

Do you remember that book, "On the Beach." Didn't that war start with Pakistan and Indian?

[travelah]

I certainly see a just cause but as US diplomats were wise to intervene this past week, a war between these two powers could very well go nuclear. The Pakistanis are a reckless people.

[Tallen]

A war with India and Pakistan would be a very interesting case for Just War Theory (JWT). If a country such as Pakistan can not control criminals from its country, does the victim country have a right to attack and assume some sort of control (i.e. wipe out the offending groups)? What if it happens again? What if it is 10 times worse? Thoughts?

Not to hip on the Just War Theory, but I am familiar with Biblical theory. Which would be, that a country is duty bound to protect it's borders and citizens from foreign tyranny. In this case, if Pakistan is not going to prosecute it's criminals and the threat to India remains, India is obligated to protect it's citizens and those foreigners on her soil. It would be reasonable to wipe those who threaten her off the face of the earth so that her future would remain secure.

This is a very volatile place on the earth, and war is inevitable in these regions. It would be smart of the US to warn it's citizens to stay out of such places and withdraw all of our military from there. We need to secure our borders and prosecute the foreign criminals on our soil, that includes illegal aliens.

[Tallen]

I certainly see a just cause but as US diplomats were wise to intervene this past week, a war between these two powers could very well go nuclear. The Pakistanis are a reckless people.

We should pull out of that area, and let them Nuke each other if it comes to that. That is their business. Other than having some diplmats that will try to be peacemakers, there should be no US citizen in that region other than those who are sent to preach the gospel and know the dangers of their ministry. Knowing that their lives may be required for the purpose of the Gospel. And even then, there are places that a Christian has no reason to set his foot in, as the people have come under the judgment of God and are going to be punished for their sin. This is something that must be discerned and where we Christians in the US must be in unity.

But..., I know we live in a real world and this will not be the case. :BigB:

[raderag]

Not to hip on the Just War Theory, but I am familiar with Biblical theory. Which would be, that a country is duty bound to protect it's borders and citizens from foreign tyranny. In this case, if Pakistan is not going to prosecute it's criminals and the threat to India remains, India is obligated to protect it's citizens and those foreigners on her soil. It would be reasonable to wipe those who threaten her off the face of the earth so that her future would remain secure.

This is a very volatile place on the earth, and war is inevitable in these regions. It would be smart of the US to warn it's citizens to stay out of such places and withdraw all of our military from there. We need to secure our borders and prosecute the foreign criminals on our soil, that includes illegal aliens.

I'm not at all talking about US policy here. Also, remember that JWT was carefully crafted by the likes of Augustine, so don't be so quick to dismiss it. The ethic is Biblical.

So, you would agree then that it would be just for the US to attack Iran of some Iranian citizens terrorized the US?

[cache22nz]

there are places that a Christian has no reason to set his foot in, as the people have come under the judgment of God and are going to be punished for their sin.
And yet, even Ninevah had its Jonah.

[Swordman53]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3688288/Pakistan-Were-ready-for-war-with-India.html

A war with India and Pakistan would be a very interesting case for Just War Theory (JWT). If a country such as Pakistan can not control criminals from its country, does the victim country have a right to attack and assume some sort of control (i.e. wipe out the offending groups)? What if it happens again? What if it is 10 times worse? Thoughts?

Here is a summary of JWT from wikipedia:

Jus ad bellum

Main article: Jus ad bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum)

Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Orend) omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorities) may wage war.

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose), while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
After the 9-11 attack in 2001 there were discussions of proper response. Just war was raised, and in general, it fit the situation in Afganistan. People across the board, with the exception of one professor who was a genuine pacifist, people saw a rational for going into Afganistan.

It is interesting that the same was done for Iraq before we entered that arena, and across the board, with the exception of one professor who said people always go to war with dirty hands, everyone said we should NOT go in because it did not fit the just war criteria.

For some reason people seem to ignore these principles due to anger, fear, greed and a host of other reasons.

India's situation is serious. But war must always be the last resort.

Who would we side with politically? I suspect we would sit out of any direct conflict, but certainly the Indians seem to be the victims here. Based on what we know about Pakistan, this one could go nuclear.

[Tallen]

So, you would agree then that it would be just for the US to attack Iran of some Iranian citizens terrorized the US?

Absolutely, if the Irianian government would fail in it's duty to prosecute it's criminals that attacked and if there was a continuing of the attacks from that country. The duty is to protect your borders and citizens from foreign hostility.

It would not be just to attack Iran for the sake of some preceived future threat that may or may not happen.

[Tallen]

But war must always be the last resort.

Yes, I agree.


Who would we side with politically? I suspect we would sit out of any direct conflict, but certainly the Indians seem to be the victims here. Based on what we know about Pakistan, this one could go nuclear.

That could be the judgment of the Lord upon people that are worshipping false gods and idols. It may be a sign for our time. I would hate to see it happen, and I pray sincerely that it don't. But on the other hand, discernment and trust in YHWH must be what we do as His people.

Also, if Pakistan is clearly at fault, our government should be prepared to side with justice. Even if that means that we are politically against the aggressors. We should not fear to speak out for what is right.

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Then 100 years later Ninevah was destroyed...

[Tallen]

And yet, even Ninevah had its Jonah.

That area has had many Jonah's, they are killing them and persecuting them and have for a long time.

When the blood of the saints is involved, there will soon be real judgment.

[Athanasius]

Not to hip on the Just War Theory, but I am familiar with Biblical theory. Which would be, that a country is duty bound to protect it's borders and citizens from foreign tyranny. In this case, if Pakistan is not going to prosecute it's criminals and the threat to India remains, India is obligated to protect it's citizens and those foreigners on her soil. It would be reasonable to wipe those who threaten her off the face of the earth so that her future would remain secure.

This is a very volatile place on the earth, and war is inevitable in these regions. It would be smart of the US to warn it's citizens to stay out of such places and withdraw all of our military from there. We need to secure our borders and prosecute the foreign criminals on our soil, that includes illegal aliens.

I totally agree. And speaking of borders, they are flowing across from Old Mexico. People don't realize that many illegals are bringing across untreatable forms of TB, all kinds of parasites (and they work in the food industry), and when their children are born here, those children are eligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps and Cash Assistance, with no term limit. For instance, citizens of this country can get Cash Assistance for five years only; but in the case of a child born to illegals, they are eligible from birth to eighteen. This is a major glitch in the Federal system. Furthermore, if these kids get sick (and they do, trust me), they are fully covered for all medical expenses, while often the kids of citizens have to do without. The whole system needs to be revamped. Furthermore, citizenship of children born here should follow the citizenship of the mother. We cart these women in labor across the border in ambulances we pay for to the nearest American hospitals (Mexico has poor hospitals), and the children become citizens when born there, and are entitled to attend American schools and the benefits already mentioned. People on this side of the border protest, but (like protesting to CARM administration :biglol:) we search in vain for results.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have to remember that the Muslim's first loyalty is to their faith and to other Muslims. Even if they know where Osama and the rat pack he hangs with are, they won't turn that pile of toad droppings over to the US, and have said they will shoot at our troops if we go after these terrorists on Pakistani territory. Pakistan deserves what it gets, as far as I'm concerned. What about the Bush doctrine of "harboring terrorists?" Did the President forget that?

And while I'm on the subject, in the east we always pronounced the name of Pakistan with an a as in rat. Along comes along Obama, who pronounces the country Pock-i-stan. Now, if you listen to the talking heads on the networks, they've picked up on that and say Pock-i-stan. Well, pocks on that!:sparkle:

Okay, I got that out of my system!

[Tallen]

I totally agree. And speaking of borders, they are flowing across from Old Mexico. People don't realize that many illegals are bringing across untreatable forms of TB, all kinds of parasites (and they work in the food industry), and when their children are born here, those children are eligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps and Cash Assistance, with no term limit.

And pregnate women stream across the boarder to have their children here, just for that reason.


For instance, citizens of this country can get Cash Assistance for five years only; but in the case of a child born to illegals, they are eligible from birth to eighteen. This is a major glitch in the Federal system. Furthermore, if these kids get sick (and they do, trust me), they are fully covered for all medical expenses, while often the kids of citizens have to do without. The whole system needs to be revamped. Furthermore, citizenship of children born here should follow the citizenship of the mother. We cart these women in labor across the border in ambulances we pay for to the nearest American hospitals (Mexico has poor hospitals), and the children become citizens when born there, and are entitled to attend American schools and the benefits already mentioned. People on this side of the border protest, but (like protesting to CARM administration :biglol:) there are no results!

I agree, the system needs to be revamped.


As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have to remember that the Muslim's first loyalty is to their faith and to other Muslims.

Yep, and in the Muslim culture it is seen as an honorable thing to take advantage of someone of greater position. For instance, if someone buys five camels from a rich man that has two thousand camels, and he can end up with six, one more than he paid for, it is seen as a noble and honorable thing to have gotten one over on the rich man. He deserves it, in their eyes. The same with America and Americans. If the Muslim can take advantage of the "rich American" in business or even on a social level, he brags about it and his friends congratulate him for being noble and able to get one over on someone that deserves it. It is a cultural badge they can wear for praise and recognition.

They see Osama as someone doing things to the Americans in that light. He is protected and honored because he has done things to us and gotten away with it.


Even if they know where Osama and the rat pack he hangs with are, they won't turn that pile of toad droppings over to the US, and have said they will shoot at our troops if we go after these terrorists on Pakistani territory. Pakistan deserves what it gets, as far as I'm concerned. What about the Bush doctrine of "harboring terrorists?" Did the President forget that?

Must have.


And while I'm on the subject, in the east we always pronounced the name of Pakistan with an a as in rat. Along comes along Obama, who pronounces the country Pock-i-stan. Now, if you listen to the talking heads on the networks, they've picked up on that and say Pock-i-stan. Well, pocks on that!:sparkle:

I hadn't notice that.


Okay, I got that out of my system!

:clap: