We Have Become Hessian Mercenaries

[Keith Broaders]

While using military force to defend one's life, liberty or property is justified, using the military to compel another nation to give up their natural resources is a perversion of God's Law.

Using force to defend yourself against an attacker is appropriate, but using force to attack someone who has not attacked you is not morally or ethically justifiable.

We only have a God given right to defend ourselves against real acts of aggression. The decision to employ the military is reserved to the people through a declaration of war with approval from their Congressional Representatives.

According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military when he is called in to service by a Congressional Declaration of War.

When the President employs the use of the military force to repel an attack, a Declaration of War is not required, because of the Doctrine of Emergency.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the President didn't need to wait for a Congressional Declaration of War to fight back. It is obvious when we are being attacked, but we are not justified in attacking another country just because of an imaginary threat.

If the President can go to war whenever he feels justified, he then has the authority of a King. What's the difference?

[Fredrick Rehders]

The Government derives it's power from the governed and if individuals are not allowed to attack others, except in self defense, then they cannot reasonably authorize an action that they themselves do not have.

That is pretty easy to understand. Easier than the right of imminent domain, anyway!.  (<;  FR

[Oleg Gielman]

"Using force to defend yourself against an attacker is appropriate, but using force to attack someone who may or may not attack you is not morally or ethically justifiable."

There are times when offense is necessary to avoid harm ...The people have a duty in attacking imminent threats, and especially imminent danger ...an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure (if you're lucky).

[Keith Broaders]

I disagree with you on this one. If your neighbor is mentally incompetent he may think you are a threat to him. Just because he feels threatened by you doesn't mean that he has a right to kill you.

If a nation feels sufficiently threatened that an attack is imminent it is the job of the people through their Congressional Representative to declare war. The decision to attack is a decision for the whole people, not just an imperial President.

If a country would not threaten us if they knew in advance that we were prepared to declare war and literally blow them off of the map.

 

[Oleg Gielman]

Mental incompetency implies a need for rehabilitation, and far from being a voter quality ...unfortunately, these days that's far from being so.

Take as an example the many released repeat criminals, if a judge or system releases non rehabilitative rapists, murderers, etc, it is our duty to keep those "things" out of our lives ...not unlike like a deadly virus.

[Keith Broaders]

Whether your neighbor poses a threat or not is based upon one's opinion. Hitler considered Poland justified his invasion of Poland because he proclaimed that Poland was a threat to the security of Germany.

If your neighbor has millions of barrels of oil and you want it, is it possible that you could justify the use of military force because of a perceived threat.

[Fredrick Rehders]

Well, as immoral as that is, we can be sure wars are waged for much less. Can the leader of a group, tribe or nation ignore overt threats from aggressive opponents that possess devastating WMDs. Guess wrong and the overwhelming risk of being dominated or taking excessive losses are not acceptable. Put it on an individual basis... and if you get in some folks face, all loud and proud, if they have a hair in their ass, they'll get busy, in a hurry and bring all they got! A genuine threat cannot be tolerated! Intimidation is aggression, at least it is in my neighborhood.  FR