Pre-emptive strike

[RICHinCHRIST]

I'm with Matt on this point for point. I personally support Ron Paul, and I'm considering becoming a delegate of his, here in NJ. I'm not a big politics guy, but since researching some of the issues it seems to me that Dr. Paul is the most level-headed candidate. The media on both sides of the political spectrum have painted a bad picture of him. I don't know how close his walk with Christ is (since he doesn't talk about it much for probably wise reasons), but I think he can get America back on track.

Regarding the pre-emptive strike, I think he would definitely intervene (although I probably wouldn't if I were him!! I guess that's why I'll never be president) if he knew it was the right thing to do. His main policy is that he wants to focus on securing our own borders and stop trying to control the world, as Matt mentioned.

What would David do?

TK

David would pray and ask God if he should or not, and what the consequences would be if he did or didn't. Then God would give him the low-down (like He did in 1 Samuel 23). I don't see why God might not supernaturally reveal something to our President (either through a dream or vision, or through a real prophet) if He wanted to fight on America's side. Then again, maybe God wants to judge this country and there is no use fighting against our enemies then! Sooner or later, if America stays on the track it's on... I don't see why China, Russia, or a Middle Eastern Muslim Coalition could not obliterate us when we are economically drained from trying to be police of the world. God only knows. The king's heart is in His hand and to what extent He will intervene is up to Him. Lord have mercy.

[darinhouston]

The purpose would be to destroy the nuclear missiles before they are fired and destroy L.A. , the target would be military installations and the likely fallout is that civilians are killed as part of what they call collateral damage and in addition the country hit would deny everything and label the US as murderers and incite additional hatred against the US.

I think the key is the collateral damage -- I think if you could limit it to those the country has placed in harms way for the purpose of creating this dilemma, then I would still be able to launch such a strike. It's a hard decision, and absolutely I would pray hard about it and seek counsel. But, being chosen to protect others in just such a circumstance, taking that responsibility, assuming all in such power are raised and kept there by the consent of God, the stewardship and fiduciary responsibility of those who entrusted me to do so would likely lead me to such an attack. If the collateral damage were small and contained, I'm not actually sure I'd wait for "certainty" of an attack when a nuke or the like is involved. When you face the real threat of millions of human beings being destroyed, the hard choice becomes easier.

Bring it down to our level and consider a drug dealer thug of the worst order standing outside your neighbor's house where he had gathered all the women and children in the neighborhood and where he stood with a flamethrower and padlocks and chains to keep your neighbors in (this sort of thing actually happened in the Revolutionary War). If you had a gun, would you shoot him before he could set the blaze? What if he had an explosive vest on and the shot would explode him and one of the neighbors he kept by his side to protect himself from such an attack?

Sometimes the right thing is hard and hard to live with.

[Homer]

Here it is on a personal level - but could the woman legitimately shoot the intruder if she was by herself?

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots- ... 06413.html

[TK]

Here it is on a personal level - but could the woman legitimately shoot the intruder if she was by herself?

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots- ... 06413.html

Absolutely.

TK

[darinhouston]

Here it is on a personal level - but could the woman legitimately shoot the intruder if she was by herself?

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots- ... 06413.html

Certainly, though Steve has made the point that it might not be the "best" thing to do -- the intruder likely needs time to follow Christ. So, the relative value of your life has to be considered in that regard. Of course, if you have ongoing obligations to others, that may trump this particular individual's life. At some level, this is a stewardship question -- cutting my life short for him may be worth it, but it may be casting pearls before swine in some respects, as there are others that I might serve with my life whose lives may be likewise deserving of my ongoing life.

Personally, I'd have no problem doing it. The odds are extremely in favor of this being a lost life and to trade my life in that sort of situation would highly likely be a complete waste. It's a matter of the heart, I think -- if I'm killing him "merely" out of self-preservation, then it's probably wrong. For me, it's easy since I have a wife and kids to whom I think I owe a greater duty.

[jriccitelli]

Duty for sure, I cannot imagine my wife or kids thinking that I would not protect them as we walk down the street.
The family father is Gods example of what God does for us, a savior, a defender of the defenseless, an ever present help in time of need.

I am glad we have the freedom and reason to witness with our life, even to die for our witness.
I often thought I might be a martyr if I had to. That is a decision I will make for myself not for someone else. It would be wrong for me to allow others to die or be harmed for my witness. It is not my right to make that decision for others.
I would have to have the full agreement of all the adults involved before allowing a full sacrifice of our lives. (And I am not going to make that decision for children, so as to cause them to become martyrs for ‘my’ belief)

The bible does ‘not’ say we must lay down and die for an intruder or killer, Jesus says we should turn the other 'cheek'.
In another place Jesus says the greatest thing we can do is to lay down our life for our ‘friends’.
The murderous, the rapist and evil men are not my friends, nor are they Gods friends, so I do not see any biblical command to allow any killer or dangerous person to commit his crime. We have the ‘privilege’ to give our life and refuse to defend ourselves for the Gospels sake, if we feel that would be the purpose of such an occasion, but it is not a Christian Law or obligation, just a privilege, I believe.
(I am a pacifist only when 'my own' life is concerned. I am not afraid to die, but if I must live to support my family, especially children, then it would be a bad witness to leave them and my wife devastated and in hardship if it could have easily been avoided. Certainly it would be unwise to die willingly at the hand of an evil person knowing you would leave a child with a dead father)

So, I say all this because I do not believe a President has a right to withdraw from defending our Country from attack (Nuclear or other) on biblical grounds, or personal beliefs.

When you serve in the military you 'have made' an agreement to defend the civilians, you do not change your job description day by day, you pray ‘before’ you make ‘your oath’ to defend, your yes is yes and your no is no. It is the same for anyone in defensive duty or office, the decisions are made ‘before’ the event happens; If this happens-then that will happen, if that happens-then this will happen. When I vote someone into office I am trusting (Hoping) they hold to what has been decided, and those decisions are already in place (and yet changing with policy). There is no hair trigger launch but the decision must be made within about 5 minutes (!) to start retaliation or response procedures. Whether LOW (Launch on warning) policy or Retaliation after detonation (RLOAD) policy is in affect, it is still being debated. But still most procedure is semi-automatic whether it’s alerting Submarine, Carrier or silos to alert or launch, most targets are already locked on.

I would devote 1 minute to prayer though, maybe a minute and a half, considering we had a least two false alert warnings in the past. Although some countries have us locked on for sure, I don’t think we need to worry about any country being so stupid right now, in the future who knows?