Comments on: Is Pre-Emptive War Justified?

By: plato04

plato04 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:39:56 +0000

Mark N.,

Interesting article. Brings up some interesting points. I admit I have a hard time with all of Laurence Vance’s perspectives. I believe that some wars can be justified, and have been, as in The Book of Mormon.

Mormon Heretic,

The causes of WW2 are much more complex than just the rise of Hitler. An interventionist Wilsonian foreign policy (culminating in the Versailles Treaty at the conclusion of WWI) coupled with hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic led to WW2 led to the rise and domination of Hitler. With Hitler gone, why do we suppose no others would rise up in his place?

Having a context of pre-emptive war in place means we could take anyone out we wanted to, if we felt they were a threat to us. How would we know which threats are real and which are not? (Iraq is teaching us this lesson.) Knocking out leaders before they become a direct threat to us is a very dangerous and immoral game, and sets a very dangerous precedent. I submit that such a precedent could literally throw the world into chaos, or worse, another world war. The rest of the world could perceive us as a direct threat, and act accordingly.

Connor,

The golden rule is a great rule of thumb for foreign policy. I can never figure out why so many believe that countries, which are full of people, are best governed by laws different than how people are best governed. Doesn’t make any sense to me.

By: Mark N.

Mark N. — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:25:42 +0000

"What about Hitler?"

By: Mormon Heretic

Mormon Heretic — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:04:37 +0000

I understand and somewhat agree with your views on preemptive war. However, how do you feel about the argument that WW2 could have been avoided, or made much easier if a country had “taken him out” before he invaded so many countries?

By: ed42

ed42 — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:16:08 +0000

“Only legitimate authorities are authorized to wage war.” and only 1) If the people support it and 2) must not force people (anti-nephi-lehis) to participate.

By: Connor’s Conundrums » 4,000 and Counting

Connor’s Conundrums » 4,000 and Counting — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:33:30 +0000

[...] is justified for the most limited and moral of reasons. Despite assertions to the contrary, the conflict that has claimed so many lives (far, far more [...]

By: Connor

Connor — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:41:15 +0000

Agreed. The Book of Mormon makes clear in more than one instance that pre-emptive war is not sanctioned by God.

I think that the “golden rule” harmonizes quite nicely with the just war theory. If we’re waging pre-emptive war against our “enemies”, it follows that they can do the same towards us, and others. Unilaterally declaring somebody a threat or a member of an “axis of evil” is hardly reason to end lives and waste resources.

What I find amazing is how far the GOP has turned from principle. When Kosovo was the issue, numerous GOP leaders stood up and decried pre-emptive war, nation building, and foreign aggression. But as soon as they’re in power, they turn around and do the exact same thing on a larger scale. The hypocrisy is saturating.

By: hutaodewang

hutaodewang — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:23:30 +0000

Good entry!! I love this this blog!
my blog http://blog.huqing.net
welcome you to here!

By: Winslie Gomez

Winslie Gomez — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:13:17 +0000

The “Just war theory” has always fascinated me but pushed for time and want to contuine a dialogue.
If you have no objection here is my link.

http://justlearningman.wordpress.com