They did it in WWI and again in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, multiples in the Middle East. Millions dead. Massive amounts of property destroyed. I’m not anti war, I’m anti unjust war. In my view, if one’s country has not been invaded, one must think long and hard before initiating hostilities. There must be an existential threat. I pulled the following from Catholic Conscience, but we were taught the same at Piedmont Baptist College.
Just War Doctrine
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- There must be serious prospects of success;
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Unlike what we in the West have been doing for generations, the Russian response to NATO satisfies the requirements of Just War Doctrine by definition. If we want to fight, perhaps we need to look at the enemies within our own borders and not the invented enemies abroad.
No more brother wars
We have an invasion here, certainly. It has and will continue to have a lasting and negative effect. Deportations are and alternative to kinetic conflict as long as they continue in much higher numbers than we have seen so far. Absent that option, we will find ourselves existentially threatened, we already are actually, from communist subversion at home and communist hoards pouring in from every turd world country on the planet. Tribe up and harden up.
^^^THIS^^^
I have a DD214 that says I’m Sgt. Schulz
One must always remember that nations have the right of “peremptory self-defense”.
The problem with that concept is the weakness in determining “enemy” intentions. Example: the neighboring nation/group has mobilized its armed forces and they are near your border positioned in a way that indicates preparation for attack.
But are they? They announce this is only annual maneuvers to train troops how to respond to attacks from your nation. Hmmm… what are their intentions? When and what should your side do, if anything ??
As the US submarine commander said in “The Hunt For Red October”, “The problem with playing Chicken is knowing when to flinch.”
Think about the Norks. They try to pimp the South Koreans and US into overreacting by committing what the Norks would call “provocations” as they move forces up to, and onto the line. Fortunately the CCP doesn’t want the Norks to attack and keeps close hold on their whacked-out dictators, but you get the idea of how difficult this concept can be in real world situations.
Synthetic fears of the other featured large in the successful effort to get the masses sufficiently on side to various stupid and self destructive collective behaviours.
The US has been willfully destroyed…….
Now I wonder why my father marched into 1945 Paris!
My Fallschirmjager dad beat him to it in 1940. 🙂
Like General Patton said: WE FOUGHT THE WRONG ENEMY.
“The war is not meant to be won; it is meant to be continuous.” George Orwell
The American still people haven’t figured that out, they still clamor for more wars.
Must have something to do with a lack of reading skills and comprehension.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will do my best once again with Memorial Day coming to challenge the narrative that the fallen ones died for our freedom.