ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 7 of 12
« First < 34567 891011 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Here is a tribute to the 'Mad Dog' hoping he is tapped for DOD
Chiefshrink 12:05 PM 11-24-2016
I think it is only fitting to repost this modern day General Patton speech in tribute to General Mike Mattis hoping he leads the DOD because he will not apologize for defending this country. And what a day to post this speech, Thanksgiving !!!!

Enjoy my conservative hawk brethren !!!!


[Reply]
BucEyedPea 10:34 AM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink:
I have yet to see it but plan to see it with my son today. It will not win best picture because as follows: Mel Gibson(anti-semite rants), active Christian faith mentioning of Jesus, etc..... you get the idea. If it does I will be shocked.

War is only immoral if the motives for going to war are unethical and there is the rub. Whose ethics ? A transcendent God of the Bible or man's sinful ego ? Jesus said to strive for peace at all times but he did say in....

Luke 22:36 -"But now," he said, "take your money and a traveler's bag. And if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one!

There is your self-defense permission from God himself in Jesus in scripture justifying a war to protect the people and owning a gun/guns to protect your family.
I know Daniel's views, and I certain he'd be fine with self-defense—but I also know he opposes starting wars that are not for defense, despite propaganda stirring that fear, or wars of aggression whether they are fought for an ally or not; whether they are for regime change operations to bring about the NWO by having all govts on board with that agenda. NONE of those fit Christian Just War Doctrine. So I look at Daniel's opinion in this context of today.
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 10:34 AM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Right or necessary.

Starting wars or wars of aggression are definitely immoral but true acts of defense aren't.
Precisely and self-defense can look awesomely aggressive at times. Like tugging on Superman's cape and where people get emotionally confused a lot of the times and our involvement when this happens.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 10:36 AM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink:
Precisely and self-defense can look awesomely aggressive at times. Like tugging on Superman's cape and where people get emotionally confused a lot of the times and our involvement when this happens.
I don't know about the bold part. It sounds like the kind of wars I mentioned in my last post that are immoral. It's too expansive and I think violates Christian Just War Doctrine and the message of the New Testament. Sounds more Old Testament to me.
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 10:45 AM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
but I also know he opposes starting wars that are not for defense, despite propaganda stirring that fear, or wars of aggression whether they are fought for an ally or not; whether they are for regime change operations to bring about the NWO by having all govts on board with that agenda. NONE of those fit Christian Just War Doctrine. So I look at Daniel's opinion in this context of today.
I agree. However, all of what you mention here can get pretty complex at times in order to keep the peace because many other countries will use our Judeo/Christian ethics against us as they are now to some degree. Jesus said be gentle as a lamb and shrewd as a snake. There again is the shrewdness ethical or not, to your point. Propaganda, stirring fear, regime change etc.... sometimes is necessary with our enemies in order to keep the peace. But doing any of this just for the sake of unnecessary bullying because we don't like them is absolutely wrong and sinful I agree.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 11:12 AM 11-27-2016
We disagree Chiefshrink. It's actually much simpler than it's made out to be. The entangling alliances complicate matters—what our first president warned against.
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 11:23 AM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I don't know about the bold part. It sounds like the kind of wars I mentioned in my last post that are immoral. It's too expansive and I think violates Christian Just War Doctrine and the message of the New Testament. Sounds more Old Testament to me.
The God of the OT and NT are one in the same in the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS are three persons in one essence that have never not existed. They have always existed meaning Jesus and the HS were there in the OT as well, but they just hadn't formally been introduced to the world in the flesh as yet. But everything God the Father authored in the OT i.e. to wars was also authored by Jesus and the HS as well. i say all this because many people like to separate the God of the OT from the God of the NT because of all the wars but in reality that is actual heresy.

With that being said, it is God's omniscience(all knowing) that you must rest in as you read about the wars in the OT and His directions he gave to the Israelites in destroying her enemies. God never instructed the Israelites to go start a war unjustly and kill just for the sake of killing. There was always a justified reason and when God made this decision he already knew the hearts of the enemy would never change although he gave them 'freewill' to choose to get along with Israel. God knew through the free will of His enemies they would never obey thus after much time and patience mind you(which many people don't realize) God eventually makes war against His enemies. And let's not forget as well, that Israel also was punished by God through her enemies just about as much as the wars directed by God.

So when I use the term 'awesomely aggressive' it is not in the context of let's say Beavis and Butthead(Awesome Dude !:-)) but it is used in the context of a Majestical All Powerful God that is not to be mocked. And when a country who honors God who has been attacked and then responds in self-defense, that awesomeness of God can be seen in that self-defense at times.
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 11:29 AM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
We disagree Chiefshrink. It's actually much simpler than it's made out to be. The entangling alliances complicate matters—what our first president warned against.
I understand and agree to a point, but our 1st Prez did not live in a global community with a massive amount of power as a country with all the technology to boot that forces you to now make many more complex difficult decisions to keep the peace that is now worldwide. George was not faced with all of this which made it easier to not get involved.
[Reply]
listopencil 12:20 PM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
War is inherently immoral. It violates the NAP. However, it is sometimes justifiable.
Depends on the circumstances.
[Reply]
GloucesterChief 01:15 PM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Depends on the circumstances.
The non-aggression principle is a personal ethic. A soldier has to do violence on command not because the person on the other side aggressed against him. That is a violation of the NAP on every soldier and commanders part thus immoral.

Now, violence may be justified if the nation was attacked or another serious Casus Belli occurred. Justification does not mean that the action did not violate personal ethics just that there was no other solution except violence.
[Reply]
listopencil 01:54 PM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
The non-aggression principle is a personal ethic. A soldier has to do violence on command not because the person on the other side aggressed against him. That is a violation of the NAP on every soldier and commanders part thus immoral.
Again, it depends on the circumstance. A British pilot shooting down a Nazi plane while defending his homeland is not violating the NAP. That Nazi pilot is though. And then I think you are also failing to consider the notion of carrying out an armed liberation of an ally under duress. A notion which has been abused, definitely, but is still a moral reaction to aggression rather than a violation of the NAP.

Originally Posted by :
Now, violence may be justified if the nation was attacked or another serious Casus Belli occurred. Justification does not mean that the action did not violate personal ethics just that there was no other solution except violence.
I think we are nitpicking over the difference between 'non violent' and 'non aggressive.'
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 02:01 PM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Again, it depends on the circumstance. A British pilot shooting down a Nazi plane while defending his homeland is not violating the NAP. That Nazi pilot is though. And then I think you are also failing to consider the notion of carrying out an armed liberation of an ally under duress. A notion which has been abused, definitely, but is still a moral reaction to aggression rather than a violation of the NAP.
It's not for those fighting against an oppressor in their own country, but if that country has not attacked us or if it's not our fight then it is a violation of NAP for us.
[Reply]
listopencil 02:15 PM 11-27-2016
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
It's not for those fighting against an oppressor in their own country, but if that country has not attacked us or if it's not our fight then it is a violation of NAP for us.
I'm thinking that if we are allied with another nation via a mutual defense treaty, then we do have a responsibility to react to the aggressor. Other than that I agree with you.
[Reply]
Easy 6 05:04 PM 12-01-2016
Sounds like its going to be Mattis, hallelujah... he will need a waiver from the house and senate, but thats only a formality when Republicans control both

Not only is he the perfect man to lead our defense efforts, but he also has a keen understanding of what it means to send men off to fight... you want to avoid needless deaths and wars? Put a man like Mattis in charge and in the Presidents ear
[Reply]
LiveSteam 07:20 PM 12-01-2016
Yup.. Trump just said .Mad dog it is.
[Reply]
Coyote 07:44 PM 12-01-2016
I have served with Jim many times. Most of us all him CHAOS. It is an acronym from back in DS in 1991- "Colonel Has Another Outstanding Suggestion." He is a dedicated "warrior monk." He flat knows his business but has his callsign suggests, he will be very engaged. Joe Dunford our current Chairman of the Joint Staff also knows Jim very well. That can be both good and bad of course but Joe was a Regimental Commander (Col) under Jim when Jim commanded 1st MARDIV back in 2003 and served around him many times. This is a bit different from most CJCS and SecDef relationships.
[Reply]
Page 7 of 12
« First < 34567 891011 > Last »
Up