The rising tensions over North Korea’s growing nuclear program are of special urgency. The international community must respond by seeking to revive negotiations. The threat or use of military force have no place in countering proliferation, and the threat or use of nuclear weapons in countering nuclear proliferation are deplorable. We must put behind us the nuclear threats, fear, military superiority, ideology, and unilateralism that drive proliferation and modernization efforts and are so reminiscent of the logic of the Cold War.A few things.
What the President said was, "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
As I understand it, Just War Theory endorses defensive war by legitimate governments. That is what is being described here.
Just War Theory does potentially have an issue with the totality claim: in theory one should wage war in the way most likely to allow noncombatants to survive. Yet this is not a threat to totally destroy North Korea by preference, it is a warning that there won't be any other option.
Military force may be the only way of countering proliferation, practically speaking. Is the claim that it would be better to allow nuclear proliferation to states like the DPRK than to stop it using military force?
Finally, I notice that the ideology in the DPRK's case actually calls for the elimination of religions like Catholicism -- indeed, of all religions except for their own weird cult around the Kim family. That seems like a point that the Church ought to be interested in.
11 comments:
I'm sure the Pope can deliver, in person, his polemic to Baby Kim, and the boy would listen most seriously.
On the other hand, regarding "totally destroy[ing] North Korea" and the idea that such totality necessarily involves not allowing noncombatants to survive: it's not a threat to totally destroy northern Korea in that sense, by preference or otherwise; the Carthaginian solution is not at all the only means of total destruction of a polity.
We totally destroyed Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan over the course of WWII. The vast majority of noncombatants in those two polities survived, and they and their descendants are doing pretty OK today, for all that those two polities no longer exist. The totality of those destructions in no way violate any theory of Just War other than, perhaps, the Bishops', of the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace.
Eric Hines
Indeed, there are versions of "totally destroyed" that would be a marked improvement for the lives of ordinary North Koreans. There are, of course, others that would not be.
The Pope is a commie, and there's no getting around it. One has to remember that the Church has always been a Universalist, or in other words, Globalist, organization, and of course everything *should* be subservient to the ideology/theology/whatever.
"We must put behind us the nuclear threats, fear, military superiority, ideology, and unilateralism that drive proliferation and modernization efforts and are so reminiscent of the logic of the Cold War."
Somebody needs to tell him that the Cold War worked. We averted nuclear armageddon, and brought down the evil empire. Hard to think of a more effective avoidance of violence.
Civil War in the Roman Catholic + Vatican.
End of the Papist era, finally, perhaps.
The Last Pope of Rome, who is called the "Vicar of Christ". He stands as an intercessor between you and the Christ, true of all Roman Catholics, including Mel Gibson, even though they don't like Vatican II.
The latest intel digest is that the Protestants, the Catholics, and the Islamic groups are going to form an alliance of a super religion.
That seems like a point that the Church ought to be interested in.
The Vatican has killed and burned more saints of Jesus of Nazareth than Islam.
Why would the Vatican care about Eastern Orthodox heretics, Coptic heretics, Ethiopian heretics?
Let them burn, as the Patriarch of Rome once decreed.
What is this international community he talks about? If he means the United Governments meeting in NY, I'm not sure they are a reliable force for moral good.
Somebody needs to tell him that the Cold War worked.
One must remember that the Holy See is comprised largely of, for lack of a more polite term, Euro-twits. And it is accepted wisdom among said twits that the Cold War was won by "European unity and the European project".
Stop laughing. I'm serious, this is what they say to each other.
(Comprises, not "is comprised of". Blast. I hate it when I do that.)
Jaed, your mistake, my education. I didn't even know of this usage error. Now I do- Thanks!
Glad for my mistakes to serve as a horrible example to others. ;-)
The rule of thumb is that "comprise" and "compose" are complements. So if you could substitute one for the other in your sentence, your usage is incorrect. I usually remember that... not this time.
Post a Comment