War in Gaza

[RZehr]

What is war?

What is peace?

Isn’t this a better question? Find out what we want, and the pursue that.

[Ken]

What is war?

Is militarizing our southern borders against the drug cartels war? It looks a lot like war. Watch the movie Sicario.

What about the predictions of violence we hear about if Trump doesn't win the election? We have even heard people talk about such predictions here. Is that war?

Is protecting shipping through the Red Sea war?

What about fighting cocaine trafficking in Colombia?

The last time the US actually declared war was WW2. There has been a awful lot of fighting since then.

When Anabaptists speak of war, they are not using the political expediency of “conflicts”
We call it war anytime our military is used against another sovereign nation and may agree on some past that.

I don't think that is accurate.

In my experience, the Anabaptist focus is not on defining war. But rather, on defining what is meant by by Biblical teachings on nonresistance. And most Anabaptists equally object to participating in every form of armed conflict against others, whether it is conventional war or unconventional uses of force.

I think a typical Anabaptist would equally object to putting on a uniform and participating in some military strike against a drug cartel as they would a conventional military strike against some other nation state. And sometimes they are actually one in the same thing.

[Soloist]

I don't think that is accurate.

In my experience, the Anabaptist focus is not on defining war. But rather, on defining what is meant by by Biblical teachings on nonresistance. And most Anabaptists equally object to participating in every form of armed conflict against others, whether it is conventional war or unconventional uses of force.

I think a typical Anabaptist would equally object to putting on a uniform and participating in some military strike against a drug cartel as they would a conventional military strike against some other nation state. And sometimes they are actually one in the same thing.

You were asking what war is. I was explaining what I know conservatives define war as. We don’t really spend a lot of time saying well that’s a conflict and not a war. We would object to a lot of those things, but I don’t know that we would necessarily call it War. All I really was specifying was that we don’t make a distinction between conflicts and war.

[Ken]

I don't think that is accurate.

In my experience, the Anabaptist focus is not on defining war. But rather, on defining what is meant by by Biblical teachings on nonresistance. And most Anabaptists equally object to participating in every form of armed conflict against others, whether it is conventional war or unconventional uses of force.

I think a typical Anabaptist would equally object to putting on a uniform and participating in some military strike against a drug cartel as they would a conventional military strike against some other nation state. And sometimes they are actually one in the same thing.

You were asking what war is. I was explaining what I know conservatives define war as. We don’t really spend a lot of time saying well that’s a conflict and not a war. We would object to a lot of those things, but I don’t know that we would necessarily call it War. All I really was specifying was that we don’t make a distinction between conflicts and war.

They point I was trying to make to RZehr is that war is actually a very difficult thing to define. And I don't think the Bible makes any distinction between the use of force against non-state actors compared to state actors.

For example, the drug war and the war on terror are actual violent fighting wars with lots of use of force and armed soldiers. And lots of killing. Even though they aren't against nation states per se.

[Robert]

For example, the drug war and the war on terror are actual violent fighting wars with lots of use of force and armed soldiers. And lots of killing. Even though they aren't against nation states per se.

While they really do not fit the definition of war, they use the term to define it. It is still a state aggression.

While I am against war, I am also realistic and know that states will continue to war with each other. I grieve the loss of life which are mostly innocents. I am resigned to the fact that I can do very little about it. Not sure I have a lot of responsibility to do anything about it. I accept it as part of the broken world we live in. I hope one day humanity grows up and finds better ways of dealing with things.

[Ken]

For example, the drug war and the war on terror are actual violent fighting wars with lots of use of force and armed soldiers. And lots of killing. Even though they aren't against nation states per se.

While they really do not fit the definition of war, they use the term to define it. It is still a state aggression.

While I am against war, I am also realistic and know that states will continue to war with each other. I grieve the loss of life which are mostly innocents. I am resigned to the fact that I can do very little about it. Not sure I have a lot of responsibility to do anything about it. I accept it as part of the broken world we live in. I hope one day humanity grows up and finds better ways of dealing with things.

The entire Afghan war was sold as part of the "War of Terror". Supposedly we were going after non-state actors Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and not the Afghan people. It cost the US $2.3 Trillion.

[Josh]

Imagine what the $2.3 trillion could have bought. At $18,000 per household, I think we can all come up with some ideas.

[Ernie]

Imagine what the $2.3 trillion could have bought. At $18,000 per household, I think we can all come up with some ideas.

Blowing 2.3 trillion benefits the economy but lays more debt on the average American. Whereas injecting 2.3 trillion into the spending market results in inflation.
I prefer not spending money for either.

[Josh]

Imagine what the $2.3 trillion could have bought. At $18,000 per household, I think we can all come up with some ideas.

Blowing 2.3 trillion benefits the economy but lays more debt on the average American. Whereas injecting 2.3 trillion into the spending market results in inflation.
I prefer not spending money for either.

Defence spending means injecting 2.3 trillion into the spending market.

[Ken]

Imagine what the $2.3 trillion could have bought. At $18,000 per household, I think we can all come up with some ideas.

Blowing 2.3 trillion benefits the economy but lays more debt on the average American. Whereas injecting 2.3 trillion into the spending market results in inflation.
I prefer not spending money for either.

I don't object if the money is being spent to build infrastructure for future generations. That makes it an investment. So things like the Golden Gate Bridge, universities, research hospitals, parks, harbors, etc. Stuff that will be around in 100 years for our great grandchildren to use.

Money that is just spent for short-term stimulus though, I'm not so interested in. Especially if we are burdening future generations with the cost.

A basic rule is that if we are asking future generations to pay (via debt spending) then we should be spending on things that they will benefit from too.