Venezuela 2025

[Valerie]

And frankly, there is no danger whatsoever of a mob “lynching Caesar.”

So Pence was perfectly safe all along?

If Big Caesar had protected Little Caesar, yes.

And even under these circumstances, he was safer than you or I would be under the same conditions.

Is there a particular reason you insist on using the word Caesar?

[temporal1]

I am actually surprised to hear you admit that Pence was in danger from that mob of Trump supporters.

not more surprised than me.

my attempt was to limit my words to presidents, and presidents who were assassinated or suffered physical attempts.
not including plans or threats.

i’m not aware there was anything beyond verbal wrt Pence. (not ok.) so, Pence was not part of what i was aiming at.

[R7ehr]

So Pence was perfectly safe all along?

If Big Caesar had protected Little Caesar, yes.

And even under these circumstances, he was safer than you or I would be under the same conditions.

Is there a particular reason you insist on using the word Caesar?

Fan of the salad.

[Szdfan]

JohnH is very fortunate to have you to tell him what he believes and what he means by what he writes.

Ken,
What do you think John is arguing for here?

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don’t understand how you think the world works. Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force. We can also feel grieved that both parties didn’t decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

I’m honestly curious how you interpret statements like these, because I don’t see how this a neutral or purely descriptive statement.

[Szdfan]

John,
I don't think you are simply describing how things are. I think you are taking a position that defends the government's right to summarily execute anyone it calls a "terrorist" without oversight or accountability.

I suppose you can think whatever you want, but that's not my position.

Here's why I'm saying this: when people talk about the morality of war, there are at least four possible positions.

1. Moral optimism: The belief that international law, treaties and norms effectively prevent governments from committing war crimes and atrocities. The system works.
2. Moral realism: The belief that the system of international law is flawed, inconsistent and hypocritical, but it still matters to have rules. It matters to constrain power and to protest abuses.
3. Moral nihilism: The belief that the powerful will do whatever they want and resistance is pointless. "Might makes right."
4. Moral advocacy: This goes beyond moral nihilism and actively justifies and defends the abuses of power themselves.

Based on what you've written, I think you're practicing "moral advocacy."

That's not my position. You can think whatever you want.

I don't subscribe to any of the positions you've listed; I don't believe there is any such thing as "morality of war". I think that war is wrong. The end.

In this discussion, you've:

• Downplayed atrocities.
• Excused extrajudicial killings.
• Said laws don't apply to the powerful.
• Criticized people (including myself) who express concern about about these abuses.

No, I haven't. You are welcome to your opinion if you think I have, but I have not done such things.

That's not neutral. That's not saying it like it is. That's taking a specific moral position and a strong one.

What's really interesting is that you've argued both that Jesus is the only true source of morality while simultaneously arguing that real-world morality is whatever the powerful impose.

Yes, Szdfan, there are two paths for every human: one heads to heaven, and one heads to hell. Jesus opens the way to heaven. Part of his path is leaving behind war and killing.

The other path is this world's ways, which are indeed a place where "might makes right", the weak are plundered by the strong, and victors rewrite history. It is also the path to hell. Jesus came to set us free from all of that.

The problem with this is that you cannot simultaneously argue that Jesus teaches (and is the source) for a higher moral law and also argue that morality in the real world is whatever the powerful decide.

I don't believe that "morals" (and particularly. morality of "war") exists apart from following God's perfect law.

What you're stuck with is a Christianity that mainly tries to stick to its own lane and has nothing to say to the world.

No, it doesn't. I present a Christianity which requires total submission from the believer, and that announces: Jesus is the only way. There is no other path to life. Everything else leads to death.

It ends up affirming things like:

• Power determines right and wrong.
• The powerful are above accountability.
• There’s no point trying to constrain power,
• Christians should worry about heaven instead of justice on earth.

No, it doesn't.

That kind of Christianity doesn't challenge the status quo. It empowers it. It blesses whatever the powerful do.

No, it doesn't. But the job of Christians isn't to somehow improve governments or make war more "moral". The job of Christians is to call every person to repent.

There isn't some third option to be, "Well, I was a nice, moral person who obeyed international rules. I'm a good person! I think I should be let into heaven anyway even though I decided not to follow Jesus and accept that he is the only way and the only true Lawgiver."

I’m not questioning your view of salvation, I’m questioning your support for war crimes.

[JohnH]

I don’t support war crimes.

I don’t support war.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[ken_sylvania]

JohnH is very fortunate to have you to tell him what he believes and what he means by what he writes.

Ken,
What do you think John is arguing for here?

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don’t understand how you think the world works. Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force. We can also feel grieved that both parties didn’t decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

I’m honestly curious how you interpret statements like these, because I don’t see how this a neutral or purely descriptive statement.

That reads to me like he's pointing out the reality that for all the talk about laws of war and Geneva conventions and all that, the fact is that the rich and powerful tend to do what they want regardless of the rules unless there are other rich or powerful people or nations to force them to comply. Such as in WW2, when officials and military officers from the defeated nations were tried for war crimes, but the officials and military officers from the victorious nations mostly escaped accountability. He's not saying it's good or bad.

I think he's saying he's thankful for evil to be constrained by use of force even if it's wielded for wrong reasons, than for evil to face no constraint at all, but that he thinks it would be better if all involved would simply turn away from wrongdoing.

At any rate, I think it would be rather bold of me to try to lecture him and tell him I know better what he means than he does himself.

[Szdfan]

I don’t support war crimes.

I don’t support war.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Aren't these your words?

I find it a real stretch to say the government can't use force against terrorists or drug traffickers. I mean, of all the things to argue for, I don't think calling for drug traffickers to operate in peace and safety (who are the same drug traffickers who make the people around them live in a constant state of fear, and seem to routinely kill people with no consequences for themselves), is really what the gospel is telling Christians they need to advocate for.

I think it's eminently reasonable to object to hearing much concern about "justice" and "the law" when drug traffickers get killed, but nothing at all is said about the impunity with which drug cartels operate and just keep killing people over and over.

Perhaps you can explain to us why this system of the courts and laws isn't working to deal with the drug cartel problem?

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don’t understand how you think the world works. Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force.We can also feel grieved that both parties didn’t decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

Would you like for me to find more of your words?

[JohnH]

I don’t support war crimes.

I don’t support war.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Aren't these your words?

I find it a real stretch to say the government can't use force against terrorists or drug traffickers. I mean, of all the things to argue for, I don't think calling for drug traffickers to operate in peace and safety (who are the same drug traffickers who make the people around them live in a constant state of fear, and seem to routinely kill people with no consequences for themselves), is really what the gospel is telling Christians they need to advocate for.

I think it's eminently reasonable to object to hearing much concern about "justice" and "the law" when drug traffickers get killed, but nothing at all is said about the impunity with which drug cartels operate and just keep killing people over and over.

Perhaps you can explain to us why this system of the courts and laws isn't working to deal with the drug cartel problem?

Those in power indeed have no accountability or constraint, except from others who are also in power. I really don’t understand how you think the world works. Overall, I think we can be thankful when people in power decide, for whatever reason, to use force against other people like drug cartels who are also using force.We can also feel grieved that both parties didn’t decide to lay down their arms and turn away from doing things that are wrong.

Would you like for me to find more of your words?

Did you read the last part of the last sentence?

Is using force against violent drug cartels somehow wrong in your eyes?

[Soloist]

It can be both wrong to use force and accept or appreciate the government using force to protect the nation.

As it is, one can also object to when the government doesn’t follow their own laws while accepting the first.

Where I disagree with some would be what we do with this information after.