| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Moral aspects of military action | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 10. June 2011, 17:51 (2,017 Views) | |
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 19. July 2012, 08:10 Post #121 |
|
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth deals with judicial remedies for personal wrongs. Turning the other cheek is in response to something that is insulting but not life-threatening. I don't myself see that that gives us a comprehensive code for dealing with issues of defence against life threatening attack, whether that attack be on oneself, another or one's country. However, I'm very much feeling my way here. These were not formerly my opinions. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| valleyboy | Thursday, 19. July 2012, 10:43 Post #122 |
|
Benign of you were a Roman citizen and followed the party line. Lethal if you were not, 6000 crucified on the Appian Way in the slaves revolt, Masada, slaughter of outsiders for entertainment. Analogies with the structure of Nazi and Communist imperial states are clear, down to the symbolism of the fasces. |
| Liberal, ecumenical, universal and it's my church too. | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Thursday, 19. July 2012, 12:34 Post #123 |
|
Didn't God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and killed everyone in the towns? |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 19. July 2012, 13:04 Post #124 |
|
On the whole benign to all those in the Empire. There were exceptions. Reading history backwards is totally misleading. The fasces were not a symbol of anything bad until twentieth century fascism. Similarly the swastika had good connotations until adopted by Adolf and his gang. Actually reading history thoughtfully is on the other hand quite a good idea if one wishes to draw historical comparisons. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 19. July 2012, 16:47 Post #125 |
|
Crucifixion was not unique to Rome. The Persians used it as did Alexander the Great and many others. It was understood by the Romans to be a cruel and unusual punishment (to use the modern expression for an ancient understanding). Cicero described it as disgusting. It was reserved for slaves (though not the only way of executing them) pirates and rebels against the state. Crassus's crucifixion of 6,000 rebel slaves after the Spartacus revolt is (so far as I am aware) unique. I am certainly not aware of any other such example in the ancient sources. Doubtless the Old Testament's usual prescription of death by stoning as the preferred method of capital punishment was more humane. Masada was a mass suicide by unsuccessful rebels against the state. To be more exact, rather than endure the doubtless horrific consequences of defeat or surrender the small band of remaining rebels drew lots to decide which ten of them would kill the rest and then themselves. We prefer to hang treasonable rebels, (Sir Roger Casement and William Joyce are two examples from the last century), though the practice of drawing and quartering them first ceased only a few centuries ago. Today the only people physically killed for public entertainment are boxers (fortunately quite rarely and this is not usually the plan - Max Baer may have been an exception to that rule). Instead we bait and damage them emotionally in reality shows. Gladiators often survived even when they lost a fight. Many Romans found the whole thing repellent anyway, rather as I find boxing. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Thursday, 19. July 2012, 20:30 Post #126 |
|
valley boy. How do you think we should stopped and eventually overcome by peaceful means the Nazi German invasion of the rest of Europe and North Africa? Also Fascist Italy's invasion of Albania, Greece and North Africa?
Edited by Derekap, Thursday, 19. July 2012, 20:32.
|
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| paul | Sunday, 22. July 2012, 18:36 Post #127 |
|
Am I to assume that most of you agree with the UK having a nucleur deterant? |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 22. July 2012, 18:53 Post #128 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I agree that for as long as other nations that have a record of taking over other countries by force, since 1900, or attemting or making serious threats to do that, have nuclear weapons, the UK must have them, as a deterrent. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Sunday, 22. July 2012, 18:55 Post #129 |
|
Politically, the advantage of the weapons is the negotiating strength they buy; The disadvatages are that they cost a fortune and (in Britain's case) we don't actually control them, needing American permission to use them - so what's the point of us paying for them? |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 22. July 2012, 20:12 Post #130 |
![]()
Administrator
|
By paying towards our defense, we have some control. Americans came here during World War II. When they had the need for bases in our country during the Cold War, we provided. Friends look after each other. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 23. July 2012, 00:07 Post #131 |
|
So what should the British government have done in 1939? |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 23. July 2012, 11:09 Post #132 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Eh? He knew them all! |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 23. July 2012, 11:41 Post #133 |
|
Not necessarily. Apart from any other question, it depends in part of what is meant by "all". |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Monday, 23. July 2012, 12:02 Post #134 |
![]()
|
No, with the end of the Cold War any justification the UK had for retaining a nuclear deterrent also came to an end. Who do we now deter by holding on to them, no one. I think the cost is unjustified and has been the cause of the destruction of the conventional forces that are needed to secure our National Safety, both at home and abroard, and to fulfil our treaty obligations to Commonwealth and NATO allies. Nuclear weapons as a deterrent worked against the Soviet Block who new the game we were in but it will not work against China or the other emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East and Asia. It is time to lay them aside. http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0901/doc03.htm#01 read the article by Field Marshal Lord Bramall General Lord Ramsbotham General Sir Hugh Beach Edited by Penfold, Monday, 23. July 2012, 13:56.
|
![]() |
|
| paul | Monday, 23. July 2012, 20:54 Post #135 |
|
it could be argued that retaining a nucleur deterant has maintained the peace. Are you prepared to gamble the nation's security with nucleur disarmament, the government isn't and neither am I. The term niavety comes to mind! |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








8:38 PM Jul 11