Preemptive Nuclear War!

Thunder Jones reports on the very troubling statements made during the republican presidential Ccandidates debate last night. After a number of the candidates discussed their willingness to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against Iran, the following exchange occured:

“Towards the end of the debate, the moderator asked the candidates what was the most pressing moral issue that faced the nation. Rep. Ron Paul answered:

“I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security! I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars.”

Read the rest here to learn that there’s something even more depressing than the words that came out of the candidates mouths… Preemptive Nuclear War!

(Via The Mundane Life of Thunder Jones.)

Author: Nick Knisely

Episcopal bishop, dad, astronomer, erstwhile dancer...

3 thoughts on “Preemptive Nuclear War!”

  1. Nicholas:
    This is indeed depressing. Allison and I worked with a retired Army officer at the Drug Czar’s office. He was a true conservative–he attended an evangelical church, was a West Point graduate, and he was registered and voted Republican. But in 2004, he voted for Kerry? When allison asked him why, he simply said “Peemptive war is un-American.”

  2. I said today to someone that I knew of only one Presidential candidate with integrity, and it was a shame I wouldn’t vote for him. Ron Paul really seems to make sense on foreign policy. It’s wretched that this is where our public debate has turned.

  3. I admit I haven’t been paying attention; isn’t the election over a year away? I can’t get interested at all. But I agree: very depressing. Perhaps Paul’s statement about “coming to our senses” will register. I would like to point out, too, that this is in reaction to 9/11, still, so perhaps it’s a phase of some sort and temporary.
    What it’s going to take, though, is recognition and acceptance of the fact that terrorism is inevitable – that there will be more 9/11s. Is anybody going to say this, and are Americans going to be able to accept that?

Comments are closed.