Alastair Roberts (PhD, Durham University) writes in the areas of biblical theology and ethics, but frequently trespasses beyond these bounds. He participates in the weekly Mere Fidelity podcast, blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.
Christopher, I take serious issue with your comments.
With regard to your first comment, it may be true that “an ounce of prevention is worth a kiloton of pounding”, but when the only means of prevention our leaders are willing to consider is a kiloton of pounding, perhaps the math isn’t quite as sensible. Furthermore, your comment strongly implies that Pakistan is a potential threat, which is simply not the case. The question is whether they will cooperate with a US-led war on terror, and it is well within their rights as sovereign state to decline. To threaten massive airstrikes if we don’t get our way is childish and stupid.
I suppose it is part and parcel of the “with us or against us” rhetoric, which is also childish and stupid. Germany’s not with us. Russia’s not with us. Should we bomb them? Oh, I see, it only applies to Islamic states.
Mr. Jones, my comment has created a misunderstanding. I did not intend the meaning you read from it; however, I can see how it might be taken that way. Allow me to state plainly that the government of the United States would not be in a position where it feels it has to threaten Pakistan with massive bombing if a different set of policies had been followed in the past. All these problems could have been entirely avoided through greater faithfulness to the guiding principles laid down by America’s founders (the government is even in blatant violation of America’s own Constitution). Ultimately it must be said that America faces these problems because of a failure to submit to biblical wisdom. My ‘ounce of prevention’ is just another way of saying ‘obedience to God’s commandments and the Christian principles handed down by our forefathers.’
An isolated statement like that can be taken multiple ways and I should have been more careful to make my meaning clear. Anyway, we sure have a lot to pray about regarding this horrible mess!
You’re intepreting the “with us or with the terrorists” too broadly. In context, it was more narrow. Germnay (particularly, as a nato state) and Russia are ‘with us’ in the stated terms
“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Russia and germany don’t harbor terrosist. I wouldn’t be suprised if pakistan might not have been tempted to harbor al quaeda or hamper efforts to cut off terrorist funding, etc.
I’m curious what blatant violations of the constitution you’d care to cite? Some conservatives of course criticize Lincoln and others for suspending habeas corpus during the civil war, which was a longstanding complaint. Is that what you mean?
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. The Commander-in-Chief gets around that by sending our troops to invade and occupy other countries without calling it a war. Apparently as long as he doesn’t declare it to be a war, the Commander-in-Chief can do whatever he wants with America’s military.
Ad`ver`sa´ri`a
Alastair's Adversaria 
So, so embarrassing.
An ounce of prevention is worth a kiloton of pounding.
“Nice little country you’ve got there, Mushy. Shame if anything were to happen to it.”
I hear that the British government threatened to make Musharraf sit in the comfy chair and pummel him with the soft cushions.
Kind of like last week’s ‘death to all those who say Islam is a violent religion’ incident…
Christopher, I take serious issue with your comments.
With regard to your first comment, it may be true that “an ounce of prevention is worth a kiloton of pounding”, but when the only means of prevention our leaders are willing to consider is a kiloton of pounding, perhaps the math isn’t quite as sensible. Furthermore, your comment strongly implies that Pakistan is a potential threat, which is simply not the case. The question is whether they will cooperate with a US-led war on terror, and it is well within their rights as sovereign state to decline. To threaten massive airstrikes if we don’t get our way is childish and stupid.
I suppose it is part and parcel of the “with us or against us” rhetoric, which is also childish and stupid. Germany’s not with us. Russia’s not with us. Should we bomb them? Oh, I see, it only applies to Islamic states.
Mr. Jones, my comment has created a misunderstanding. I did not intend the meaning you read from it; however, I can see how it might be taken that way. Allow me to state plainly that the government of the United States would not be in a position where it feels it has to threaten Pakistan with massive bombing if a different set of policies had been followed in the past. All these problems could have been entirely avoided through greater faithfulness to the guiding principles laid down by America’s founders (the government is even in blatant violation of America’s own Constitution). Ultimately it must be said that America faces these problems because of a failure to submit to biblical wisdom. My ‘ounce of prevention’ is just another way of saying ‘obedience to God’s commandments and the Christian principles handed down by our forefathers.’
I apologize for the misunderstanding. It definitely makes more sense your way.
An isolated statement like that can be taken multiple ways and I should have been more careful to make my meaning clear. Anyway, we sure have a lot to pray about regarding this horrible mess!
You’re intepreting the “with us or with the terrorists” too broadly. In context, it was more narrow. Germnay (particularly, as a nato state) and Russia are ‘with us’ in the stated terms
“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Russia and germany don’t harbor terrosist. I wouldn’t be suprised if pakistan might not have been tempted to harbor al quaeda or hamper efforts to cut off terrorist funding, etc.
I’m curious what blatant violations of the constitution you’d care to cite? Some conservatives of course criticize Lincoln and others for suspending habeas corpus during the civil war, which was a longstanding complaint. Is that what you mean?
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. The Commander-in-Chief gets around that by sending our troops to invade and occupy other countries without calling it a war. Apparently as long as he doesn’t declare it to be a war, the Commander-in-Chief can do whatever he wants with America’s military.
Armitage Denies Making ‘Stone Age’ Threat
NPR Interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6126088