Not only do they have biblical backup, but they have alliterative power: They all begin with "s" and the second word begins with "p", which makes it even more impressive!

Very sound Southern Baptist preaching!

The question is, whether your pastor took a stand on the current armed conflict?

I started to point out the amazing alliterative aptitude, but figured that was self-evident. If you want a definitive answer to your main question, you can listen to the sermon, but here's the short version: our pastor, along with the vast majority of citizens in Midland, recognizes that we're engaged in a war that we didn't start but which we, as a nation, have a responsibility to fight, not only for ourselves but for an entire world of people who are either helpless to defend themselves or who have been deceived into thinking defense is inappropriate. Not once but several times he repeated the point: evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

The definition of any of those principles is ultimately subjective.

What is "sufficient provocation"? Who defines what "sufficient" is? Some elements within this country find the high prices charged for oil to be "sufficient provocation", claiming Send The Marines For Oil Now! At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who feel that no "provocation," no matter how bad, is "sufficient".

The same applies for any other principle listed and sub-heading. There were undoubtedly, German generals who genuinely believed they were protecting innocent Aryan lives against the "menace of world Jewry" (yes, they really came up with phrases like that). The campaign for lebensraum was aimed at protecting innocent lives from corruptive non-Aryan influences.

Many Germans of the time also felt the treaty at Versailles was "unjust" and so their war was also the "reinstallation of justice". Was it? Since they lost, history says it wasn't.

A phrase like "the restoration of peace" can mean anything. Anti-war activists love "peace". For them, no matter what the provocation, any military response is against the interests of "peace". Conversely, totalitarian governments believe the most lasting "peace" will come when all are under their dominion.

What is "sensible proportionality"? Who defines what is "sensible" or what response is a proportionally sensible one? Is dropping atomic bombs on two major cities sensible if it ends a war? What if it doesn't? Was it still a sensible act? Would incinerating a capital city in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else be a proportionally sensible response when several American cities are attacked?

The last principle is by far the toughest. Are noncombatant deaths acceptable for tactical objectives? What happens when a military organization uses civilian non-combatants as human shields for military targets (i.e. putting its headquarters in a crowded hospital or a public mosque)?

It seems the justification behind such "principles" is entirely self-referential, depending on one's ideology.

Have you listened to the sermon?

Please, Eric, I'm on dial-up!

Besides, I'm willing to trust your ability to effectively summarize the major points.

I happen to agree with the conclusions you reached. My main concern over the principles used to justify war is purely philosophical.

Either side of the current Middle-Eastern conflict could justify their actions with the principles outlined.

I won't bore you with a drawn-out, exhaustive example but it's entirely possible for Al-Qaeda or any other militant Islamic group to justify their "jihads" using the principles cited.

Well, it's unfortunate that you aren't able to listen to the message because our pastor actually compares the positions of each side of the current conflict on each of the points. Of course, we're assuming that Scripture provides the basis for discerning truth from all else, and if one denies the validity of Scripture for this purpose, then some arguments will fail.

But it's not hard to see the difference in positions in certain areas even without taking a Scriptural stance. Look at, say, #5...the protection of non-combatants. We will and have sacrificed our own troops by using strategies that are designed to protect innocents. Al-Qaeda targets innocents. There's no gray area there, and I will concede no points to any argument for the superiority of Al-Qaeda's position.

I certainly wouldn't propose that Al-Qaeda has a morally superior position. As a principle, though, "stragegic protection of non-combatants" can be used very easily to justify the tactical targeting of selected non-combatants. A similar argument used by the Allies to justify bombing Dresden and, later, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Targeting civilian non-combatants is supposedly necessary to create a wide-spread change in a nation's attitude, the attitude of their leaders, and their government's policies.

Imperial Japan, again, serves as an example.

Unfortunately, from the terrorist's perspective, so does the recent case of Madrid.

In both cases, the targeting of civilian non-combatants was supposedly justified as "strategically protecting" the majority of civilians from the jingoistic policies of their own governments. But that's just splitting philosophical hairs.

If it comes down to practicalities, I believe America is fully justified to take action when faced with a military threat.

Further, I'm bitterly opposed to the notion of sacrificing any American lives for the strategic protection of any non-combatant aside from other Americans.

As a nation, we have the means to effectively eradicate any military opposition without the loss of one American life in the process. For me, that is complete justification in itself.

It's something to consider on this day, in particular.

%%%%

You think it would have been justified for the US to go to war IF the hijackers FAILED in hijacking the airplanes, thus preventing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon from being kamikazed, which in turn would have prevented all those hundreds of people in the WTC from being killed?

Eurasian - if we had stopped and captured the terrorists, I certainly hope we would have gone to war. Given that we would have been able to interrogate them and possibly find out just how extensive their terrorist network is/was.

But then of course the Left would have then be screaming at the Right for doing a preemptive strike.

%%%%

If separation of Chuch and State is a good idea, you think it might be a good idea to have legislation mandating separation of Church and Force?