@crevis05@xanga - Peace should be the first priority, both peace in the form of agreement and lack of violence. This is true even in war, the "enemy" must always be given a way out of the conflict. In many wars, even big ones, the primary political objective is never complete domination, but to bring about a cease-fire and bring each other to the negotiation table. It is only when this option is forsaken by one side that the goal becomes total victory. 

@crevis05@xanga - What do you do if the "enemy" is a Christian?

It doesn't make any difference.  The principles of war still apply.

I agree that war is insanity, but I don't agree that those who engage in war are insane, and unable to reason.

Insanity does not mean the inability to reason.  Insane maniacs reason just fine.  Irrationality is the inability to reason.  The correct way to apply reason in war is to devise ways of destroying the enemy.

It is unintelligent to expect an insane person, and someone who you say can't reason, to make a reasonable decision - total surrender.  Surrender would then be unreasonable.

This is correct. And that is the reason for Principle 4 - End War Through Total Victory

An enemy that is completely destroyed has no choice but to surrender.  Total victory deprives the insane enemy of any choice because his war making capability has been completely destroyed.

He must then do the bidding of the victor which is to surrender.

@crevis05@xanga - Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with the use of insanity. 

@FOXHOUND_HQ@xanga - This is true even in war, the "enemy" must always be given a way out of the conflict. In many wars, even big ones, the primary political objective is never complete domination, but to bring about a cease-fire and bring each other to the negotiation table.

This is erroneous thinking for it leaves the insane enemy alive to wage war another day.

In such wars as the Korean conflict your strategy was used.  That strategy left all the people of North Korea under the domination of a maniac.  Meanwhile the people of the South prosper and live happy, fulfilled lives. 

There is no greater injustice than that.

Similar situations occurred in Vietnam and Iraq.  The same situation occurred after World War II when the US did not destory the Soviet Union after the NAZIs and Imperial Japan were defeated.

Tens of millions of Soviets and Chinese were slaughtered because the insane maniac Joseph Stalin and his Marxist regime were not wiped from the face of the earth.

@FOXHOUND_HQ@xanga -  I was referring to the hypothetical conflict of Christian vs. Christian. 

Interpersonal conflicts that involve an insane marauder may require the use of deadly force.  If the marauder backs down for some reason he must still be subjected to the justice system because of his threatening behavior.

I think the Just War theory relies much more heavily on the doctrines of the Roman Empire than the teachings of Jesus.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - as many have pointed out, the Just War Theory can be used to justify nearly any war.  Germany's instigation of World War 2 fits the Just War Theory.

Whatever these principles may be, they certainly aren't connected to the context of the scripture in this blog outside of the fact that both are concerning war.

History has taught us the opposite of what the OP begins to say in this blog. There is not one way to fight and win a war, there are many (some don't even require lethal force). There is no allowance for Christians to adhere to these principles because they go against the way of Christ.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - How does one surrender if they have already been destroyed?

The leaders rarely die in a war.  So once their army is destroyed and the population decimated, leaders no longer have the means to wage war.  They then have no choice but to surrender.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - There is not one way to fight and win a war

There is nothing in this blog that remotely says that there is only one way to fight a war.  However, the principles that govern war are inviolable if the intent is to win war as quickly as possible by acheiving total victor over the opponent.

World War II and the American Civil War under Grant and Sherman are examples of wars fought according to the principles war.

@sierrraa@xanga - I don't see how the opening verse justifies war.

Ecclesiastes does not justify war.  It only say that it will come.

This blog is anti-war, in fact.  But it is not pacifist.

It clearly says that to wage war, the war must be morally justified.  If the population thinks like you and can find no justification for a war, then leaders who take the nation to war are making a big mistake.

To do such a thing violates Principle 1  War Must Have a Moral Purpose.

@smartsandyboy@xanga - You don't know even your own countries history.Shame on you.The soviets and US were allies during the world war..Cold war started much later.

The alliance between the US and USSR during WWII was one of convenience only.  It was a boon for the US that Hitler opened the Eastern Front against the Soviets.

After Germany lost at Stalingrad it was all down hill after that. 

Nevertheless, both FDR and Churchill knew that Stalin was no friend.  American General Patton got into big trouble for recommending continuing the war by annhilating the Soviets.