I don’t think he was kidding. That doesn’t necessarily mean he was right, though. If you do good to those who harm you, what do you do to those who help you?
Sorry, I’m more of a “preserve your civilization” and “take care of your loved ones” kind of guy.
As I understand it, Jesus would forgive that.
But being the world’s policeman may not be the optimal approach to achieving those goals. Consider two of our biggest military victories: we drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in the eighties (not with our own forces but with our hardware and training), and we defeated Saddam’s Baathist Iraq. Compare the end result of the long game in those two kerfuffles with the our most prominent recent loss: today’s united Vietnam is far from perfect, but it is fairly stable and apparently not a horrible place to live.
Korea has been mentioned, but when you look at what has happened in Vietnam, one cannot possibly assume that the current Korean situation is the better outcome. North Korea is a nightmare in part because we at there, threatening them. Without the mighty US military breathing down their necks, we have no way to know how they would be acting (having a clearly identifiable, dangerous enemy is a great help when you want to maintain an oppressive police state).
The US military allows, even forces, the US to treat most of the rest of the world as something closer to serfs than to peers. This has the effect of generating grumbling amongst our subjects, which can sometimes flare up in really bad ways.
Treating other nations with respect in place of implicit threats would do a lot to shrink the US’ target profile and ease worldwide tensions. When you have been the playground bully for over a century, it is pretty hard to break that habit and learn some manners. But if we fail to break the habit, eventually it will be broken for us, which will really, really not be pretty.
I think this falls into the error of thinking that the USA figures much more prominently into other nation’s behavior than it does, or the benevolent “America is the world’s primary driver of behavior” fallacy. North Korea has the Japanese and South Koreans and others as boogeyman, in fact even considers China something of a bogeyman of late too. North Korea has plenty of reasons to continue being an assholeish country no matter what Washington does.
It also puts the cart before the horse. It’s akin to saying that Chicago has high crime because of the presence of the oppressive Chicago police, and if you get rid of the police, the crimes will stop.
Or using a $3 million Patriot to shoot down a $200 drone…
Really? So I’m curious, it’s 1941 and the Japanese have just bombed Pearl Harbor. What do you propose we do? Nothing? Talk nice to them? So we do nothing and Japan decides to invaded the US mainland. Do we just throw our hands up in surrender?
Yes.
That’s what Jesus would do.
Jesus wasn’t kidding when he said “offer the other cheek” and “love your enemies” and “bless those who curse you” and “do good to those who harm you.”
Responding to violence with violence only begets more violence–it doesn’t solve the problem.
In addition to being the morally superior approach, love is also the practically more effective solution.
High government spending, rising debt, and accentuating income and wealth inequality are all policy goals of America’s ruling Party. Domestic spending would tend to have the unfortunate effect of improving lower-class standard of living, and thereby reducing the fears and job insecurity which enhance corporate profits. Hence military spending, regardless of whether it is “needed,” is ideal. An alternative which would also have merit would be domestic spending without social benefit, e.g. the building of a large useless Wall.
There’s the paradox of deterrence.
If you build up a really big military (at great expense) then nobody will dare to attack you. And if nobody attacks you then you won’t need to use your really big military and the great expenses were wasted.
Conversely, if you don’t build up a military then other countries attack you. In which case, you should have built up a big military.
So whatever size military you’re building, it’s not the size you’re going to need.
Okay, here’s a scenario.
A terrorist has captured a large group of hostages. The hostages are all tied up and helpless. To demonstrate his ruthlessness, the terrorist has set up a television camera and is walking down the line of hostages with a knife, slitting their throats one by one on live television.
The terrorist also has a radio controlled bomb strapped to his back as part of his plot. The bomb is strong enough that it will kill him instantly but nobody else.
By a strange set of circumstances, you are hidden in the area. You can see everything that’s happening. The terrorist doesn’t know you’re there so you’re in no personal danger. Nobody else is with you or can come to assist you. You have no means of communication nor do you have any means to help the hostages escape or take the terrorist captive.
But what you do have is the radio communicator that’s set to the terrorist’s bomb. If you push the button, the bomb will detonate and kill the terrorist. And if you don’t push the button, the terrorist will continue to murder all the hostages.
What do you do? Do you push the button or not?
I can guess at Beren Erchamion’s answer (if he gives one), and I suspect it’ll be the opposite of what the hostages would want him to do. It’s probably what the terrorist would want him to do.
Ha.
**Beware of the man who does not return your blow: he neither forgives you nor allows you to forgive yourself.
George Bernard Shaw **
Cite on this?
Andorra, Iceland, Costa Rica, Kiribati, and Lichenstein have no militaries, and none of them have seen combat since WW2.
I still think the best military is the one with 100% conscription. Every person is trained and ready to defend the country’s borders, with the know-how to form and work in ad hoc squads. Most of them have three months of basic, most of which is oriented toward dealing with non-human foes (disaster relief). That way, as we go about our various lives, when the government tries to gin up an excuse to fight, it has to deal with a nation full of reserves who may be loath to head out and die in a jungle or desert halfway around the world for a flimsy, bullshit cause that will only make the nation worse off by building up the world’s supply of enemies against us.
Sure. Want to sell that approach to the Israeli Knesset?
A SWAT sniper shooting a hostage-taker dead usually “solves” the problem about as well as can be solved.
Nothing more effective then being dead, but hey at least you die with a smug moral look on your face 
You know what? This Jesus guy was like a philosopher or guru or something. He offered platitudes and allegories pertaining to how individuals ought to behave. He did not offer any wisdom regarding how to manage states. He was not a politician or a diplomat. Whatever he might of said that might vaguely have pertained to such matters is of no consequence.