There are all kinds of weird moral discussions that are prompted when you start imagining Jesus as the leader of a nation (something the Devil tempted him with, but he actively avoided) ... or even imagining Jesus as a lobbyist (one of the favorite ways for Democrats to imagine Jesus, as they pretend that Jesus was calling for government action instead of for private charity, for example). Generally speaking, Jesus never commented on government action, other than to say let it be. The Church that he established does, though, but although the Church has called for war in the past to halt the advance of Islam, it generally does not declare wars to be just or not under the Just War Theory of morality.

One of your favorite tactics is to argue that there is "no evidence" for something, or "no arguments can be made" for something, when every one can see that there is often at least "some evidence" when you say there is none (even if you could argue that the evidence is weak) ... or even when the opposing side can easily make "some arguments" against your position. Your personal beliefs (usually biased) about the strength of particular arguments does not mean those arguments do not exist at all. Your tactics in this regard basically come down to the logical fallacy of arguing from authority: "I am an expert, and I say there are no arguments, so there are none." But, everyone sees you being wrong all the time. It would be more persuasive if you actually engaged in discussion, instead of dismissing discussion you deem not worthy of your time...more persuasive, that is, than merely arguing from authority.