[A.J.Armitage]

The owner of the site I was at has been too busy to update his site, so now I'm at Mercurial Times. Maybe I'll ultimately be at both. This one was written a few weeks ago, but it's only just been posted. Here it is.

[A.J.Armitage]

.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Bump it, Dano

[Protagoras]

bump for later perusal. Thanks for the ping.

[11B3]

I'd like to pin this article to Lew Rockwell's chest....With an air nailer.

[r9etb]

Nice one.

The most fundamental problem with pacifism is that it makes no distinction between aggression and defense or retaliation.

I've heard it described (really!) as an opportunity to turn the other cheek. Taken to its logical end, this would require us to abolish all police forces and dismantle the entire criminal justice system.

It would work fine "if everybody would just...." But of course they don't.

She doesn't understand that they aren't like us.

Absolutely correct. There are those for whom a recitation of our "unalienable rights" will simply cause them to chuckle before they shoot.

[mlocher]

the only punishment that works is love...

does this person understand the difference between law and gospel?

[BikerNYC]

Oh, leave the Amish alone. They are hardly a threat. Their pacifism is a deeply held and sincere belief based upon their religious understanding as Christians. They believe that if the result of their pacifism is death at the hands of the attacker, so be it; death is not threatening to them as Christians. If, as Christians, they believe they are living righteous lives that will lead to after-death rewards, I don't think their view is that unsound.

[DoughtyOne]

Good comments. It's my opinion that to resist and combat evil even by force is a noble endeavor. To remain silent and pacifist in the face of it, is evil.

Thank you.

[curmudgeonII]

Bump...........and a major one at that.

[Equality 7-2521]

I've served in the military. I'm currently in the process of recruitment for the Rockford Police Department (and on a slightly different note that may interest you, I'm taking the testing this Friday for the NIU Police). It would be difficult to call me a pacifist for these reasons.

I'm not opposed to wars for the right reasons and I would have to agree that having four jetliners hijacked and intentionally crashed into buildings would constitute the right reasons. But (you knew it was coming), I still reserve my right to feel uncomfortable about bombing targets in a nation where culpability has yet to be established. Unlike many Freepers, I didn't stop questioning the government and its motives when an R was elected instead of a D. I still maintain that there is precious little difference where the important things are concerned. Maybe Afghanistan is the right target, maybe not. Maybe it's about getting bin Laden, maybe it's about oil. I haven't seen enough evidence from our intelligence community to be sure either way.

Sure it feels good that we're doing something, but I won't just assume that it's the right thing just because I'm told that it is. The federal government doesn't have much of a track record to leave me feeling assured.

[ex-snook]

Pushing to avoid a wider war is not pro-pacifist, it is pro-America. The media and its groupies are pushing for a wider war and are trying to cold-cock Bush by sticking pins into Powell like a Bush voodoo doll.

What is in America's long range interest? Get bin Laden, than over and out for good. Build fortress America and let the world fight their own infinite wars - religious, ethnic, economic or political. Heed George Washington if our nation and its constitution are to survive this century.

[RedWing9]

Well done A.J.! Keep 'em coming. I always enjoy your writing.

I must add, that it is always most enjoyable to read your responses to those that question your thesis. Your wisdom belies your age! :)

Thanks for the bump!

[WolfsView]

Sorry aout that AJ, things have been really busy for me lately, I hope they calm down soon and I can get back to normal.

[Dustbunny]

Bump

[harpseal]

bump for an exellent work