However, I truly believe that BOTH sides must want peace in order for such an occurrence to happen.

Dionne is a useless worm. He believed during the election that Katherine Harris did not do her job because she certified the election results which were not in favor of Gore.
He can go to hell with his pacifist friends.

abhor self-indulgence as much as they abhor violence.

What a crock. Pacifists are free to 'abhor' whatever they want and I am free to abhor them. Self-indulgence is the trademark of a pacifist who is protected, whether they like it or not, by others who put their lives on the line -- police and military. More vile hypocrisy and cowardice can not be found.

If a pacifist is truly committed to peace she should confront the perpetrators of violence with the message rather than sit here behind the protectors they denounce wallowing in self-satisfaction. But that would mean confronting reality -- humans can be evil, humans will kill other humans for their own benefit, and killers don't give a rip about peace or anyone else's holier-than- though pronouncements.

The only true pacifist is a dead pacifist.

The true pacifist subscribes to a stern moral creed, which insists that humans can never use violence against other humans, even when it might be in their interest to do so, and even when, by the normal standards of the world, violence would be justified.

I don't see anything moral about a creed which requires the extinction of you and your progeny.

There's two kinds of pacifists. Those who are willing to sit by and watch while their own children are destroyed by aggressors ... and those who insist that I allow my children to be destroyed by aggressors. Same with liberals and social programs. There are people who are willing to throw their own money down a utopian rathole, then there are those who insist that the government take my money for the same. Nuff said.

Rippin

Evil: No
Stupid: Yes

Well partner, if you'd listen to the rhetoric coming out of those "pacificts" mouths, you understand why they are being demonized. "They" have acted demonic, blaming everything on the nation of the victims. Screw em! And screw you too you jerk!

These aren't pacifists. They spend ten seconds condeming the terrorists and 45 minutes attacking the US and it's policies. Think about it you twit. If they were pacifists, the time allotment would be reversed. Duh!

P.S. No! You are wrong. What you are shallow enough to accept for pasifism, is very very evil!

Pacifism [and confusion] to the enemy!

Like individuals who take vows of poverty, pacifists challenge our usual ways of doing business. The person who gives up all worldly goods to help others reminds the rest of us that we're not nearly as good or moral or generous as we think we are.

Nonsense. The truly moral person is one who uses his talents and energies to create wealth that provides more opportunities to allow people to prosper. In the 19th and 20th centuries, a handful of individuals scorned as 'evil' robber barons lifted more people out of poverty and misery than all the acts of charity ever could.

Likewise, pacifists are a menace. While they bask in their smug moral self-satisfaction, others are left to defend them and civilization from the forces of evil. There is nothing remotely moral or ethical about standing sheepishly by while humanity is assaulted.

Most serious pacifists bear no resemblance to the hip, upper-class, self-indulgent anti-warriors who are so easily parodied and attacked. They are often devoutly religious people - Mennonites, Quakers and many others

Okay. I promise to be nice to Mennonites and Quakers.

The hip, upper-class, self-indulgent anti-warriors can smooch my fundament.

Pacifism isn't evil unless it encourages the terrorists to continue their attacks.
It isn't evil unless it causes us not to retaliate.
It isn't evil unless we let down our guard.
It isn't evil if the pacifists want to live under the boot of our sworn enemies.

BS. Pasifism is evil incarnate.

Most serious pacifists bear no resemblance to the hip, upper-class, self-indulgent anti-warriors who are so easily parodied and attacked. They are often devoutly religious people - Mennonites, Quakers and many others - who abhor self-indulgence as much as they abhor violence.

I have no problem with free-riding Quakers and Mennonites and Amish (even if I think they're stupid) because they would rather die than kill someone. These people are invisible.

But the so-called pacifists on college campuses and in DC on S29 are not pacifists. They are Communists and Communism kills.

You can be disinformed here if you like:

The only pacifist I respect is the one who steps up to help in such ways as he can without killing others. For example, those who volunteered as stretcher bearers in WWII, suffering very high casualties themselves, but avoiding shooting at others. They were wrong about not fighting, but at least they were not free riding on the sacrifices of others. Most of those who would pass for "pacifists" today are of the latter kind.

"The true pacifist subscribes to a stern moral creed, which insists that humans can never use violence against other humans, even when it might be in their interest to do so, and even when, by the normal standards of the world, violence would be justified."

I love true pacifists and true conscientious objectors. Some of them are saints, I'm sure. They do not do things that interfere with their own government and that, in effect, help foreign governments. In the secular world these pacifists remain neutral.

But, some "pseudo-pacifists" , who attack their own government, and try to cripple its defense of its own citizens, are actually a danger to their fellow countrymen. These pseudo-pacifists are actually often willing to support military actions that forward causes they strongly believe in. They sometimes go as far as justifying killing of their own countrymen, done by other nations. At the same time, they might be opposed to their government fighting a 'just war' to defend their fellow countrymen.

The pseudo-pacifists attempt to wear the mantle of pacifism, but actually are not remaining neutral, as a true pacifist would be. The pseudo-pacifists should be exposed as the deceivers that they are.

paltz....

Any pacifist of any stripe or color, that assures his safety at the expense of my blood or death is evil. I am too old and been thru too many wars in my lifetime to be able to suffer them any more, as anything other than cowards and, yes, evil.

read Michael Kelly's "Phoney Pacifists" column in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61527-2001Oct3.html

Makes mincemeat outta this guy.

Even pacifists can make a contribution to the war effort. A MOH winner from WWII was a Seventh Day Adventist and a pacifist, but still contributed by being a battlefield medic.

National pacifism is incredibly naive, and results in horrors which are filled with evil for many

GO TELL IT TO THE EMEMY...THEY STARTED IT!