[ARCADIA]

"The pacifists, while claiming to care most about preventing the suffering of war, care more about saving themselves the need to fight. Those pressing for liberation are willing to support the sacrifice that war entails; partly for their own security, but largely for the freedom of others."

This statement is pretty lame. I am sure the majority of proponents on either side of the arguement are very far from the trenches, and it is not the freedom or suffering of "others" that motivates us, but rather our own national and parochial interest. It is just poorly written and argued piece; although, I agree that the peace movement and the Left are going to take a bath on this one.

[JohnGalt]

I agree with you, but pacifism is a leftwing movement in this country that historically has masked a hidden agenda. Using the World War II example, the 'pacifists' became very pro-war once Hitler invaded Russia.


Dalton Trumbo wrote on of the great anti-war novels in American literature, 'Johnny Got His Gun' only to change his mind a few years later to rationalize that destroying fascism was a worthy use of American lives and treasure. Rather like Rumsfield giving Saddam a clean bill of health in 1984 as gas shells were exploding, and now telling us that Saddam is an evil man...