> If you are a pacifist and believe that it is wrong to kill anybody, for any reason, then I can't respect that at all. If, for example, someone came into your home, and you were faced with the choice between killing that person or letting that person burn your house down, rape your wife, and torture your children, and you choose the latter on "moral" grounds, then I would find that morally reprehensible and figure you probably deserved to be charged as an accomplice to the crimes of arson, rape, and torture at least.

I find it difficult to believe my only options in this case are "Kill the intruder" and "Stand idly by while he commits atrocities." Just because I wouldn't kill anyone does not mean that I wouldn't resort to violence in any cases at all: my action would probably be to attack the intruder. However, the difference here is that I would not consciously attempt to kill him, as that would not exactly help. If I killed him by accident, I would probably not be consumed by grief; intentions are important, as well as actions.

>Sometimes this same principle carries over to the national scale. Osama bin Laden killed thousands of Americans, and, by his own admission, as long as he lives a free man, he will try to kill thousands more. If we can imprison him securely, that's one thing, but if it comes down to a choice between killing him or letting him get away to pursue further plans to take innocent lives, then, well, anybody faced with that choice better pull the trigger.
>
Again, would we have to kill him to capture him? As with any rule, there has to be a conditional clause: rules that will not break under ANY circumstance, EVER, are not very good rules. If there was no option but to kill bin Laden, it would probably have to be done, but if I were in charge I would be striving to take him alive if at all possible.

> If you're truly a pacifist, I hope that Bible commandment isn't the only justification you have of that position. I hate it when people take Bible verses out of context and form entire philosophies around them. If you're going to use the Bible to justify a personal philosophy, then use the WHOLE Bible. True, it says "thou shalt not kill," but a couple dozen verses later it says that murderers and rapists should be put to death.

On the whole, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't base ideas on verses out of context, but the Ten Commandments are a bit different. They are self-contained guidelines for life, and they don't really have a context, as such. In terms of saying that people should be put to death, I'd have to disagree with you and say that the New Testament clearly says we are not to take eye for eye and tooth for tooth, but forgive our enemies. Again, there is a get-out clause: even if you forgive your enemies, that doesn't mean you can't attempt to stop them attacking you again.

>At any rate, if you're going to adopt the Bible as a guide for personal philosophy of war, the Bible's lesson is that sometimes war is justified. Sometimes things get to the point where there are no other options besides going to war and doing nothing, and doing nothing is the greater of the two evils.
>
Point taken. If there is no other option but to fight, then I suppose that course of action must be taken. Throughout history, though, many people have interpreted "no other option" rather loosely: it is not always the case that everything has been done to prevent war.

> My post addressed that theme, you misread me if you think that's my view. My position was that service to one's country should be "a" priority but not (usually) "the" priority. Serving my country is high on my own list of priorities, but there are things I put ahead of it and others I put on a more or less equal level. God and my family come before my country every time, and I think that's the way it should be.

Sorry to misunderstand you. That view did seem a little odd, now I come to think about it...

>Serving *myself* usually takes precedence, too, the exceptions being that (1) I wouldn't think it right to serve myself at the *expense* of my country, and (2) there are times, most notably in times of war, when serving one's country must temporarily take precedence.
>
Well, for (2) that's your decision entirely. Again, I respect your view but don't necessarily agree with it.

> But my country is still significant factor. I think allegiance to one's country is something held in horrendously low regard today. I'm sorry, but if you are going to live in a country and enjoy its freedoms, protections, communities, and resources, you owe a debt to that country, and it doesn't stop with taxes.
>
Possibly. My point was that yes, you can show allegiance to your country, but that allegiance to the world as a whole should come before that.

> > ...and if the entire world had become Communist (Trotsky's idea in the 1920s) there would be very few, if any, wars at all.
>
> Ha.

"Ha"? Look, although that might be a reasoned and logical response, it sounds much more like a knee-jerk to me. There was logic behind my reasoning, and it goes like this. Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" was to encourage the workers to rise up in every country over the world. (Yes, I know that involves violence too, I never said Communism was perfect - in fact, no political system is perfect.) If the entire world (note the ENTIRE world) was Communist, ie if they all held the same political beliefs, and if national boundaries ceased to mean much at all, there would be very little reason for wars. If there are no national boundaries, there is no incentive in terms of land to go to war, and similarly with political uniformity. Of course, this would work with other systems of government, but Communism is the first one to come to mind that emphasises allegiance to the world, not the country.

When I said that Communism has its problems, perhaps I should have been rather more emphatic. In no state has Communism emerged as Marx originally intended it - it is always corrupted and twisted. Another major problem is that Communism is very antireligious. And of course, no-one could possibly justify Stalin's purges of the early 20th century. Another problem is that individual countries have their own characters, which would be lost entirely under Communist rule.

In short, Communism is not the answer, but neither is democracy. Until I come across a better political system, I'll probably keep on quietly grumbling. Maybe rather more quietly than yelling it out over a public forum. Never mind.

Si-"If you spot enormous inconsistencies in my arguments, I won't be entirely surprised, given that I need rather more essay-writing practice"-gi