>Hi John,
>
>A peaceful <s> comment on your assertion about pacifists.
>
>The individual who was most successful in changing the course of Western civilization for the better was a pacifist, who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, and forbade his followers from protecting him with arms.
>
>The individual who was most successful, based on the population count in pre-democracy India, in creating a democracy where there was no history of that, was a pacifist.
>
>The individual who had the most effect on protecting minorities from persecution and injustice in our country was arguably MLK: a pacifist.
>
>That said, over half the Quaker men of draft age served by choice in WWII. There's probably a fine line between self-protection and domination that makes a difference, but as with all fine lines, it can easily be crossed (with a little deliberately mis-interpreted intelligence data, for example).
>
>Hank
>

You left out Jesus. He was not necessarily a pacifist though. He did throw the money changers out of the temple. However, I agree these have made major contributions, but only in their place, in their time. Countries cannot be protected by people who will not fight, as noted in your assertion of the Quakers. I'm not a war monger, I would much rather see our resources spent to help our own people and people of other countries to do better. The reality though, is there is evil in the world and not every country comes from such an altruistic perspective. When evil forces start abusing other citizens, and when they attack us, it is time to respond.

This war is not a lot of fun, but we are there, we went in after bi-partisan debate and now we must finish the job or else we risk destabilizing the middle-east even more. I've got a son-in-law heading to Iraq next month and I'd rather he were home with my daughter and their three kids, but there is a job to be done and he is a soldier (a sniper by the way). Just as all those years when I was a cop, when duty calls - you answer the bell.