Nancy Gish - Women's Studies wrote:
> There are two separate issues I think.  One's response to the
> prayer is one thing, the possibility of violence doing good is
> another.  I think the very ancient and carefully thought-out concept
> of "just war" is valid.  I do not think Iraq fit the criteria in any way.

I would mostly agree with this. I would argue in addition, however, that
"violence" is a universal, like "redness" or "hardness," and therefore
does not even exist as an entity. (There is no "red" without some object
to _be_ red), and it is as empty to argue against (or for) violence as
such as it is to argue against (or for) redness in itself. One can argue
that red is a disirable (or undesirable) color for a given surface;
similarly, one can argue that violence is an appropriate (or
inappropriate) means for carrying out a given purpose under given

To say violence leads to violence is simply not empirically true, though
the peace violence creates in any given instance may or may not be a
desirable peace. There is a line in Tacitus to the effect, "They made a
desert and they called it peace."

In the instance of the present U.S. assault on the world, those who
would defend it ought to at least think about what it means for the U.S.
to be, at the present time, the most universally hated state in world
history. It is a terrible thing to have no friends except those that bow
to sheer force. (Other hated states were hated only regionally: most of
the world's population was rather indifferent to the Third Reich.)