It is a mistake to confuse good judgement with either weakness or a blanket policy of non-violence. People commanding armies cannot afford to be non-violent, as that is not their job in life...they are (or should be) warriors. They cannot afford to be weak. But they need good judgement. It is not good judgement to launch an unnecessary war for spurious reasons in violation of international law and in defiance of a great majority of World opinion.

Saddam did it when he attacked both Iran and Kuwait. America and Britain did it when they attacked Iraq recently. Stalin did it when he attacked Finland (in '39). Hitler did it when he attacked Poland. Mussolini did it when he attacked Ethiopia.

Whether one gets away with this sort of thing or not (either in the short run or the long run) depends on many factors, but it is not good judgement nor is it good moral conduct, and to say so is not necessarily to endorse non-violence in all situations.

A good warrior fights only when it is truly necessary and when it is unavoidable. He does not do so capriciously, out of the need to beat on his chest, impress people, steal what is not his, and cow the World. The World in the end outlasts such a warrior and swallows him.

There is conflict in the World because of massive economic and social inequality and great oppression in many places, and there are weapons of mass destruction in the World because huge aggressive powers like the USA, Russia, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain invented them, funded them, built them, sold them and used them. In a situation where the big players create monstrous things, the small players will soon learn to imitate them, just as children learn from their parents...for better or for worse.

- LH