With all the debate over the Iraq war and the suggestion of a reader, the author has decided to devote the fourth article in this series to the question of what pacifism means today. Pacifism is a distaste for war; it is the opposite of militarism. It is a deeply seated belief against senseless war, fighting, and violence. More then that though, it is a question of how a society should exist together peacefully. Below I explore this in greater detail.

Pacifism does not neccessarly mean that you are pro-gun control, or that you think that all war is automatically bad. Pacifism is a doctrine that suggest that war exists only as a last restort when all dipolmacy has failed and the results of the failed dipolmacy are essentially untolerable. In other words, war is evil, except when truly neccessary. Fighting in smart ways against bonafide threats to your people's freedom is reasonable.

Pacifists don't enjoy the fight or advocate such a fight except when there is a compelling reason to fight an enemy. A pacifist would support certain wars in the most limited sense, when the untolerable actions of another state make it neccessary to go and fight. At the same time, pacifists are always ready to rethink and remove their presence from a war as soon as possible.

Pacifists are inheritly stronger then militarists who stress the importance of building up militaries. Militaries stress fighting and violence towards other groups and make it more possible to go to war even when not neccessary. Unneccessary pollution, resource consumption, and human lives are at stake from militarism. The drain on a state from fighting is often far more destructive then actual war.

We hope that our country critically think about our actions before going to war. We should constantly ask our leaders: is peace a pratical alternative?