"Ah," scream the left, "You must be a warmonger!" - Well, I cannot think of the remotest possibility that there is anyone who loves peace more than I.
The typical pacifist approach is to make the naive assumption that 'it takes two to tango'. In their eyes, there is apparently never a right side and always two wrong ones. (If they argue that this is not what they are saying, then they are being wickedly disingenuous.)
Principles of righteousness and self-defence are casually discarded because they 'own the moral high ground' - particularly when they can prove that some wars really should not have happened.
The problem is that you cannot extrapolate from that and claim that this means that all war is unnecessary.
If, in the Old Testament, God joined in with the wars of mankind - how can we argue against that?
"He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword," does not work as a logical argument in a just or defensive war. In any case, consider the wording "lives by". That is designed more for Tamurlaine or Genghis Khan, Pol Pot or Attila.
.jpeg)