I am a liberal, pacifist, anti-violence kinda guy, and I tend to agree with Ric and Gandhi, but, as I have said numerous times before, humans suck, as does human nature, and there will always be violence and negativity. Do Ghandi's words actually help us find an anser in the real world, or are they just idealistic wishful thinking? Perhaps it is the fact that everybody thinks it is stupid idealism that stops it from ever being anything more than that. So should I stand by and be non-violent, or do I need to partake in the violence to protect myself and my family/friends? And by doing so am I simply being a hippocrite and adding to the poor human nature that I loathe so much? Is there ever a time when violence is necessary? some good examples have been given. So who is right? Jesus said turn the other cheek - if we take this literally, let's say some guy punches me on the face, so I turn the other cheek. He puts a bullet in it and I die. Did I do the right thing? Did my pacifism prevent violence or make the world a better place? Either way, I'm dead. On the other hand what if, after being punched in the cheek, I headbutted the guy, pulled my own gun, and shot him? But why even let him punch me the first time? What if I saw his fist coming for my face, blocked it, then pulled my gun and shot him. But why even let him get the swing in? How about if, as soon as I see his eyes move towards me and his hand move, I shoot him. Or how about if I just shoot anyone who looks like they might want to hit me? Then again, perhaps if I walk around with my gun permanently drawn, nobody will want to hit me at all and I will be safe. Or will this make other people who see me brandishing my gun go for their weapon in the fear that I am going to shoot them? What if they decide it's better to shoot me before I shoot them? Where does any of this get us? To put the question on a global scale, is War ever justified? Hitler needed to be stopped, and appeasement in the early stages of his advance across Eurpoe only made it harder to stop him in the long run. Yet I am anti-war so how can I say WW2 was justified? No matter how hard I or we try to plant the seeds of peace, there will always be those who will, for whatever reason of their own (be it greed, revenge, anger or just plain craziness) want to quash that peace. Sometimes it is even done in the name of peace!! (can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, etc). This is quickly becoming my catchphrase, but I'll say it again: it all comes down to human nature, and human nature sucks.

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do know that the day we blow ourselves up will be a fitting end to our pathetic race.

P.S. Excluding the pea-brained hillbillies who refer to Iraqis as 'turkeys who need to be put down' and take pleasure in killing and violence, or beating tehir captives then photographing them, etc, I have absolutely nothing against the individuals involved in the current Iraq war, or any other war. I have a problem with the governments who sent them into that war, and even then I don't have anything against some of those government individuals because I understand the very hard decisions involved. However, when ulterior motives and back-alley dealings are bought into the equation, then I have a problem. But fundamentally, the front line men and women fighting on either side are ok in my book. They are just doing a job, and in many cases (such as WW2) they were enlisted and didn't even choose to do that job. Although having said that, does 'I was just following orders' really cut it? Isn't that what they said at Nurenburg...