Max,
I can't name a single pacifist on this list, nor can I think of anyone who has used a pacifist argument to oppose the war in Afghanistan.
>On this list, as noted in previous post, there are arguments
>against the U.S. campaign on grounds that the U.S. stinks
>and merits no support, ever. Fine. No pacifism, that. But
>they are also arguments that violence is always bad (or
>ineffective), that innocents will suffer, or that the war is
>engaged for ulterior motives. Those arguments
>condemn all wars (obviously including the Civil War), and
>you can't make them if you have a few favorite wars of
>your own.
Where on this list has it been argued that the ONLY reason to oppose the war with Afghanistan is that civilians would be killed? Or the simplistic violence bad, non-violence good? Or that the war is waged for ulterior motives? You have erected a straw man - I can't think of one person who has offered these reasons, and nothing else, for their opposition to the war. These arguments are advanced as support for a larger point, that the war is unjustified. As Justin said, the Afghan war does not meet the standards of just war theory, or the standards laid out by the UN, namely self-defence.
Those initiating violence have to justify their actions. This is the principle I use, and I get the sense most others on the list agree. Is it OK to kill innocent civilians? It depends on what is at stake. Destroying Hitler's Germany passes the test. Getting at OBL does not, especially when non-violent alternatives were not exhausted before the bombing started.
Brett