N.O.P.,
This is a textbook strawman argument: you set up the "Left" as being fanatically against any sort of violence, even as a last means of defence, and then tear down this obviously impractical stance.
You may have noticed that when Bush went after the Taliban for haboring Al Quaeda, you didn't see the same scale of protest that you did against the Iraq war. In Afganistan, it was clear that there was a regime that overtly supported and protected the terrorists (indeed, the leader of the terrorists) who attacked the WTC on September 11, 2001. I won't claim that it was unanimous support, but the big argument seemed to be whether to invade or to just nuke outright.
Iraq, however, was not a response to 9/11. It was completely contrived. There was no immediate threat. It could not be done on the cheap. They did not greet us with flowers. There was no global coalition. Iraq had _nothing_ to do with 9/11, nor were they capable of doing anything besides sitting in the box we'd built for them.
Were there good reasons to invade? Maybe, who knows. We never got to debate good reasons. Instead we just had the lies and fabrications of the Bush administration to cajole the country into a war of choice, into long-term occupation, into paying the lion's share of lives and resources to depose a toothless dictator.
Would I use violence to defend myself? I would and have. Was I against the invasion of Iraq? I was and am.

As always, Ken, thanks for providing a forum for debate.

later,
nicfit212

ew, it took out all of my paragraph separations...

I agree, sometimes killing people for your own self defence is necessary. My objection is when people think god is on their side, and say prayers to help them. Jesus preached 'turn the other cheek'. Taking up arms is against all Christian values, and we should take note of that.

More bad apples, the bushel is getting rotten

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116648000&en=6cca0512a38427c3&ei=5094&partner=homepage