>>12
The only reason you seem intimidating is because you come off as yelling; I have no clue what a "chicken hawk" is either.
I have nothing against "protecting the weak" as a purpose to fight. I don't see how that brings about an ultimate resolution to the problem of there being weak who need protecting, or if the weak are the ones doing the aggressing, but it's a honorable day-to-day reason and one I wholeheartedly support.
But that's why I don't believe in strict pacifism. It doesn't solve the problem it tries to avoid - war. I don't believe in strict war either, though I hope that one should go without the need to say. I resist your polarization of war and pacifism and straddle the center of that line - both war and peace are necessary but it's what you turn to first, and maybe second, that defines who you are. You should not strive for peace but a situation where peace (and choice) can exist. Stretching pacifism to the very limits for the sake of "being peaceful" is extreme. Then it just becomes a bluffing situation with no endgame and often unintentional, lingering side-effects.