I recently saw a bumper sticker that stated: "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" While I am not a warmonger, I do see the need for it since so many of our world leaders do not have the same value system. How do I respond to "peaceniks" who can offer no viable alternative to make world peace. Talking it out just doesn't work.

Hi!
You said: "I recently saw a bumper sticker that stated: "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" "
I was wondering if maybe that bumper sticker was referring not to war, but to capital punishment? Because that would make more sense. (Unless are you trying to tell me that you think countries go to war to punish their opponents? To me, I would find that to be a foreign concept. I'm asking, because I want to understand exactly where you're coming from with that.)

You continued: "While I am not a warmonger, I do see the need for it since so many of our world leaders do not have the same value system."
OK, but what do you mean by 'OUR' world leaders? Who do you speak for? Where ever you're from (I'll take a wild punt and guess you're from USA), you have your own state representatives. The mere fact of having these leaders, elected or otherwise assumes a system of a SOVEREIGN state (or country), a territory, a citizenry or people. Sovereignty is the basic concept that lies behind countries being separate and having self-governance etc. The reason I'm picking on this is because there is a WIDE SPREAD perception in the world that the USA sees itself as somehow in charge of the rest of the world. (I know it's a ridiculous accusation, how could any one anywhere be so arrogant... )
You mentioned 'value system'. Singular. As if there is only one 'value system'. You might want to think about this: how many people do you know? How many of those people have exactly the same opinions and beliefs as you?

You continued with what I saw as a despairing sort of cry for help:
"How do I respond to "peaceniks" who can offer no viable alternative to make world peace. Talking it out just doesn't work."
Talking WHAT out? I need a bit more information here please. I can say as much or as little about this as you are interested in reading, but suffice to say PEACE IS A ROUTE NOT JUST A DESTINATION.

H.P.

It is obvious to me that the bumper sticker refers to the death penalty, not war. Wars are never fought "to show that killing is wrong," but rather for some specific reason, such as one country invading another to gain territory, resources, or some other such notion.

The bumper sticker makes no sense because we do not carry out the death penalty "to show that killing is wrong." Any reasonable person knows this already, and some killing is not wrong at all. W use capital punishment because as a matter of common sense the penalty for a criminal act has to fit the severity of the crime. Ted Bundy killed approximately 38 women, should he get a $5 fine?

In my state, if a home intruder enters your home, you have the right to use deadly force against this person if they are presenting a threat to you, and the intruder is considered to be presenting a threat unless they are attempting to flee your home. While killing this person would be a horrible thing for any person of conscience to do, it is not wrong nor is it illegal. The same applies any time a person decides to use deadly force against you for some reason, such as robbery. You have the right to use deadly force against this person as a matter of self defense.

The bumper sticker is trying to make people who advocate the death penalty look like hipocrits. Someone without a lot of smarts thought it sounded good and failed to apply common sense to the doctrine they are espousing.

Let me add a bit more to my response in regards to your notion that you see a need for war as world leaders do not have the same value systems. Difference in value systems between nations is never a cause for war in itself because one nation can practice a given value system within its borders without affecting other nations. War comes about if one nation applies its value system to the detriment of another, or war can be fought between nations sharing a similar value system if some specific conflict between them arises to the level of war.

Nations with different value systems can live in peace with each other if their value system does not harm other nations. It takes some specific dispute between nations that cannot be resolved amicably to get to the point of starting a war.

I oppose U.S. involvement in most foreign wars unless the U.S. has been attacked. I consider myself an isolationist on foreign affairs, not a "peacenik".
I support the war in Afganistan but I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. It will cause more Arab resentment toward the U.S. and will breed more terrorists. You probably think I'm a bleeding-heart Kerry voting liberal but I'm a conservative Republican 100 percent who opposes the war, Bush's worst nightmare.

It's summed up best this way (in response to those who oppose the war in Iraq)

"Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of Justice"

... Why do people cling to the belief that the US can actually have a positive effect on a country by bringing more violence to it? We've tried that too many times before, and failed. Regardless of whether we should try to "right the world," we simply _can't_

You know, every bit of crime in Iraq is being reported in the US media, as they desparately try to make it look like a lost cause. Do you know what the news would be like if they reported ALL the crime in let's just say California alone? It would make Iraq pretty peaceful, doesn't anyone see that?