I think Rayiner is a consequentialist (as I am) - judging by quality of outcomes. This doesn't work for everything (since we lack foresight), so I'm a reluctant deontologist, in general; but lacking an obvious or enforceable ontology, consequentialism all the way, baby.

> Using war or the threat of war to apprehend peace is antithetical to pacifism.

I agree, but keep in mind the person-to-person analog: "Using force or the threat of force to apprehend personal safety is antithetical to pacifism." I.e. there is a convincing philosophical argument that once you agree that people have the right to use force in self-defense, that there is a collective right to use military force for collective self-defense.

Precisely. I can't speak for all pacifists, but many, like Tolstoy, outright reject personal self-defense, at least in theory. That is to say, while it is very difficult for man to give up defense of oneself and one's family (probably for good reason), a pacifist does not see the self-defender as morally pristine. The great danger is when self-defense is given priority over other means of resolving or fleeing violence. If you believe the state's case, then I think the Zimmerman murder trial is a perfect example of zealous self-defense.

Well stated.