From Universal Mind
You made a blanket statement against war.
I applaud your brevity, but I'm afraid you've misread the post. Perhaps it would help if the relevant phrases were in bold text:

From R.D.735
It's hard to argue against the dogged belief that democracy spread by force can change the world for the better. Terrorists like Al Qaeda have a similar belief: Islam spread by force can change the world for the better.
...
no amount of killing would be unjustified in the pursuit of some goal, whether it's Communism, Islam, or Democracy.
...
Advancing any of these ideas by force completely misses the motivations that cause each of them to be adopted--peace, prosperity, and justice. War destroys all three.
Then, my response to your post:

From R.D.735
As usual, no one is advocating surrender against any and all enemies. Some are merely advocating war that does not seek to advance any goal but the end of the war.
Since I'm against the initiation of war, it is easy to misinterpret this as being also against self-defense, which is not the case. This takes us to a central idea of the offending post:

From R.D.735
Killing a person is the ultimate form of oppression. If a person kills an oppressor, it is not murder only in the case of self-defense. Of course, for the enterprising parser, that is a loophole you could march an army through...
Having a reasonable degree of humanity, I wish self defense were always unnecessary, but I know that is an ideal, not reality. Realistically, self defense is sometimes necessary. Whether in the ideal or not, however, aggression is always unnecessary. The problem we have is that some cannot distinguish between the two when other interests besides safety are at risk.

This is how all wars are begun: one group begins a war to advance interests that they believe are connected directly to their safety, rather than waging war in order to preserve their safety. In the process, safety is made secondary to interests indirectly connected to safety. Thus, the priorities of aggressive war are the exact opposite of the rational for defensive war, and the result is similarly opposite: safety is sacrificed to promote interests instead of interests being sacrificed to promote safety.

This is what war-profiteering represents. This is what violent Islamic Jihad represents. It's what Hitler spread across the world, what Spanish conquistadors tried in the New World, what the Romans accomplished in Europe, what the US was trying to accomplish in Vietnam, and what Soviet Russia was trying to accomplish in Afghanistan. Each one had an idea, some ideology, that would supposedly make the world a better place if only everyone shared it, and the presence of any other idea was a threat. Every single effort was immensely destructive and evil, even when success was achieved. In a supposedly more civilized age, we recognize that those ideologies were only desperate rationalizations of naked aggression.

Sorry about the long post. Brevity is apparently not my strong point.