Here’s something I like: Glenn Reynolds linked to this Wall Street Journal op-ed by blogger Steven Den Beste. Not only do I like seeing bloggers go “hard copy,” I liked his words:

We are not doing this out of altruism. We are not trying to give them a liberalized Western democracy because we’re evangelistic liberal democrats (with both liberal and democrat taking historical meanings). We are bringing reform to Iraq out of narrow self-interest. We have to foster reform in the Arab/Muslim world because it’s the only real way in the long run to make them stop trying to kill us.
So why did George W. Bush and Tony Blair, in making the case for war, put so much emphasis on U.N. resolutions and weapons of mass destruction? Honesty and plain speaking are not virtues for politicians and diplomats. If either Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair had said what I did, it would have hit the fan big-time. Making clear a year ago that this was our true agenda would have virtually guaranteed that it would fail. Among other things, it would have caused all of the brutal dictators and corrupt monarchs in the region to unite with Saddam against us, and would have made the invasion impossible. But now the die is cast, and said brutal dictators and corrupt monarchs no longer have the ability to stop the future.

Make them stop trying to kill us! I can relate to that, and there is nothing altruistic about it. I can understand that people might disagree over how to go about this war, or over the direction of United States foreign policy. But those who cannot understand the basic, bottom-line here — that we have to stop those who are trying to kill us — carry pacifism to the point of suicide. If you want suicide, fine; just don’t inflict it on me, because I ruled it out a decade ago.
Might as well argue that I have no right to defend my home.
Ludicrous as that sounds, in England they are doing just that. Tony Martin dared to defend himself, and for that he is in prison. Another read-and-weep (and hope it doesn’t happen here) story.
Many people here in the U.S. would do the same thing. There is a strong movement against self defense, and it frequently takes the form of gun control. (I will spare my readers any links to the type of sites which advocate taking away the right to self defense. Besides, looking up such trash puts me in a horrible mood.)
Self defense is a Classical Value. The “evil, decadent Romans” so often condemned by the moralizers engaged in that so-called “decadent” conduct for many hundreds of years. It wasn’t until they lost the ability to defend themselves that Rome fell.
Whether by an individual or by a nation, the refusal to defend yourself is true decadence.
Definitely NOT a Classical Value.