Tom, I took the test, then I sent them this;

Your first five questions are slanted towards your anti-war cause.

For example;
1. War is necessary to settle conflicts between nations.

This, of course is false. Sometimes war is necessary and sometimes it is not. War was necessary to defeat the Germans in WWII. It is not necessary to settle a trade disagreement between the US and Canada.

You should word the question like this;

War is sometimes necessary to settle conflicts

2. Military force is necessary when other nations threaten our economic security.

Need more detail, please. What do you mean by threat? If they are blowing up our pipelines, buildings or something like that, then yes. If it is because they don’t want to trade with us, then no.

You should word it like this;
Military force is necessary when other nations threaten our economy security through physically destructive means.

3. If another nation threatens our military security, it is right to attack them before they attack us.

Once again, define threatens. Do you mean verbally or physically?

4. Military force should be used when diplomacy and negotiation drag on without resolving the conflict.

Depends on the situation, of course.

5. It is right to use military force because it can prevent more suffering than it causes.

Once again, you need to add sometimes. It is sometimes right. Depends on the situation. War is not a one size fits all, you know.

The rest of them are okay.

I didn’t like you comment, “you can be easily persuaded to support war without giving it much thought.”

That is a load of bull. I have given it much thought.

I am a pacifist at heart, and I would love to see all the resources the world uses for war to go to making this world a better place, but I understand that war is sometimes necessary when dealing with leaders who thumb their noses at human rights and physically threaten other countries. Can you just ignore leaders like Saddam, and his sons, who murdered, tortured and rapped his own people. Who built luxzerious palices while his people starved. Who wanted to genocide the Kurds (and tried using chemical weapons, killing thousands. Who not only threatened his neighboring countries, but attacked them as well. How do you negotiate with a thug like him? You can’t. So then what- turn a blind eye and ignore the suffering of his people? Meanwhile the protectors, the UN is making money off the oil for food deal.

Maybe you people need to give it more thought.