in a past life killing a man who was planning to murder everyone else aboard a ship he was on.

We are humans, to expect us to never feel or even act with violence seems like it will only lead to more angst. Violence or non-violence, maybe that isn't the question. The question is what would you do? Behind that answer is a response that comes out of your own karma and whatever you think or want to achieve.

For myself I like to think I would always look for a non-violent means of resolving a problem, helping others, and I know that there will be times I wont be able to find a non-violent way because I only have the skills and understand I have. Someone else might be able to act differently and with less suffering.

Once I do act I have to ask myself "Now what?"

I would be interested in reading it.

You can read the story here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=eWVgoVByVhcC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Buddha+killing+a+Pirate&source=bl&ots=g3VR5C6Xyw&sig=hC0wUjuyCJ4BOSq_9PoJuXjAuhs&hl=en&ei=A5SVS_XLH4L4MvfulPUN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

From the Pali Canon, Khuddaka Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka

"Now what?" - I think that is the key question that must be asked.

I occurred to me that there was another aspect to your question I didn't respond too.

Supporting violence by others.

I think I just want to acknowledge that other understand of the question, violent action by you or support of violent action by others.

I guess from a Buddhist point of view the you and others are the same so that points back to my original answer.

And still in this world we understand ourselves as different from others so what the heck does that mean?

I can't answer that exactly but I think the essence of my response is the same. You may 'support' violence done by others in many ways, praising it with words (giving your judgement of it), providing material aide (sending money, working in a factory that makes materials for weapons) but those actions are yours and when you chose to support others in that way again you are back to -

"Now what?"

In 1979 when the NVA invaded Cambodia to rid the country of the Khmer Rouge it was IMO a 'blessed event'.

The calculus of human cost of accepting sufferage now to mitigate much greater suffering later is one that the layman will always be faced with.

For those that believe that no one should ever use force you are eventually reduced to the argument that you can't even justify police.

The situation in Burma is complicated because their is such concentration of power that only two alternatives exist; a massive civil war with hundreds of thousands of casualties or a carrot and stick approach that will bring them out.

We are fortunate that we have Suu Kyi who can serve as a bell weather beacon on how substantial these advances are and she is embracing the thawing of tensions;

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-myanmar-clinton-20111203,0,7728793.story

Reporting from Yangon, Myanmar, and Washington— Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi praised Washington's newly declared support for her country's recent political reforms, but she emphasized the importance of remaining on good terms with the nation's powerful longtime patron, China.

After a meeting Friday that capped Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's landmark visit, Suu Kyi said that, with U.S. backing, "I am confident that there will be no turning back from the road toward democracy."

These efforts show how the President's handling of foriegn policy gets more results than Bush's

As my retirement house rests about 4 miles from the Burmese border, I am thrilled with these developments.

"These efforts show how the President's handling of foriegn policy gets more results than Bush's"

or seasonal and what is your time frame?