This is a wonderful and necessary distinction that fills in the "sides" and different philosophies behind use of force. But I wonder, if one side doesn't use violence, as you say at the end, and the other side armed with violence is ready to use and then does and wins, what do they win?

This debate reminds me of "an old" movie I saw with my dad when it came out in 86 called "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons. The two men are fighting to protect a remote tribe in Brazil in the 1700s or so from being enslaved by the Portuguese. Very morally moving and it made me feel this conflict between the two men who had different approaches in solving the same issue, a noble one. I need to rewatch this weekend. Thanks.