I'd say it's too bad Mr. Sawyer chose to use his considerable intelligence to demean your question with a curt and seemingly snide reply rather than use "succinct" language to educate on this subject near and dear to him...especially as you presented your question quite honestly to him. Frankly, this kind of response doesn't flatter him but that's OK. He's representing his own ideas here and if he doesn't care how he or his ideas are received then that's his problem. Still, I'm glad he's in our forum and cares about Liberty enough to affiliated with us. And he does have a point, it is difficult to reconcile self-defense and anti-war sentiments. In my opinion, it can and must be done.
As one who shares your sentiments and who is as fully armed as the state of California allows, it is perfectly consistent to be in favor of self-defense and still abhor the idea of war, even if necessary and justified. But it is not consistent to be in favor of self-defense and a pacifist. After all, self-defense does imply that there may be some killing. And defensive war is still war.
One does not have to be a pacifist to be against war. Anyone who is "pro-war" is confused if you ask me. Still, it is a tough world out there and we must be prepared to take care of ourselves and those for whom we are responsible. The issue we debate on this forum is whether the Iraq situation is in fact self-defense. I won't labor the issue here as plenty has been said in previous threads. But some names for those who are pro self-defense and anti-war in my opinion are "thoughtful", "life affirming" and "G_d fearing" to name a few. I'm sure there are many more. Maybe Mr. Sawyer has a few to add to the rather short offering he made in his first reply to you.
I hope this helps.