I am admittedly on the extreme fringe of the anti-war spectrum in terms of when I feel military conflict is acceptable. Essentially I never feel that
there is a sufficiently justifying reason for war. I won't be happy until we have Star Trek (sans the battles with Klingons and Romulans) and we all
live in peace and without scarcity. war, or poverty. So not many people find themselves agreeing with my views, which is fine. I respect everyone's
But I want to raise a different point, which is this. Even if I had a far less extreme and pacifist position, one much more pragmatic and centrist,
I'm not sure I could support a war with Iran at this stage. We have some evidence of detonator technology that could be utilized in a nuclear payload
delivery system being developed by Iran. We have some uranium enrichment. We have the IAEA saying that there is no evidence of enriched uranium being
diverted to weapons programs. We have some historical resistance on the part of Iran's leadership to the very notion of nuclear armaments. We have no
concrete proof that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program, but evidence that they may be. We have a lot of political posturing and statements by
Iran that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, one of which is that they have hostile intent and malevolent designs against Israel in terms of an
outright military attack. But no proof that they have directly stated that they plan or intend to attack Israel.
So, on balance, all of the above taken together does not constitute sufficient cause - even if I had a much more conservative or centrist stance - for
preemtive military action in my opinion. I am no great fan of Iran's government, as i have said before quite candidly. I do feel that this is all
cause for very real concern
and observation. But I do not believe that an Iranian attack on Israel is imminent or that military action is now
the only way to prevent such an attack from becoming imminent or inevitable.
Meanwhile, at the same time, things like this individual's statements make it difficult to ignore the apparent trend toward making it the policy of
Israel and the United States that war is inevitable and should therefore be accelerated rather than delayed or averted. I have witnessed this thinking
before, and in my opinion it is dangerous and ill conceived. When options to the contrary remain, even were I a less anti-war individual, even if I
believed that war is necessary to protect national security and save lives, etc. etc. I would not be able to come to the conclusion that war is at
inevitable or necessary.
A problem allegedly exists. There is not yet concrete proof of that problem's existence. Yet the aim appears to be to leap frog over the proof
(because that proof "might be a mushroom cloud." Remember where we've heard that before?) and go straight to a policy of actively trying to
precipitate and justify military hostilities. This does not strike me as rational. It strikes me as willfully ignorant of the cost in human lives such
a conflict would carry. It strikes me as dismissive of any alternative other than conflict, because the expedient road to war might be more favorable
to our national interests than one of delay and diplomacy that might avert a war.
Which brings me to my ultimate point: What am I to think of a man - or groups - which ignores the very possibility of diplomacy, overlooks or simply
justifies the cost in human lives involved, assumes war is inevitable and necessary even in the absence of proof of the claimed basis for said war,
and publicly advocates intentionally precipitating said war via artificial and clandestine means? I do not assume that this is correct or factual, but
the word which springs to mind, if I'm honest, is "sociopath."
I hope that gut response is incorrect. I do not have a "dog in this race." I don't agree with either side. I only hope war can be averted. I hope war
will not be triggered intentionally rather than every means to avoid it first being exhausted. I hope I do not have to see the cost in human lives I
fear realized before my eyes on the news in years to come. I hope we are not governed (or predominantly influenced, in the case of lobbyists) by
sociopaths commanding powerful armed forces. That's all I can say.
edit on 9/27/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typos