posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:14 AM
I may be mistaken, but I believe TC's point - if perhaps not articulated in a way that makes that as clear as intended - is about people's attitudes
about violence, more so than violence itself. There are some (on ATS and everywhere) who revel in the thought of this war coming to fruition. Some who
advocate that we "get on with it" and begin a conflict which, in all pragmatic reality, will likely cost millions of lives should it happen as some
envisage. That the time has come to dispense with diplomacy and wipe the regime (and those who would defend it... which are many) from the face of the
Earth. And there are even some who have suggested they would actually delight in that.
I share TC's view that this is neither wise, nor compassionate, nor - at this juncture - necessary. Now, that having been said, I will go ahead and
concede that I am a pacifist and believe that war is never necessary, and always represents a failure to find alternatives by all sides. That doesn't
mean that once war is visited upon someone, they should not defend themselves. It simply means that I view it being visited upon them in the first
place as a failure on the part of our species. Whether it be a failure to understand how to prevent it; a failure to control and moderate anger; a
failure to understand the motivations of the aggressor and how one might defuse or ameliorate those causes; a failure to have the will to avoid
war in the first place; or a failure in some other capacity we could not predict or conceive of. In any event, I always consider war a failure.
Once a war begins, the most compassionate and humane course of action short of finding a way to end it, is to win it as quickly and efficiently as
possible, as that is what is most likely to result in the fewest possible deaths and the least possible suffering. But that we ever get to the point
where that calculation must be made at all represents, to me, a failure. And that failure isn't shouldered by only one side (though it can be argued
that it is shouldered more by one than the other, depending on the given dynamics.)
I know that isn't a popular point of view necessarily, but I suspect that - and that many here and elsewhere seem so eager for a conflict (and
no, I'm not saying everyone advocating a more aggressive posture is necessarily eager for war) - is all TC has been trying to say. And if so, I agree
with him or her personally.