Originally posted by: maluckey
Hayabusa Rider,
I hear ya!
War is the Ultimate form of Diplomacy. It's also the least desirable. It is also not always avoidable, despite us wanting it to be. Once the effects of war are seen first-hand, they're not easily forgotten. Unfortunately, the majority of people feel that war can ALWAYS be avoided...this is simply not true. Most of the time it can be sidestepped, but as long as humans have needs and wants, someone will ALWAYS need something that you don't want to give at any price. In these moments, war is unavoidable.
Also ......The conflict between the West "in general" goes waaaaaaaayyyyyyy farther back than then 20th Century. The main issue is Islamic and Christian intolerance of each other. Even Bush couldn't screw it up worse than it already was. Terror attacks against the West began as soon as the ME rose from desert wanderers to oil-fed city dwellers.
Here in the ME, posturing is still a part of the intricate dance of Politics and Diplomacy. If you can show your opponent to be weak, or immoral, then you are in the superior position regardless of reality or the final outcome. It has little to do with what the West sees as Diplomacy. It used to frustrate the hell out of me and my team that we had to sit and drink several cups of Chai...Blech
isgust; and talk about families for hours. On new engagements it was often three or four visits before we talked ANY business. I hate Chai and pastries in-general so it's double torture. Perhaps I'm Easternized to the extent that I need to Posture....perhaps Moonie knows why:laugh: But what I see is that Iran is not willing to play by the dominant team's rules. Good idea if you can support yourself, and a good thing overall. It is not "Best Practice to rattle your sabre unless you intend to draw it and win decisively. You get nothing from it. History is littered with former leaders and nations that challenged without teeth. It has never been useful.
Aquanaveljihad spouts off about extermination of Zionists and how there are no Gays in his country because he NEEDS to say such things for the support of the Islamist factions in his government as well as for common masses in his country that buy into his projected perceptions and they all ride the wave of Nationalistic pride. The same for the United States. The only difference is that the Americans have EVERYTHING, so when they brag or show pride, it's labeled as arrogance for being immodest. Different standards? You betcha. Equality is only equal when YOU call the shots.
While I understand your point, there's a difference between saying war is not always avoidable and justifying many wars because off this. The only real reason for a war to be unavoidable is when you are invaded. In any other case you simply prefer war to whatever compromise you should have done to avoid it.
Many countries have succeeded in deleting war from their whole modern history, by assuming a non-aligned stance in peacetime and neutrality in wartime.
The point is how countries use their foreign policies. The more you want to have a say on a global scale, the more likely you'll be perceived as aggressive and a threat, and the more likely you'll end up in a situation where war is a distinctive possibility.
In the course of history, many times leaders have called wars as being unavoidable, while in fact those war were just preferable to diplomacy in the mind of that leader.
Countries started wars based on the fear that other countries could do the same move first, and called this unavoidable, each and every time.
Then, we heard for three decades about the domino effect, and how winning in Vietnam was unavoidable, to prevent fighting in Hawaii later and watching communism spreading all over the world.
Well, the US did fight and got spanked in Vietnam, still we have not seen any domino effect. Was it that
unavoidable after all? I don't think so.
Switzerland managed to go through a few centuries without shooting a single bullet, including two world wars being fought all around its borders. Sweden doesn't enter a conflict since 1820something. Most often great powers fight wars because they want to, because they think it's the most effective instrument to serve their foreign policy doctrine. And most often this doctrine includes dominating other people. Not a very peaceful thought to base your pacifism on.
I agree on what you say about Ahmadinejad's reasons for saying those things. However this is not the point. Frankly I pity the guy. Being president of a country with domestic politics as complex and tricky as Iran is not a job I would apply for.
The point is a) Iran needs nuclear energy desperately, and b) Iran has right to nuclear energy according to international law. Forget for a second about nuclear weapons. The issue of Iran having nuclear weapons gets discussed all the time, the issue of Iran energy policy never.
What would you do if your country was desperately in need of something you have right to, and some foreign country actively tried to prevent you doing so? Honestly... how would you react if Russia was trying to dictate something about the US domestic policies?
Iran is a sovereign country, and what kind of energy policy it decides to pursue it's not something to be discussed at an international level. It's Iran's business only.
Now of course, there's the problem of weapons. First of all, Iran is entitled to have nuclear weapons if they like to, according to international law. But let's forget about this for a minute. The US don't like the idea that Iran could have nuclear weapons. The US are actually so pissed by this idea to be willing to go to war over this.
So, putting this all together, the situation is that the US are putting their fears of the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons before the basic needs of a country of 70 million people. Do you call this war unavoidable? If the positions were reversed, how would you see this?
Do you feel it's ok to cripple the economic development of a country based on your fear of something?
I am sure you can see the injustice here, no matter what you think of Iran. And nothing good comes from injustice. Some day, sooner or later you usually pay for it.
Now, of course I can be very rational about this, because I know even if Iran indeed produced nuclear weapons as a part of its nuclear energy program, nothing would change.
Anybody who has studied a little bit of International Relations theory knows this. You could actually give Iran a bunch of nuclear missiles today, and nothing would change. I remember exactly the same discussion, down to the same words, made when Pakistan went nuclear. Exactly the same words about how sure it was that some nuclear weapon would have been used in a terrorist attack. The same ignorant people believing this and shaking with fear. Go figure, if anything India and Pakistan's nukes helped stabilize the area.
Of course I also understand not everybody has knowledge on international politics, and so many people somewhere in Midwest are genuinely scared about the idea of a nuclear Iran. In fact they are the same people who were so scared about Pakistani nukes.But I don't blame those people. Ignorance takes generations to improve. But those who use these fears to claim war could be not avoidable, those are not ignorant. Those simply exploit ignorant people's fears.
There are very rational reasons why one might not like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran. All of which are economic reasons (as it is always the case). So, no... in my opinion this war is everything but unavoidable. If it will be fought it will be because those who are in power think the results you'll achieve by crippling the economy of a country with some 70 million people, located in a critical part of the world from a geopolitical perspective, will serve their purposes well.
Facebook
Twitter