Here at Kos, some good points have been made re: Iran-war dissenters, and where their dissent springs from. Does it spring from a basic revulsion from killing, maiming war? Does it come from a deeply human (and humane) place that, when confronted with the possibility of war, sorely demands ANY option BUT war?
Hardly.
It would seem that most critics of a potential war with Iran ride with Harry Reid's most recent words in tow: "We don't have the resources," they say, shooting no glance at the polka-dotted 50-ton purple-assed baboon in the room with the sign around its neck that reads, BUT IF WE DID HAVE THE RESOURCES, WE'D BOMB THOSE MOTHERS TO THE PALEOLITHIC AGE. And there it is, for all to see - moral bankruptcy on a grand, bipartisan scale.
It was a comment to a recent diary of mine that stated this quite succinctly, and hit me hard. I mean, it's obvious, but it's also plain true that politicians of every stripe, moving their jaws, invariably provoke among even the (seemingly, in their own minds) most astute (or, me) narcosis, a depthless numbing, the black fairyland of walking sleep, at times...it's like a verbal trick, saying "We don't have the resources" and expecting antiwar liberals to go "Yeah!" along with you. I did, at first; then, said Kossack knocked me over the head with a skillet. I was angry at myself, for not noticing what's implicit in Reid's position: given the resources, go for it. A repellent, uglified position to take, and NOT a, er, life-affirming one.
Let us be antiwar for humane and moral reasons. Think of the babies, the mothers and the innocent. Think of the ruin and the waste. War is the refuge of bastards and shitfucks. Is history not replete with the bones of those who would agree?