That arsenal consists almost entirely of the peace-minded people’s ability and willingness to inform the unknowing masses. We saw the results of peace-minded peoples efforts on Syria, in the form of a peaceful resolution conforming to international law, a good thing.
The rejection of lethal force on Syria was the culmination of a better informed more skeptical public. This was in large part based on the “Iraq Deception” but also on a convergence of other factors. Such as, the realization that with austerity a dollar spent on a bomb is a dollar we need to run the country. Also the public understands and questions the fact that we are constantly bombing or planning to bomb some country, a ten year old would get it. Many have been informed and understand the moral implications of threatening a country who we admit we used terrorism to depose a democratically elected, pro-western government because it wanted to keep its nation resource, oil, for the benefit of its people.
The argument: Is it morally acceptable to attack, threaten to attack a country who has not attacked any country in over two-hundred years? Who we have admitted we deposed their their elected leader, installed a dictator, when the people removed him, we brought him back and again forced him upon them all the while pumping out their oil as the people starved. When they took back their country with American hostages to preclude having the dictator re-imposed or worse the bombing back to the stone age to force compliance and submission to a new dictator. We have all but admitted to killing their scientists, and engaging in full on cyber warfare against them. Finally, but not completely, we have imposed brutal economic sanctions on them that have the potential to bring back Secretary Albright, to claim the sanctions were worth the deaths of 400.000 Iraqi, sorry, Iranian children-for the cause.
To threaten or attack a country that has never done anything to you, who you have done the aforementioned to is the definition of immoral.
We only have the facts, the moral imperative and the momentum from the “Syria Inevitable War Experience”. If the American People have the aforementioned information I believe they will forcefully reject warmongering on the same. Will the facts get out sufficiently and quickly enough to allow the people to oppose war on Iran.
The peace-minded learned from the Syria experience, so did the warmongers. They are not likely to talk about bombing Iran in a way that would allow for the peace-minded to challenge, inform and preclude an attack. They will just do it, avoiding what stopped them from doing Syria.
India has just come out with the following statements
India’s PM- “I was convinced in all my interaction with Iran that Iran was not determined to make nuclear weapons,” Khurshid said.
“…whatever the Non-Proliferation Treaty allows them [Iranians] under the IAEA dispensation … with peaceful uses of nuclear energy is something that they are entirely entitled to,” he said.
You ever heard the the US criticize India? That statement by Indians is a huge crack in war crackpot.
Start informing now. This video is such a great depiction of Iranians as like Americans in more ways than they are different. It’s my moral duty to inform as many people as I can that war is not inevitable, the reasons that it is immoral to attack a country who has never attacked another country, who is and has been in compliance with international law and is no threat to you or your allies.
Russia and China have openly stated that an attack on Iran will be considered an attack on themselves and they will respond. What does that mean? We don’t know exactly. We do know it will fall somewhere between a proxy war to nuclear first strike and surely escalating to World War III.
It is not only a moral imperative, it is self preservation. Spread the word “I dont dislike nor hate Iranians, why would I?