The irony of peace

Peace is terribly ironic.  I consider myself to be heavily pro-peace, but there are wars I'll agree to either support financially or physically -- and recent ones are not among them.  (Caveat: I supported the initial engagement in Afghanistan because I believe the Taliban are a much worse threat to the world at large than any other fundamentalist group.  However, that mandate shifted and the program was not implemented.)

I am not anti-war.  I believe there are things worth fighting for -- progress, equality, self-preservation, self-determination.  I don't believe in fighting over natural resources, scraps of land, religion or to make rich men richer.  I'll fight for ethics and intangibles, excepting religion (which has its own exception -- I'll fight a religious war to a) defend myself and not be forced to convert or choose death; b) to prevent others from facing the same; and c) if a religious war ever comes up that isn't an excuse for a landgrab.)

I also believe in a better way to wage war.  I'm still not sure what that is, but I know that throwing literal money at problems (not the figurative money we throw in the forms of bullets and bombs) can make them go away.  I know there is something to be said for non-violent intimidation (i.e. parking your biggest, baddest boats in a harbor, standing on the deck looking fierce, and saying 'Don't make me use this.'  And being willing to use this if necessary).  There's something to be said for economic boycott -- After all, when the biggest customer in the world looks at your product and your means of production, sneers and walks away because they won't buy what you've produced unethically, you start changing.  

I am a huge fan of economics, especially the economics of motivation.  I'd like to see a world where incentives and disincentives made war go away.  

Is Rebellion pro-war or anti-war?  Neither.  It's pro-peace, by my definition.