megaman79 said:
Its called Google - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/ Basically he is reasoning new extensions to traditional rules of war, the type of thing that makes invasion of Iran, North Korea or even Iraq legal. Given what Blair has said today, that he would have invaded Iraq even if there were no WMD's, i think a rule change is required asap. |
When starting a topic about something it's common courtesy to link to some source about the actual thing so dozens of people who want to talk about it don't all have to waste time looking for it.
Additionally WW2 wasn't as moral as people think. When the war was winding down the west had many chances to save jews. By bombing certain railroad tracks, by speeding up certain parts of the line... etc.
These plans held low risks and high rewards in human life saved. They were all summarily rejected.
As for a "moral" war. It really depends on your definition of morals doesn't it.
Robin Hood robbed from the corrupt rich and gave from the poor. If you think what robbin hood did was right, i'd suggest that there are infact moral wars.
There has to be some level of equation that makes a war moral. For example Casualty expectation-increased quality of living <= expected deathtoll under regime + Lesser life conditions.
