4 ms·
The answer is no, absolutely fucking not, and the fact is that you are with one post defending the moral rectitude and high ground of American soldiers who refe
by user982 9y ago
The answer is no, absolutely fucking not, and the fact is that you are with one post defending the moral rectitude and high ground of American soldiers who refer to their victims as "bug splats" when adults and "fun-size terrorists" when children, and with the other post justifying their wholesale firebombing of civilian population centers because of the unsubstantiated potential for a separate effect that you admit was totally unforeseen and unintentional.
- throwanem 9y agoMeanwhile, you show no evident scruple in trading away the lives of the Nazi regime's victims, in the cause of preserving those of its subjects: > The answer is no, absolutely fucking not To be clear, I don't make this point in order to argue some special lack of moral rectitude on your part, but rather for its value as an example of the fact that, in warfare, there exist no options that offer perfect moral uprightness - that the choices available there are not between virtue and iniquity, but rather between greater iniquity and lesser. There's nothing lovely about this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless, and I fail to see how refusing to acknowledge it improves the ability, of one who does so, to correctly understand the world we so imperfectly share.