4 ms·

I think this shift is a result of the immorality of American warfare over recent decades. If the last war we had participated in was WWII and the cold war then

I think this shift is a result of the immorality of American warfare over recent decades. If the last war we had participated in was WWII and the cold war then who would object to advancing our weaponry in case we had to fight a terrible war again? Conversely, if we are routinely killing civilians in pointless decades long engagements in the Middle East, supporting both sides of civil wars in foreign lands, selling weapon systems to brutal monarchies, etc it's easier to see why people have doubts about participating.

freewilly1040 8y ago
The Cold War produced plenty of immoral conflicts. Is it seriously arguable that Viet Nam was a genocide? Justifiable wars since WWII are the exception.
- azernik 8y ago
  Genocide: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." The Vietnam War was immoral in many ways, but it was not a genocide. Throwing that term around willy-nilly cheapens it. Please don't.
  - rounce 8y ago
    Rather astounding that people would downvote a post defending the experience of genocide victims from being confused with subjects of a lazy adjective use. Edit: Oh, I forgot this is HN...
  - freewilly1040 8y ago
    The use of Agent Orange fits your pasted description quite well, as does the My Lai massacre and similar atrocities now anonymous to history.
    - azernik 8y ago
      "...committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..." A massacre is not genocide, neither is irresponsible environmental damage. It needs to have a specific intent and exist in a context that (is intended to) produce such massacres on a large scale. e.g. German "reprisals" in France after partisan attacks were war crimes, but not genocide.

freewilly1040 8y ago

The Cold War produced plenty of immoral conflicts. Is it seriously arguable that Viet Nam was a genocide? Justifiable wars since WWII are the exception.

azernik 8y ago
Genocide: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." The Vietnam War was immoral in many ways, but it was not a genocide. Throwing that term around willy-nilly cheapens it. Please don't.
- rounce 8y ago
  Rather astounding that people would downvote a post defending the experience of genocide victims from being confused with subjects of a lazy adjective use. Edit: Oh, I forgot this is HN...
- freewilly1040 8y ago
  The use of Agent Orange fits your pasted description quite well, as does the My Lai massacre and similar atrocities now anonymous to history.
  - azernik 8y ago
    "...committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..." A massacre is not genocide, neither is irresponsible environmental damage. It needs to have a specific intent and exist in a context that (is intended to) produce such massacres on a large scale. e.g. German "reprisals" in France after partisan attacks were war crimes, but not genocide.