6 ms·
That, as well as the story linked (which I read carefully), are really bad analogies, for what I think of obvious reasons. I do think intent can matter at time
by Cadsby 14y ago
That, as well as the story linked (which I read carefully), are really bad analogies, for what I think of obvious reasons.
I do think intent can matter at times. Perhaps what I'm more zeroing in on is that idea that I don't find saying you didn't mean to, when you repeatedly kill civilians in very large numbers, such that certain countries have a long history of being on the receiving end of American collateral damage, as an acceptable rational/excuse. (This last part is why I think you're examples are not particularly apt)
Your intent just stops mattering as much when the body count gets to a certain number and you show no signs of changing the behavior.
- berntb 14y agoIf I understand right: You argue that no war is worth high collateral damage, even if involved democracies (more or less) follow the laws of war? How about if a junta relies on that a democracy don't want to pay those prices and creates a situation where blood will flow if they don't get their will? Arguably, both Japan 1945 and Saddam Hussein are cases of that. Do you REALLY want dictators to rely on using their own people's suffering to get out of e.g. sanctions or surrender? I doubt it... Sorry for coming in late. I bother writing these answers because I used to have similar opinions as you before my hair started to fall out. You are a standin for a young berntb, I guess.