Just imagine if this was an Iranian drone strike on a Western nation

[Jarhyn]

"Mistakes happen in war" is trite, and from the lips of an invading army, entirely unconvincing. Anyone who participates in voluntary slaughter of others is morally responsible for the deaths they cause, whether or not they "meant" to cause them. Every who is past the age of innocence themselves knows that wars take innocent lives. Declaring your intent to go to war is declaring your willingness to murder innocent people in great numbers, by logical connection. If you're the one who made the call, you are responsible for each and every one, whether or not you admit it. If you endorse war, you endorse death for many whether or not you "mean" to. If you serve in war, you will be asked to participate in the killing whether or not you "want" to.

A war may take an innocent life by mistake, by human error. Engaging in a war is not necessarily a "willingness to murder innocent people" in any numbers. Your argument excludes a middle ground of engaging in war with the intent to target and kill only hostiles.

No. You are full of shit. Any war necessitates an understanding that Innocents WILL die. It doesn't matter one lickspittle there whether you intend or not for that to happen. If you start a war it will. Full stop.

Sometimes war is unavoidable in the pursuit of a necessary objective in a given timeframe. This doesn't mean you just get to wave away the horror of it. If you do, you are no friend of mine. The horrors of war are the sort of thing you have to walk through, live with, and overcome through taking positive actions in the future. This is what responsibility is, and every decision made in war, if you wish to not be a war criminal, must be made with an intent to minimise the horrors, and a heavy conscience for every horror that comes about.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

"Mistakes happen in war" is trite, and from the lips of an invading army, entirely unconvincing. Anyone who participates in voluntary slaughter of others is morally responsible for the deaths they cause, whether or not they "meant" to cause them. Every who is past the age of innocence themselves knows that wars take innocent lives. Declaring your intent to go to war is declaring your willingness to murder innocent people in great numbers, by logical connection. If you're the one who made the call, you are responsible for each and every one, whether or not you admit it. If you endorse war, you endorse death for many whether or not you "mean" to. If you serve in war, you will be asked to participate in the killing whether or not you "want" to.

A war may take an innocent life by mistake, by human error. Engaging in a war is not necessarily a "willingness to murder innocent people" in any numbers. Your argument excludes a middle ground of engaging in war with the intent to target and kill only hostiles.

No. You are full of shit. Any war necessitates an understanding that Innocents WILL die. It doesn't matter one lickspittle there whether you intend or not for that to happen. If you start a war it will. Full stop.

Sometimes war is unavoidable in the pursuit of a necessary objective in a given timeframe. This doesn't mean you just get to wave away the horror of it. If you do, you are no friend of mine. The horrors of war are the sort of thing you have to walk through, live with, and overcome through taking positive actions in the future. This is what responsibility is, and every decision made in war, if you wish to not be a war criminal, must be made with an intent to minimise the horrors, and a heavy conscience for every horror that comes about.

We do not prosecute our war criminals and we maximize the horrors. Case in point, we provided cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field, to our radical Wahabi Islamist Saudi partners (who fund ISIS by the way) to rain down on Yemen in their campaign of genocide which we support.

 

[James Madison]

"Mistakes happen in war" is trite, and from the lips of an invading army, entirely unconvincing. Anyone who participates in voluntary slaughter of others is morally responsible for the deaths they cause, whether or not they "meant" to cause them. Every who is past the age of innocence themselves knows that wars take innocent lives. Declaring your intent to go to war is declaring your willingness to murder innocent people in great numbers, by logical connection. If you're the one who made the call, you are responsible for each and every one, whether or not you admit it. If you endorse war, you endorse death for many whether or not you "mean" to. If you serve in war, you will be asked to participate in the killing whether or not you "want" to.

A war may take an innocent life by mistake, by human error. Engaging in a war is not necessarily a "willingness to murder innocent people" in any numbers. Your argument excludes a middle ground of engaging in war with the intent to target and kill only hostiles.

No. You are full of shit. Any war necessitates an understanding that Innocents WILL die. It doesn't matter one lickspittle there whether you intend or not for that to happen. If you start a war it will. Full stop.

Sometimes war is unavoidable in the pursuit of a necessary objective in a given timeframe. This doesn't mean you just get to wave away the horror of it. If you do, you are no friend of mine. The horrors of war are the sort of thing you have to walk through, live with, and overcome through taking positive actions in the future. This is what responsibility is, and every decision made in war, if you wish to not be a war criminal, must be made with an intent to minimise the horrors, and a heavy conscience for every horror that comes about.

No. You are full of shit. Any war necessitates an understanding that Innocents WILL die. It doesn't matter one lickspittle there whether you intend or not for that to happen. If you start a war it will. Full stop.

The [emoji90] is your post, and I commend you for so much of it in one post.

The issues and view I was addressing to another poster didn’t involve any contesting of the notion “war necessitates” X understanding. Perhaps if you didn’t have so much crap between your ears you’d realized you were addressing a specific view I did not address or contest. Go figure.

This doesn't mean you just get to wave away the horror of it. If you do, you are no friend of mine.

We aren’t friends now. So, even if I were trying to “wave away the horror” of war, I’m not, at the loss of your friendship, so the he’ll what? We aren’t friends now, I wouldn’t be jeopardizing friendship since it doesn’t exist to place into jeopardy.

This is what responsibility is, and every decision made in war, if you wish to not be a war criminal, must be made with an intent to minimise the horrors, and a heavy conscience for every horror that comes about

Thank you, St. Augustine, for the above exposition of your vaunted expertise on the subject matter.

But I’ve never taken the contrary position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derec]

Case in point, we provided cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field,

[citation needed]

to our radical Wahabi Islamist Saudi partners (who fund ISIS by the way)

[citation needed]
ISIS sees the Saudi kingdom as illegitimate and sought its overthrow.
ISIS Trying to Topple Saudi King with Attack on Mohammed's Mosque

to rain down on Yemen in their campaign of genocide which we support.

First of all, it's not a "genocide". Second, Iran/Houthis started this war by attacking and occupying the Yemeni capital and big chunk of the country in an act of aggression.

Why we're helping and supporting the Saudi genocide in Yemen even as we speak, praise Jesus.

Jesus Marie, it's not a genocide!

 

[Politesse]

"Mistakes happen in war" is trite, and from the lips of an invading army, entirely unconvincing. Anyone who participates in voluntary slaughter of others is morally responsible for the deaths they cause, whether or not they "meant" to cause them. Every who is past the age of innocence themselves knows that wars take innocent lives. Declaring your intent to go to war is declaring your willingness to murder innocent people in great numbers, by logical connection. If you're the one who made the call, you are responsible for each and every one, whether or not you admit it. If you endorse war, you endorse death for many whether or not you "mean" to. If you serve in war, you will be asked to participate in the killing whether or not you "want" to.

A war may take an innocent life by mistake, by human error. Engaging in a war is not necessarily a "willingness to murder innocent people" in any numbers. Your argument excludes a middle ground of engaging in war with the intent to target and kill only hostiles.

I'm excluding that middle because it doesn't exist. You've clearly never been anywhere remotely near a war zone.

And if it is in fact possible to avoid killing innocents in war, then 30,000 civilian deaths in ten years is a holocaust. You think your country is going to look better for having gone to war if you deny the obvious facts of war?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Mistakes happen in war" is trite, and from the lips of an invading army, entirely unconvincing. Anyone who participates in voluntary slaughter of others is morally responsible for the deaths they cause, whether or not they "meant" to cause them. Every who is past the age of innocence themselves knows that wars take innocent lives. Declaring your intent to go to war is declaring your willingness to murder innocent people in great numbers, by logical connection. If you're the one who made the call, you are responsible for each and every one, whether or not you admit it. If you endorse war, you endorse death for many whether or not you "mean" to. If you serve in war, you will be asked to participate in the killing whether or not you "want" to.

A war may take an innocent life by mistake, by human error. Engaging in a war is not necessarily a "willingness to murder innocent people" in any numbers. Your argument excludes a middle ground of engaging in war with the intent to target and kill only hostiles.

No. You are full of shit. Any war necessitates an understanding that Innocents WILL die. It doesn't matter one lickspittle there whether you intend or not for that to happen. If you start a war it will. Full stop.

Sometimes war is unavoidable in the pursuit of a necessary objective in a given timeframe. This doesn't mean you just get to wave away the horror of it. If you do, you are no friend of mine. The horrors of war are the sort of thing you have to walk through, live with, and overcome through taking positive actions in the future. This is what responsibility is, and every decision made in war, if you wish to not be a war criminal, must be made with an intent to minimise the horrors, and a heavy conscience for every horror that comes about.

Actually, that's the road to doing things even worse when your leaders crack.

Horrors will happen, you try to minimize them but you don't go dwelling on every last horror.

Furthermore, you really need to avoid the leftist shit of pretending there was a better way if only you had looked harder. That's going to end up with decision paralysis--and not acting is an action, very often a bad one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We do not prosecute our war criminals and we maximize the horrors. Case in point, we provided cluster bombs, known to have a 90% collateral casualty rate in the field, to our radical Wahabi Islamist Saudi partners (who fund ISIS by the way) to rain down on Yemen in their campaign of genocide which we support.

ISIS gets some money from wealthy Saudis but it isn't funded by the Saudi government.

And Yemen is nothing like a genocide. It's just war when neither side is being careful of civilian casualties. Furthermore, note that the conflict goes back much farther--the Saudis stepped in because Iran (through their proxies) seized control of the country.

 

[bilby]

Terrorism at more than the isolate incident level requires Islamists trying to seize power or occasionally leftists trying to seize power.

So remind me, was it Sinn Fein or the UVF who were the Islamists? I can never remember.

The thing is terrorism requires substantial outside funding. These days this mostly comes from Muslim governments and rich Muslims. We have a few leftists who get their funding from controlling resources in the area they are trying to control (mostly this is drugs.) There used to be a lot more leftist terrorism but Moscow pretty much quit funding it and now there isn't much of it left.

Well the IRA was largely funded by Americans. And presumably will be again, when Brexit smashes up the Good Friday Agreement and reimposes a hard border on the island of Ireland. Perhaps it's Boris Johnson who is the Islamist. Or maybe it's the good citizens of Boston, Massachusettes, who kindly paid for all that Semtex.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

“U.S. forces conducted a drone strike against Da’esh (IS) terrorists in Nangarhar,” said Colonel Sonny Leggett, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. “We are aware of allegations of the death of non-combatants and are working with local officials to determine the facts.”

About 14,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, training and advising Afghan security forces and conducting counter-insurgency operations against IS and the Taliban movement.

Haidar Khan, who owns the pine nut fields, said about 150 workers were there for harvesting, with some still missing as well as the confirmed dead and injured.

A survivor of the drone strike said about 200 laborers were sleeping in five tents pitched near the farm when the attack happened.

The article also includes this graphic:

View attachment 23917

View attachment 23918

Just imagine if Iran came into the US and toppled a/our duly democratically elected govt like we did with with them in the 1950's. They're so foul those Iranians.

 

[James Madison]

"Mistakes happen in war" is trite, and from the lips of an invading army, entirely unconvincing. Anyone who participates in voluntary slaughter of others is morally responsible for the deaths they cause, whether or not they "meant" to cause them. Every who is past the age of innocence themselves knows that wars take innocent lives. Declaring your intent to go to war is declaring your willingness to murder innocent people in great numbers, by logical connection. If you're the one who made the call, you are responsible for each and every one, whether or not you admit it. If you endorse war, you endorse death for many whether or not you "mean" to. If you serve in war, you will be asked to participate in the killing whether or not you "want" to.

A war may take an innocent life by mistake, by human error. Engaging in a war is not necessarily a "willingness to murder innocent people" in any numbers. Your argument excludes a middle ground of engaging in war with the intent to target and kill only hostiles.

I'm excluding that middle because it doesn't exist. You've clearly never been anywhere remotely near a war zone.

And if it is in fact possible to avoid killing innocents in war, then 30,000 civilian deaths in ten years is a holocaust. You think your country is going to look better for having gone to war if you deny the obvious facts of war?

I'm excluding that middle because it doesn't exist.

It doesn’t exist because you say so?

And if it is in fact possible to avoid killing innocents in war, then 30,000 civilian deaths in ten years is a holocaust.

That doesn’t seem to make sense...from what is possible you arrive to a holocaust.

You think your country is going to look better for having gone to war if you deny the obvious facts of war?

Facts of war aren’t in dispute, whatever the he’ll that phrase means...I suppose they may be in dispute depending on the meaning of the phrase. Regardless, what’s in dispute is your argument.

You used words “voluntary” and “moral.” You said, and I’m paraphrasing from memory, to kill, by a voluntary act, makes the actor “morally” responsible. Maybe, for morality

But that doesn’t make sense, when considering the word voluntary. “Done, given, or acting of one's own free will.” It is desirous for notions of morality not to attach to those voluntary acts which by mistake, or certain instances of neglect, results in harm or death to another. An act can be undertaken by one’s own free will, resulting in injury or death to another, without “morality” be applicable.

An individual operating a vehicle, who looks both ways before turning onto another street, doesn’t see the oncoming car in the lane they want to turn onto, and the driver pulls out into the car, killing the driver. The driver, by their own free will, engaged in the act of operating the car, and turning into the lane that collided with another car. However, notions of morality aren’t applicable, shouldn’t be anyway, for this mistake that resulted in death.

Yes, firing was voluntary, but that doesn’t mean morality attaches where harm or death occurs. The voluntary act could have mistakenly resulted in the harm or death.

And going to war doesn’t necessarily mean a “willingness” to kill innocent people, where willingness means inclined to do something.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Politesse]

An individual operating a vehicle, who looks both ways before turning onto another street, doesn’t see the oncoming car in the lane they want to turn onto, and the driver pulls out into the car, killing the driver. The driver, by their own free will, engaged in the act of operating the car, and turning into the lane that collided with another car. However, notions of morality aren’t applicable, shouldn’t be anyway, for this mistake that resulted in death.

Declaring war on another nation is putting the key in the ignition and sending an empty truck onto a busy freeway. Civilians will die. Of starvation and illness if not by direct violence, and there will be plenty of that anyway. There has literally never been an extended military conflict that did not kill substantial numbers of non-soldiers. Not in the entirety of history. If you voluntarily declare war on someone, you are morally culpable in the charnel house that ensues. War also, simply because of the nature of extended conflict, rapidly and often irrevocably erodes any sense of social responsibility toward others and withers the democratic institutions necessary to the maintenance of any person's civil rights, resulting in future avoidable deaths caused by the absence of civic and frankly moral infrastructure.

Your namesake knew this well, by the way. In 1795, he wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

 

[ronburgundy]

The Allies killed over 400,000 German civilians in bombing raids during WW II.
Were we the "bad guys" in WW II?
Should we have just stayed home?

Pointing to civilian causalities as a determinant of who the bad guys are is infantile black and white morality.

 

[Politesse]

The Allies killed over 400,000 German civilians in bombing raids during WW II.
Were we the "bad guys" in WW II?
Should we have just stayed home?

Pointing to civilian causalities as a determinant of who the bad guys are is infantile black and white morality.

Funny, I don't see anyone but you talking about "good guys" and "bad guys". Are you... accusing yourself of immaturity?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Allies killed over 400,000 German civilians in bombing raids during WW II.
Were we the "bad guys" in WW II?
Should we have just stayed home?

Pointing to civilian causalities as a determinant of who the bad guys are is infantile black and white morality.

Good luck, they keep sticking their head in the sand when I try to bring this up.

 

[James Madison]

An individual operating a vehicle, who looks both ways before turning onto another street, doesn’t see the oncoming car in the lane they want to turn onto, and the driver pulls out into the car, killing the driver. The driver, by their own free will, engaged in the act of operating the car, and turning into the lane that collided with another car. However, notions of morality aren’t applicable, shouldn’t be anyway, for this mistake that resulted in death.

Declaring war on another nation is putting the key in the ignition and sending an empty truck onto a busy freeway. Civilians will die. Of starvation and illness if not by direct violence, and there will be plenty of that anyway. There has literally never been an extended military conflict that did not kill substantial numbers of non-soldiers. Not in the entirety of history. If you voluntarily declare war on someone, you are morally culpable in the charnel house that ensues. War also, simply because of the nature of extended conflict, rapidly and often irrevocably erodes any sense of social responsibility toward others and withers the democratic institutions necessary to the maintenance of any person's civil rights, resulting in future avoidable deaths caused by the absence of civic and frankly moral infrastructure.

Your namesake knew this well, by the way. In 1795, he wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Declaring war on another nation is putting the key in the ignition and sending an empty truck onto a busy freeway. Civilians will die. Of starvation and illness if not by direct violence, and there will be plenty of that anyway. There has literally never been an extended military conflict that did not kill substantial numbers of non-soldiers. Not in the entirety of history. If you voluntarily declare war on someone, you are morally culpable in the charnel house that ensues.

You are adroit at repeating this line of reasoning. But this line of reasoning has been addressed with several criticisms and objections. To these objections, you repeat your same reasoning. Engaging in an act voluntarily does not mean moral culpability attaches.

Perhaps death of civilians is an unavoidable consequence of a war voluntarily engage in, it is inevitable civilians will die. But such inevitability does not mean when and where civilian deaths occur, their death is immoral. Fatalities as a result of voluntarily operating a motor vehicle, and by this I mean one car collides or hits another or the operation in some manner of one car is the cause of death of another person, is an unavoidable consequence of driving a motor vehicle. Yet, that inevitable result hardly transforms such a fatality into moral culpability on behalf of the person who operated the vehicle in such a manner that resulted in death of another. As I said previously, it is desirous for notions of morality not to attach to those voluntary acts which by mistake, or certain instances of neglect, results in harm or death to another. Your reasoning condemns as immoral purely mistaken conduct, pure human error, that results in death. Again, it is desirous for morality not to attach to human error.

 

[Politesse]

Declaring war on another nation is putting the key in the ignition and sending an empty truck onto a busy freeway. Civilians will die. Of starvation and illness if not by direct violence, and there will be plenty of that anyway. There has literally never been an extended military conflict that did not kill substantial numbers of non-soldiers. Not in the entirety of history. If you voluntarily declare war on someone, you are morally culpable in the charnel house that ensues.

You are adroit at repeating this line of reasoning. But this line of reasoning has been addressed with several criticisms and objections. To these objections, you repeat your same reasoning. Engaging in an act voluntarily does not mean moral culpability attaches.

Perhaps death of civilians is an unavoidable consequence of a war voluntarily engage in, it is inevitable civilians will die. But such inevitability does not mean when and where civilian deaths occur, their death is immoral. Fatalities as a result of voluntarily operating a motor vehicle, and by this I mean one car collides or hits another or the operation in some manner of one car is the cause of death of another person, is an unavoidable consequence of driving a motor vehicle. Yet, that inevitable result hardly transforms such a fatality into moral culpability on behalf of the person who operated the vehicle in such a manner that resulted in death of another. As I said previously, it is desirous for notions of morality not to attach to those voluntary acts which by mistake, or certain instances of neglect, results in harm or death to another. Your reasoning condemns as immoral purely mistaken conduct, pure human error, that results in death. Again, it is desirous for morality not to attach to human error.

I think you are confusing culpability with a specific moral judgment. It's true that I find deaths in wartime unconscionable, but merely considering someone responsible for the results of their actions doesn't necessarily mean finding them guilty of a crime. You could say "I accept responsibility for this drone strike, but believe that it is sometimes morally acceptable to blow innocent people to pieces if the consequence of not doing so would be worse than if I refused to", and I would consider that a valid argument even if I didn't agree with your conclusion. What doesn't work is to say, "I accept no moral responsibility for this (postively or negatively) because it happened in war". That doesn't follow, because you knew or should have known the consequences when you supported going to war in the first place.

 

[bilby]

The Allies killed over 400,000 German civilians in bombing raids during WW II.
Were we the "bad guys" in WW II?
Should we have just stayed home?

Pointing to civilian causalities as a determinant of who the bad guys are is infantile black and white morality.

Good luck, they keep sticking their head in the sand when I try to bring this up.

Your problem is that you think the war was "good guys" vs "bad guys", and that as we were the good guys, we did nothing wrong.

But a war (any war) isn't just a single discrete moral enterprise that's either good or bad. The balance of morality says that the Allies were better than the Axis - they did more good than harm, rather than vice-versa. But that doesn't justify or nullify the bad things done by the Allies. Area bombing of German and Japanese civilians was a war crime, an atrocity, and absolutely does render those who ordered it "bad guys".

There are plenty of instances of needless cruelty and barbarism by Allied forces in WWII, and one of the key things that sets the Allies apart from the Axis and makes them better than their opponents is their willingness to face up to, admit, and prosecute at least some of these crimes, rather than just acceping them as an unavoidable part of the wider conflict. These acts of barbarity were neither unavoidable nor even necessary (indeed I would agree that those unpleasantnesses that were necessary were not unreasonable, no matter how unpleasant).

If you want to be the good guys, you have to accept responsibility for your side's evil actions.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Allies killed over 400,000 German civilians in bombing raids during WW II.
Were we the "bad guys" in WW II?
Should we have just stayed home?

Pointing to civilian causalities as a determinant of who the bad guys are is infantile black and white morality.

Good luck, they keep sticking their head in the sand when I try to bring this up.

Your problem is that you think the war was "good guys" vs "bad guys", and that as we were the good guys, we did nothing wrong.

The OP makes that same error, in suggesting that we are not the good guys and are just as bad as Iran, just b/c we did something wrong.

The "good guys" can do wrong things, but it's relative and contextualized by overall motives and goals. And civilian deaths do not inherently make a military operation the wrong thing to do, depending upon the number of lives saved by achieving the military objective.

BTW, the aerial raids of WWII were not war crimes by standards of the time, b/c their was no accepted international law criminalizing bombing of civilian targets. And while most of the aerial raids were probably ineffective for any military goals, the bombing of the civilian run oil production is generally viewed as an important event that helped cripple Germany's efforts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Allies killed over 400,000 German civilians in bombing raids during WW II.
Were we the "bad guys" in WW II?
Should we have just stayed home?

Pointing to civilian causalities as a determinant of who the bad guys are is infantile black and white morality.

Good luck, they keep sticking their head in the sand when I try to bring this up.

Your problem is that you think the war was "good guys" vs "bad guys", and that as we were the good guys, we did nothing wrong.

But a war (any war) isn't just a single discrete moral enterprise that's either good or bad. The balance of morality says that the Allies were better than the Axis - they did more good than harm, rather than vice-versa. But that doesn't justify or nullify the bad things done by the Allies. Area bombing of German and Japanese civilians was a war crime, an atrocity, and absolutely does render those who ordered it "bad guys".

There are plenty of instances of needless cruelty and barbarism by Allied forces in WWII, and one of the key things that sets the Allies apart from the Axis and makes them better than their opponents is their willingness to face up to, admit, and prosecute at least some of these crimes, rather than just acceping them as an unavoidable part of the wider conflict. These acts of barbarity were neither unavoidable nor even necessary (indeed I would agree that those unpleasantnesses that were necessary were not unreasonable, no matter how unpleasant).

If you want to be the good guys, you have to accept responsibility for your side's evil actions.

If the only way to win the war is unacceptable that is saying we should have surrendered instead.

The notion that it's most important not to commit evil yourself regardless of how that turns out is actually a vile position.

 

[laughing dog]

Your problem is that you think the war was "good guys" vs "bad guys", and that as we were the good guys, we did nothing wrong.

But a war (any war) isn't just a single discrete moral enterprise that's either good or bad. The balance of morality says that the Allies were better than the Axis - they did more good than harm, rather than vice-versa. But that doesn't justify or nullify the bad things done by the Allies. Area bombing of German and Japanese civilians was a war crime, an atrocity, and absolutely does render those who ordered it "bad guys".

There are plenty of instances of needless cruelty and barbarism by Allied forces in WWII, and one of the key things that sets the Allies apart from the Axis and makes them better than their opponents is their willingness to face up to, admit, and prosecute at least some of these crimes, rather than just acceping them as an unavoidable part of the wider conflict. These acts of barbarity were neither unavoidable nor even necessary (indeed I would agree that those unpleasantnesses that were necessary were not unreasonable, no matter how unpleasant).

If you want to be the good guys, you have to accept responsibility for your side's evil actions.

If the only way to win the war is unacceptable that is saying we should have surrendered instead.

Repeating your illogical strawman does not make it true.
For some reason, you appear unable to grasp bilby’s last sentence. Perhaps because it is not a comic book view of good vs evil with no gradations.