“O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principals. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobbyhorse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear ARMS.”
War is not a moral act, even if justified by defensive necessity. When not of necessity but ideology that war is engaged, it instantly becomes harder to win; and even harder to justify when the ideology is based on falsehood, executed with an incompetent disregard for nothing but the best possible outcome, and expressed to the world through hubris and arrogance.
Justifications thus wear thin, and enemies are provided justifications of their own.
And then becomes the reality of an intractable war that nobody wins.
What mass people think is in fact the truth that´s in the air. We are totally against any war. It only kills the innocents. That can´t be a moral standpoint.
I’m sorry, but I don’t concur. There are moral wars, or more to the point, there are times when it is moral to go to war. When Japan attacked us, it was moral to take up arms and defend ourselves. With the spread of the Nazi Germany, it was moral to rise up against her.
It is true that the innocent suffer the most in a war, so we must be very careful in taking up the gauntlet, but the question must be asked, will the innocent suffer more if we do not? And that, my friend, is the difference between a moral and immoral war.
Jon