I would support killing in a war with just aims and where the killing was related to achieving those aims, but that becomes an extention of self defense or defense of others
See, this kind of hypocrisy just unwinds me!! Did you support the war in the Persian Gulf to "free the people of Kuwait"? That was a really, really big stretch to your self-defense argument, IMO. Strategically important, yes, but self-defense, hardly.
Kuwait is(was) a monarchy where 90% of the citizens have(had) no right to choose their government. This kind of looks like something other than a democratic republic, but heck, what do I know?
When you see Iraqi's with tumors the size of cantaloupes growing on their shoulders, backs and legs, it kind of looks bad for us. You are not entitled to kill your assailant, his wife, kids, grandfather, grandmother, aunts, uncles, mother, father, brothers, sisters and cousins because you fear for your life. Or is this collateral damage somehow okay because it is 8000 miles from your family.
A similar argument could be made for most of the "Wars" that the US has been involved in since WWII. Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Granada come to mind as well.
These abominations make abortions look like humanitarian aid to the needy. I just can't get that excited about the blob of cells with less development than a shrimp. |
