Replies

Loss of lives in a military operation are acceptable under certain circumstances and completely in line with Just War theory.

If you seriously believe that, then you obviously know nothing about Just War Theory and are merely attempting to twist it to justify past atrocities committed by another former Democrap President (Truman). I don't think it is a coincidence that a liberal Democrap President committed the war crime of Hiroshima just as it was no coincidence that another liberal Democrap President sent our finest young men to die in Vietnam. I seriously doubt that a God fearing Republican President would not have employed the atomic bombs against innocent civilians--men, women and babes.

I think you need to read post 54 and 57.

(I am not entering the Hiroshima debate, as the subject of nukes in a war take the discussion beyond what I was replying to, namely, the erroneous assertion that cilvian casualities in ALL cases are ALWAYS morally wrong.)

And, by the way, regarding the assertion that it is morally wrong in ALL cases where a civilian is hurt/killed, I offer a no-kidding real-world example why that doesn't wash:

19 January, 1991, flight of 8 F-16's over Baghdad, SAM and AAA all over the place (The HUD video is breathtaking—and you will not see it on CNN):
-Number 1 (lead) is shot down and ejects (becomes POW), and Number 3 is flying his butt off, jinking all over the place to avoid being hit by Iraqi missiles and bullets.
-These Iraqi missiles come close, even pass by close enough you can see them on the HUD video—that means REAL close.
-The bomb load is heavy, and airspeed is bleeding off pretty darned quick (you need airspeed to stay alive, to fly out of there).
-As Number 3 loses airspeed he has to descend to get some more knots to keep flying. . .unless. . .
-Number 3 jettisons his bombs so he may get his airspeed back and keep his maneuverability, thus stay alive.
-The jettisoned bombs fall on the suburbs of Baghdad.

Now, are you saying those civilians hurt/killed by the bombs was the result of an immoral act?

Are you saying that there is no justification for injuring those civilians?

Before you answer, consider this: If Number 3 had not jettisoned his bombs, he most assuredly would have been shot down and the flaming wreckage (bombs and all) would have fallen on the same suburb.

The morality of certain actions are subjective and contextual, and by using the world "ALL' in any discussion of warfare is a serious mistake.