> Being bombed or raped is the cost of engaging in aggressive war.
I could make the argument that the people being bombed and raped aren't generally the people who decided to start the war, but here's the better one: "They started it" is no excuse for inhuman behavior. We're supposed to be the good guys.
It's a good lesson from history that if you as a nation or its leader decide to start a war take a good look at your people because you may be condemning them to death. Don't expect mercy from your newly made enemy.
Very often they say things like this: “War is certainly bad and unfair, but we have to go all the way once we have started it”. Or, “the war is unfair, but I can't be against my own country”.
There are no war supporters among people I know though, everyone has their own bubble.
Yes, or more accurately: the psychopath rulers and their cronies back home.
That's what I've been getting at, as you probably gathered.
In other words, ordinary people don't actually have a good reason to die and kill for X in a war, because X is always rulers and wars are always about their personal gain at the expense of countless ordinary people.
Well, in this case the war was started by someone else, with neither aid nor encouragement by anyone American. Acting to help one of the fighting parties win doesn't seem noticeable "pro-war", AFAICT, it's just a question of how the war ends, as opposed to other possible ends of the same war.
That'll be bad for everyone involved. Even the victors will have a rough time of it; and from your perspective, there's a non-trivial chance they don't align with your beliefs. People advocating for this have no concept of warfare in general, nevermind in a modern setting. The people hurt the most are always the innocent non-combatant civilians.
reply