Invading a sovereign nation and murdering thousands of innocent civilians is considered morally right when.

A. When Russian does it?

b. When Israel does it?

C. when the United States does it?

Who has the moral highground here?

I think nobody.

People should be held accountable for their decisions and actions.

Well at least we arent going to put each of these different conflicts in their own realm, we will just lump them altogether and create a moral equivalent.

__________________
If I had the option of voting 2000 and 2004 over again, I would still vote Bush.

The same happened in Kosovo, it's power play however, in my opinion ethically speaking, humans and war go together and an invasion of territory and disrespecting territorial integrity is a part of that. These different cases are all under different circumstances.

I am not pro war however, these countries have all had political issues relating to power, they wish to take that power and that goes at the cost of human lives it’s the price they pay. I don't think you'll find a real perpetrator; victims and perpetrators merge over the years, define innocence... When a Lion takes over a pride the first thing he does is slaughter the male cubs because these may form a threat.

I’m not suggesting humans are exactly the same however; the innocence you mention can be seen on both sides; reputations, power it’s all in the game.

__________________
Either learn or leave

It's really just not okay to kill people. I think that the only time you should get away with killing someone is when you're protecting someone (like yourself). Regarding civilians and/or innocents, I think that every time you engage in deadly violence you create a likelihood of getting bystanders killed. Which is a whole 'nother reason not to engage in it.

Like, was it okay to bomb Germany and kill a bunch of civilians in order to stop the Nazis? Were those civilians innocents? Did they have much say in where they were? Did the soldiers, for that matter? I think the answer to all of those questions is, "Yes," but it feels like a cop-out. Like there's something I'm just not thinking of.

The Nazis had to be stopped. Most of the time, when people talk about how somebody has to be stopped, I think they're being hyperbolic and probably manipulative. But not in that case, which is why it comes up in internet discussions all the time, 'cause we all basically agree that a world where the Nazis had their way would be intolerable. So the lives that were lost in stopping the Nazis can at least have been said to have not been lost in vain. A good cause was served, or at least, an evil cause was hindered.

But then, when pretty much anybody has their way, someone else is going to find that intolerable. Some people find a world where abortion is legal intolerable, and they're willing to sacrifice lives to stop abortions in much the same way that other people were willing to sacrifice lives to stop Nazis, and other people were willing to sacrifice lives to stop apartheid, and other people were willing to sacrifice lives to stop communism, and for other people it was capitalism, and then there are those for whom it's western culture, or Islam, or maybe witchcraft or D&D. All of those things seem evil to somebody. All of those things have gotten people killed.

I think I'm going to say that in an absolute (a perhaps unachievable one), the highest ground would be to kill zero civilians. No, wait -- better than that would be killing nobody. Actually, I guess even higher than that would be to not even fight.

So maybe it's not really a matter of moral high ground. We all fight over something. And whenever you fight, you're taking a chance of hurting someone, obviously. Maybe not even the person you intend or expect. That's a part of life that has to kept minimized, but (so far) can't be responsibly eradicated entirely.

I think it's really a matter of what you fight for. Not until you've defined what that is can you determine whether or not it's worth that risk.

I know, I'm rambling a bit, but I gotta go to work and I have no time to think, just type.

You bring up some interesting points.
I can recommend a book that delves into the topic fairly well....
The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military
by Martin Cook
published in 2004, so it deals with modern conflicts.


I'm not plugging the book for any material gain.
It's required reading for West Point and Air Force Academy cadets.

The book isn't a difficult read .