Quote:
Originally Posted by Nippelspanner
treating civilian wounded =/= hostilities.
and doctors around the world swear to aid those who need it - their allegiance doesnt matter.
so yeah, lets bomb them...?
|
Precised that for you. The enemy treating his wounded fighters,
is a hostile act - it supplies him with fighters that sooner or later start firing bullets at your fighters again. You prefer your fighters dead or wounded just to save the enemy? Is this this strange reasoning on what is morally okay to feed the illsuion that war is anything but inhumane?
The nurses of this world did their share to keep wars running. Thats the grim truth. And who said a doctor's oath is stronger than the sword?
Everything that makes war less determined, helps to make it more agreeable. And by that you make it more likely, and you make it lasting longer - and by that in the end costing even more suffering.
The Russians have interests in syria. Assad is about his mere survival. Both will not stop, the West can appeal as much as it wants. The West is not willing to start a big world war with Russia over Syria. Regimes like China are not in favor of Western positions on syria either. We have no plan for any - unlikely - victory of our "allies".
We should not be in this match at all. But we insist on doing our share to keep the war going.
Just meaning things well, often lead to the worst of results. Thats why I always recommend sober, unsentimental reason, with no emotion-soaking illusions. All in all it works way better.