is it moral ??

Question

some governments go to war to prevent alleged threats on their countries.. this way they kill and destroy others who are innocent to save their people. then there's no evidence to prove the potential threat.
is this moral?? are voters who voted for these governments who to blame for the distruction of other nations caused by such governments??

To Mr Robert J::::

no i'm not the same person.. and i think hitler has something horrible to himself, his people and the world..
and thank u for calling me a nut, i can c where u come from

Answer 1

Moral according to what religion or culture?

Each culture and each religion has its own set of morals -- and what is moral (and even may be required) under one set may be absolutely prohibited under a different set.

There are certainly moral codes out there that allow for preemptive strikes and that even encourage them. There are others that do not.

Answer 2

It is not moral to kill innocent civillians for any reason. As for the world leaders who continue to carry out these atrocities I do not know how they sleep at night. When we fought Germany it was for our freedom, which to my mind is a very good reason. But its still terrible that innocent people died. But for oil. It is mass murder with no excuse good enough. Saddam Hussien had no intention of attacking us in fact there have never been any weapons found that could attack us.
It is not the voters fault either. We have no control over anything that they do, so why would the war be any different.

Answer 3

War is immoral. But at times, it is a necessary evil.

The biggest example is World War II. If the United Kingdom and France had not tried to oppose Nazi Germany, more people would have died in Poland and Eastern Europe. The same applies to the resistance the UK showed to Japan in the same war.

Luckily, Japan attacked the USA, which would not have entered the war otherwise. Thanks to war, millions were freed from tyranny.

With modern history, there are examples where 'war' has saved lives. Examples are in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. We did not go to war in Bosnia and Rwanda, and not going to war resulted in genocide in Rwanda and rape camps with ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. We should have fought a war in both cases and should be ashamed that we did nothing.

Answer 4

I suppose voters are to blame in a literal sense, but how could ordinary people in this country for example remove a government?. They would have the army on the streets killing people.

Answer 5

This is definately imoral, but the people who voted shouldn't be held respocinble because the government has cheated them. for example, here in the states, the governemnt and the media kept infusing the puplic with lies, if the americans had the same type of media available in wurope they wouldn't approve the war.
On the other hand, even after the americans are opposing bush, he continues to do what ever he wants, with the aid of some corrupted senators.

Answer 6

The voters who voted for them? Certainly.

Answer 7

There is no such thing as a moral war.. or moral killing...peace and loving thy neighbour even if that neighbour is a different race or religion.. that is what is moral... but we seem to have forgotten that.

Answer 8

I guess you are referring to Kosovo and Iraq. You are asking the wrong question. It should be 'Was it sensible?' and the answer is no. Morality doesn't come into it.

Answer 9

It is NEVER moral. NEVER excusable. Military force is only permissible for the pursuit of justice.

Answer 10

War is war. You are likely the same person that would have said that Hitler should have been left alone. He wasn't bothering anybody really. Or maybe have a little peace talk. You are a left wing Liberal nut.