= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Morality and International Humanitarian Law - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (100)
No they didn't. Some just wanted to take over stuff and said as much.
You have changed from everyone to usually. You also completely neglect the fact that the inhabitants of invaded countries are not always treated particularly well. By 'not treated particularly well' I mean they are killed, raped, taken as slaves or generally left destitute.
Invasions are not happy events for the populous, even when you do not put up a fight. Especially if you are not the same colour as the conqueror. Prevent them if it is convenient to do so.
Although I find your cynicism appealing the position you have taken in support of your is untenable. You don't need to kill all the enemy soldiers for "War's are never about justice" to be victorious here.
Indeed, and this should be stressed. The Mongols and the army of Alexander the Great are both examples of this. So are the various religion-fueled wars between Christian empires and Islamic empires. Hitler was another would-be conqueror who didn't make his ambitions much of a secret. Napoleon, too, was an invading conqueror; I don't know what arguments he made to justify his invasions of the rest of Europe, but he certainly acted like a conqueror.
We usually think of the Romans as conquerors, but they didn't think of themselves that way. In their writings, they almost always described their wars as defensive conflicts, much like the U.S. has.