But I think in terms of a war the government are the ones who have the say in what goes down, especially in a communist government. So morality relative to war is about the clashing of governments not of the people who actually work to evoke a wonderful culture.
That's sort of my point. We should not criticize the Chinese culture when the Chinese government does something horrendous. The Tibetan example is particularly strong - China has historically defended Tibet of the Lamas (prior to conversion, China trembled before Tibetan military prowess), and looked to those Lamas for spiritual guidance. So, culturally, China and Tibet are close brothers, yet the communist government has done permanent damage to the Tibetan culture. The modern story of Tibet is one of the saddest to be found - and is far from over as the communist government continues to systematically destroy the Tibetan people and Tibetan culture.
I think that religion stops any possibility of winning the war. The people in the middle east are influenced by religion and the extremists view seizing power through religion. Religion fuels the apparent axiom of war in the middle east. Look at what Bush did with Israel. He advocated for Israel because there are more Jews in Manhattan than there are in Israel.
Religion has come to play a significant role - initially, this was a marginal influence and the issues were European colonialism. Now, the Middle East is fighting for cultural and religious autonomy - something the West refuses to allow.
Also, is it true that the US wants to invade Iran? ( I mean of course the gov.) It seems absurd, and Stephan Dion wants to as well. What kind of reasoning would persuade that. If war on Iran happens then surely the public would not even advocate for that, and for that kind of decision shouldn't there be a referendum? There's a good chance for conscription if it keeps up.
Government rhetoric aside, the goal of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions was to pressure and contain Iranian influence. Not terrorism. Pull out a map and you'll see what I mean.
If my government institutes a draft, I might have to crash your sofa for a while. Those bastards are not getting me to fight their war.
One nukes - I wouldn't be so sure that no one wants to use them. Tactical nukes were considered against the Vietnamese some many occasions. First, US military advisers suggested their use against Vietnamese forces surrounding the French at Diem Bien Phu. Once the US became involved with troops on the ground, tactical nukes were regularly considered for use against Hanoi and other major NV positions.
Maybe no one wants
to use them, but when politicians and military leaders become blindly pragmatic, considering action on a day by day basis instead of looking at long term issues, nukes become a real option for them. Especially when the target doesn't have any.