thinkdr wrote:The Soviets weren't about to be exterminated.
1) if they were, would you then think it would be OK to enter the war? 2) It is inconcievable that the Soviets would not have lost more millions if the US had not entered the war. The German could have held fast in the West, and pushed into Russia with gusto. The enormous air, sea and artillary resources of the US sucked tremendous resources from the Germans, and they had to fight a very active two or more front war.
War = organized mass-murder in the name of a noble cause.
War is complete madness, and cannot be rationally justified
One isn't justifying the war, one is justifying one's role in relation to something. In the case of WW2, the war was already a war when the US entered. Were the French Underground wrong to wage a war against the German occupiers.
And notice that above, you are arguing against specific analyses of WW2. IOW it important for you to believe that the Soviets would have been OK without US intervention. But you must realize that even if you were right, in this particular instance (which I do not think you are), there will be other situations where horrible things will happen if no one intervenes. You own arguing that point entails that there are situations when it would be moral to enter a war. Otherwise you would not care about that point. It would not matter.
The wagers of violent warfare are inevitably bound to make some fatal mistake and do themselves in.
In the case of Hitler his mistake was taking on people who fought against him and had friends who fought against him and his military.
This applies to those who violate every Ethical norm and principle such as Benedict Donald.
Actually I see people doing just fine out there who have acted with regularity immorally.
Do you not see people who have benefitted and continue to do so from their immoral choices? I mean, look at the Bush Administration. They made big bucks off their immoral wars.