It’s morally wrong to do so. At the end of the day, like every single other war in the human history sadly , the right side is the winning one, be It bombing power plants, hospitals or houses.
Seems I’m getting downvoted. Just to be clear, I condemn war and armed conflicts, If i could make so, no guns would ever be fired.
My point is, it’s pointless to argue about the “should be” or “could be”, I’m just stating the actual, current state of matters.
There’s ALWAYS a winner, in fact, If a war started, someone is already winning, be It one of the involved parties, be It a guns supplier or a manufacturing plant making tanks.
It’s naive to think that, people with power to decide what to do in a war, will prioritize a “good and moral war”, over getting what they want from It.
Maybe you and I can’t see any advantage over an attack and label It stupid, but it is what it is, and maybe the actual intent is not clear to us.
I beg to differ:
Adnan Khashoggi, a famous arms dealer, considered one the richest mans of the 1980s, active on the Iran-Contra affair.
Viktor Bout, famous russian arms dealer active on the FARC.
Sir Basil Zaharoff, greek arms dealer active on the Balkan Wars
And these are just a few most notorious ones.
As I said, when a war starts, someone is already winning, it’s a sad but true reality.
If a country’s wartime decisions are made by people who benefit solely from death and destruction, then that country lost before the war even began. I don’t see that being the case with the defenders in this conflict, Ukraine.
It’s morally wrong to do so. At the end of the day, like every single other war in the human history sadly , the right side is the winning one, be It bombing power plants, hospitals or houses.
Unless nobody wins. Attacking targets with no clear strategic advantage out of spite is animalistic and stupid. Just take out the relay stations.
Seems I’m getting downvoted. Just to be clear, I condemn war and armed conflicts, If i could make so, no guns would ever be fired.
My point is, it’s pointless to argue about the “should be” or “could be”, I’m just stating the actual, current state of matters.
There’s ALWAYS a winner, in fact, If a war started, someone is already winning, be It one of the involved parties, be It a guns supplier or a manufacturing plant making tanks.
It’s naive to think that, people with power to decide what to do in a war, will prioritize a “good and moral war”, over getting what they want from It.
Maybe you and I can’t see any advantage over an attack and label It stupid, but it is what it is, and maybe the actual intent is not clear to us.
Anyways, war is bad, but don’t be naive.
In war, everyone loses.
I beg to differ: Adnan Khashoggi, a famous arms dealer, considered one the richest mans of the 1980s, active on the Iran-Contra affair. Viktor Bout, famous russian arms dealer active on the FARC. Sir Basil Zaharoff, greek arms dealer active on the Balkan Wars
And these are just a few most notorious ones.
As I said, when a war starts, someone is already winning, it’s a sad but true reality.
If a country’s wartime decisions are made by people who benefit solely from death and destruction, then that country lost before the war even began. I don’t see that being the case with the defenders in this conflict, Ukraine.