as much evil the Japanese or Nazis were, the US wasn't doing much better at any point in time - Anony Mous
This is an appallingly inaccurate statement. It makes me wonder if you have ever read any history at all. Or perhaps you limit your reading to the self-loathing Noam Chomsky?
In my opinion, local conflicts are best resolved locally,
There is on such option when Fascists are rampaging through the world raping, murdering and imposing oppressive regimes.
having a 'world power' involved has always turned out bad historically because they do not share the same values, background and history of the locals.
Every community on earth shares the value of not wanting to be the victims of genocide. Anybody who would stand by and watch a mass shooting or a rape if they had the tools and skills to stop it is a moral reprobate. Whether it is on a small scale crime or a national war the principle is the same. Refusing to take lives in order to save the lives of others is reprehensible.
If I choose not to fight I will likely not suffer the loss of my life or those of my children. World war 2 was on another continent as you'll recall - Wasanelder
No it wasn't on a different continent unless you think this thread is about the USA. It isn't.
First off one would have to define "morally" as we know their there is no absolutes or any universal moral code to agree on. It may be against your morals but not against mine - Brokeback
How about Do unto others ...?
Being prepared to use whatever force is necessary - including deadly force - at personal risk in order to stop a far greater evil is a moral good.
Lastmanstanding - You sound as if you think I am glorifying war.
Just to be clear this is not about the rights or wrongs of WWII or any other war. It is about the moral cowardice of the Watchtower organisation who hide behind neutrality refusing to be part of armed conflict while expecting others to do the fighting on their behalf. Whether that involves a war or a policeman dealing with armed terrorists it is reprehensible.