• orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    There is no legal obligation to protect citizens. Is there an ethical obligation? Kind of no, for reasons you listed, but kind of yes, because the cause of death was predictable and it’s something in the US has partial control over.

    From a practical standpoint, we all agree that the US won’t do anything, because they certainly aren’t worried about pacifists in war zones where one of the sides is getting its weapons from the United States.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Although there are a bunch of ways the US can apply pressure. I think people overestimate the power ceasing weapon sales would have. While I believe it is the ethically right thing to do. It wouldn’t really hinder Israel’s ability to wage this war. It is allowing them to maintain their very vast stockpiles. But they could probably go years without even getting low, much less running out, without external weapons.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah a country has an ethical obligation to protect it’s citizens. Which is why countries issue travel advisories. If you ignore the warnings your country is giving you, that ethical obligation doesn’t apply because it was already fulfilled by the warning.

      “Don’t go over there, it’s dangerous!”

      “Screw you, I’m not listening to you!”

      Problem happens.

      “Why did you allow this dangerous thing to happen???”