Awesome Possum wrote:
Awesome Possum wrote:
I don't think America has had a President that even compares to Cain. Really our wars, even the worst acts are done to limit as much life that is lost and end the war as quickly as possible. Even the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was done to prevent an even greater loss of life. If they hadn't worked, there would have been a ground invasion of Japan. We're still losing the Purple Heart medals that were made for the estimated number of soldiers who would have been harmed in battle. Not to mention the total number dead on both sides if it had happened. It was a terrible act, but it prevented an even worse act.
What Cain did was kill some people who did nothing wrong in order to continue a mission of revenge. She had no hope of surviving and even if she did, where would she go? The Colonies are nuked out wastelands with almost no survivors other than a few resistance fighters who would likely die from radiation exposure as soon as they ran out of medication. They could never take back the Colonies and survive there.
Okay we'll have to disagree on Cain's motives/potential to wage a guerrilla war. If her motive really was just a petty suicide mission for revenge and a guerrilla war wasn't feasible, of course she's an idiot. I think her motives were above board and she had a chance, but okay, I'll concede the point and discuss it no longer for sake of argument.
Lets say hypothetically, she had a feasible enough force to wage a guerrilla war with a chance for success, and she committed the actions she did. Would they be that different from the actions American Presidents have taken in the past during war?
Bush/Obama with the torture
Lincoln with the scorched Earth policy...destroying civilian homes, food and infrastructure
FDR imprisoning people based on ethnicity
And every President's action during war of grabbing more and more power
Despite these actions, FDR and Lincoln are lionized as the two best Presidents in the history of the United States.
The difference is that they didn't kill citizens, the very people they are sworn to protect. Cain took a similar oath as an officer in the Colonial Fleet. It is her duty above all others to protect the people of the Colonies. She broke that oath in order to wage a losing war on the Cylons.
What does Presidents did was terrible, but it was done to protect the citizens and end the war as quickly as possible. That's the difference.
Lincoln's scorched Earth resulted in a lot more citizen deaths than Cain's actions. He always considered the Confederacy to be indivisibly part of the Union even during the war so they were his own citizens that he did that to by his own standards (a lot of those citizens had nothing to do with the war and were just born in the wrong place). It might be more aseptic and indirect than Cain's actions in your eyes, but on the receiving end, the outcome and moral outrage is the same.
You call the actions by the Presidents terrible, but equivocate with the opinion they were done with "ending the war as quickly as possible" and "protecting the citizens". I grant you all the actions I listed could fall into one of the categories but none fall into both. They are also very broad and vague standards. Is it more justified to use morally questionable tactics when you are winning a war and trying to end it as quickly as possible vs. being on the side that is at a tactical disadvantage? Does this same standard apply if its an unsavory dictator that is winning the war and decides to end the war as quickly as possible for the same reason?
Or, does the perceived grand motive of the actor mitigate the morally questionable actions in your eyes? In the abstract this seems to be the general consensus in the eyes of history.