Yes,but the video was from a member of the winning side..He said nothing had changed..only the leaders...War never ends..in Ian's eyes,war is immoral.
I watched the interview and I'm not really disagreeing with the spirit of his words. But when we're talking about is this moral, the question has to ignore the resulting trauma of the action. I'm certain if I killed a man to save a child, I'd be traumatized, and wouldn't wish the scenario on anyone, and be haunted by the experience; but this doesn't mean that the action was immoral. It means to me that this is a consequence of morality in an immoral scenario.
I understand the idea that "there are no winners", and he seems to feel grief that they didn't "change the world" and that bad things are still happening. But along the lines of the saying "He who saves one life saves the world entire" I feel he's missing the small in looking at the big, do you know what I mean? He's missing the reality of the one (of which there were no doubt many) whose world
was saved by the actions.
Also, when I'm talking about intent, and moral intent, I'm speaking from both individual and national points of view. If those who declare war do so with good intents, then the war is moral. If they do so with bad intents, yet in guise of good intents to their soldiers, then their war is immoral, yet the soldiers themselves who are involved under the belief of engaging in good intent, the war is moral for them.
As well, intent may change and go from moral to immoral, and thus war may begin moral and end immoral. But the morality I feel will always be determined by true intent, which in the end, only God can look on the heart and discern the truth of the matter.