You're still talking about NATO there? 'Cause it makes no sense to me. :p
Yes. Though the part about "making you guilty" was inspired by the last two pages of this thread.
To Kogan Loloklam and his supporters: you are postulating the doctrine that:
1) there are no innocent civilians;
2) the people of the country are always responsible for government actions;
3) collateral losses are justified by the great purpose.
Congratulations, you are officially supporting terrorism.
or every war ever.
"Governments derive their power from their citizens. " is the false premise. Everything derived from there is therefore false.
Now collateral victim are just that : victims of a greater purpose. You may no realize it, but you make some all the time : toddlers crushed by a car are collateral victims of fast transportation, as are asmathic poeples that die each years form the pollution. Those death could actually be avoided, provided we make the (huge) effort to develop safer and less pollutant transportation.
However we don't feel like it, apparently.
The war in Yugoslavia was a bit shady : as usual the country was run by an USSR approved dictator and was ripe with resources.
That, and NATO fight dirty (bombing hospital, civilian column...)
I think that war can be justified in some case, provided that either national security is at extreme risk in which case we are in the sad case of a total war (say, china think they can take on NATO) or to stop a repression, provided we take extreme care on what we do.
Once again, I may be wrong, but the war in Libya seems to have gone ok ,while the war in Iraq is a showcase of what you shouldn't do ever.