Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.
It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?
But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.