That didn't address the point. I agree when we are talking about our personal actions, over which we have full individual control. But that is not the case in term decisions made by a nation/voters as a whole. So in that context, where we are not able to dictate results simply through our own choices, and the result is going to be one of only two things, it is not immoral to chose one of those even if it is not morally good on it's own. The Soviet Union was evil. Do you think we nevertheless should not have supported it against Hitler? And in that context, I'd remind you that the German actually declared war on us after Pearl Harbor.
Go back a war, to when Kaiser Willhelm sent for Lenin and had him go to Moscow for the purpose of destabilizing (further) the Romanov government. That led to the Soviet Union, but it worked, throwing forces into disarray along the Eastern Front. Now, back to WWII after Operation Barbarossa commenced. Allied aid to the Soviets helped keep that front active, tying up German assets and taking enough pressure off the Western Front to enable the D-Day invasion and the defeat of the Germans without having to fight the entire German military, something which would have been much more difficult to accomplish and would have cost tremendously more in men and materiel. There was tangible benefit in doing so to help defeat the Nazis, and not just for the Soviets, but for our own forces.
Some of our soldiers have been faced with horrible decisions when children are used as potential suicide bombers. Shoot the child as he/she advances towards friendlies, or not take the shot because it is "immoral" to kill a child who may not even be doing that action by choice?
The (likely remote detonated) child will die either way. Our troops will benefit by not being blown up.
We don't also get to determine the options between which we must choose.
Sometimes we do. That is why there are primary elections, to choose the options for the general election, when once again, we choose an option. We can even choose to limit ourselves to the most popular option, an entirely artificial narrowing of options due to the perception that one won't "win" unless they vote for what all the other people are voting for even if it is anathema to them. So the two most popular options were chosen. There remains the choice to select between 70+ party sponsored options, provided that anyone has cleared them for a write-in or put them on the ballot, but realistically, three other options besides the 'big two' will be on the ballot in most states or cleared to be a viable write-in candidate.
It so happens I find one of those options to be far preferable to the others, so I will vote that way. I will vote for what I want. If others do not, I won't get that, but if I vote for something I don't want, I definitely vote against what I want. That just doesn't make any sense to me, especially as I see the other options to be mostly equally bad.
