"morally indefensible positions" talking of an intellectually fascinating topic.... when does a position become morally indefensible? Who gets to define the moral and who gets to judge whether it is or is not within the boundaries?

I'll give you an interesting case: - Vladimir Putin has been charged by the ICC for taking children out of the war zone into Russia without their consent. These children are still alive. Bush and Cheney's invasion of Iraq, under false premises, has led to the deaths of over 900.000 Iraqi men, women and children and thousands of Western soldiers. Yet they have not been indicted by the ICC. Would the latter not fit your definition of a "morally indefensible position" perfectly?

Who gets to decide? The ICC doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Is their refusal to indict thus morally defensible? Would it not be morally far superior to hand over Bush, Blair and all the other Western enablers to Iraqis and let them judge them? To see if they agree with the West on their innocence in these massacres?

Would you risk sending Iraq your former president for their judgement? And if not what does that then tell you about your own morality in regard to that of others?