Oh, I know, but my problem here is that he can't even muster a proper argument as to why it may not be right to idly stand by and watch (and condone) a slaughter. Obviously he'd be accused of hypocrisy, since all he's doing is sitting idle himself, going out on missions that benefit his government but not the people actually suffering, but I still think he should have been given the chance to actually question the morality of what Diana allowed to occur. As it is it feels like we're supposed to accept that Diana 'won' the argument and what she did was perfectly cool, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a shrill government tool.