Moral absolutism:
> Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.
It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ...
The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China.
This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule.
Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision.
Here's some examples of moral relativism:
Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ?
Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians.
Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve.
You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ?
I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?