You don't need to be able to do justice with your own hands to argue and defend it. Otherwise only soldiers could opinionate about wars, and priests could teach nothing about marriage. This is a silly argument, in fact it is a falacy, the argumentum ad hominem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
In fact it can not even be considered an argument, but only a threat and intimidation of the arguer
If you argue for more killing, you should be ready to be killed ;)
(it's bit like it is not very balanced to eat meat but not be able to slaughter what you eat).
I guess you are not on the continent where this war is happening?
I argue about morality, justice, and enduring peace, not temporary and unjust peace.
Would you make peace with Hitler, or negotiate peace with terrorist groups for instance?
We argue what we can argue; the real question is the base of our arguments.
If I have personal experience I value that more than anything I or somebody else read or watched.
Your arguments are in a way that you will never have to dirty your hands. This is a stance that is in stark contrast to the reality people have to deal with. So in my opinion they are lazy arguments without much behind it, as far as I can see.
Yes, many people that starts wars would never go to the frontline themselves, for instance, Purin.