First of all, “disingenius” is not a word. The word I think you’re looking for is “disingenuous.” That said, I agree that you’re not being disingenius; on the contrary, I think your plan is quite ingenius. Obviously you’re very familiar with the policies of many contractors who underbid in order to get a job but build fine print into the contract so that if the job takes longer, the contractor can continuously charge additional fees for the balance of the work. Since the contractor is already in the thick of the work, the contracting agency would just rather pay more and have contractor finish the job than stop in the middle and admit that it wasn’t a good idea in the first place. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes. Except in your case, since Britain’s only ponying up a tiny fraction of the war cost, it’s more like in for a pound, in for twenty-four dollars. Or something.

But wait: we were supposed to be talking about whether you’re being disingenuous. The answer is yes, you are. If you have reason to believe that you’re going to ask for more money in another month, it is unethical to pretend otherwise. You owe a full, good-faith disclosure to the people who are paying your bills.

Last Sunday night, upon hearing that I won an award for a documentary that I made about gun violence, I invited my fellow nominees to stand on the stage behind me. I then took the opportunity to tell the President what I thought of the legitimacy both of his presidency and that of the war he is currently waging. I was cheered by some in the audience but loudly booed by others. Though I made light of it in later interviews, getting booed really hurt my feelings. I’m just an ordinary guy, trying to do some good. Was it unethical of me to voice my views at an awards show? M.M., NEW YORK, NY

Right after 9/11, the world showed a tremendous solidarity with the United States. People everywhere were placing flowers and American flags at U.S. embassies. It was really heartening. Now that goodwill has almost vanished, largely because of the unilateral bullying our nation has engaged in. It took the U.S. eighteen months to go from hero to zero.

It took you about 30 seconds. You had a standing ovation before you even opened your mouth, and you were getting yelled at by the audience and drowned out by the orchestra before you closed it.

The thing is, you’re a lot like the President. You’re both average Joes who feel strongly about issues that are important to you, you both win people over with your down-home mannerisms, you both have almost no regard for any point of view but your own, you both twist facts and omit inconsistencies to make your points, and you both talk far more than you listen. Your shrill haranguing from the awards podium did nothing but lose you a few supporters and reinforce your detractors. By contrast, Adrien Brody’s anti-war speech actually gained him a standing ovation.

But ethically, your standing ovation was yours to lose. It was your moment, and you had the right to say whatever you wanted, for thirty seconds or so. What was unethical was insinuating that your fellow nominees endorsed your tirade, unless you told them exactly what you planned to do once you got up there. If you did and they still joined you, more power to you, you teddy-bear demagogue, you.

A news agency based in the part of the world where I’m currently waging a war showed a videotape of some of my soldiers who have been captured and perhaps killed. I am outraged. I think it’s a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. What do you think? D.H.R., WASHINGTON, DC

I’m reluctant to go with my normal response mode and be flippant, because I think it’s tragic not only that our courageous armed forces have been commanded to fight in an unethical war but that many have already died and/or been captured. I feel grief for their families, especially because this war should never have happened in the first place.

But to your question: You know, one time I was watching a football game, and a fight erupted on the field. Now, that’s unsportsmanlike conduct, and it should be punished. But what amazed me was the level of righteous horror the announcers seemed to feel. How on God’s Astroturf-green earth could these players, who are trained every day to bash into each other, resort to physical fighting, of all things, to resolve a conflict? What kind of animals must they be?

And so it is in war: when your mission is to preemptively invade a country and topple its government, even though there is no ironclad proof that that country is any immediate danger to this one, and there is limited international support for such an invasion, I am astounded that you can react with such horror when your enemy violates what you call the “rules of war.” Why should a country you’re invading have to abide by what you profess to be your code of decency, especially when you don’t follow it yourself?

The basic question is this: if you attack a country, and the country, in defending itself, kills or captures some of your soldiers, do you realistically expect your enemies to not show the proof, especially if they think that in doing so they’ll rally support for their side? And if you do hold such an unrealistic expectation, how do you explain the pictures of our own forces capturing those of our enemy? As the Geneva Convention is concerned, my understanding is that its protections concerning prisoners of war cover protection from humiliating the prisoners in question. While the tape can be construed as humiliating, so can a widely recycled photograph of a U.S. Marine pointing a rifle at a truckload of Iraqi prisoners of war, to say nothing of the images of the Afghan detainees (though apparently our government feels that the detainees are not actually prisoners of war).

The bottom line is that while it may be tasteless, it shows the reality of war, and people deserve to have the opportunity to see what happens during war. It’s incomprehensibly terrible. When we see the brutality of such action, it helps us understand just what we’re asking our armed forces to do. If more of our troops are going to be killed or captured — and they are — it had better be for a just, ethical cause.

I used to be the CEO of a major corporation which has just been awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to put out oil fires in the middle east country where my country is currently fighting a war. Oh, yeah—I’m also currently the vice president of my country. We circumvented the normal contract-awarding requirements using the reasoning that during armed conflict we don’t have time for an extended bidding process. Is that an ethical problem? ANONYMOUS, UNKNOWN LOCATION

Oh, I give up.