Talk:Azula/@comment-2154142-20110809202311/@comment-4533483-20110811071456

"Nothing (a situation or a person) is completely monstrous. Battle hard, therefore, trying to focus with all your might on fighting for what is good in your enemies as much as one can, so that you do not become a monster oneself. In this way, the monstrous will disappear without infecting the slayer. Do what is necessary to achieve this goal." — Anonymous Philosopher

The reason why Iroh probably considered the cases to be different was because he considered Zuko's honor to be unquestionable, while he probably considered his own to have been tarnished by his actions as a general before his life was turned around after the death of Lu Ten. In his mind, an Iroh vs Ozai struggle would simply be a blood-match where one corrupt person (Ozai) is usurped by a slightly-less corrupt person (Iroh), which the course of history (probably so in Avatar, often so in the real world) shows normally causes the less corrupt person's improved moral basis to erode away while he triumphs. And yeah, I think it's probably Iroh would be this harsh on his former life and how it could affect him in the present - otherwise he would not be able to constrain himself to acting as morally as he does after his life-change. A Zuko vs. Azula match, on the other hand, would be spared of such an amoral debacle because he (thought he) knew Zuko would ultimately take the right path out of the fight, and would not become dishonored in the process of his takeover. (There is also the fact that Azula can be considered less corrupt than Ozai - as everything she does isn't done out of an arrogant narcissism, but out of a tragic sense of loneliness - and therefore fighting her would in any case have a less amoral outcome, but I'm not sure Iroh was thinking of this when he gave his answer and directions to Zuko.)