Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommy Moore who wrote (77196)	9/23/2001 12:52:10 PM
From: The Barracuda™	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116752

The "with us or against us" rhetoric does not wash in the real world. Way to many variables That is why they must be killed. And also why this worry about "innocents" is stupid to the point of being treason. The U.S. government is simply the agent of its citizens, charged with one and only one responsibility: to secure and defend the rights—and very lives—of its citizens against aggressors. If in waging war our government were to consider deaths in enemy countries as a cost that must be weighed against the deaths of American citizens or soldiers, it would be violating its most basic function. It would no longer be an agent for our self-defense, but theirs. What could be more morally obscene than 20,000 additional Americans killed in another attack on our cities because our government failed to bomb Iran, worried that Iranian casualties would be too high? Equally obscene would be to send our soldiers to war—courageous individuals ready to defend their freedom and ours—and then have our government not do everything in its power to minimize their deaths. Morally, the responsibility of the U.S. government is to destroy our aggressors and minimize U.S. casualties. If our military decides that in this war, as in WWII, it needs nuclear weapons, so be it. But what of the "innocent" civilians in enemy states that could be killed in the process? Many civilians in those states hate us and actively support, materially and spiritually, their tyrannical regimes. They are not innocents. As we drop our bombs, should we worry about the lives of Palestinians who celebrated by dancing in the streets on September 11? Other civilians in enemy states are passive, unthinking followers. Their work and economic production, however meager, supports their terrorist governments and so they are in part responsible for the continued power of our aggressors. They too are not innocent—and their deaths may be unavoidable in order for America to defend itself. The civilians in enemy territory who actually oppose their dictatorial regimes are usually the regimes' first innocent victims. Any such individuals who remain alive and outside of prison camps should try to flee their country or rebel. Destroying innocents qua innocent should not be our goal—and true innocents should welcome American attack on their country. They know that they might be killed in the process, and even that they are legitimate targets insofar as they are forced to support their dictatorial regimes, but they will also know that it is their only chance at freedom. In WWII, occupied Europe welcomed American invasion, even though this meant that some civilians who actually resisted the Nazis would die in American bombings. We must not allow human shields to deter us from defending ourselves. The U.S. government, properly and morally, in the name of defending the lives of its citizens, ordered the shooting down of the airplanes-become-missiles, even though this meant killing not only the terrorists but also the innocent American captives onboard. If this principle applies to Americans onboard their own planes, how much more so does it apply to people in Afghanistan or Iran? The responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves. War is terrible but sometimes necessary. To win this war, we must not let an immoral concern with "innocents" weaken our resolve. We must have the profound moral conviction that we have the right to exist. We have the right to destroy those who initiate force to deprive us of our rights and lives. With full moral certainty we must urge our government to defend our lives, even if that requires nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands of deaths in terrorists countries. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send Feedback