SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jcky who wrote (33425)10/16/2001 11:36:51 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Does this imply both the Iraqi and Iranian people are fair game (i.e. legitimate military targets)

You have to distinguish between targeting civilians and targeting governments with inevitable unintended deaths to civilians.

If it can be shown within a reasonable certainty that the Iranian or Iraqi governments are targeting Americans for death, then yes, those governments are legitimate targets, and the countries are legitimate targets.

Or that Iraqi men, women and children who may have suffered under the United Nation's eleven year economic sanctions are deserving of their fate?

To the extent that they have tolerated and accepted the government they have, then if you believe the sanctions are a legitmate response to that government's war crimes, then yes.

At some point a people must be held responsible for their government.



To: jcky who wrote (33425)10/16/2001 11:51:07 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Of course.
Following the logic on this thread they have "chosen" their leaders.
Arguably the Iranians had more choice than the Afghanis. But I think it is always hard to know, when you participate in a revolution, what you are going to get. (And I am talking about the Iranians here, not the Afghans- who were trying to throw out invaders, which I consider a bit different.)