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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (213772)7/29/2007 9:34:44 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 794033
 
one of which was incomplete.

Gotcha. I never looked at the second one assuming it to be a dup.

The Afghanis can't protect them.

I think that telling the missionaries not to come and what would surely happen to them if they did should be considered a sufficient attempt to protect them. They chose to ignore it so they are not total innocents. They are at a minimum complicit in their predicament just as is someone who drives into standing water during a desert rainstorm or sets off a high speed police chase. Saw a story on TV the other night about a policeman who pulled one of the latter out of his crashed car just in time. The policeman was close to being killed. It's one thing when those who protect us risk their lives to rescue innocents or comrades. It's another to do so for someone who knowingly and wantonly put himself his own risk.

Do we leave them to the wolves too?

I don't think the "too" belongs there. You introduced Iraq into the equation but I don't think it's at all the same. The people of Iraq didn't foolishly bring their troubles upon themselves like the Korean missionaries did. We may have some responsibility for the scenario in Afghanistan but we didn't create the risk to those missionaries.

Not that we shouldn't help the Korean missionaries if we can, but IMO only if we can do so without risking the lives of our own. And they shouldn't expect us to.