Quote Originally Posted by SuperChuck
Depending on your use of judgment, you can be considered at least partially responsible. You didn't pull the trigger, but if you decided to be a hero or a fool, your action indirectly resulted in death. If a member of your family were to be taken hostage in such a way, you would want everyone to remain calm and cooperate; if some hothead did something stupid, you would certainly hold him responsible. There's some amount of judgment involved.

Similarly, if someone is driving on the wrong side of the road, causing another driver to swerve off into a telephone pole, the driver on the wrong side of the road is responsible. That driver did not directly do anything which directly affected the other driver (in fact, he never touched him). The other driver could have made a move that would not involve driving into a pole.

We hold other nations responsible for their indirect actions. Selling weapons to insurgents, for example. There's even some talk about blaming Iran for suggesting to Hezbullah that they could capture an Israeli soldier. These are things that aren't done directly, but that hold indirect responsibility.
You are not looking at this properly.

The driver in your metaphor had no good reason to be in the wrong lane. He is indirectly at fault because he had absolutely had no justification for going the wrong way down the street. However, and I know this is going to piss someone off, we have every reason in the world to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. These countries are breeding grounds for terrorists and I fully support the notion that we should hit them before they hit us.

In your example the driver would be at fault, BUT if there was someone driving towards your house with a trunk full of explosives hell bent on killing himself and your entire family that would be a different story. If you forced them off the road and killed them then you are NOT at fault because it is in defense of you, your family, and property. Unfortunatley, if that pyscho driving towards your house happens to have his kid in the back seat that's a shame, but tough shit.

As for the selling weapons example. When weapons are sold for a known destructive purpose then said country is at fault. You cannot liken that to invading a country under the pretense of self preservation. Russia didn't sell the Iraqi's weapons for any other reason than to make some cash, not to save themselves from terrorists attacks. And NO, we did not invade Iraq for money, Oil, because anyone with a 2nd grade education, haha yes even Bush, would know that spending hundreds of billions to take over a country wouldn't be worth it to get at their oil reserves. Sorry, no, it wouldn't.

Now...I will say that I appreciate that someone with a liberal viewpoint made an attempt at a cogent argument. This breeds discussion, logic, and thought.

THANK YOU