| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip first two parts of rebuttal>
> > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
>
> Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at
> fault in such a case.
No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you
leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault,
for example.
Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred Bloggs Sr. is a justly convicted murderer
and is put in prison. Naturally, that means he isn't working any more.
Suppose further that Fred Bloggs Jr. now has to go without a new Xbox,
because there is no money to pay for one in his family. Is it the *fault* of
the state because they put Fred Sr. in jail?
That's, in this case, the proximate cause (something not shown to my
satisfaction in the sanctions/children case) of the family's poverty.
Yet even though prison clearly is the proximate cause in this case, the
fault lies with Fred Sr. HIS actions initiated the restraint of his further
actions that are causing no Xbox for Fred Jr.
The sanctions were imposed with the intent of restraining Hussein from
committing more crimes. (that they are an ineffective remedy is a different
issue). Therefore they are not the fault, even IF they are the cause, which
no amount of folderol from the UN is going to convince me of.
Making this point clear is *important*.
A failing of the "I feel your pain" gang we had in DC from 92 to 00 is that
they don't actually grasp right and wrong well enough to explain this, and
thuse we have Madeline Albright getting booby trapped and falsely admitting
to fault when she should have been turning the tables on the questioner and
asking him if he's stopped beating his dog.
She's a twit and wasn't qualified to be UN ambassador, much less Secretary
of State. Her answer should have been the same as mine. People who quote her
answer in this case in support of their arguments are twits too.
> Probably more important is the fact that the US let
> Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few million Iraqis
> who believe the US *is* the cause of their problems. I think a huge propaganda
> campaign (in Iraq) by the US following the gulf war may've been a good idea,
> though whether or not it would've been effective (or possible) without >storming
> Bagdad and ousting Hussein is debatable.
Agreed. As I said before, Iraq as a country ought to have been disassembled.
Note carefully what that means. It does not mean destruction of physical
things, it means dismantling of the government, and replacement of dictators
with democracy. They were a conquered country that attacked neighbors.
Intervention in their internal affairs was justified.
The Taliban, if it is shown to be a harborer of terrorists that interfere in
the internal affairs of other countries, ought to suffer the same fate.
So when I say Saddam should enjoy the running water while he can it means
that he should enjoy being in Baghdad and in power while he can, not that we
ought to deliberately bomb the running water out of commission.
> ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) This is cazy logic. You talk like sanctions are good & proven weapon which always work. They are not. (...) I agree. (...) You mean they did not agree with your "grasp right and wrong". (...) Can you prove she was "booby trapped and falsely (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKKrsr.651@lugnet.com... (...) Except no one is talking about x-box'es and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare. But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) Agree with all that. (...) Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at fault in such a case. Probably more important is the fact that the US let Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
