| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
This is cazy logic. You talk like sanctions are good & proven weapon which
always work. They are not.
>
> Making this point clear is *important*.
I agree.
>
> 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,
You mean they did not agree with your "grasp right and wrong".
> 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.
Can you prove she was "booby trapped and falsely admitting to fault". I
would be interested if you could.
>
> 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.
Hmm. I must be a twit too. I must be a twit for supporting my argument with
independent data. I must be a twit for justifying my argument. Ho hum.
>
> > 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.
Nope you said “needs to be disassembled” – present tense. You also supported
cutting of fresh water supply in Iraq because some guy expressed an opinion
– very libertarian (not).
> 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.
Would that not be ever so slightly hypocritical given that the US (and the
rest of the west) has a record of supporting dictators?
> 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,
S Q I R M. After so long, is this really the best you can do?
> not that we
> ought to deliberately bomb the running water out of commission.
We did that the last time.
Scott A
>
> > ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Scott, do you mean when he says "they are an ineffective remedy?" Is that the part that makes you think they are a good and proven weapon? I sometimes wonder if we're speaking the same language. I don't agree with Larry on lots of things, but (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) <snip first two parts of rebuttal> (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
