| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 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.
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 it seems like at the least we're capable of communicating. The
crazy logic (but I don't think this is what you mean) was in the heads of those
who imposed the sanctions.
Larry, which part of Scott's cites from UNICEF are you calling folderol? Do
you disagree that the sanctions prevented Iraq from fully realizing their own
agricultural output? It seems pretty clear that what we were allowing them was
to struggle along on their own and trade oil for food. You gotta admit that
they had fairly few options. If the rate of child mortality increased
substantially during the sanction years, what do you suppose is the cause?
I kind of like Albright's quoted answer. Sometimes the stuff that we decide is
best has substantial costs, to ourselves and to others, but we are prepared to
ride it out. At least it's taking responsibility for the decisions made by the
administration...better than Reno ever really did.
> > 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.
What if he had been beating his dog? Some people do.
> > 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?
Not at all. If one makes mistakes (and we all have), must one feel bound to
continue making those same mistakes just because they once did? For some sense
of internal consistency? Just to avoid others calling you "slightly
hypocritical?" Now that's crazy!
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) I take your point. I think that the fact that they are "ineffective" is fundamental to understanding the situation - not an incidental fact. I should spend more time on my messages. (...) Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
