| |
It sounds like we are functioning under the assumption that blame can only be
assigned to one entity. I don't think that's so. And I think that we share
the blame with Hussein. But how much?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Third: IF we accept that 500K children have died, and IF we accept that
> they have died as a result of the sanctions, we still cannot assign the
> blame for the children's death to the US. It is readily apparent that
> Hussein lives in luxury while the citizens of Iraq suffer in abject squalor.
It sounds like you are asserting that if Hussein didn't live in luxury, the
savings could bring his people out of squalor. It isn't so. Let's imagine
that his lifestyle costs $1,000,000 per year more than the normal Iraqi's
lifestyle. Do the math.
Further, what about our president's lifestyle compared to that of Martha the
bag lady? I don't see Bush (or any president) going without to feed the
homeless of DC. Not in any real sense.
> It is entirely within his power to have the sanctions lifted, and even if he
> chooses not to do so, it is entirely within his power to establish domestic
> programs to aid Iraqi citizens, rather than continuing a military buildup at
> the expense of those citizens.
To the extent that this is true, blame can be assigned to Hussein too. But I
don't think it's as simple as all that. I don't think that he can just "have
the sanctions lifed" without selling his people out. I think that he (they?)
believe that they have a right to sovreignty and that the best way to assure
that is to defend themselves. It seems akin to someone who can avoid being
whacked by the mob by perjuring themselves...it is entirely within their power.
> As such, the "fault" for the continued
> deaths of children lies with the person most readily able to prevent them;
> ie: Hussein.
I think the test works like this: If Sadam hadn't done what he did, would the
kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers? Since the answer (I assume) is no,
then we can blame him. But, what about the question "If the US hadn't imposed
those sanctions, would the kids of Iraq be dying in record numbers?" Well,
since the answer is again, no, we share the blame.
Further, what responsibility do warring nations have to one another and their
citizenry? We had the ability to act in a manner consistant with our military
objectives, but different than what we did, that would have resulted in less
dead Iraqi kids. Should we have? Since we did not, do we bear any blame for
the current situation? I think so.
We should have apprehended Hussein for trial and incarceration. We should have
instituted democracy. And we should have rebuilt their economy based on
freedom. Those folks would never go back after they had a taste of our wealth.
(And this is what we should do in Afghanistan too, IMHO.)
But we dropped the ball and now we are partially culpable for whatever has
happened as a result.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) As I recall, you're willing to go to great lengths to assign a measure of blame to those who do not cause the events that befall them: (URL) and elsewhere so I suppose you're willing to extend the concept of blame beyond what I would consider (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) It isn't necessary to have specific and detailed knowledge of international policy, nor of the workings of foreign governments and the dynamics of sanctions. All that is necessary is a critical examination (which Larry has given) of the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
