| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
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:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5788 and elsewhere
so I suppose you're willing to extend the concept of blame beyond what I
would consider appropriate. Agreeing to disagree, but let's not rekindle
that debate; it would lead us to the ridiculous assertion that the Iraqi
families are responsible for the children's deaths, since the families have
not moved out of Iraq.
> > 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.
Please. I am asserting that it is conspicuous that Hussein still lives
high on the hog while his citizens suffer. If the US were under similarly
extreme duress, it would indeed be inappropriate for the President to live
in a huge palace with an elite personal retinue while citizens suffered, but
the US is not experiencing that sort of crisis. The US has mechanisms in
place, both public and private, to assist the impoverished and
disadvantaged; why can Iraq not have similar programs, and why is it
necessary for Hussein to continue to rebuild his military while more
pressing domestic matters are in effect? I imagine it could be argued that
he perceives military matters to be more vital than supporting the populace,
but that hardly puts him in a position to demand that the sanctions
therefore be lifted.
> 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.
But that's irrelevant, as you're aware. The issue isn't whether Iraqi
sanctions against the US have led to poverty (and child death) in the US,
and if therefore it is appropriate for Bush to live in the White House; the
issue is whether US sanctions of Iraq have caused 500K children to die in
poverty, and if therefore it is appropriate to live in luxury. If, for
instance, the US had invaded a sovereign nation without provocation and were
subsequently decimated because of it, then it would be appropriate to
compare Martha the bag lady and the President to Hussein and the 500K children.
> > 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.
You seem to be indicating that you do not believe that Iraq has a right to
sovereignty--am I correct?
Regardless, it becomes a fairly straightforward matter of honoring Iraq's
perceptions of its sovereignty; if Hussein (they) choose(s) to maintain a
posture in defiance of the conditions that maintain the sanctions, then it
is right and proper to allow him to maintain that posture, and, in so doing,
to maintain the sanctions. Hussein very nicely washes our hands of all
responsibility for the deaths of children.
> 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.
Since the second question is predicated on the first, then the primary and
overwhelming blame remains with Hussein (and the rain in Spain stays mainly
on the plane). Further, and in all seriousness, do we have any reason to
believe that the lifting of those sanctions would improve conditions for
those children?
> 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.)
So the answer is to force American Capitalism down the throat of a nation
that might not want it? That's pretty much the definition of cultural
imperialism and is a thinly veiled form of colonialism. To assume that our
Western ideals will be readily embraced by a culture markedly different from
our own is to assume that that culture would be Western if only it weren't
so backward. In addition, this seems directly in conflict with any
assertions of Iraqi sovereignty, or their belief in their sovereignty. How
can the two be reconciled?
> But we dropped the ball and now we are partially culpable for whatever has
> happened as a result.
So what is your suggestion, exactly? Do we lift the sanctions, thereby
enabling Hussein to build up his military once again? Do we violate Iraqi
sovereignty by forcing democracy upon them? I agree that democracy is
vastly superior to totalitarian dictatorship, but if Iraq has a right to its
own sovereignty, then to usurp that sovereignty under the aegis of "For
Their Own Good" is no better than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Well, I wouldn't call them great lengths... (...) ...but I do still think that blame is virtually always shared by manny. (...) I'm not sure it's possible unless I'm just to drop it. It seems like the meat of the point. (...) But your (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| Hello Dave, hello everybody, I have followed the discussion about responsibility for Iraqi people a while, and what it boils down to is: Different people have different definitions of responsibility. First, there is the humanistic definition: People (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| 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? (...) It sounds like you are asserting that if Hussein (...) (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
|
|
|
|
