| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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:
Well, I wouldn't call them great lengths...
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5788 and elsewhere
...but I do still think that blame is virtually always shared by manny.
> 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;
I'm not sure it's possible unless I'm just to drop it. It seems like the meat
of the point.
> > 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,
But your implication, I thought, was that Hussein somehow bore culpability for
the Iraqi impoverished because he spent conspicuously. I don't see the link.
If you didn't intend one, then I was just wrong and my comments about Bush were
not needed. But I don't think they were wrong.
> > 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?
No, that's not what I meant. But it happens to be sort of true...I just don't
see how it matters to the topic at hand. Actually I kind of think national
sovereignty is a scam to cover some kind of individual sovereignty which is
what we ought to be experiencing.
> 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.
Unless we put Hussein into a position where his only two options are bad and
worse (from his POV, of course, not mine).
> > 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.
Primary, I'd agree to. If nothing else his action did spawn our reaction. And
he "had the last move" so the recent cause-effect was up to him. But I'm not
sure on overwhelming. How do you measure it?
> (and the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plane).
If you think I'm just the annoying village idiot, why respond?
> Further, and in all seriousness, do we have any reason to
> believe that the lifting of those sanctions would improve conditions for
> those children?
Actually, maybe that's the real test rather than the way I wrote it above. And
I don't know the answer to it. But it still leaves many parties at fault.
If we lift the sanctions would they stop dying?
If we had never imposed sanctions would they have started dying?
If Hussein had never invaded Kuwait would they have started dying?
And on and on. Do you not see it as the case that when you do something you
are responsible for the results? I think I'm only extending that notion
multidimensionally so that we see that every event has many causes. (I suppose
an infinite number, really, but at some point we can say that some don't bear
scrutiny since their participation is so little.) Each person behind a cause
shares responsibility for the event to some degree. I'm not sure why this
seems bizarre to you.
> > 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?
Once we have beaten our foe, I thought it was commonly understood that we had
some right to see to it that their kind of crimes were not likely to just
recurr. I'd rather think of it as exposing them to it...not forcing it down
their throat.
> 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.
There are some pretty 'western' places in the middle east. They can't be
_that_ alien for places like the UAE to thrive.
> 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?
I was talking about the actions that should have immediately followed our war
with them. Leaving Hussein there was bad. And rebuilding for them would have
been good. But if they wanted us to leave instead of help tidy the place up, I
suppose we could have done that once we got what we went in for.
> > But we dropped the ball and now we are partially culpable for whatever has
> > happened as a result.
>
> So what is your suggestion, exactly?
Uh oh. Um...I don't really have one. I was just talking about shared blame.
What I think we should have done and what we should do are different. I
definitely don't think they merit re-invasion just to set things straight. I
guess we should initiate a black-op to whack Hussein and his top thugs and
offer the nation some help.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Well, my point has always been that even if no one is "free" of blame (or fault or responsibility, to use the language of that prior debate), someone is almost invariably demonstrably and culpably more responsible for the event. If, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
