Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
Not the point i was making. At this point, now that combat operations are done, i don't see an issue with international cooperation. Nor is it logically sound to claim that since one opposses certain imperalistic facets of our occupation, that one enjoys Iraqi deaths under sadaam. Nor does the stastic of 275/day give any indication of why. I'm betting this includes sanctions, which right or wrong, were the West's imposition, not Sadaam's idea.
|
No offense intended, I was merely interpreting your statement as poorly as possible for partisan effect -- my apologies, I meant it as just a rhetorical device.
I don't think anyone enjoys Iraqi deaths under Saddam, merely that the effect of maintaining the status quo would have produced this rather unseemly side effect. You're exactly right that the deaths per day include sanctions. But what are the alternatives? The most popular at the time was more inspections, with the threat of more sanctions for non-compliance. And here we just established that Western imposed sanctions quite possibly severely hurt the Iraqi populace. We could lift the sanctions, but there's not much more at our disposal by the point we get to sanctions, to substitute in place for non-compliance. Gigli wasn't out yet, remember.
Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
arbitrarily, based on a shadowy claim of natitional security. There are other nations with similar human rights abuses....
|
I must disagree with you here. When this line of argument is brought up I'm always reminded of the parable of the beach full of stranded starfish and the boy throwing them back into the ocean, one at a time. He can't possibly help them all, or even help enough to make a difference. But as he said, getting ready to hurl a starfish back into the water, "It makes a difference to this one."
We probably can't liberate all the world's oppressed. First, we don't have enough resources, and second, we would be denounced as imperialists. Though if I could, I would gladly suffer the second to accomplish the first.
The New York Times itself has an article with the lead "The Bush administration has signaled for the first time that it may be willing to allow a multinational force in Iraq to operate under the sponsorship of the United Nations as long as it is commanded by an American." (New York Times, August 28, by Douglas Jehl) I think this is a good thing. I think finally, the world is ready to accept the liberation of Iraq. I just hope that bitter partisanship doesn't undermine the reconstruction as much as it did the slow buildup to liberation.
-- Alvin