I don’t condone some of our actions in WWII either. Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was an evil act, IMO.
Rilchiam, in my opinion, Americans weep over dead birds because they are more progressive that people in other part of the world. They feel that they can make a difference and you know what - they can, we all can. That’s why we don’t just accept things - we look for solutions to problems, cures for diseases. A hundred years ago no-one would have cared that kids were being maimed in some far-off land. I’m glad that people care today, and that we don’t just accept it and move on.
Evil One, we “lefties” agree that Saddam Hussein violates human rights and that his people are probably better off without him. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that this war is “the right thing”. When the British colonised India, they did Indians a favour by introducing progressive standards of human rights and outlawing certain practices such as sati which seemed inhumane to them. But today, if the British government decided to colonise a Third World country because it could benefit from Western leadership I think most people would not support that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skankweirdall *
**
I notice you avoided my question.
I’m not a partisan, btw. I’m an independent. I’ve never been a member of any political party.
Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan ended the war, saving thousands of lives, both American and Japanese. But you know that.
DtC:
You said:
Then I said:
Then you said:
So I take it you had/have no problem with the US not getting this murderous/criminal organization’s – remember, per you it’s responsible for thousands of deaths – go-ahead for the invasion? I’m curious, how do you jive that with your concern that this is an “illegal” invasion. Just want to make sure we’ve got the old “But we didn’t get UN backing” canard out of the way here…
What would the right thing be, pennylane? Leave Saddam alone when we have the power to intervene, saving and improving millions of lives? Let him play hide and seek with inspectors for months on end while he develops weapons that he will use or sell? Ask the people dancing on Saddams fallen statue if they think we did the right thing.
I never made or intended any such sentiment to start with. Why should I provide a cite?
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
**I’m not a partisan, btw. I’m an independent. I’ve never been a member of any political party. **
Fair enough, I retract the word partisan.
[Snort]
The sanctions were bad policy but they were still the law. The American prohibition on marijuana is fucking stupid and harmful, does that mean we should be able to ignore all US laws?
True enough. I retract the question.
A country’s freedom isn’t worth the injury of a single child. Oh wait, yes it is.
I think if the majority of Iraqis dance on Saddam’s fallen statue then maybe it is the right thing. And perhaps there’s no way to correctly assess this but I feel that this war did not have the overwhelming support of the Iraqi people.
I’m sure if some European country were to invade the U.S. on the grounds that the U.S. is developing weapons that they will use or sell and that the U.S. people are suffering due to immoral policies such as the death penalty, there would be some people cheering them on and hitting posters of George W. Bush with their shoes…
Now hold on a minute.
The UN was evil for imposing sanctions which starved Iraqis.
The U.S. is evil because we went against the U.N. and invaded Iraq instead of letting the sanctions imposed by the U.N. continue for years and years, and thus allowing Saddam and compay continue to torture, starve and kill countless Iraqis?
Which is it?
AMEN!
If this was Clinton or Gore running the show , many anti war activists would be prasing their actions.
DtC:
Okay then. So here’s the deal:
The UN sanctions caused 1.5 MIL deaths minimum. Here’s a cite giving Saddam’s own government’s figures for it (you can google a few dozen more cites for this. I’m purposely picking one that is, if anything, biased pro-Iraq)
www.arabia.com/news/article/english/0,11827,49028,00.html
So according to you, the UN is culpable for 1.5 MIL deaths during the sanctions period. Sanctions which, by all accounts, did not achieve their goal.
Now, here’s a link from Amnesty International – again, using a source that is absolutely not pro-uS biased by any means. (note, the cite is from YESTERDAY, 4/8/03).
http://www.web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140712003?open&of=ENG-IRQ
It says, “since 20 March hundreds of civilians have reportedly been killed.” It also notes “Civilians at risk from Iraqi military tactics.”
That’s HUNDREDS: a bit off from 1.5 MIL, and in large part because the Iraqi regime is purposely putting them in harm’s way.
So let’s see…
1991-2003 (12 years): UN tries it their way, 1.5 MIL civilians die, nothing accomplished.
3/20/2003-4/8/2003 (20 days): US tries it our way, hundreds of civilians die, dictator removed.
Yeah, that’s a tough one.
Yeah, I’d rather the latter figure was zero, but I’d rather see hundreds and an end to it, than millions and no end in sight.
PS - I think anyone with even a heart “two-sizes-too-small” would be wrenched by the boy in the OP. My heart is wrenched more by the half-million like him that suffered through this regime. Enough.
Particlewill, did you read my last post?
The sanctions were bad policy (and were imposed mostly at the urging of the US) but the UN is still the arbiter of international law. The fact that I may disagree with one law does not then mean that I don’t have to follow any laws.
You come on now! I don’t see any “blind partisan hatred”.
Let’s see your cite.
Which is it, particlewill…
The U.N. lacked foresight in imposing sanctions which starved Iraqis.
The U.S. is being heavy-handed by deciding, all of a sudden, that the Iraqis want to be freed of Saddan Hussein’s regime by any means possible.
Indeed.
I’ve argued rather strongly against this war. But the fact remains that even if this war were a just war, it would have still been impossible to fight it without incidents like that linked to in the OP. The fact that bad things happened to this kid doesn’t make the war wrong.
Fact is, the US has succeeded in limiting harm to civilians in this war to an extent that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. Part of it has been due to technological advances. But it’s happened, to a large degree, because it mattered to the US that such harm be limited. (Heck, it was important even to George Dubya Bush, and you know I don’t like him. But give him props for this, at least. Maybe the war itself was wrong, but the US at least fought it in the right way. If Russia or China had our technology, but invaded a neighbor, they would not exercise similar care in trying to avoid civilian casualties, because it just wouldn’t matter to them.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to demand that the World’s Sole Superpower behave in a more ethical fashion than it does, whether or not we’re among its citizens. But we should recognize the importance of this difference.
If you want a legitimate reason for the invasion, look no further than 1441. It gave the reason and the authority to do what had to be done. Not to mention the still in effect cease fire, from the first Gulf War agreed to by Sadam which said he would disarm.
I dunno. Judging by the images I am looking at right now of Iraqis dancing on the toppled statue of Saddam, cheering and singing, it seems to me they are pretty happy that we took the heavy handed approach.