3 ms·

Also, bad things are often not known until sometime after the people died. Anyway, it is much more civilized to honor the deceased family during their mourning.

by zaat 5y ago

Also, bad things are often not known until sometime after the people died. Anyway, it is much more civilized to honor the deceased family during their mourning. There's plenty of pages to fill in future newspaper articles and history books.

someotherperson 5y ago
Knowing that people have died, she gave her personal opinion that she personally supported it[0]. That's a large part of the reason why she's disliked. It's because she advocates for genocide. If you replace "Iraqis" with "Jews" and have someone say that the deaths of half a million Jewish children is "worth it" nobody will be in this comment section trying to talk about honoring the deceased or suggesting everyone has good and bad sides. [0] https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8 https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  Those sanctions were imposed as a response to an evil act (invasion of a neighboring country, Kuwait). Hussein could have not committed the evil act in the first place. When a dictator does an evil act, they cannot hide behind consequences to their people. That is obviously of great importance in current events, also. It is worth pointing out the sanctions caused human suffering, but the result that led to that comment was retracted by the author: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70470-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The deaths of Kuwaitis, the deaths of Kurds, the deaths of Southern Iraqis and other dissidents, and any number innocent human beings that died because of the sanctions are tragic... But consequences for crimes belone with the criminal. Hussein killed tens of thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons over his time in power. He really was a monstrous person.
  - someotherperson 5y ago
    > You can play that video over and over, but the sanctions were imposed as a response to an evil act (invasion of a neighboring country) Should half a million Americans die for each US invasion? If I said it's worth it does that make it OK? > When a dictator does an evil act, they cannot hide behind consequences to their people A dictator, by definition, is not representative of a "people." There is no "their people" in this case. > Also, the result that led to that comment was retracted So the fact that she said it was worth it -- explicit support for it -- doesn't matter because the data might have been wrong? If I was told half a million Jews were killed yesterday and in my position as representative to the UN said it was "worth it" am I absolved if it turned out to be fake news? > Hussein killed tens of thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons over his time in power This never actually happened. It was just about 2000 people. From what we've learned in this discussion I guess that absolves Saddam for thinking it was worth it to crush the Kurdish uprisings. Great chatting. I won't be participating any further though.
    - throwaway5752 5y ago
      You said this in a different comment. "blaming powerless besieged people for their own suffering is a special type of reasoning that only seems to pop up whenever brown people are mentioned" I agree with you. And Hussein was a US ally when he was fighting Iran. OBL was a US ally when he was fighting the Soviets. That can't be ignored, either. The US helped make those enemies. And the difference in public reaction to Ukrainian dead and refugees vs those who are Palestinian, Syrian, Yemeni, Ahgan ... it is shameful. It is hard to believe racism isn't a part of the disparity, certainly enormous lack of capability for empathy. That being said I think that Albright's comment is out of context and - taken at face value - is not reflective of reality, though. You can blame a lot of people in Russia, the UN, the US, in KSA, from a lot of places.. and, add Madeleine Albright to that list, for what happened to the people of Iraq in the 90s. It will feel great to righteously hate on her but it won't promote understanding what happen or prevent it from recurring. ps - I removed, "You can play that video over and over, but" because I sounded like a jerk and regretted it.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      She recanted her statement, and she's right, the question was a trap. It is sad to say so, but the consequent deaths were incidental, not intentional. Place the responsibility where it belongs: the Ba'athists caused those deaths, not the sanctions. Do you think if the Ba'athists had treated the Iraqi people like human beings and asked for food because people were starving, Albright would have been against such aide even while Iraq was under sanction? Honestly, your argument sounds like the abusive partner that asks, "why did you make me hit you?" But here, it is "Look what you did, Albright, you heartlessly starved Iraqi children!" Absurd.
      - ailef 5y ago
        > but the consequent deaths were incidental, not intentional. Isn't this a bit naive? According to this reasoning, Holodomor death's weren't intentional as well, while most poeple argue that, since the effect of that policy could be easily predicted, they are, for all intents and purposes, intentional. I would apply the same standard to US sanctions against Iraq.
- zaat 5y ago
  The problem here depends on what "it" she believe was the it that was worth, isn't it? If she believed their death is worth, like the linked video title suggest, finding Iraq's non existent WMDs, than yes. But if she believed that the alternative is a much worse state with a lot more bodies and suffering then it is a defensible moral choice. And it is not like she was standing behind what she said - she said she fell into a trap[0]. Compare to Truman, who approved the actual Hiroshima, and "never lost any sleep over that decision.” [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_against_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_a... [1] https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html
  - trasz 5y ago
    So, if Putin, or Stalin, believed they are doing the right thing, then their crimes become a “defensive moral choice”?
    - bigmattystyles 5y ago
      I think op is saying that to them (Putin/Stalin) they will delude themselves into thinking that. I didn’t get the gist that they meant everyone.
    - zaat 5y ago
      It should have been defensible moral choice, I have corrected it. If Putin or Stalin believed that their actions are the right thing, meaning they have decided to act due to moral reasons, than it would be moral choice. If the moral choice is defensible or not depends on the moral reasoning - you don't have to agree with someone's moral position to see agree that it is a valid position even if you don't share it (even strongly oppose it). Saying someone's position is defensible doesn't mean he did the right thing.

by zaat 5y ago

someotherperson 5y ago

Knowing that people have died, she gave her personal opinion that she personally supported it[0]. That's a large part of the reason why she's disliked. It's because she advocates for genocide. If you replace "Iraqis" with "Jews" and have someone say that the deaths of half a million Jewish children is "worth it" nobody will be in this comment section trying to talk about honoring the deceased or suggesting everyone has good and bad sides. [0] https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8 https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8

throwaway5752 5y ago
Those sanctions were imposed as a response to an evil act (invasion of a neighboring country, Kuwait). Hussein could have not committed the evil act in the first place. When a dictator does an evil act, they cannot hide behind consequences to their people. That is obviously of great importance in current events, also. It is worth pointing out the sanctions caused human suffering, but the result that led to that comment was retracted by the author: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70470-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... The deaths of Kuwaitis, the deaths of Kurds, the deaths of Southern Iraqis and other dissidents, and any number innocent human beings that died because of the sanctions are tragic... But consequences for crimes belone with the criminal. Hussein killed tens of thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons over his time in power. He really was a monstrous person.
- someotherperson 5y ago
  > You can play that video over and over, but the sanctions were imposed as a response to an evil act (invasion of a neighboring country) Should half a million Americans die for each US invasion? If I said it's worth it does that make it OK? > When a dictator does an evil act, they cannot hide behind consequences to their people A dictator, by definition, is not representative of a "people." There is no "their people" in this case. > Also, the result that led to that comment was retracted So the fact that she said it was worth it -- explicit support for it -- doesn't matter because the data might have been wrong? If I was told half a million Jews were killed yesterday and in my position as representative to the UN said it was "worth it" am I absolved if it turned out to be fake news? > Hussein killed tens of thousands of Iraqis with chemical weapons over his time in power This never actually happened. It was just about 2000 people. From what we've learned in this discussion I guess that absolves Saddam for thinking it was worth it to crush the Kurdish uprisings. Great chatting. I won't be participating any further though.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    You said this in a different comment. "blaming powerless besieged people for their own suffering is a special type of reasoning that only seems to pop up whenever brown people are mentioned" I agree with you. And Hussein was a US ally when he was fighting Iran. OBL was a US ally when he was fighting the Soviets. That can't be ignored, either. The US helped make those enemies. And the difference in public reaction to Ukrainian dead and refugees vs those who are Palestinian, Syrian, Yemeni, Ahgan ... it is shameful. It is hard to believe racism isn't a part of the disparity, certainly enormous lack of capability for empathy. That being said I think that Albright's comment is out of context and - taken at face value - is not reflective of reality, though. You can blame a lot of people in Russia, the UN, the US, in KSA, from a lot of places.. and, add Madeleine Albright to that list, for what happened to the people of Iraq in the 90s. It will feel great to righteously hate on her but it won't promote understanding what happen or prevent it from recurring. ps - I removed, "You can play that video over and over, but" because I sounded like a jerk and regretted it.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    She recanted her statement, and she's right, the question was a trap. It is sad to say so, but the consequent deaths were incidental, not intentional. Place the responsibility where it belongs: the Ba'athists caused those deaths, not the sanctions. Do you think if the Ba'athists had treated the Iraqi people like human beings and asked for food because people were starving, Albright would have been against such aide even while Iraq was under sanction? Honestly, your argument sounds like the abusive partner that asks, "why did you make me hit you?" But here, it is "Look what you did, Albright, you heartlessly starved Iraqi children!" Absurd.
    - ailef 5y ago
      > but the consequent deaths were incidental, not intentional. Isn't this a bit naive? According to this reasoning, Holodomor death's weren't intentional as well, while most poeple argue that, since the effect of that policy could be easily predicted, they are, for all intents and purposes, intentional. I would apply the same standard to US sanctions against Iraq.
zaat 5y ago
The problem here depends on what "it" she believe was the it that was worth, isn't it? If she believed their death is worth, like the linked video title suggest, finding Iraq's non existent WMDs, than yes. But if she believed that the alternative is a much worse state with a lot more bodies and suffering then it is a defensible moral choice. And it is not like she was standing behind what she said - she said she fell into a trap[0]. Compare to Truman, who approved the actual Hiroshima, and "never lost any sleep over that decision.” [1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_against_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_a... [1] https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html
- trasz 5y ago
  So, if Putin, or Stalin, believed they are doing the right thing, then their crimes become a “defensive moral choice”?
  - bigmattystyles 5y ago
    I think op is saying that to them (Putin/Stalin) they will delude themselves into thinking that. I didn’t get the gist that they meant everyone.
  - zaat 5y ago
    It should have been defensible moral choice, I have corrected it. If Putin or Stalin believed that their actions are the right thing, meaning they have decided to act due to moral reasons, than it would be moral choice. If the moral choice is defensible or not depends on the moral reasoning - you don't have to agree with someone's moral position to see agree that it is a valid position even if you don't share it (even strongly oppose it). Saying someone's position is defensible doesn't mean he did the right thing.