3 ms·

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 firs

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 It is worth pointing out the sanctions caused human suffering, but the result that led to that comment was retracted by the author: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)70470-0/fulltext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 Also, the result that led to that comment was retracted So the fact that she said it was worth it -- explicit support for it -- doesn't matter because the data might have been wrong?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.

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.