3 ms·
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
by 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.