Your link doesn’t work but I know what it is (I think). There’s similar horror stories in Bagram: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/9/22/life-in-bagram-through-the-eyes-of-former-prisonersI will leave this here, 'It Was Torture': An Abu Ghraib Interrogator Acknowledges 'Horrible Mistakes'
He’s written apologetic drivel. It’s literally excuse after excuse.Accountability!! was Blair or Bush held accountable? Blair was knighted just recently! your biased angle at looking into world conflicts make this post just a load of BS.
I think invading Iraq on a false premise is acting recklessly. Blair going in based on false reports of WMD is acting recklessly. Reckless actions have consequences, but it seems that the Iraqi people are paying for it, not the war criminals who went in.And Western leaders can't act completely recklessly because they want to be reelected as well.
I fixed the link. In the interview other sites are mentioned, Abu Ghraid wasn't even supposed to be the worst. The US institutionalized war crimes.Your link doesn’t work but I know what it is (I think). There’s similar horror stories in Bagram: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/9/22/life-in-bagram-through-the-eyes-of-former-prisoners
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2015/6/9/omar-khadr-the-boy-i-witnessed-becoming-a-man
I read the whole paragraph it is just a failed try to make excuse for the atrocities the west has done. For the simple iraqi citizen who lost his brother or his daughter, this bs does not matter. From his angle of view, he was starved to death from 1991 to 2003 and then as bombed from 2003 onward and only two names are coupled to theses acts US and UK. That is eactly what the Ukrainian people is how going to feel now and after the war about Russia. You are not important in this war. The people who suffered and suffer right now are.See, and this is why it doesn't make sense to discuss with whataboutsm warriors. Have youe even read the fecking paragraph? Jesus, how do you people get through your lifes with that attitude.
Nothing is black and white. Do you think somebody who kills a passenger in a car accident caused by speeding recklessly is as morally despicable as somebody who murders another one in cold blood for personal gain?I read the whole paragraph it is just a failed try to make excuse for the atrocities the west has done. For the simple iraqi citizen who lost his brother or his daughter, this bs does not matter. From his angle of view, he was starved to death from 1991 to 2003 and then as bombed from 2003 onward and only two names are coupled to theses acts US and UK. That is eactly what the Ukrainian people is how going to feel now and after the war about Russia. You are not important in this war. The people who suffered and suffer right now are.
But that distinction doesn't apply here. We are not talking about accidents but decisions made for personal/national gain and in cold blood.Nothing is black and white. Do you think somebody who kills a passenger in a car accident caused by speeding recklessly is as morally despicable as somebody who murders another one in cold blood for personal gain?
Your attempts at spinning the destruction and spoiling of Iraq as a mere accident and not the continuity of what was done in Vietnam is the problem here.Nothing is black and white. Do you think somebody who kills a passenger in a car accident caused by speeding recklessly is as morally despicable as somebody who murders another one in cold blood for personal gain?
This "well Russia is worse" is a far more morally questionable take than the whataboutery from the opposite angle because at least that's used to push a reflection on the actions of the west. You on the other hand are excusing responsibility for thousands of deaths based on the west not being as bad as a fascist dictator.See, and this is why it doesn't make sense to discuss with whataboutsm warriors. Have youe even read the fecking paragraph? Jesus, how do you people get through your lifes with that attitude.
But that distinction doesn't apply here. We are not talking about accidents but decisions made for personal/national gain and in cold blood.
Your attempts at spinning the destruction and spoiling of Iraq as a mere accident and not the continuity of what was done in Vietnam is the problem here.
Today as we speak the Palestinian people is subjected to despicable atrocities with unconditional support form the US.
Today as we speak the Yemeni people is under similar atrocities, if not worse, with total support form the US and the UK. The latter still has “military advisers” helping the Saudis.
I'm not saying that what the US did in Iraq was an accident. My example should highlight that there are moral nuances to this stuff. We perceive an intentional killing as morally worse than an unintentional one. And among the unintentional ones, we distinguish between levels of recklessness. And then there's also the motive in our moral assessment. We perceive an unintentional or even intentional killing as less worse when we can understand the motive. If you drive over somebody while driving somebody in life threatening condition to the hospital, it is not as severe of a crime as doing it while driving in an illegal street race. And if you do it on purpose, it also depends on ehether you did it out of egotistical reasons, perceived self defense and so forth.This "well Russia is worse" is a far more morally questionable take than the whataboutery from the opposite angle because at least that's used to push a reflection on the actions of the west. You on the other hand are excusing responsibility for thousands of deaths based on the west not being as bad as a fascist dictator.
Sorry you're dead but at least you weren't killed by a fascist. As you say it doesn't matter to victims.
The problem isn't particularly complicated, all sides are biased and justify their actions accordingly. We do this very well in the west considering our actions and proxy involvements, life just goes on with most issues ignored.
We look outwards accusing other states of being evil whilst never questioning our own actions. In fact we use them to absolve our own actions in comparison, through some faux moral relativism.
I don't agree with much of what you said regarding intention (why Iraq and not Rwanda? or any other despotic regime/genocidal situation? Why overthrow democratic and popular movements? Why support other despotic regimes?). Morality is a political explanation for an amoral motive.See, and this is why it doesn't make sense to discuss with whataboutsm warriors. Have youe even read the fecking paragraph? Jesus, how do you people get through your lifes with that attitude.
They did. There is footage of it. You could claim that was a few bad apples, which is typically the case in any war, but the US committed war-crimes in Iraq just as Russia are doing now in Ukraine with the bombing of civilians. Remember Shock and Awe? And aside from combat, the sanctions were designed to do just that.So unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians - because that's what Russia is doing in this very moment for strategical purposes - I don't see how you can argue against this point.
Yes. They specifically and intentionally massacred innocent civilians for nothing but their own personal gains.So unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians
Afghanistan: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/afghanistan-drone-strike-video.htmlSo unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians - because that's what Russia is doing in this very moment for strategical purposes - I don't see how you can argue against this point.
We are not talking about unintentional killings though. We are talking about intentional killings justified with extremely lame arguments. I will give you an example that is shared here. Here you have examples of buildings and neighborhoods striked with civilians, civilians that are actually counted and mentioned before authorisation, and that due to a single person entering that same building or being in the vicinity. What you see in that article should make you pause for a second and consider that this only really applies to the most precise strikes, drone strikes. We are not even talking about the carpet bombings that occurred and still sometimes occur.I'm not saying that what the US did in Iraq was an accident. My example should highlight that there are moral nuances to this stuff. We perceive an intentional killing as morally worse than an unintentional one. And among the unintentional ones, we distinguish between levels of recklessness. And then there's also the motive in our moral assessment. We perceive an unintentional or even intentional killing as less worse when we can understand the motive. If you drive over somebody while driving somebody in life threatening condition to the hospital, it is not as severe of a crime as doing it while driving in an illegal street race. And if you do it on purpose, it also depends on ehether you did it out of egotistical reasons, perceived self defense and so forth.
So unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians - because that's what Russia is doing in this very moment for strategical purposes - I don't see how you can argue against this point.
That doesn't mean that the actions of the US aren't despicable, definitely not, or that the West isn't very good at turning a blind eye to such atrocities committed by himself. It just means that the NATO is the lesser evil compared to Russia.
As I said, I think intentions are ambiguous, especially in democracies. You can't pin it down to one. I can't tell you why it was Iraq and not another nation. The Corinthian asked a similar question with regards to Saudi Arabia. I imagine geopolitics are generally very complex and we turn a blind eye towards states which are important to our econom or are generally perceived as a lesser evil, maybe because they provide the broader region some sort of stability. I also blieve that there are shifts in strategies over the years since especially in the US the general approach varies greatly depending on the reigning party and even on the agenda of the person in charge.I don't agree with much of what you said regarding intention (why Iraq and not Rwanda? or any other despotic regime/genocidal situation? Why overthrow democratic and popular movements? Why support other despotic regimes?). Morality is a political explanation for an amoral motive.
They did. There is footage of it. You could claim that was a few bad apples, which is typically the case in any war, but the US committed war-crimes in Iraq just as Russia are doing now in Ukraine with the bombing of civilians. Remember Shock and Awe? And aside from combat, the sanctions were designed to do just that.
Can you point me to sources for that?Yes. They specifically and intentionally massacred innocent civilians for nothing but their own personal gains.
You must have been living in another world. They did specifically target civilians. Multiple times. Nothing different from what Russia is doing now.So unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians - because that's what Russia is doing in this very moment for strategical purposes - I don't see how you can argue against this point.
Yes but his moral compass was turned off back then.Wasn't the video that made WikiLeaks famous a video of a US helicopter shooting an innocent civilian in Iraq and then also shooting emergency workers trying to help the person shot?
And let's not forget they killed a bunch of kids in a car in Afghanistan last year and tried to pass it off as killing terrorists, until a newspaper investigated and found out the truth. Oh and I don't remember any of the people involved in that being tried for any criminal act.
"Lesser evil" equals "lesser self-interest". Rwanda was a greater evil but it wasn't in American interest to intervene. That isn't ambiguous. America invades for its own self-interest, not for any moral reason, though individual soldiers may believe what they're doing is morally correct (just as the Russian soldiers apparently believe they're ridding Ukraine of Nazis).As I said, I think intentions are ambiguous, especially in democracies. You can't pin it down to one. I can't tell you why it was Iraq and not another nation. The Corinthian asked a similar question with regards to Saudi Arabia. I imagine geopolitics are generally very complex and we turn a blind eye towards states which are important to our econom or are generally perceived as a lesser evil, maybe because they provide the broader region some sort of stability. I also blieve that there are shifts in strategies over the years since especially in the US the general approach varies greatly depending on the reigning party and even on the agenda of the person in charge.
Again, I'm not really defending it. I'm just arguing that Russia's intention isn't ambiguous, it's pretty clear and directed at sustaining and possible expanding a regime that's based on suppression of human rights. And to me, that definitely matters. It's not only that Russia invaded a sovereign democratic country, the reason why it did it makes it even worse.
Some have been posted above but for an understanding on what the US thought they were achieving via sanctions just look at Albright's testimony:Can you point me to sources for that?
Also:Lesley Stahl, said Kathy, had said, of the US., driven embargo on Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright had responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
The collective punishment (itself a war crime) aspect of sanctions, and their general uselessness in effecting regime change, was understood prior to the imposition of sanctions upon Iraq.Security Dialogue 31.3, 2000
...an influential study of the efficacy of these regimes was produced by the International Institute of Economics (HE) in 1990. The HE study found that sanctions failed to achieve even 'partial success' in coercing desired changes in target regime behavior in 66% of 115 cases between World War I and 1990. Moreover the failure rate increased over time as the global economy became more open. Between 1973 and 1990, only one in four sanctions regimes achieved even partial success. The major reason for the overwhelmingly negative assessment of the efficacy of sanctions evident in almost all studies is that success in coercing target states to change their behavior has become the criterion of effectiveness. But while coercing compliance is clearly an important (albeit rarely achieved) goal, critics tend to forget that sanctions often seek to realize other objectives as well - from stigmatizing and containing transgressor states, to serving as instruments of prevention and deterrence. No studies have systematically examined the effectiveness of sanctions in realizing these latter goals. The most damaging charge against sanctions, particularly comprehensive sanctions, is that they impose widespread suffering on ordinary people, while leaving the regimes they target not only relatively unscathed but also sometimes enriched and strengthened. In part as a consequence, almost all studies today argue for one variant or other of what have come to be known as 'smart sanctions', i.e. those sanctions intended to target regimes, not peoples. The effect, though not the intent, of a number of recent sanctions regimes, most notably in the case of Iraq, has been the reverse. Peoples have been harmed far more than regimes.
I usually try not to bring up the atomic bombs. I have read/heard some of the most ridiculous justification for it. The most inhumane ones being the Japanese civilians would have died anyway because the imperials were crazy and another justification was that a ground attack and war would have cost several US soldier lives and the better option was taking Japanese civilian lives and destroying the lives of the survivors and their next generation.and doesn't include the 200,000 civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. Have found it here though if everyone encounters the same problem. Anyway, thanks for sharing the article, it is really informative and I admit that I've seen many things differently. Still, I think this paragraph captures it really well:We are not talking about unintentional killings though. We are talking about intentional killings justified with extremely lame arguments. I will give you an example that is shared here. Here you have examples of buildings and neighborhoods striked with civilians, civilians that are actually counted and mentioned before authorisation, and that due to a single person entering that same building or being in the vicinity. What you see in that article should make you pause for a second and consider that this only really applies to the most precise strikes, drone strikes. We are not even talking about the carpet bombings that occurred and still sometimes occur.
I don't know if you noticed it but I'm not really the type to go black and white on these things, I get that there are different POVs and agendas, I get that the US or any other country will feel the need to do certain things and it doesn't matter if I agree or not. But the US and their allies are known piece of shit that have little regards for human life, civilians are knowingly killed and labeled as collateral casualties which is one the nastiest terms that the masses have come to accept.
In the end, what emerges from the more than 5,400 pages of records is an institutional acceptance of an inevitable collateral toll. In the logic of the military, a strike, however deadly to civilians, is acceptable as long as it has been properly decided and approved — the proportionality of military gain to civilian danger weighed — in accordance with the chain of command.
In both scenarios, the targeting process essentially boiled down to two questions: Could the presumed enemy target be positively identified? And would any harm to civilians be proportional, in line with the law of armed conflict — or would it exceed the “expected military advantage gained”?
For positive identification, the officer designated with strike approval needed “reasonable certainty” that the target performed a function for the adversary. That could be relatively straightforward, as when the target was a fighter firing directly on friendly forces. But a more ambiguous target, like a suspected ISIS headquarters, might require further surveillance.
To determine proportionality, analysts evaluated whether the target was used exclusively by the enemy or might also be used by civilians, then assessed civilians’ “pattern of life.” Ultimately, they would calculate how many civilians were likely to be killed or wounded.
For deliberate strikes, this generally entailed an exhaustive “collateral damage estimate,” a computer calculation of the expected civilian casualty count, based on a mix of factors: the pattern of life, the population density, the specific weapon being used, the kind of structure being targeted — a concrete building, an aluminum shed, a mud hut. The officer approving the strike would weigh that estimate with other factors, such as the potential for secondary blasts from explosive materials nearby.
For dynamic strikes, the process could be vastly compressed. Especially if there was a threat to friendly forces or some other urgency, strike cells were more likely to rely on an impromptu assessment of a video feed.
Either way, based on that calculation, the military was required to take “feasible precautions” to mitigate civilian harm. The greater the likelihood of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the more precautions taken — say, by deploying more-precise weaponry to limit the blast radius or by attacking when the fewest civilians were predicted to be present.
The military does not provide a precise definition of what is proportional. Essentially, the expected civilian toll was proportional if the officer making that determination reasonably believed it to be so, and if it did not exceed a “noncombatant cutoff value.” Otherwise, officials say, the target would be discarded.
The final official step was a legal review. But efforts to protect civilians could continue until moments before a weapon was fired. From the cockpit, pilots could select how a weapon detonated — upon impact or with a delayed fuse. Or they could call an “abort,” if, for example, a civilian was spotted walking into the target area.
Under the right circumstances, this process could result in a strike so precise that it would destroy the section of a house filled with enemy fighters and leave the rest of the building intact.
The war of precision did not promise that civilians would not die. But before a strike is approved, the military must undertake elaborate protocols to estimate and avoid civilian harm; any expected civilian casualties must be proportional to the military advantage gained. And America’s precision bombs are indeed precise: They hit their targets with near-unerring accuracy.
The documents, along with The Times’s ground reporting, illustrate the many, often disastrous ways the military’s predictions of the peril to civilians turn out to be wrong. Their lessons rarely learned, these breakdowns of intelligence and surveillance occur again and again.
Repeatedly the documents point to the psychological phenomenon of “confirmation bias” — the tendency to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms a pre-existing belief. People streaming toward a fresh bombing site were assumed to be ISIS fighters, not civilian rescuers.
Men on motorcycles moving “in formation,” displaying the “signature” of an imminent attack, were just men on motorcycles.
Often, the danger to civilians is lost in the cultural gulf separating American soldiers and the local populace. “No civilian presence” was detected when, in fact, families were sleeping through the days of the Ramadan fast, sheltering inside against the midsummer swelter or gathering in a single house for protection when the fighting intensified.
In many cases, civilians were visible in surveillance footage, but their presence was either not observed by analysts or was not noted in the communications before a strike. In chat logs accompanying some assessments, soldiers can sound as if they are playing video games, in one case expressing glee over getting to fire in an area ostensibly “poppin” with ISIS fighters — without spotting the children in their midst.
The military spokesman, Captain Urban, pointed out that, “In many combat situations, where targeteers face credible threat streams and do not have the luxury of time, the fog of war can lead to decisions that tragically result in civilian harm.”
If the military often mistook civilians for enemy fighters, frequently it simply failed to see or understand that they were there. That was a factor in a fifth of the cases in the Pentagon documents, and a slightly smaller fraction of the casualties. However, it accounted for 37 percent of credible cases, and nearly three-fourths of the total civilian deaths and injuries at the sites visited by The Times.
On 3 October 2015, a United States Air Force AC-130U gunship attacked the Kunduz Trauma Centreoperated by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders) in the city of Kunduz, in the province of the same name in northern Afghanistan.[2][3][4][5][6][7] 42 people were killed[8]and over 30 were injured. Médecins Sans Frontières condemned the incident, calling it a deliberate breach of international humanitarian law and a war crime. It further stated that all warring parties had been notified about the hospital and its operations well in advance.[9][10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
What makes it ambiguous is that Western leaders can never do stuff mid to long term that'sgainst the public will respectively doing so is much harder because they not only have to fool the public but also the free press - and if it surfaces, their next legislature period is gone. Putin can do whatever he likes for whichever reasons he likes. The Western leaders always have to consider the opinion of the people and they tend to be more empathic."Lesser evil" equals "lesser self-interest". Rwanda was a greater evil but it wasn't in American interest to intervene. That isn't ambiguous. America invades for its own self-interest, not for any moral reason, though individual soldiers may believe what they're doing is morally correct (just as the Russian soldiers apparently believe they're ridding Ukraine of Nazis).
I don't think this is proof of what you claimed. You said the sanctions were designed to hit the people. This article criticizes the sanctions because it hit the people and actually made life easier for the reigning elite. That's a difference. "Designed to hit the people" means that people sat down and thought what they can do to make the population suffer as a goal in itself.Some have been posted above but for an understanding on what the US thought they were achieving via sanctions just look at Albright's testimony:
Also:
The collective punishment (itself a war crime) aspect of sanctions, and their general uselessness in effecting regime change, was understood prior to the imposition of sanctions upon Iraq.
And you have these extremely fishy events. I also prefer the use of the term Coalition because it's not fair on the US to pretend that they are doing it alone.Kunduz hospital airstrike
Sanctions rarely bring about regime change or make the regime suffer. This is well known. What they do is impose suffering upon the collective mass of people who live in said state. The target was the Iraqi state (meaning its people) and the goal was to deter any other state from stepping out of line.I don't think this is proof of what you claimed. You said the sanctions were designed to hit the people. This article criticizes the sanctions because it hit the people and actually made life easier for the reigning elite. That's a difference. "Designed to hit the people" means that people sat down and thought what they can do to make the population suffer as a goal in itself.
1. Does the U.S. oppose aggression? No.
- Aggression is fine if it’s in U.S. interests. It’s bad only if it’s opposed to U.S. interests. The U.S. invaded Panama and imposed a puppet regime still under U.S. control. The world objected so we vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions.
- Turkey invaded northern Cyprus, broke it up, killed two thousand people, tried to destroy relics of Greek civilization, drove out 200,000 people. That was fine. Turkey is our ally.
- Israel attacked Lebanon, killed about 20,000 people, bombarded the capital, and still occupies southern Lebanon. The U.S. vetoed a series of UN Security Council resolutions to terminate that aggression. Israel holds on to the occupied territories. It has annexed some of them. Fine. The U.S. supports Israel.
- Morocco invaded the Western Sahara, annexed it. The U.S. thinks that’s fine.
- Indonesia invaded East Timor. Two hundred thousand killed. The worst slaughter relative to the population since the Holocaust. The U.S. gives them aid.
- Iraq attacked Iran. The U.S. assisted them. Iraq gassed the Kurds in the north of Iraq. Fine. After all, the Turks are having problems with the Kurds too and the Turks are our ally.
- Iraq invades Kuwait. Outrage. Cries of Hitler reborn. Send 400,000 troops. Bomb Baghdad.
- The United States can claim it’s opposed to aggression on ABC News without ridicule because we have a disciplined intellectual class who look the other way and/or lie as a matter of course. In the Third World, however, the claim is seen as ludicrous. People there consider the U.S. the major violator of the principle that aggression is wrong.
2. Does the U.S. oppose proliferation of super-weapons? No.
- In April 1990, Saddam Hussein, then still the U.S.’s friend and ally, offered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons if Israel agreed to destroy its non-conventional weapons— including its nuclear weapons. The State Department welcomed Hussein’s offer to destroy his own arsenal, but rejected the link “to other issues or weapons systems.”
- Acknowledgment of the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons would raise the question why all U.S. aid to Israel is not illegal under 1970s congressional legislation that bars aid to any country engaged in clandestine nuclear weapons development.
- In December 1990, speaking at a joint press conference with Secretary of State Baker, then Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze proposed a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East if Iraq withdraws form Kuwait. Baker gave “qualified support,” the press observed, but “carefully avoided using the words nuclear-free zone” — for the reason just noted.
- A week later, Iraq offered to “scrap chemical and mass destruction weapons if Israel was also prepared to do so,” Reuters reported. The offer seems to have passed in silence here. Weapons proliferation for our allies — including Iraq before August 2 — is fine.
- Iraq’s more recent call for “the banning of all weapons of mass destruction in the region” as part of a negotiated settlement of its withdrawal from Kuwait evoked no Western support.
3. So what is Bush concerned about? Domination.
link
- Iraq violated a fundamental principle of world affairs — that the energy reserves of the Middle East have to be firmly in the hands of U.S. energy corporations and trusted U.S. clients like Saudi Arabia’s elites.
- This means Mideast populations do not really benefit from their own resource, but “so what,” says Bush. The West benefits because Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Qatar are basically sectors of London and New York. The U.S. government doesn’t care if the Saudi elite administers oil prices because that’s like having it done on Wall Street.
- The U.S. does care if an independent Arab nationalist threatens to use the resources for domestic purposes. The U.S. opposes that kind of behavior anywhere in the world. That is why we “destroy cities to save them.”
- The State Department says Mideast oil is a “stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest prizes in world history.” So what if it’s in the Mideast?
- In Iran in 1953 we overthrew a nationalist parliamentary regime. Now we threaten a murderous tyrant’s regime, although Hussein was just as much a murderous tyrant before August 2, when we supported him because doing so furthered U.S. interests.
According to the Washington post, the numbers concerning the sanctions were rigged by the Iraqi government.Sanctions rarely bring about regime change or make the regime suffer. This is well known. What they do is impose suffering upon the collective mass of people who live in said state. The target was the Iraqi state (meaning its people) and the goal was to deter any other state from stepping out of line.
It's a very simple argument. America never cared about what Saddam did (genocides) when they were selling him the weapons and means with which to commit genocide (they defended him, in fact). Saddam's internal policies never bothered America at all. What bothered them was his invasion of Kuwait because they thought they had lost control of him. In other words, it was his external aggression (against other states) that the US objected to and not because it was immoral but because it ran contrary to American interests in the region. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.
The excess mortality rate of 250,000 takes that argument into account and is given by highly respected western academics.According to the Washington post, the numbers concerning the sanctions were rigged by the Iraqi government.
Looking away as atrocities are being committed is the legacy of American foreign policy insofar as it relates to their self-interest. There was no need to go to war with Iraq in 2003. There didn't have to be an option.And as I said, I believe it is too simple to pin anything down to one specifc cause. Dealing with despots is generally a very difficult act. You generally have to decide between bad and worse options because intervening might make things even worse but just looking away as atrocities are being committed is also not really what you want. There are no right choices in there. What would have been the option you would have chosen if you oppose military intervention as well as sanctions?
Why do you need alternatives? The premises of the war were made up.According to the Washington post, the numbers concerning the sanctions were rigged by the Iraqi government.
And as I said, I believe it is too simple to pin anything down to one specifc cause. Dealing with despots is generally a very difficult act. You generally have to decide between bad and worse options because intervening might make things even worse but just looking away as atrocities are being committed is also not really what you want. There are no right choices in there. What would have been the option you would have chosen if you oppose military intervention as well as sanctions?
Yes! That's what everyone is saying.So unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians -
Do you have sources for that? Because a quick google research gave me an essay suggesting this:The excess mortality rate of 250,000 takes that argument into account and is given by highly respected western academics.
So you would have neither put up sanctions nor intervened militarily?Looking away as atrocities are being committed is the legacy of American foreign policy insofar as it relates to their self-interest. There was no need to go to war with Iraq in 2003. There didn't have to be an option.
The post you quoted wasn't about the war in Iraq but about the sanctions against them. I'm not arguing that the war was justified. I'm merely pointing that there are only bad and verse options on how to deal with despots committing crimes against humanity. If you don't intervene militarily and shouldn't sanction them, you are effectively arguing "just ignore it and trade with them, it's none of our business". That's not really a ethically correct way of handling the situation either.Why do you need alternatives? The premises of the war were made up.
Well, so far I have seen no source that supports this view. Actually the exact opposite is happening. They try to avoid civilian casualties but fail and don't care enough to adress the issuewhich is terrible but not equals "targeting civilians".Yes! That's what everyone is saying.
I will start with saying that I have no previous opinion or idea on that topic but the title of the essay is suspect. It lead me to this and that though.Do you have sources for that? Because a quick google research gave me an essay suggesting this:
"Since 2003, however, several more surveys dealing with child mortality have been undertaken. Their results show no sign of a huge and enduring rise in the under-5 death rate starting in 1991. It is therefore clear that Saddam Hussein’s government successfully manipulated the 1999 survey in order to convey a very false impression—something that is surely deserving of greater recognition."
" That said, there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions. Conversely, there was no major improvement in child mortality after the downfall of Saddam Hussein. "
Really hard to conclude what's the truth. Apparently the notion that the UNICEF data was rigged is based on surveys conducted by the London School of Economics and Political Science which itself has a very good reputation (18 Nobel laureates, several heads of stats, etc.). The author of the essay I linked is Tim Dyson who is indeed a professor at the school The study argues the data from surveys in the south and center of Iraq was rigged. So I don't think it is an unreliable source either.
Posted this just this morning - Truth and death in Iraq under sanctions.Really hard to conclude what's the truth. Apparently the notion that the UNICEF data was rigged is based on surveys conducted by the London School of Economics and Political Science which itself has a very good reputation. It argues the data from surveys in the south and center of Iraq was rigged. So I don't think it is an unreliable source either.
The Watson institute article that I quoted had between 180k and 207k, accounting for all civilians.Posted this just this morning - Truth and death in Iraq under sanctions.
Spagat is a scholar at Royal Holloway whose “current research addresses universal patterns in modern war, fabrication in survey research, the Dirty War Index civilian casualties in the Iraq conflict and problems in the measurement of war deaths.” Not sure if the publication is peer-reviewed (I’m guessing not). In any case I find the argument persuasive.
That appears to be for post-March 2003 violent war-related deaths though, not 1991-2003 infant mortality rates.The Watson institute article that I quoted had between 180k and 207k, accounting for all civilians.
Think a little bit. A country where most of them are public employees, they earn 1 dollar a month, when seeking medical help in public free hospitals, there are no medicine nor surgical equipment, do you think the numbers are out of proportion?Do you have sources for that? Because a quick google research gave me an essay suggesting this:
"Since 2003, however, several more surveys dealing with child mortality have been undertaken. Their results show no sign of a huge and enduring rise in the under-5 death rate starting in 1991. It is therefore clear that Saddam Hussein’s government successfully manipulated the 1999 survey in order to convey a very false impression—something that is surely deserving of greater recognition."
" That said, there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions. Conversely, there was no major improvement in child mortality after the downfall of Saddam Hussein. "
So you would have neither put up sanctions nor intervened militarily?
The post you quoted wasn't about the war in Iraq but about the sanctions against them. I'm not arguing that the war was justified. I'm merely pointing that there are only bad and verse options on how to deal with despots committing crimes against humanity. If you don't intervene militarily and shouldn't sanction them, you are effectively arguing "just ignore it and trade with them, it's none of our business". That's not really a ethically correct way of handling the situation either.
Well, so far I have seen no source that supports this view. Actually the exact opposite is happening. They try to avoid civilian casualties but fail and don't care enough to adress the issuewhich is terrible but not equals "targeting civilians".
It didn't come across as a defense. Even the link that you shared doesn't read like it, it raises good points that are applicable beyond this particular context which I believe was the point.That appears to be for post-March 2003 violent war-related deaths though, not 1991-2003 infant mortality rates.
On the infant mortality rates, I think there was just too much war/dictator-related chaos in Iraq from 1980 to the present day to be able to understand for sure the impact of sanctions from 1991 to 2003.
(edit): should make it clear I am not defending the sanctions regime or any other aspect of Western engagement with Iraq since 1914).
Yes, I’m just wary of posting something which might be used to support an argument that I find distasteful (i.e. “these war crimes are less bad than those war crimes…), especially given the record of the UK and US in Iraqi history is so horrendous.It didn't come across as a defense. Even the link that you shared doesn't read like it, it raises good points that are applicable beyond this particular context which I believe was the point.
The numbers given there seem quite close to the famous Iraq Body Count tally.And yes the article I shared was for post 2003
