Iraq: Is it OK to Cause Death That Others Might Live?
Typical Bay Area Lefty: I'm still waiting for an answer to my "it's too bad you have to break eggs to make an omelet."
SPR3TS: My answer to this was to say that the eggs were already being broken. Iraqis did not start dying when the US invaded. Saddam led a regime with plenty of murder, torture and war. A scan of articles shows estimates or around 500,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam. An additional 500,000 Iraqis were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. These numbers do not include the number of Iranians and Kuwaitis killed in Iraqi attacks, nor the number of Palestinians and Israelis who suffered by Saddam's support of the cycle of violence in that region thru his payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. These numbers do not include 350,000 children under 5 years old who died during sanctions (you may want to blame the UN/US for those deaths, but give Saddam his due credit for allowing that to happen to his people, not taking steps to get the sanctions lifted or to spread out his resources). How many more were raped or tortured or otherwise had lives torn apart by Saddam's regime, I have no idea, but I would think they must number in the high hundreds of thousand to millions (it's fair to assume torture as a warning was more common than outright murder, no?). What is your estimate of lives ended or destroyed by Saddam? Without question, many innocents were suffering before the war, and without question, many suffered because of the war. Unless you're a total pacifist, you have to believe at some level in breaking eggs to make an omelet because innocents are always killed in war. Sometimes it's a price worth paying, and I've outlined millions of "reasons" why it could be in this case. Where were you on Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia? Was it worth some innocent deaths to prevent others? Was it worth some innocent deaths to end the Taliban regime? And by the way, www.iraqbodycount.com reports that about 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed because of this war. If the truth is somewhere in between their estimate and the Lancet's 100,000 estimate (including military casualties), considering how many died under Saddam and how long his family could hold power, mightn't this regime change be worthwhile?
SPR3TS: My answer to this was to say that the eggs were already being broken. Iraqis did not start dying when the US invaded. Saddam led a regime with plenty of murder, torture and war. A scan of articles shows estimates or around 500,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam. An additional 500,000 Iraqis were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. These numbers do not include the number of Iranians and Kuwaitis killed in Iraqi attacks, nor the number of Palestinians and Israelis who suffered by Saddam's support of the cycle of violence in that region thru his payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. These numbers do not include 350,000 children under 5 years old who died during sanctions (you may want to blame the UN/US for those deaths, but give Saddam his due credit for allowing that to happen to his people, not taking steps to get the sanctions lifted or to spread out his resources). How many more were raped or tortured or otherwise had lives torn apart by Saddam's regime, I have no idea, but I would think they must number in the high hundreds of thousand to millions (it's fair to assume torture as a warning was more common than outright murder, no?). What is your estimate of lives ended or destroyed by Saddam? Without question, many innocents were suffering before the war, and without question, many suffered because of the war. Unless you're a total pacifist, you have to believe at some level in breaking eggs to make an omelet because innocents are always killed in war. Sometimes it's a price worth paying, and I've outlined millions of "reasons" why it could be in this case. Where were you on Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia? Was it worth some innocent deaths to prevent others? Was it worth some innocent deaths to end the Taliban regime? And by the way, www.iraqbodycount.com reports that about 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed because of this war. If the truth is somewhere in between their estimate and the Lancet's 100,000 estimate (including military casualties), considering how many died under Saddam and how long his family could hold power, mightn't this regime change be worthwhile?
posted by ML at
7:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home