posted
I saw a picture today of a dying Iraqi toddler being comforted by a U.S. soldier.
I can't get the image out of my mind.
I close my eyes and see the childs feet, covered in blood. I see the anguish filling the soldier, the tightness in his body as he clutches this dying child.
If we hadn't attacked Iraq, this child would be alive. A lot of children would be alive. How can we tell their parents how much better their lives will be while they're burying their babies? How do we even begin justifying our actions?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we hadn't attacked Iraq, a lot of children who are alive would be dead. *shrug* Pathos-oriented arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me. I find it more worthwhile to concretely debate our goals in the war: whether they are worthwhile and whether they are achievable.
People die in any war. There is collateral damage in any war. I don't (personally) conclude from that that war is never justified.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we hadn't attacked Iraq, a lot of children who are alive would be dead
This is patently untrue. Mortality and death rates in Iraq have increased since the last UNICEF survey done in 99. The previous cause of death was malnutrition, where as now they can be blown up or shot before they starve.
quote: I find it more worthwhile to concretely debate our goals in the war: whether they are worthwhile and whether they are achievable.
I agree that debating goals is a worthy endeavor, assuming you can define realistic, attainable goals. However, it's equally important to remember how, and why, you became involved in a conflict to begin with.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we hadn't attacked Iraq, a lot of children who are alive would be dead
This is patently untrue. Mortality and death rates in Iraq have increased since the last UNICEF survey done in 99. The previous cause of death was malnutrition, where as now they can be blown up or shot before they starve.
Be that as it may, you have not remotely addressed the truth of my statement.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: I find it more worthwhile to concretely debate our goals in the war: whether they are worthwhile and whether they are achievable.
I agree that debating goals is a worthy endeavor, assuming you can define realistic, attainable goals. However, it's equally important to remember how, and why, you became involved in a conflict to begin with.
I agree. But again, you have not addressed this. Instead, you have referred to a picture of a dead child, as though this were proof of anything.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are asking that question while thinking in a snapshot mindsent, THT. You need to ask that sort of question while thinking in a moving picture.
If we're going to talk about people dying, then we should point out that had Saddam Hussein and his children been permitted to retain power in Iraq, well that baby would've had the chance to Vote Saddam in an "election". If they didn't, then it's a bullet to the back of the head and mass-grave time.
Icarus is entirely right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree that debating goals is a worthy endeavor, assuming you can define realistic, attainable goals
quote: I find it more worthwhile to concretely debate our goals in the war: whether they are worthwhile and whether they are achievable.
So, THT, you agree that debating whether goals are worthwhile and achievable is a worthy endeavor, only if the goals are realistic and attainable. Interesting criteria.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Be that as it may, you have not remotely addressed the truth of my statement.
Both of our statements are assumptions of what may have been. I'll admit that my phrasing could probably have been better.
The difference in our statements is this: Looking at the increased mortality rates, we can assume that the children who've died since we've been in Iraq areprobably in addition to those that were already starving to death. As to which children would be alive, we can't know.
quote:I agree. But again, you have not addressed this. Instead, you have referred to a picture of a dead child, as though this were proof of anything.
I saw this picture, and it made me profoundly sad, and I feel like it should be proof of something...
Give me some goal or plan to debate, some reason that this child died. Give me something, and we'll talk about it.
quote: If we're going to talk about people dying, then we should point out that had Saddam Hussein and his children been permitted to retain power in Iraq, well that baby would've had the chance to Vote Saddam in an "election". If they didn't, then it's a bullet to the back of the head and mass-grave time.
This is true. However, unilateral military action was not immediately justified. I personally don't have a problem with military actions. Sometimes they are necessary, but we had other options, and chose not to take them.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, THT, you agree that debating whether goals are worthwhile and achievable is a worthy endeavor, only if the goals are realistic and attainable. Interesting criteria.
And your point is....?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, we had other options. But do you really think the "vote Saddam or be shot" outcome would ever be avoided without naked force?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, we had other options. But do you really think the "vote Saddam or be shot" outcome would ever be avoided without naked force?
Probably not. I also don't think we would've had as many issues with the insurgency if we had gone in with a much larger multi-national force led by the U.N. and involving Muslim nations.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, we had other options. But do you really think the "vote Saddam or be shot" outcome would ever be avoided without naked force?
Well, he did have to die of old age at some point....
Disclaimer: This post is not meant to be serious, please do not explain to me the various immortality schemes Saddam had up his sleeves, or any more realistic alternative like his children carrying on his legacy.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But do you really think the "vote Saddam or be shot" outcome would ever be avoided without naked force?
Well, if our national policy is going to be to topple dictatorships, I think that's something we should talk about--or at the very least be open about.
Because if that's our goal, I have to ask, why Iraq and not Cuba?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think hindsight is 20/20. And I think it's more than a little too...hopeful...to think that Muslim nations would have helped us under any circumstances when they would not give permission to remove Saddam for invading another Muslim nation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an entirely different discussion, Icarus. I was just narrowing the thing down to "deady baby now" or "dead voter tomorrow", since THT seems to want to think in individual terms.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, we had other options. But do you really think the "vote Saddam or be shot" outcome would ever be avoided without naked force?
Probably not. I also don't think we would've had as many issues with the insurgency if we had gone in with a much larger multi-national force led by the U.N. and involving Muslim nations.
You may be right. Had we gone in with force-field suits and phasers, we probably could have finished it in about half the time.
That's about as likely as that multi-national force is, and far more likely than other Muslim nations getting involved against Saddam would have been.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually weren't there 300,000 children dead through malnutrician from the sanctions? I'm trying to remember from a documentary I watched.
IP: Logged |
quote: So, THT, you agree that debating whether goals are worthwhile and achievable is a worthy endeavor, only if the goals are realistic and attainable. Interesting criteria.
And your point is....?
Sorry, didn't have time to elaborate. My point is that your reasoning is circular. You're saying you're willing to debate the validity of the war's goals only if the goals are valid. In other words, you're saying that "assuming Point A is valid, we aught to debate whether Point A is valid."
I hope this makes my point clearer. It doesn't have much to do with the broader debate about the war; I was just being a Logic Nazi, and a poor one at that. Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually weren't there 300,000 children dead through malnutrician from the sanctions? I'm trying to remember from a documentary I watched.
The effectiveness of U.N. sanctions are a totally unrelated debate topic. I've heard figures anywhere from 300,000 to 1.5 million "deaths from the sanctions" depending on who's quoting the figures.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Really? Japan bombs Hawaii, and we start killing Germans? I must have missed the connection there.
We declared war on Japan on December 7th, 1941.
Germany declared war on the U.S. four days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor (honoring their treaty with Japan), and we responded in kind by declaring war on the Axis powers on December 11th, 1941.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
