Taliban / US Highway

You're right it's not. All that means, though, is that we're not obligated to do such things. That doesn't mean it's wrong when we do so. When there's someone in the world who offs 1 million of his own people, it's not inappropriate for an outside country to go in and topple that person.

 

First of all, I would like to see some proof of your numbers. If true, and I am not saying they're not, then you have to admit that our sanctions in the Clinton years killed 50% of the Iraqis that Sadaam did. Second, I would like to see some legal protocol on how we decide which dictators we depose, and which ones we decide to leave in power. Why leave Kim Jong Ill, or Idi Amin, or even Fidel Castro in power ?

 

highways are a waste of tax payer money? since when? no one gave the taliban the highway, no one built it or paid for it for the taliban. wouldn't you think the job would be to take it back, or better yet stopped them from taking it in the first place?

 

Because Saddam kept such a tight lid on his reign, exact numbers are hard to come by. Yahoo, UK, UN, and DOD figures vary. Estimates of etnic Kurds that were killed are between 100k and 300K, not including another 100k-150k kurds that "disappeared". Shia dissident are estimated to be as low as 150k and as high as 400k. That doesn't necessarily include the work of his sons, whose reports of rounding up prisoners (political prisoners,law violators, two bit rabble rousers, etc), plus their families, tally in the hundreds of thousands over the years. Low estimates of people who disappeared could be as low as several hundred thousand, but could also be as high as several million. To your question of sanctions, putting reponsibility on the sanctionee is like Adam trying to blame God for giving him the woman.

The simple fact is, we can't solve everyone's problems everywhere, every time. Had we gone into Germany long before 1941, a lot more lives might have been saved. That doesn't in any way mean entering the war when we did was a bad thing. War is what war is. If it were easy, it wouldn't be war. It's always bad, but it's often a right thing to do.

 

I see. Getting entangled in a never ending civil war, while leaving our own borders wide open is the correct decision ?

And I disagree with you on sanctions. We have done more for Vietnam by opening up trade with them than we ever did trying to police the place.

You will not get me to agree deposing tyrants is the job of our young men & women.

 

They're two separate issues. Yes, we should secure our own borders. Yes, we should assist the Iraqi government with military assistance until they are self-sufficient.

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that it's inconsistent to blame deaths in Iraq on a country's sanctions. Deaths in a country occur because of he actions in that counrty that lead to sanctions.

So were we wrong to liberate Germany, the Phillippines, etc.?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the US warring on other nations should be the norm, but when a people are being validly oppressed, it's not necessarily wrong for us to engage in warfare for their sake.

 

Is that for every country ? I know several places with problems. Isn't this the U.N.'s job to enforce their own charters ? It doesn't make any sense to me.

We don't punish the leaders of the country by sanctions. We starve the population, the weakest members, who have nothing to do with it. That seems evil, to me.

We didn't liberate Germany. We defeated them. And with my understanding of that war, we had sufficient cause to nuke Japan, and we had several countries on board with us against Germany. It wasn't just the U.S. supplying troops. And Jeneatte Rankin, the republican from Montana, had some great thoughts on why we should have stayed out of that war, you should look them up. (not saying that to be snotty)

 

For whatever country we feel called to assist.

For better or worse, the UN has little police power. The UN's policing usually falls upon western nations such as the US and UK. But that's a separate topic altogether.

The do so by the actions of their government.

But, it's your contention that we should not have gone into Germany in WW2?

 

Who makes that call ?

Then the U.N. should shut up.

I don't understand this. Just being honest. Are you saying imposing sanctions absolves us ?

That's not what I said. You cannot compare the two, because the U.S.' troops were matched by other countries, and Germany was bent on world domination. Neither is the case in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

 

Any nation that provides assistance, relief, military action, or support to any other nation has the privilege of making that call.

I have no doubt that a lot of people here would say that.

Not necessarily, I'm simply saying that the sanctionee is not automatically to blame for the effects sanctions cause in a sanctioned nation. It's somewhat like blaming a bartender for an accident caused by a drunk driver, who was refused service at a bar, so he left in his car.

Then it's permissible to invade a country in certain circumstances, we simpyl don't agree on the circumstances. I can respect that.

 

That's not what I meant. How do we decide which nations to "liberate", and which ones to allow to suffer.

 

There's never an easy answer to that question. If there were, warfare would be easy, and free from debate.