I agree with you about how one views one’s own children. But many–including me–extend that to groups outside my own family. That was one of the ways Saddam deceived both the West and his own people. One does tend to place a higher value on one’s own fellow citizens before others. Saddam did not: he was concerned with himself and his immediate family foremost and only.

It seems a pretty easy idea……he has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people directly, why wouldnt he let hundreds of thousands die indirectly as a part of sanctions?

You miss my point in regards to children. My children, in and of themselves, have equal value to anyone outside the situation looking in. Of course I would place higher value on my own children, that is because they are mine, not because they, in and of themselves, of a high value.

At the same time I realise that our actions, directly and indirectly, in Iraq have caused the deaths of thousands of children. I cannot forget them when I look at my boys. When I think of how much pain I would feel if I lost them and I know that hundreds of thousand of Iraqis are feeling that very pain as we speak partially because of our actions.

There will be a price to pay for this. Nothing goes unanswered or unpaid for in this life.

Saddam was never a part of the “war on terrorism” and he never will be. That was sold to the American people to try and gain support for the invasion. Our invasion of the country, the sanctions and how many Iraqis have died because of them now certainly is a central motivator for the terrorists.

The invasion of Iraq, as almost all intelligence experts have agreed, has made the US more at danger, not less. It has had the exact opposite effect.

Our attack on Iraq has made another attack on American soil MORE likely, not less likely.

I was not making an argument about African kleptocracies; I was making an example.

I do, indeed, value my own child’s life more than that of anyone else’s child. That you do not is passing strange. I do not wish other children worse than mine.

Not ‘Losing 10 million’ Americans is exactly what the war against terrorism and terrorists is about. That war included Saddam.

Let me guess, as soon as the sanctions started everyone expected Hussein to say “wow, I have seen the error of my ways. The people that I was murdering with chemical weapons, the women I was having raped, the men I was having shot in the head, the babies who my agents threw against the wall and murdered, they will all now be my top priority.”

We knew exactly what the consequences would be, hence the people that implemented the sanctions have a role in the deaths. Not an equal part with Hussein for sure, but they have a role in it no doubt.

I dont buy your lsit of choice. 1. Remove Saddam from power, but although international law doesnt really allow it, this shouldnt be an option. 2. Continue the sanctions and allow hundreds of thousands to die, clearly an immoral choice. 3. Not install immoral sanctions as the UN weapons program was clearly working as evidenced by some of it’s most senior inspectors.

Sanctions that directly result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands is not a moral act. Invading a country that does not pose a direct risk is not a moral act.

Numbers wise I think it is moot. The ones I have seen say about some 500,000 or more. I fail to see if the number is even 50,000 that the action of keeping the sanctions was moral. 50,000 or 500,000, the sanctions were immoral.

We invaded Iraq “because” of 3,000 dead Americans, so it is VERY clear that even numbers this small matter a great deal. So whether it is 5,000 or 500,000 the difference doesnt matter.

I wouldn’t want to argue about the numbers of dead because I find that such arguments are sick, looking at the dead as nothing more than cold hard numbers rather than living and breathing people who died when they didnt need to.

Kleptocracies in Africa? Since when does Africa matter? We invaded Iraq when far greater threats to human rights exist in Africa. That whole argument is a sham.

Of course you would argue no, because it isnt your family members that will die. If it was your family members that might die because of the actions of another country I would bet you would argue differently.

It is easy to sit here and discuss the lives of women and infants as if they are nothing more than cold numbers. 9/11 showed us what it is like to loose even a small number of people historically, less than 3,000. Look at how we, as a nation, overreacted about that. Imagine the hundreds of thousands that have died in Iraq from the first gulf war until now in a country much smaller than the USA in population.

Imagine the US loosing 10 million or so people based directly and indirectly on the actions of another nation.

It is very cold to sit and discuss the lives of women and children as if they were nothing more than pawns in a game.

It is too bad that as a country we dont view these people as our equals. It is over there, it is others that are dying, no big deal. It certainly became a big deal after 9/11, but that was “regular Americans” dying, not “others”.

I have children and their lives are just as valuable as are any child’s in Iraq. I wish for them what I’d wish for my own children. It is sad but most people do think this way. As long as ours arent dying here everything is okay.

It is too much.

The choice seems pretty clear: Remove Saddam so people can get the aid or keep sending money in the hope that the few pennies alloted to aid by Saddam might save a few lives.

(BTW, I don’t think you and I are going to be agreeing anytime soon on just what numbers are correct when counting those who died as a result of the embargo.)

Take a look at the kleptocracies in Africa. Should foreign assistance continue to be given because it might alleviate some suffering, even if the leaders of those countries are simply stealing most of the money? While those countries are not being formally boycotted, a reduction of foreign aid will necessarily lead to the death of innocents. So should the aid just keep coming in, no matter what? I would argue, “no.”

If they are not serving the purpose intended, rather are causing death, isnt it time to stop them? It doesnt really matter why they failed, they did. When that was clear they should have been stopped.

They were not stopped even when it was clear they had failed, the result was tens of thousands more dead children, elderly and sick.

As I’ve noted, the rules and laws of war are in flux. The world is entering a new period where states do not have the monopoly on the use of violence on a large scale. In some regards, the various conventions are out of date.

I don’t accept your argument on the Iraq sanctions. The US had hoped that there was both a modicum of shame in Saddam, but also that other states obliged to enforce the sanctions would actually do so. We find that many, even our supposed allies in Europe, were content to look away when it came to a choice between sanctions or national income. Sanctions can work, but they are not always effective nor are they a precise instrument. Yes, innocents suffer, but the proximate cause is the behavior of their own leaders.

I’m sorry that you found my remark personally offensive. It was meant as a joke.

You are ignoring the fact that the US President has stated that we are at war. Obviously he believes that bin Laden, can and does have the ability to wage war.

The President thinks we are at war, most of Congress does as well. Are they all wrong? If so Bush is in a huge amount of trouble as he is justifying a lot of his actions based on the fact that the US is “at war”.

Realising that massive amounts of innocents were dying does not “reward Saddam” it recognises reality.

You point the finger at me and say “Remind me not to be a citizen in whatever country you’re ruling”. I am hardly Saddam Hussein and wouldnt have got myself into the position that he got himself into. Nor would I allow myself to let my own citizens starve. That is kind of a personal jab John, I expected better of you.

Anyway, we knew Saddam had no issues killing his own people in large amounts, we were his best buddies when he was gassing the Kurds remember? Who in their right mind would think that Saddam would instantly starting caring for his own people when sanctions were set into place?

Anyone with half a mind would have known that the sanctions would not slow Saddam. He would just divert resources away from the people and continue as usual. It would have been clear that the sanctions would only hurt the innocent people, not Saddam. Seeing that, why institute them in the first place?

Empiral evidence, then should have trumped rhetoric. We knew thousands were dying, we knew the sanctions were not working, why not stop them? Why continue them knowing that the only effect there were having is massively raising the amount of dead children?

Sanctions just do not work, they never have, they never will. It is always the most vulnerable in any such society that pay the price, not the people the sanctions are targeted against.

So, we reward Saddam because he’s callous enough to let his citizens die while he builds palaces and armies, huh? Remind me not to be a citizen in whatever country you’re ruling.

State actors do, by international law, have a different set of responsibilities than non-state actors. Start reading up on the UN documents, the Vienna Conventions, the Hague Conventions, every diplomatic agreement that has led to the state of international law. Now, you may not like that fact, but fact it remains.

The nature of war is changing, I readily admit that. But we’re stuck with the laws we have until we can change them.